Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Fathpur Sikri Revisited$

Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi

Print publication date: 2013

Print ISBN-13: 9780198084037

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2013

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198084037.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2016. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: null; date: 03 December 2016

(p.203) Appendix I Akbari Architecture

(p.203) Appendix I Akbari Architecture

A Note

Source:
Fathpur Sikri Revisited
Publisher:
Oxford University Press

(p.203) Appendix I

Akbari Architecture

A Note

Starting from Fergusson and Havell to Catherine Asher and Ebba Koch, much has been written on Mughal architecture under Akbar.1 A number of works have also been done exclusively on the architecture of Fathpur Sikri.2 Here we would not be going into a detailed or exhaustive analysis but deal with certain important architectural elements encountered at Fathpur Sikri.

Akbar’s reign was a period when not only was the Mughal Empire finally established as a world empire, but when the foundations of new ‘schools’ of architecture and painting were laid. During the reigns of Babur and Humayun, the administration was dominated by the Central Asian traditions and a predominantly Turani ruling class.3 Even the culture and fine arts were predominated by the same cultural traditions.

We know that when Babur came to India as a conqueror in 1526, he brought with him two Timurid architects, Ustad Mir Mirak Ghiyas of Herat and Ustad Shah Muhammad of Khurasan.4 The only surviving mosque, which can be directly ascribed to Babur, the Kabuli Bagh Mosque at Panipat (Haryana), is built in the typical Central Asian Timurid tradition. Unlike the other mosques built in India, its domes are adorned with raushandān (protruding covered ventilators) instead of the usual kalaśa pinnacle. Second, unlike the future imperial mosques of the Mughals, it is crowned with multiple domes, as well as arch netted zones on pseudo-structural plasters in the phase of transitions. Third, the mosque is fronted with a high pishtāq (central arch).5 These are all features that are typical to Central Asian Timurid traditions.

If the Humayun’s mosque at Kachhpura, Agra, is any indication, the subsequent reign of Humayun also continued with the same inherited architectural traditions.

It is, however, from the reign of Akbar that one witnesses a synthesis of the Iranian and Central Asian styles with the Indo-Muslim style as it developed under the various sultanates in India. A number of scholarly works have been done to analyse the stylistic, idiomatic (characteristic forms, architectonic, and decorative), axiomorphic (term appropriate to the purpose of the structure), and aesthetic traditions from Iranian, trans-Oxanian, and Timurid traditions.6 It has been argued by Lisa Golombek that the Shaibanids of Bukhara were the conduit for the transmission of Timurid architectural forms to the Mughals.7 Some others have delved deep into the indigenous sources of architectural development under Akbar.8

(p.204) It was also a period when a large borrowing of ‘Indian’ traditions in other fields like art, literature, painting, and music was also taking place. Local vernaculars like Braj and Awadhi started developing and Indian musical traditions and instruments like the dhrupad and dhol started becoming prominent.9

But then was this combination of various foreign and indigenous architectural elements an extension of the policy of ‘Sulh-i Kul ’? In other words, was this intermingling of Timurid and Central Asian with indigenous a conscious mixing of ‘Muslim’ and ‘Hindu’ architecture? Most likely not. Unlike the modern scholarship, Akbar was most likely not aware of the ‘religion’ of the architectural elements used in his constructional projects. He would have been unable to comprehend that a flat roof or a ‘chain and bell’ motif was ‘Hindu’, while an arch and a dome were ‘Islamic’. Most of the architectural elements that modern scholars consider as ‘Hindu’ and derived from temples, had already been ‘Islamicized’ by being incorporated into Muslim religious structures built during the pre-Mughal times. A case in point may be the so-called ‘chain and bell’ motif and a number of carvings typical to Hindu architecture, which had been used under the Gujarat and Malwa sultans.10

More likely, Akbar and his architects were rather aware of the regional variations and styles. While describing the buildings of the Fort of Agra, Abu’l Fazl does mention ‘more than five hundred buildings’ constructed in the ‘design of Bengal and Gujarat’.11 Probably the attempt was to use architectural elements from the various regions of the Mughal Empire from Qandahar to Gujarat and from Rajputana to Bengal.

Akbar belonged to a series of peripatetic kings who traced their descent from the Chingizid and Timurid traditions. His paternal forefather Timur, established the great city of Samarqand as his capital, but he never really took up residence there. He lived throughout in his royal camp, which he set up outside the city walls.12 This appears to have remained true even in the case of Timurid rulers of Iran, at least during the sixteenth century. The urdu-i humāyūn (the royal camp) remained the mobile seat of all the temporal powers of the Safavid king.13 These royal camps where Timur dwelt were generally laid out in vast gardens with shady trees, paved walkways, and watercourses all bound within protective walls.14 It would not be wrong to classify these as royal ‘tent cities’.

A reading of the memoirs of Babur would also suggest a possible adherence to the same traditions. Throughout his autobiography, Babur keeps informing us regarding his garden projects. One of his chief laments in India was a lack of them. If one looks at his building projects in India, except for a solitary mosque (the Kabuli Bagh Mosque), all others concern laying out gardens.15 When he defeated Rana Sangram Singh at the Battle of Khanwa in 1527, it was a garden, the Bāgh-i Fath that was laid out. On his capture of the fort and city of Agra from the Lodis, again, it was the gardens that were built. The only other structure he mentions that he constructed in the Agra Fort was a step-well. Outside the fort, too, a number of edifices were added, a majority of which again were gardens.16 These gardens probably also acted as residential structures for Babur and his party, probably a reason why Babur informs us that people nicknamed the area as ‘Kabul’.17

Humayun also probably followed the footsteps of his ancestors. A reading of Khwandamir’s Qānūn- Humāyūni makes one suspect that he too lived and moved in temporary open structures. There is a detailed description of seating arrangements in his court but the nomenclature (bisāt-i nishāt, ‘the carpet of mirth’) and the description of this seating arrangement, suggests a mere flooring rather than a structural building.18 (p.205) Probably this ‘public audience’ was a large open quadrangle with spaces reserved for each category. The buildings of the Purana Qila (the Old Fort, Delhi) from where Humayun ruled during the last few months of his life, and the ‘library’ from where he allegedly slipped, all appear to have been actually constructed under Sher Shah.19

The palaces at the Agra Fort and the building of Fathpur Sikri appear to have been the first projects of Akbar. The Akbari buildings at Agra Fort (built in the 10 RY/1565)20 have, however, generally disappeared; those at the later place have survived to a great extent. The buildings and architecture of Fathpur Sikri suggests that it was Akbar’s ‘laboratory’ where the foundations of a new school of architecture were laid. It was a place where new experiments were carried out in the field of building construction, and some old traditions were sought to be continued, albeit with some modifications in view of recent knowledge gained in the field of geometry: The traditional ‘trabeate’ was continued, but tempered with a knowledge of weights and measures, thus making them light as compared to heavy imposing structures of the earlier period.

There are at least two distinguishing features of the Akbari architecture at Fathpur Sikri: first of all it is marked by grand voids interspersed with vertical masses that are totally immersed within these open spaces. These are realized and created by enclosing a space with articulated walls or single-bay arcades or corridors and then placing a free-standing structure within this space. Such a scheme is typical of a mobile camp or a tented city of yore. Second, there is the use and combination of the post-and-beam trabeate technique of construction with the arcuate.

To begin with, as discussed in Chapter 2, the city appears to have been inspired by the four-quartered Timurid gardens, the chahārbāgh and the Mughal encampment. As within the Timurid garden, interspersed along its waterways and walkways were the tents, where Timur lived and interacted with people and performed his kingly duties, so too at Fathpur, interspersed within open spaces and connected through khiyābāns (walkways, roads) we have single- storeyed tent-like structures performing myriad functions.

Further, if the royal camps and canopied tents were constructed of bright and agreeable textiles reminding the laity of its royal occupants, the Akbari architects chose the soft and malleable red sandstone as the medium of construction. Moreover, as Koch puts it, the use of red sandstone, apart from its symbolic connotation of being the colour of the sovereign, ‘glossed over stylistic clashes resulting from the amalgamation’ of heterogeneous architectural traditions of the Timurid, Central Asian, and the more indigenous styles of the Delhi Sultanate, Bengal, Rajputana, Malwa, and Gujarat.21

One architectural feature that is quite remarkable for the period of Akbar in general, and the buildings at Fathpur Sikri in particular, is the fact that whereas the non-imperial and civic structures were generally of rubble bonded with lime and gypsum mortar, the red sandstone was reserved for imperial use. Thus the nobles’ houses, the yatishkhānās (office-cum-residence of bureaucrats), the various bureaucratic establishments like the kārkhānās, matbakh (kitchen), the animal stables, and the shops and bazars are all of rubble stone. The red sandstone, in a limited way, however, is used in some formal portions of the nobles’ and bureaucrat’s houses. These rubble stone non-imperial structures were covered with a heavy veneer of lime plaster.

Further, the invocation of a tented garden setting provided the Akbari architects a pretext to resort to colonnaded and flat-roofed or canopied structures.

(p.206) Abu’l Fazl in the Ā’īn-i Akbari includes a chapter on the imperial tents (āīn-i farrāshkhāna) where he describes as a number of tented structures made of textile and wooden beams, erected for the different uses of the emperor.22 At least two of the tents described have a close resemblance with the red sandstone buildings constructed within the sahn-i daulatkhāna at Fathpur Sikri: the chūbīn rāwatī and the du-āshiyāna manzil. Both of these were large tents raised with the help of wooden beams and comprise a central chamber shaded from all sides with a portico. The central spaces in both were covered with slanting roofs. The chūbīn rāwatī was a tent whose floor was raised above ground level with the help of flat wooden planks, while the du-āshiyāna manzil was a double-storeyed tent, with the upper storey actually acting as the imperial resting place (khwābgāh).

Were these tents of the imperial farrāshkhāna ‘models’ for some of the palace structures at Fathpur Sikri?

At least two structures at Fathpur Sikri palace complex, the khwābgāh and the Anūptalāo, or the aiwānkhāna (the so-called ‘diwan-i khas’), resemble very closely the du-āshiyāna manzil and the chūbīn rāwatī. The khwābgāh like the du-āshiyāna tent, is double storeyed, and structurally comprises a central upper chamber surrounded by all encompassing porticos provided with drooping eaves. According to Abu’l Fazl, the du-āshiyāna tent raised within the imperial enclosure was provided with a jharokha (a viewing window). So is the case with the khwābgāh structure at Fathpur sikri. the hujra-i Anūptalāo (the so-called ‘Turkish Sultana’s Palace’) in the same area (the specified place in the case of the tents described by Abu’l Fazl) as the khwābgāh, is a structure whose plinth is raised on short stunted stone pillars.

The khalwatkada structure is a double-platformed post-and-beam construction on top of which is constructed the khwābgāh. This structure appears to have been loosely based on the palace of Mahmud Begra at Sarkhej.

The chahārsuffa, on the other hand, is a four-platformed pyramidal construction that appears to have been partly inspired by a double-storeyed platform structure overlooking the valley from the top of the hill at Vijai Mandirgarh, Bayana. Another pavilion that closely resembles it is located at Khimlasa Fort in Madhya Pradesh.23 However, these trabeate structures of Akbar are lighter and slimmer compared to their cousins of the Rajasthan-Gujarat-Malwa tradition as the Akbari architects, known as muhandis (geometricians), tempered them with their recently acquired knowledge of weights and measures.

Moreover, it was probably to retain the resemblance of the canopied tents, that both these buildings have an additional architectural feature: the central chambers are vaulted/domed from within, while they appear flat from the exterior. The vault/dome is hidden beneath a flat platform raised on their respective ceilings. The Akbari architects dispersed these chambers, which are visually trabeate but in reality are roofed with a hidden vault/dome, around vast open spaces that were linked to each other through elaborate post-and-beam colonnades. Some of these colonnaded structures were super-imposed to form two or more stories. Two examples of such constructions are the khalwatkada structure in the daulatkhāna-i Anūptalāo and the chahārsuffa (Panch Mahal) in the buffer-zone between the shabistān-i iqbāl and the daulatkhāna.

These type of associations, and the fact that Akbar’s architecture at Fathpur Sikri was inspired form, and based on, the peripatetic mobile tent-cities, is further strengthened by the fact that there appears to be a lack of a well-defined coherent architectural vocabulary during the (p.207) period. The terms used for the same structures are quite fluid and generalized, while some are derived straight from the vocabulary of the tents and the mobile imperial camp given by Abu’l Fazl.24 Thus, for the place of public audience, the terms used in our sources are as varied as khās wa-ām, bārgāh, bārgāh-i ām, darbār, darbār-i ām, darbār-i pādshāhi, dīwānkhāna, and sahat. For the female quarters, we have terms like sarāparda-i ismat, sarāparda, haram, shabistān-i iqbāl, and such others. Bārgāh or bārgāh-i ām, we are informed by Abu’l Fazl, was a large tent or enclosure that could contain more than 10,000 persons.25 It was an audience tent. The sarāparda, on the other hand, was a screened or enclosed area, fenced off with textile cordons. The sarāparda-i ismat (‘screened-in area of chastity’), shabistān-i daulat (‘imperial bedchamber’), the shabistān-i iqbāl (‘The bedchamber of good fortune’) were all categories of tents in an imperial Mughal camp.26

Thus having been inspired by wooden and textile tents and encampments, the buildings at Fathpur Sikri are in the form of vertical colonnaded blocks set with horizontal voids, surrounded by pillared screens, the gulālbār (wooden screen for tents) and sarāparda (cordons). The house gardens (the khāna bāgh), like the ones placed near the shabistān-i iqbāl, and that between the hujra-i Anūptalāo and the dīwānkhāna-i ām to the east of the daulatkhāna further invoke the same tradition.

We know that vertical spaces of the tents were decorated with tent hangings. We also know that one of the first projects of art executed in the court of Akbar was in the form of Hamzanāma illustrations that were in the form of large wall hangings. They were probably used to embellish the imperial camp or dwellings on certain festive occasions.27

Invoking this tradition of tent hangings were the surface decorations at Fathpur Sikri. We have seen earlier that almost all the imperial red sandstone buildings at Fathpur Sikri were embellished with wall paintings in the form of miniatures. The upper portions of the walls, on the other hand, were decorated with calligraphic bands of panegyrics to the ruler. These painted surfaces also helped in breaking the monotony of the red sandstone and provided the much needed visual relief.

The whole plan of the ‘tent city’ was visualized on a large flat platform raised with the help of vaults on the undulating contours of the ridge. The smooth surface formed at the top of this platform acted as a podium and provided the architects with space to lay out various structures at well-measured and appropriate distances. The foundations of some of these, for example, the magnificent Anūptalāo, rested deep below on the ridge itself. The vaults below, on the other hand, provided space for creating service rooms and quarters, as well as covered and enclosed water storages (birka) needed in a harsh, hot climate. These birkas were also one of the first architectural attempts towards water harvesting and conservation.

As far as the residential structures are concerned, it appears that the Akbari architects preferred the indigenous plan known in India since the Mauryan times, the well-known catuhśālā plan. It was the plan on which the Buddhist viharas were constructed. It was a plan in which the structure rotated around a centrally located courtyard. The so-called ‘Jodhbai Palace’ (the shabistān-i iqbāl) at Fathpur Sikri and the so-called ‘Jahangiri Mahal’ at the Agra Fort are the best examples of this plan for structures designed in the reign of Akbar.

According to Ebba Koch, the building of the so-called ‘Jodhbai Palace’ is inspired by the Gujarat Sultanate architecture, which in turn borrowed heavily from the Hindu and Jain temples of the region. A case in point would be (p.208) the buildings of Mahmud Begra that survive at Sarkhej.28

It is also worth noting that in some of the early structures at Fathpur Sikri, for example, two or three minor structures built to the southeast of the daulatkhāna-i ām (a series of earlier buildings that were subsequently removed when it was built), the domestic buildings generally (like the shabistān-i iqbāl, the ‘Jodhbai Palace’), and most of the hammāms (the baths, the one near the Anūptalāo, the imperial baths, the bath near the ‘kitchen’ to the north of the daulatkhāna-i ām, and others.) have sight tapering walls. These are all structures that were generally completed by 1574–5, if not earlier. Significantly, this tapering is absent in most of the buildings built at a later stage.

There are some other important architectural features encountered at Fathpur Sikri that need to be pointed out and which have somehow not been emphasized by the modern scholarship. One of these concerns the vast water tanks built at Fathpur Sikri and the other the new type of mosque architecture that came to be popularized after the construction of the Jāmi’ Masjid of Fathpur Sikri.

There are two massive quadrangular water storage tanks that flank the palace area: the hauz-i shirīn connected with the northern waterworks and the Sukh Tāl in the south, connected with the southern waterworks. A third water reservoir was constructed to the south-west of the Buland Darwāza. All the three were constructed at sites where the ridge tapers off steeply. The base of both the hauz-i shirīn and Sukh Tāl are constructed, and made strong, by being raised on inverted vaultings. These inverted circular vaults provide a strong base that can withstand the massive weight of the water with which these tanks were filled.

The construction of the Jāmi’ Masjid of Fathpur Sikri, on the other hand, laid the foundation of a new type of mosque architecture in India. By the fourteenth century, the Iranian architects had perfected the two-aiwān and four-aiwān (open fronted construction with a barrel vault). The form of the two-aiwān mosque was achieved by having the sanctuary chamber with a high pishtāq preceded by an enclosed open quadrangle. The entrance portal (aiwān of the Iranian architecture) was constructed on the same axis as the pishtāq. The centrally located courtyard, which was also an indigenous idiom, was surrounded by double-storeyed cloisters (riwāq). Under the Mughals, this Iranian-Timurid prototype was used in conjunction with the Delhi Sultanate elements to produce a new form. Thus in the Khairul Manazil Mosque at Delhi we find that the tall pishtāq of the western liwān and the double-storeyed riwāq are typically Timurid. The single-aisle western liwān was itself built on the Delhi Sultanate traditions. As in the Iranian examples, this single-aisle, five-bayed mosque has a single dome. In the Akbari Masjid near the Ajmer Dargah, the western liwān with multiple aisles and a dominant dome over the nave is Timurid, while the low single-aisle cloisters are typical of Delhi Sultanate architecture. The Jāmi’ Masjid of Fathpur Sikri is again a two-aiwān mosque, which acquired its third portal (Buland Darwāza) at a later stage.

But then in India, this mosque plan also assimilated some of the symbolism as well as the idiomatic and structural features of the Hindu temples, producing mosque structures that have no parallel elsewhere in the Islamic world. One of the features which give the character of a temple to these Indian mosques is the triplication of the sanctuary, a feature that is so characteristic of the Late Chalukyan, Kakatiyan, and Hoysala temples. The triplication of the mosque sanctuary, the western liwān, is indicated by its being crowned with a triad of domes, which is first encountered at the Quwwat ul Islam and (p.209) then monumentalized under Akbar at the Jāmi’ Mosque of Sikri. It is essential to note here that such triple-domed mosques are absent elsewhere in the Muslim world.

Second, we find the placement of the mosque on a high plinth or platform, which again is not encountered elsewhere outside the Indian subcontinent. This process appears to have started under the Tughluqs, re-established at Fathpur, and culminated at Shahjahanabad.

Third, greater sacrality is given to the western liwān through a gradual hierarchy starting from the portals. The Iranian two-aiwān and four-aiwān mosques had a cloister of arcades in two storeys, marked by the portals at its cardinal points. The height of the arcades was the same along the four sides. From the time of Akbar, the Iranian type of mosques are tempered by the Indian sense of the hierarchy: instead of two-storeyed cloisters on the east, north, and south of the courtyard of the mosque, one now encounters a lower single-storeyed riwāq. The gradual hierarchy is also maintained by enlarging the central dome that surmounts the nave of the main prayer chamber. The Jāmi’ Mosque of Fathpur Sikri is a typical example. This perhaps more than anything else reflects the eclectic nature of the period. (p.210)

Notes:

(1.) James Fergusson, History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, revised and ed. J. Burgess and R. Spieres, 2 vols, London, 1910; E.B. Havell, Indian Architecture Its Psychology, Structure and History from the First Muhammadan Invasion to the Present Day, London, 1913; Percy Brown, Indian Architecture (Islamic Period), Bombay, 1958; Catherine B. Asher, The New Cambridge History of India: Architecture of Mughal India, Delhi, 1992; Ebba Koch, Mughal Architecture: An Outline of Its History and Development (1526–1858), Munich, 1991 (reprint New Delhi, 2002).

(2.) Edmund W. Smith, The Mughal Architecture of Fathpur Sikri, ASI, Allahabad, Archaeological Survey of India New Imperial Series, Vol. XVIII, Allahabad 1895–8 (in 4 parts); S.A.A. Rizvi and V.J. Flynn, Fathpur Sikri, Bombay, 1975.

(3.) See, for example, Iqtidar Alam Khan, ‘The Nobility under Akbar and the Development of his Religious Policy, 1560–80’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, No. 1/2, 1968, pp. 29–36.

(4.) Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur, Bāburnāma, English tr. and ed. A.S. Beveridge, 2 vols, London, 1921 (reprint Delhi, 1970), pp. 343, 642.

(5.) See Howard Crane, ‘The Patronage of Zahir al-Din Babur and the Origins of Mughal Architecture’, Bulletin of Asia Institute, Vol. 1, pp. 95–110; Asher, Architecture of Mughal India, pp. 25–8; Koch, Mughal Architecture.

(6.) See, for example, Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi, ‘Iranian Influence on Medieval Indian Architecture’, in Irfan Habib (ed.), A Shared Heritage: The Growth of Civilizations in India and Iran, Delhi, 2002; Jose Periera, Islamic Sacred Architecture: A Stylistic History, New Delhi, 1994; Ebba Koch, ‘The Architectural Forms’, in M. Brand and Glenn D. Lowry (eds), Fatehpur Sikri, 1987, pp.121–48.

(7.) Lisa Golombek, ‘From Tamerlane to the Taj Mahal’, in Abbas Daneshwari (ed.), Essays in Islamic Art and Architecture in Honor of Katherina Otto-Dorn, Malibu, 1981 (reprinted in Monica Juneja (ed.), Architecture in Medieval India, New Delhi, 2001, pp. 315–27).

(8.) Ram Nath, ‘Sources and Determinants of the Architecture’, in M. Brand and Glenn D. Lowry (eds), Fatehpur Sikri, Delhi, 1987, pp. 149–84; Ram Nath, ‘Khaprel Roof and Chhappar Ceiling: Folk Elements in Mughal Architecture (Fatehpur Sikri, AD. 1572–1585)’, Archives of Asian Art, Vol. 40, pp. 69–73; see also Ebba Koch, ‘Influence on Mughal Architecture’, in George Michelle and Snehal Shah (eds), Ahmadabad, Bombay, 1988, pp. 168–85.

(9.) See, for example, Irfan Habib, Medieval India: The Study of a Civilization, New Delhi, 2007; Allison Busch, ‘Hidden in Plain View: Brajbhasha Poets at the Mughal Court’, Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 267–309; Irfan Habib, ‘Hindi/Hindwi in Medieval Times’, in Ishrat Alam and S. Ejaz Hussain (eds), The Varied Facets of History Essays in Honour of Aniruddha Ray, Delhi, 2011, pp. 105–14; Francoise ‘Nalini’ Delvoye, ‘The Image of Akbar as a Patron of Music in Indo-Persian and Vernacular Sources’, in Irfan Habib (ed.), Akbar and His India, Delhi, 1997, pp. 188–214; see also Bonnie C. Wade, Imaging Sound: An Ethnomusicological Study of Music, Art and Culture in Mughal India, Chicago, 1998.

(10.) See, for example, Brown, Indian Architecture (Islamic Period), Koch, ‘Influence on Mughal Architecture’; Bianca Maria Alfieri, Islamic Architecture of the Indian Sub Continent, London, 2000; Ghulam Yazdani, Mandu: The City of Joy, Oxford, 1929.

(11.) Abu’l Fazl, Ā’īn-i Akbari, ed. Nawal Kishore, Lucknow, 3 vols, 1882 edition, Vol. II, p. 84.

(12.) See, for example, P.A. Andrews, ‘The Tents of Timur: An Examination of Reports on the Qureltay at Samarqand, 1404’, in P. Denwood (ed.), Arts of the Eurasian Steppelands, Colloquies on Art and Archaeology in Asia 7, London, 1977, p. 144; Lisa Golombek, ‘The Gardens of Timur: New Perspectives’, Muqarnas, Vol. 12, 1995, pp. 137–47; Thomas W. Lentz, ‘Memory and Ideology in the Timurid Garden’, in James L. Wescoat Jr and Joachim Wolschke-Bulmahn (eds), Mughal Gardens Sources, Places, Representations, and Prospects, Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium on the History of Lanscape Architecture XVI, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, DC, 1996, pp. 31–58.

(13.) Monika Gronke, ‘The Persian Court between Palace and Tent: From Timur to Abbas I’, in Lisa Golombek and Maria Subtelny (eds), Timurid Art and Culture Iran and Central Asia in the Fifteenth Century, being Supplement to Muqarnas, Vol. VI, Leiden, 1992, pp. 18–22.

(14.) Ralph Pinder-Wilson, ‘The Persian Garden: Bagh and Chaharbagh’, in Elizabeth B. Macdougall and Richard Ettinghausen, The Islamic Garden, Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium on the History of Landscape Architecture 4, Washington, DC, 1976, p. 77.

(15.) For Babur’s architectural disinterest in projects other than laying out gardens, see Stephen Dale, The Garden of the Eight Paradises: Babur and the Culture of Empire in Central Asia, Afghanistan and India (1483–1530), Leiden, 2004, pp. 185–6; Catherine B. Asher, ‘Babur and the Timurid Charbagh: Uses and Meaning’, Environmental Design, Mughal Architecture, Pomp and Ceremony, Journal of the Islamic Environmental Design Research Centre, Nos 1–2, 1991, pp. 46–55.

(16.) Babur, Bāburnāma, pp. 531–3.

(17.) Ibid., p. 532.

(18.) See Khwandamir, Qānūn-Humāyūni (also known as Humayun Nama), ed. M. Hidayat Hosain, Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta, 1940, pp. 110–12.

(19.) Catherine B. Asher, ‘The Qala’-i Kuhna Mosque: A Visual Symbol of Royal Aspirations’, Chhavi, Golden Jubilee Volume II, 1981, pp. 212–17; for a contrary position, see Glenn Lowry, ‘Delhi in the 16th Century’, Environmental Design, 1984, pp. 7–17; for the view that the Purana Qila was started by Humayun, built upon by Sher Shah, and then completed by Humayun, see P. Andrews, ‘The Architecture of Gardens of Islamic India’, The Arts of India, Oxford, p. 106.

(20.) Abu’l Fazl, Akbarnāma, ed. Agha Ahmad Ali and Molvi Abdur Rahim, 3 vols, Calcutta, 1873–87 Vol. II, p. 372.

(21.) Koch, Mughal Architecture, pp. 28–9; Ebba Koch, The Complete Taj Mahal and the Riverfront Gardens of Agra, London, 2006 (reprint, Bookwise, New Delhi, 2006–7), pp. 215–17.

(22.) Abu’l Fazl, Ā’īn-i Akbari, Vol. I, pp. 32–3.

(23.) See Koch, Mughal Architecture, p. 43.

(24.) Abu’l Fazl, Ā’īn-i Akbari, Vol. I, pp. 27–8; for details refer to Chapter 1, this volume.

(25.) Abu’l Fazl, Ā’īn-i Akbari, Vol. I, p. 32.

(26.) Ibid., Vol. I, pp. 27–8; Nizamuddin Ahmad Bakhshi, Tabaqāt-i Akbari, pp. 275, 367; Abu’l Fazl, Akbarnāma, Vol. III, pp. 66, 118, etc.

(27.) S.P. Verma, Mughal Painters and Their Work: A Biographical Survey and Comprehensive Catalogue, Delhi, 1994; Michael Brand, ‘The City as an Artistic Centre’, in M. Brand and Glenn D. Lowry, Fathpur Sikri, p. 95; John Seyller (ed.), Adventures of Hamza: Painting and Storytelling in Mughal India, London, 2002. John Seyller (ed.), Adventures of Hamza: Painting and Storytelling in Mughal India, London, 2002.

(28.) See Koch, ‘The Architecural Forms’ pp. 121–48; Koch, ‘Influence on Mughal Architecture’, pp. 168–85.