DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9541#0526
502
INDIAN SAKACKX1C ATU'H ITKC'ITRK.
Book VII.
tbem to lie undisturbed, it is quite evident that the enclosing walls
were erected by the Moslems, since all the stringcourses are covered
with ornaments in their style, and all the openings possess pointed
arches, which the Hindus never used. On the whole the probability
seems to be that the entire structure was re-arranged in the form we
now see it by the Mabomedans. The celebrated mosque at Canouge is
undoubtedly a .Taina temple, re-arranged on a plan precisely similar to
that of the mosque of Amrou at Old Cairo (Woodcut jSto. 921, vol. ii.).
The roof and domes are all of .Taina architecture, so that no trace of the
Moorish style is to be seen internally; but the exterior is as purely
of Alahomedan architecture. There is another mosque at Dhar, near
Mandu, of more modern date, and, without doubt, a re-arrangement
of a Jaina temple. Another, in the fort at Jaunpore, as well as many
other mosques at Ahmedabad and elsewhere, all show the same system
of taking down and re-arranging the materials on a different plan.
If, therefore, the pillars at the Kutub were in situ, the case would be
exceptional;1 but 1 cannot, nevertheless, help suspecting that the two-
storeyed pavilions in the angles, and those behind the screen may be
as originally erected, and some of the others may be so also; but to
this we will return when speaking of the Ajmir mosque, where the
.Taina pillars are almost certainly as first arranged. It is quite
certain, however, that some of the pillars at the Kutub are made up
of dissimilar fragments, and were placed where they now stand by
the builders of the mosque. The only question—and it is not a very
important one—is, how many were so treated ? It may, however, be
necessary to explain that there could be no difficulty in taking down
and rebuilding these erections, because the joints of the pillars are all
fitted with the precision that Hindu patience alone could give. Each
compartment of the roof is composed of nine stones—four architraves,
four angular and one central slab (as explained in diagram No. Ill,
p. 214), all so exactly fitted, and so independent of cement, as easil}
to be taken down and put up again. The same is true of the domes,
all which being honestly and fairly fitted, would suffer no damage
from the process of removal and re-erection.
The section (Woodcut No. 278), of one half of the principal
colonnade (the one facing the great series of arches) will explain its
1 Gen. Cunningham found an inscrip-
tion on the wall recording that twenty-
seven temples of the Hindus had been
pulled down to provide materials for this
mosque (' Archaeological Reports,1 vol. i.
p. 176). This, however, proves little,
unless we know what the temples were
like which were destroyed for this pur-
pose. Twenty-seven temples like those
at Khajuraho, excepting the Ganthai,
would not provide pillars for one half
the inner court. One temple like that at
Sadri would supply a sufficiency for the
whole mosque, and though the latter is
more modern, we have no reason for sup-
posing that similar temples may not have
existed before Mahoniedan times.
INDIAN SAKACKX1C ATU'H ITKC'ITRK.
Book VII.
tbem to lie undisturbed, it is quite evident that the enclosing walls
were erected by the Moslems, since all the stringcourses are covered
with ornaments in their style, and all the openings possess pointed
arches, which the Hindus never used. On the whole the probability
seems to be that the entire structure was re-arranged in the form we
now see it by the Mabomedans. The celebrated mosque at Canouge is
undoubtedly a .Taina temple, re-arranged on a plan precisely similar to
that of the mosque of Amrou at Old Cairo (Woodcut jSto. 921, vol. ii.).
The roof and domes are all of .Taina architecture, so that no trace of the
Moorish style is to be seen internally; but the exterior is as purely
of Alahomedan architecture. There is another mosque at Dhar, near
Mandu, of more modern date, and, without doubt, a re-arrangement
of a Jaina temple. Another, in the fort at Jaunpore, as well as many
other mosques at Ahmedabad and elsewhere, all show the same system
of taking down and re-arranging the materials on a different plan.
If, therefore, the pillars at the Kutub were in situ, the case would be
exceptional;1 but 1 cannot, nevertheless, help suspecting that the two-
storeyed pavilions in the angles, and those behind the screen may be
as originally erected, and some of the others may be so also; but to
this we will return when speaking of the Ajmir mosque, where the
.Taina pillars are almost certainly as first arranged. It is quite
certain, however, that some of the pillars at the Kutub are made up
of dissimilar fragments, and were placed where they now stand by
the builders of the mosque. The only question—and it is not a very
important one—is, how many were so treated ? It may, however, be
necessary to explain that there could be no difficulty in taking down
and rebuilding these erections, because the joints of the pillars are all
fitted with the precision that Hindu patience alone could give. Each
compartment of the roof is composed of nine stones—four architraves,
four angular and one central slab (as explained in diagram No. Ill,
p. 214), all so exactly fitted, and so independent of cement, as easil}
to be taken down and put up again. The same is true of the domes,
all which being honestly and fairly fitted, would suffer no damage
from the process of removal and re-erection.
The section (Woodcut No. 278), of one half of the principal
colonnade (the one facing the great series of arches) will explain its
1 Gen. Cunningham found an inscrip-
tion on the wall recording that twenty-
seven temples of the Hindus had been
pulled down to provide materials for this
mosque (' Archaeological Reports,1 vol. i.
p. 176). This, however, proves little,
unless we know what the temples were
like which were destroyed for this pur-
pose. Twenty-seven temples like those
at Khajuraho, excepting the Ganthai,
would not provide pillars for one half
the inner court. One temple like that at
Sadri would supply a sufficiency for the
whole mosque, and though the latter is
more modern, we have no reason for sup-
posing that similar temples may not have
existed before Mahoniedan times.