Indian Journal of History of Science, 44.3 (2009) 389-410
–
NEW INSIGHTS ON ARCHITECTS OF TAJ
R BALASUBRAMANIAM*
(Received 16 February 2009; revised 18 March 2009)
The earlier theories on the architect of the Ta– j Mahal complex
have been first reviewed from a historical perspective. The dimensions
used by contemporary historians to describe the measures of Ta– j Mahal
–
have been confirmed to be in the units of either Sikandari gaz or
–
–
– –
–
Pa dsha hi zi ra. Analysis of measured dimensions of the Taj complex
revealed that these measurement units were not used to design the complex.
Based on new insights on the modular planning of the Ta– j Mahal complex,
it has been shown that the complex has been conceived and constructed
using traditional length measurement units of the subcontinent, mentioned
.
in the Arthasƒa–stra, with the measure of angulam of 1.763 cm. The team
–
architects who designed the Taj were well versed in the traditional building
principles of the subcontinent.
.
Key words: An gulam, Architect, Arthasƒa–stra, Dimensions,
Vitasti, Modular design, Ta– j Mahal
INTRODUCTION
The Ta– j Mahal complex is one of the most visited and well-known
archaeological structures of India, being one of the wonders of the modern world.
Different aspects of this world heritage complex are available in numerous
publications. The most comprehensive research work on Ta– j is the recent book
by Koch1. All earlier work on the Ta– j Mahal complex have been thoroughly
reviewed and catalogued in this book.
While the artistic merit and beauty of Ta–j have been the general focus of
most published work on the Ta– j Mahal, not much has been written about the
engineering of the world wonder, in particular the plan based on which the design
of the complex was conceived and constructed. The present work will focus
* Department of Materials and Metallurgical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology,
Kanpur 208 016, India, e-mail: [email protected]
390
INDIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY OF SCIENCE
specifically on one important engineering aspect, namely the architecture and, by
extension, the architect(s) of the complex. Significant civil engineering skills were
involved in the conception and construction of this momentous complex and its
structures, most notably the Ta– j Mahal mausoleum. Special attention has not been
paid in the literature on the architect(s) involved in the conception of the complex.
The debate centering on the architect of the complex will be reviewed first. New
insights on the design engineers of the complex will then been arrived at based on
understanding of the modular plan of the Ta– j complex, focusing, in particular, on
dimensional analysis of the complex.
EARLIER THEORIES
The Ta– j Mahal was commissioned by the Mughal emperor Sha– hjaha– n
(1628-1656 AD). The complex was completed in about 12 years, between 1631
and 1643, while work on the decorations continued at least till 16481. One of the
greatest mysteries surrounding the Ta– j Mahal is the identity of the person or group
of persons who actually designed the wonderful complex. Specifically, the authentic
contemporary historical documents2-6 of the Mughal emperor Sha– hjaha– n do not
mention the architect of the Ta– j Mahal by name. It is, however, known that, in the
Mughal period, there was a practice of appointing a mima–r-i-ku–l (chief architect)
whose function was to coordinate the work of all the designers and produce the
approved plan. In this section, the various views proposed on the architect will
be reviewed.
The official histories emphasize the personal role of Sha– hjaha– n in the
design of the complex2-6. It is likely that he was involved in the overall planning,
since he must have been personally interested in how he wanted the building to
be. Ultimately, he was the person paying for the construction of the building, the
cost of which, by several estimates, was quite a large sum of money at that point
in time in history. There are instances when Mughal monarchs have insisted on the
–
type of building that they want erected. The example of Jeha– ngi r (1605-1628
AD) insisting on implementation of his ideas for the tomb of his father Akbar
(1556-1605 AD) is a case in point. The first suggestion, therefore, is that
Sha– hjaha– n was his own architect. Lall7 thinks that the following verse composed
by Sha– hjaha– n, which is inscribed on his tomb, seems to announce to posterity his
hand in the design:
The builder could not have been of this earth
For it is evident the design was given to him by heaven.
–
NEW INSIGHTS ON ARCHITECTS OF TA J
391
This may be reasonably understood that Sha– hjaha– n could have provided
his inputs but it is hardly likely that he would have undertaken the onerous task
of actual architectural design. The claim of Sha– hjaha– n’s biographers that most of
the buildings were designed by his “precious self” has its origin in the philosophy
of assigning and attributing all cultural concepts, including architecture, to originate
from the monarch. This was a well-known practice in the Indian subcontinent.
Lall paints an interesting picture of how the Ta– j came to be conceived7:
“Shahjaha– n seems to have lost no time in starting work on the Ta– j after his return
from the Deccan in June 1632 at the empress’ first death anniversary. The scene
is set in the Samman Burj in Agra fort. The emperor, seated on his gem-studded
.
avrang (throne), leans forward and points to the site along the river. He brushes
the architects aside as he tells them what he sees filling the vacant space.
‘Karama–t! Karama–t!’ they exclaim, as they back away and get to work again.
At last it comes right on the drawing boards. Models are prepared, and one of
these may have been kept in the emperor’s Daulatkha–na–-i-kha–s so that he could
refer to it from time to time.” This has been stated in full so that one can understand
the fantastic stories associated with the architecture of Ta– j Mahal. Nearly all the
books written on the Ta– j Mahal, carry such romantic notions associated with its
construction, which appear to be based more on fiction than real facts8.9.
–
Two architects are mentioned in connection with the Ta– j Mahal. This is
not based on direct but rather indirect reference in historical Mughal records.
The first one is Usta– d Ahmad La– hori. He hailed from Lahore, as his name
tells us, like Sha– hjaha– n’s official historian Abdul Hamid La– hori. Usta– d Ahmad
La– hori laid the foundations of the Red Fort at Delhi, constructed between 1639
AD and 1648 AD. An inscription on his grave at Aurangabad tells us that he was
the builder of the Ta– j in Agra, and the fort and Jami Masjid in Delhi7. Two of his
sons also appear to have taken to architectural design. One son, Lutfulla–h Muhandis,
credits him with building the Ta– j Mahal in his work Masnavi, which was completed
in 1655-56 AD when Sha– hjahan was still alive7. This is not recorded in official
chronicles, however. The eldest son of Ahmad La– hori, Ata– ullah Rashidi, in his
contemporary chronicle, Khula– sat-ul-His. ab, names his father as the mima–r-iku–l of the emperor Sha– hjaha– n. Incidentally, Rashidi is supposed to have designed
the mausoleum raised by Aurangzeb (1656-1707 AD) for his wife at Aurangabad,
which is popularly known as Bibi ka– Maqba–ra–. This is a domed white structure
which was supposed to have been inspired by the Ta– j Mahal7. These epigraphic
392
INDIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY OF SCIENCE
and contemporary references provide the only clues that Usta– d Ahmad La– hori
may have been the chief architect, probably heading a select group of skilled
designers.
The second suggested architect is Mir Abdul Karim, who was the favorite
–
architect of Jaha– ngir. La– hori mentions him as supervisor of the construction of the
Ta– j Mahal, together with the administrator Makramat Kha– n, who later supervised
the building of the Red Fort at Delhi10.
The names of architects have also been fabricated based on myths associated
with Taj. Generally, all great buildings generate a fair bit of speculation and this
is particularly so in the case with Ta–j. It has been rightly pointed out by Koch that
there is more fiction written on the Taj than actual serious scholarly research11.
Some of the stories are handed out orally by the guides and these find echoes in
the guidebooks. Sometimes, these stories also enter their way into scholarly
debate. One of these fantastic stories dates from the time of construction of
Ta– j. This has survived even to this date. Sebastian Manrique, an Augustian friar
from Spain, who visited Agra in 1640-41 AD, notes:
–
“The architect of these works was a Venetian, by name Geronima Veroneo,
who had come to this part in a Portuguese ship and died at the City of
Laor just before I reached it . . . the Emperor summoned him and informed
him that he desired to erect a grand and sumptuous tomb to his dead wife
and he was required to draw up some designs for this, for the Emperor’s
inspection. The architect Veroneo carried out this order . . . [and] pleased
this Ruler in respect of the designs, but, in his barbaric pride and arrogance,
His Majesty was displeased with him owing to his low estimates, and it
is said that, becoming angry, he told Veroneo to spend three crores of
rupees, that is three hundred lakh and to inform him when it was
expended.”12,13.
Veroneo was a jeweler, had died in Lahore earlier in the year, and was
buried in Agra. The inscription on the tomb of Geronimo Veroneo in the old
Catholic cemetery at Agra does not mention about his exalted status as “architect
of Ta– j Mahal.” It simply mentions that “here lies Zieronimo Veroneo, who died at
Lahore on 2 August 1640.”11. Surprisingly, the other European eye witnesses
Peter Mundy14 and Tavernier15, who were in Agra while the Ta– j was being built,
or soon afterwards, never mentioned Veroneo as the architect, or anyone else for
that matter. The French jeweller Jean-Baptiste Tavernier was in India in 1640-41
AD and again for two months in 1665 AD.
–
NEW INSIGHTS ON ARCHITECTS OF TA J
393
In the nineteenth century, several fancy speculations about the architect
were floated. There was a reason for this. Once the Ta– j Mahal came into the
hands of the British in 1803, it began to be recorded by an increasing number of
British officials and private visitors. The Europeans were always fascinated by the
splendid court proceedings and buildings of the Great Mughals especially from the
missionary reports and from the East India factories of the European companies,
starting from the sixteenth century. It is therefore not surprising that a large amount
of artistic work was produced in which Ta– j Mahal was the centre piece, like
company drawings and company paintings, after the Ta– j came in the possession
of the British. In the same genre were manuscripts which were composed in
Persian language by the local writers. One is dated to 24 August 1878 and
supposed to be written by “Mughal Baig” and is now kept in the Ta– j Museum in
Agra. This is called Ta–rikh-i-Ta–j Mahal16. Another manuscript of this type was
the Ahwa–l-i-sƒhahr-i-Akbara–ba–d17,18. Begley and Desai have discussed these
fake manuscripts and their problems in their book19. These forged manuscripts
contained fictional data about the architect, the construction and the materials
used for Ta– j Mahal. Scientific proof was offered by Hodgson20 who observed that
the measurements given in one of these manuscripts did not tally with the real
measurement and therefore concluded the manuscript as “the fabrication of an
imposter.”
The nineteenth century was a period when most European art historians,
who were not native to the land, had convinced themselves that the best in
Mughal architecture (and almost everything else of the subcontinent) was externally
inspired. In the same period, tales, inspired by the ruling British, were propagated
giving currency to their “ideas” of cultural history of the subcontinent. The common
thread behind these tales, which began to be produced in greater numbers after
the Sepoy Mutiny / First War of Independence of 1857, appears to be aimed at
culturally undermining the people of the subcontinent to make them conditioned
that all that was good for them came from outside the country. In this scheme of
thinking, it was important that “such an outstanding building could surely only have
been created with European involvement.”1
A foreign principal of a local college of Agra inspired “Mughal Baig” to
compose the Persian manuscript Ta–rikh-i-Ta–j Mahal, which was completed in
1878 AD.7 In this work, it was proposed that the architect was a person from
Turkey called “Isa Muhammad Effendi,” an architect reputedly sent by the Ottoman
Sultan of Turkey. The theme appears to be to impress the fact that Effendi was
394
INDIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY OF SCIENCE
still not a Hindustani although he was from the Islamic world. This fitted well with
the scheme propagated by the ruling British that everything good for the subcontinent
came from outside. Though the author of Ta–rikh-i-Ta–jMahal claims that his
manuscript was based on earlier works, these earlier works are not specifically
named. It is for this reason that this manuscript has been viewed with suspicion,
although a number of copies of the manuscript were made and are in circulation
(one copy is in the museum associated with Ta– j Mahal16). This work, additionally,
came up with fictional lists of workmen and materials from all parts of Asia.
Therefore, the claim that “Isa Muhammad Effendi” was the architect lacks any
contemporary authority or corroboration, and “must be viewed as untenable.”7.
It is really surprising to note the credulity and European obsession with
establishing the identity of a supposed architect was taken to even more absurd
lengths. Sleeman, who had been in India since 1810 AD, confidently asserted in
his Rambles and Recollections, published in 1844 AD, that the Ta– j and the
palaces at Agra and Delhi had been designed by Austin de Bordeaux, “a Frenchman
of great talent and merit in whose ability and integrity the emperor placed much
reliance.”21 Austin was a jeweller who is known to have been making a living in
Agra during the early years of Sha– hjaha– n’s reign. He died in 1632 AD, while
work on the Ta– j commenced after the emperor’s return to Agra in June that year7.
Even today speculations about the architect of the Ta– j Mahal can produce
worldwide murmur in the media. Koch1 notes that a minor report which appeared
in a newspaper22 was picked up in most international press and widely reported.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THEORIES
There could not have been a single architect solely responsible for the
Ta– j Mahal. In both the two principal contemporary historical records of
Sha– hjaha– n, there is no mention of an architect of the Ta– j. The fact that
Sha– hjaha– n’s architects are not mentioned specifically suggests that there may be
a group of people involved in the design of Sha– hjaha– ni buildings, a sort of guild
of architects. It is therefore more likely that the planning of Sha– hjaha– n’s buildings
was carried out by a team of architects, who may have worked under his close
supervision. It is recorded that he held daily meetings with them8. Abdul Hamid
La–hori, the official biographer of Sha– hjaha–n, notes that Sha– hjaha–n made “appropriate
alterations to whatever the skilful architects designed after many thoughts, and
asked competent questions.”9.
–
NEW INSIGHTS ON ARCHITECTS OF TA J
395
The Mughal historians usually mention the high ranking nobles who
were appointed by the emperor to supervise construction. While the painters
of Sha– hjaha– n were allowed to sign on their works and also paint their self
–
portraits, there is no single portrait of a Mughal architect (mi ma–r) known1. The
only artist who was allowed to sign his name in the specific case of the Ta–j Mahal
was the calligraphist of the Persian Koranic verses on the entrance. The individual
artists and craftsmen who were involved in any work come to be noticed
only when they sometimes painted or inscribed their names on their own
works.
The three class of persons responsible for Mughal constructions were
–
muhandisƒ (engineers), mi ma–r (architects) and banna– (builders)23. A wonderful
construction like the Ta–j must have been based on careful and accurate architectural
plan and design. The painting and traced outline plans of building were called
tarah. Another term used for the plan is naqsha–24. While one of the simple
functions of preparing the tarah was for showing the design to the patrons, the
important intention for the execution of the tarah must have been “to understand
the geometrical proportions of the various part of the buildings”23. This was
necessarily required and prescribed the functions of the architect. A miniature
painting in Ba–burna–ma– shows Ba–bur (1526-1530 AD) inspecting the grid layout
of a garden prepared by an architect25. This is from a 1590 AD manuscript
showing Ba– bur supervising the planning of Ba–gh-i-Wafa– (Garden of Fidelity).
This is very significant because of the grided architectural plan, held by the
supervisor, is the first known example of such planning in Islamic landscape
history26. This image has been reproduced in Fig. 1. This painting is of opaque
water color and gold on paper. The artists were Bishandas and Nanha. Ba– bur’s
grandson, Akbar, had at least five copies of his grandfather’s memoirs, the
Ba–burna–ma–, made by the royal studios, and he selected this image to illustrate
his own copy. Therefore, this idea of grid design was certainly in vogue in 1590
AD when the painting was commissioned.
No tarah of the Mughal period is available today. It is speculated that the
knowledge of architecture and art of construction was passed on from generation
to generation orally and therefore the techniques were not written down in books23.
Another reason may have been for the sake of maintaining uniqueness and preventing
copying23.
396
INDIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY OF SCIENCE
Fig. 1. Miniature painting from Ba–burna–ma–, painted in 1590 under the orders of Akbar,
showing Ba– bur supervising the laying of garden (Courtesy: Victoria and AlbertMuseum).
–
NEW INSIGHTS ON ARCHITECTS OF TA J
397
It is said that most of the plans were destroyed after the construction of
the Mughal monuments were complete23. It could be speculated that maybe this
was related to the fact that there were information in the plans that was not
thought fit for transmittance. It is to be appreciated that mathematical calculations
and intricate drawing skills were involved in preparation of the plans27. This was,
in fact, considered essential to the builders of the era28. There may have been
other information too, like for example the measurement units used for the planning,
which must have been essential in the plans and engineering drawings.
It is certain that elaborate ground plans and architectural designs must
have been created for Ta– j. For example, a large number of 15th and 16th century
drawings have been found in Istanbul recently and they show elaborate geometrical
ground plans of the buildings and those of the honeycomb vaulting. These
geometrical plans also show that different elements of the buildings were not
isolated but were linked closely to each other29.
In contrast to the unknown architects, it may be noted here that the
stonemasons at the Ta– j Mahal made their contribution known through numerous
marks, found round the complex. The origin of the stone masons, in particular,
and the identity of craftsmen, in general, who were involved in the construction
of the Ta– j, has been identified recently using the dimensions of important
mosaic patterns noticed in the Ta– j. This aspect has been discussed in detail,
elsewhere30.
Therefore, to summarize this section, the Ta– j Mahal appears to have been
conceived and created by teams of designers, builders and master craftsmen,
which would have made individual claims of ownership completely out of place.
This review has shown that Sha–hjaha– n set up a kind of board of experts. Although
the great works of Mughal architecture were supposed to be imperial in inspiration
and scale, the emperor was generally served by a wealth of talent, which was
–
coordinated by his mi ma–r-i-ku–l. Lall7, while agreeing that the craftsmen who
worked on the monument were Indian, supposed the architects to be not local.
However, he noted that the minor Persian elements in the architectural items were
so harmoniously and completely synthesized with local elements “that it would not
be difficult to isolate one from the other.” Therefore, fresh insights would be
obtained on this problem by understanding the planning of the Ta– j complex, in
particular, the units to which the design was planned and executed. The design
philosophy of the board of experts will be now brought into sharp focus.
398
INDIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY OF SCIENCE
METROLOGICAL BACKGROUND
The Ta– j Mahal complex consists of four major sections. The riverfront
terrace contains the Ta– j Mahal mausoleum. The garden is situated in front of the
riverfront terrace. The third section is the forecourt. The caravansera–i contained
the market places and travelers’ lodges. The first two sections philosophically
related to affairs of “paradise”, while the later two sections related to “worldly”
affairs31,32. The main gate that opens into the garden from the forecourt is located
at a significant position like the Ta– j Mahal mausoleum in the riverfront terrace.
In the most comprehensive and recent research work on the complex1,
the modular planning of the complex33 has been discussed by architect Barraud.
He has also tabulated the latest detailed measurements of various sections of the
complex34. While explaining the modular plan of the Ta–j complex, Barraud utilizes
the traditional Mughal linear measure, gaz. The appearance of illogical numbers
in the modular planning33 and in the measures of various sections34 is striking. He
has ignored this by stating that “it is, of course, impossible to design a building in
which all dimensions are round numbers.”33
The modular plan and measured dimensions of the world heritage Ta– j
Mahal complex can be analyzed in a different manner based on recent studies on
metrology of the Indian subcontinent35-38, which have revealed that the measurement
units described in Kaut.ilya’s Arthasƒa–stra39,40, dated to around 300 BC, can be
used to understand the design of most engineered structures of the Indian
subcontinent through the ages, till the adoption of British units in early twentieth
century. In particular, these studies confirm the use of a constant basic measurement
.
unit (the angulam) of 1.763 cm. Interestingly, this unit was derived, without any
apriori assumptions, from plans of Harappan civilization settlement sites41,42. A
similar unit also appears in the Lothal ivory43 and Ka– libangan terracotta44 scales
of the Harappan civilization. The important measures mentioned in Arthasƒa–stra
can be precisely determined in modern centimeters. These measurement units
have been explained in greater detail, elsewhere35-38.
It would be revealing to analyze the dimensions of Ta–j in terms of traditional
units. Of importance, the overall architectural scheme appears to have been based
on a grid pattern. It is important to understand the grid pattern on which the
Ta– j complex was constructed. The Ta– j Mahal is a typical Mughal riverfront garden.
In the typical Mughal garden (ca–rba–g, literally “four garden”) the palace was
conceived at the centre of the ca–rba–g garden. However, in the riverfront
–
NEW INSIGHTS ON ARCHITECTS OF TA J
399
constructions, which was necessitated by the luxuriant rivers available in India, the
palace was shifted to one side facing the river and the front facing the palace was
conceived to be the garden45.
There is great interest in understanding technical aspects of Islamic
architecture in India, in general, and design and planning aspects in particular, to
understand the mathematical system in the design of Islamic structures46. The
geometry of the multiple axes that was used in the design as well as the geometry
of ratios used is of interest. There is also interest in understanding the units of
measure to which these structures were designed and finally constructed37,38.
Mughal architecture is significant due to the large number of structures available
in the Indian subcontinent for detailed analysis. Attention would be focused on
Mughal architecture, because presumably the elements of earlier Islamic architecture
of India must be well reflected in these significant Mughal structures. Ideas about
Mughal architecture can be only gleaned from actual structures because, as Ebba
Koch rightly notes1, there exists no technical manual on architecture and building
technology (building art form) in the Islamic literature of the subcontinent. Koch
further notes that there is no tradition of families involved in the construction trade
in Islamic tradition (i.e. the Visƒvakarma– families). It is therefore surprising that
such wonderful engineering structures were constructed during the Mughal period
without well-defined building principles and theories.
Koch1 proposes that the Mughal buildings themselves leave behind the art
form that was not written, which is difficult to understand, especially given the
profusion of manuscripts written during the Mughal period. Of far more significance
is the fact that there are no documents from which the building philosophy of
Mughal architecture could be understood. It is indeed surprising that there is no
contemporary scholarly works on Mughal architecture, considering the large number
of stupendous structures constructed during the Mughal period.
In the pre-British period, Indian society demonstrated a considerable
capacity for accepting new techniques which widely affected its economy, especially
when there were no guild restrictions. Free market competition forced artisans to
adjust to new devices though these might reduce the price of their products47.
However, the artistocracy retained a scornful attitude towards the ordinary people.
They were not in favor of the common person being educated. Even Akbar
approved the punishment meted by one noble to his attendant for supplying a
portion of a verse that the noble had forgotten48. Therefore, there was no
400
INDIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY OF SCIENCE
involvement of common man in technological progress. Irfan Habib rightly points
out that the Mughal Empire has not produced a single worthwhile text on crafts
or agriculture, while it has several volumes of poetry and histories to its credit49.
This amply reflects the Indian ruler’s refusal to respond to the western science and
thought, because they were indifferent to technology itself. This really added up
to an enormous intellectual failure of the ruling class. “That failure must always be
assigned its due share of responsibility for what did not happen in India – a
quickening of technological change even remotely reflecting, if not independently
corresponding to, the accelerating progress of Europe.”50
The interest shown by the educated strata in technological matters of the
population was very limited. There were no works that were written in the 16th
and 17th centuries showing the influence of European technological treatises, or
taking note of European mechanical devices. Habib very rightly concludes that,
“the intellectual backwardness of the Indian ruling class, and the intelligentsia it
patronized, needs to be examined, so that the limitations of the ideological systems
to which they remained tied may be explored.”50.
With this known social background, it reasonable to then propose that
there was really no building planning system that was introduced by the Mughals
and that the Mughal architecture basically utilized the engineering tradition of the
sub-continent. This can be verified in the units that were used in the construction
of the monuments. It is important because the architectural wonder that is the Taj
Mahal complex had to be designed on a well-defined and well-established system
of measurements. This will also throw insights on the architect(s) who designed
this engineering wonder.
Unfortunately, the development of metrology (science of study of
measurements) in the Indian subcontinent has not been researched in detail, in
spite of the well-known and long historical tradition of civil engineering of the subcontinent. The origins of the building tradition of the sub-continent are available
in the well-planned cities of the Harappan Civilization (3000-1500 BC)51. These
traditions certainly continued to much later periods in Indian history35-38. In this
context, it is important to analyze the plans of Mughal building complexes in the
Indian subcontinent to understand the units to which they were conceived and
designed. Apart from providing firm inputs on the architectural heritage of the
subcontinent, this analysis will reveal the foundation on which Mughal architecture
was based.
–
NEW INSIGHTS ON ARCHITECTS OF TA J
401
The simple method to identify the design principles of building philosophy
is to seek the dimensions to which the buildings were conceived and constructed.
In order to undertake such a task, we need precise building plans of Mughal
structures. Unfortunately, for a country which prides in its technical and cultural
heritage, hardly a handful of Mughal building sites have been properly surveyed
and detailed plans prepared [for example, ref. 52].
There is another major complication in that the modern surveyors normally
do not understand the basic philosophy by which measurements were done in the
Indian tradition. This has been aptly noted by Hodgson, the then SurveyorGeneral of India, who recorded the first detailed dimensions of the Ta– j complex20.
Hodgson mentions that he is not sure of several of the measurements since he did
not know whether to include the walls in the measurements and he did not know
the end points of the measurements.
Before critically assessing the measured dimensions of the plan of the
Ta– j Complex, it is important to understand the background of Mughal metrology.
The relationship among the various dimensional units used during the Mughal
period has been explained in greater detail elsewhere37,38. The entire development
of Mughal metrology has been recently looked afresh and the relationship of the
measurement units of significant monarchs has been understood37. The Mughals
did not invent any new unit but rather utilized the ancient measurement units of the
subcontinent, but divided the unit in different manner to obtain their units of
measure. The Mughal linear measures are summarized in Table 1, wherein the
.
Mughal units are mentioned in terms of the angulam and in centimeters (knowing
.
that each angulam measured 1.763 cm).
Table 1: Linear measures of the common units used in the Mughal period expressed in
.
.
terms of angulam and modern centimeters37,38. Each angulam (A) is 1.763 cm
.
Mughal Unit
Relationship with an gulam
Measure
–
Sikandari gaz
–
Illahi gaz
–
–
Padsha–hi zi ra
–
Sha–hjaha–ni di ra
28/24 x 39 x A (=45.5 A)
28/24 x 288/7 x A (= 48A)
45 A
[ 2/3 x ((28/24) x (288/7) x A)2 ]1/2 (=39.192 A)
80.217 cm
84.624 cm
79.335 cm
69.096 cm
When one considers the measurement of the Ta– j complex as mentioned
by contemporary historian La–hori3,4, one is really surprised to find the appearance
402
INDIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY OF SCIENCE
–
of odd numbers in the design when the measurements are in gaz or zi ra. This is
indeed puzzling because it would have been much easier to design the complex
based on easy-to-use and rational numbers. This odd complexity has been explained
by earlier researchers4,33 in philosophical terms that the gaz unit facilitated division
by three, four, two and also in construction of triangles, octagon shapes, etc.
However, the basic issue remains that all the mathematical and geometrical
operations would have been much easier when one dealt with round and most,
importantly, logical numbers. Therefore this major inconsistency has not been still
explained by any of the authors who have studied the dimensions of the Ta– j
complex. La– hori’s statements regarding the dimensions of features of the Ta– j
complex appear to be based on measured values to a standard that he was aware
of. However, this does not appear to be the unit based on which the Ta– j was
actually conceived and constructed.
MEASUREMENT UNITS
It is really impossible to understand the illogical numbers that result when
the dimensions of Ta– j are expressed as gaz units. Moreover, several discrepancies
between the measured dimensions and the dimensions stated by La– hori (by
assuming a constant conversion factor of metric to gaz units) were revealed by
Barraud34. He has ignored the appearance of illogical numbers and the discrepancies
in the measurement (which are primary evidence) as being due to errors in the
contemporary descriptions, rounding off errors, inaccuracies of reporting from
third persons and errors in workmanship33. These arguments are not convincing
since the planning of the complex is precise and the quality of workmanship is par
excellence. The Ta– j Mahal is a wonder of the world. One may note here Koch’s
comment1 that the Ta– j Mahal complex is “built architectural theory” and that “it
can be read like a literary text when one has mastered the grammar and vocabulary
of the architectural language.” This grammar and vocabulary are the unknowns in
the jigsaw puzzle of Mughal architecture.
The present analysis will focus on certain important lengths in the Ta– j
complex. A word of caution is needed since the end points of the measures are
critical in the understanding of measurements. In fact, one notices several differences
even between the detailed dimensions reported by Hodgson20 and Barraud34. For
example, the length and breadth of the mosque adjoining the mausoleum has been
mentioned as being 4523 cm by 1734 cm by Hodgson20, respectively, while the
–
403
NEW INSIGHTS ON ARCHITECTS OF TA J
same by Barraud34 is given as 5060 cm by 2338 cm. It is clear that the end points
from where the measures were taken by these investigators were different.
In analyzing the dimensions of the structures of the Ta– j Complex, we shall
use the most recent data reported by Barraud34, an architect by profession, in
Koch’s recent book on the Ta– j Mahal1. The dimensions will be analyzed to
answer two questions: what was the Mughal measure in which La– hori has stated
the dimensions2-4 and how are the dimensions of the complex related to the
Arthasƒa–stra units? The latter question has been answered in great detail elsewhere53
and some brief highlights will be summarized.
In order to answer the first question, the dimensions of the locations for
which Lahori has described the dimensions in terms of gaz2-4 are tabulated in
Table 2. The dimensions of these significant locations are also mentioned in
Table 2: Dimensions of different sections of the Ta– j complex in terms of centimeters
(actual measurement34), in gaz units mentioned by La–hori2-4 and equivalent measure
in centimeters from the gaz unit derived using different measures of Mughal
period
Location
Actual
Measure 31
(cm)
E-W length of
complex
N-S length of
ca–rba–gh
E-W length of
ca–rba–gh
N-S length of
riverfront terrace
E-W length of
riverfront terrace
N-S length of
mausoleum
E-W length of
mausoleum
N-S length of
mosque
E-W length of
mosque
–
–
–
–
After
Sikandari Illa– hi Padsha– hi Sha– hjaha– ni
–
–
–
2-4
Lahori
gaz x
gaz x
zi ra x
di ra x
80.217
84.624
79.335
68.856
(gaz)
(cm)
(cm)
(cm)
(cm)
30084
374
30001
31649
29671
25752
29631
368
29520
31142
29195
25339
29631
368
29520
31142
29195
25339
30000
373
29921
31565
29592
25683
11189
138
11070
11678
10948
9502
5690
70
5615
5924
5553
4820
5690
70
5615
5924
5553
4820
5660
70
5615
5924
5553
4820
2338
29
2326
2454
2301
1997
404
INDIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY OF SCIENCE
Table 2 in the first column in terms of centimeters34. The second column shows
the reported measure (by historian La– hori2-4) in units of gaz. The gaz unit is then
multiplied by the stated conversion factors listed in the last column of Table 1. It
is seen that the gaz conversion factors that resulted in good match of dimensions
–
– –
with the actual measured value are Sikandari gaz and Padsha–hi zi ra. Therefore,
it is confirmed by this analysis that the Mughal unit in which the dimensions were
–
measured out (so that La– hori could list them in his document) is either the Sikandari
–
gaz or Pa–dsha–hi zira. The Sikandari gaz was in vogue before Akbar’s time
– –
(1556-1605AD) while the Padsha–hi zi ra was used in the reign of Jahangir, the
father of Sha– hjaha– n. It is also worth noting that Barraud33 makes a mention that
the average value of the unit to which the measures fitted in the Ta–j Complex was
–
80.55 cm, which he called the gaz unit. This is quite close to Sikandari gaz (see
Table 1).
The analysis confirms that the measures reported by La– hori2-4 are indeed
–
– –
correct and that he used Sikandari gaz or Padsha–hi zi ra measures. However,
these were not the units on which the Ta– j complex was conceived and constructed
because of the appearance of illogical numbers for the dimensions, as pointed out
earlier.
In a novel approach, the dimensions of important lengths of the Ta– j complex
were analyzed in terms of the basic units mentioned in the Arthasƒa–stra and it was
found that the dimensions of the complex could be understood in terms of the unit
.
vitasti ( = 12 angulam). The details of this analysis are presented elsewhere53.
Each vitasti is 12x1.763 cm. The low errors between the proposed and actual
measures confirmed the fact that Arthasƒ a–stra units were used to design the
Ta– j complex53.
Further, the beauty and symmetry of Ta–j Mahal’s design is readily apparent
only when the dimensions are expressed in Arthasƒa–stra units53. There are different
kinds of symmetry inherent in the design of the over all plan as well as planning
of individual sections of the Ta– j complex. Bilateral symmetry is emphasized along
a central north-south axis, on both sides of which the main features of the complex
are located. Further, integrated into this bilateral symmetry are the centrally planned
four-part quadrilateral symmetry elements like the garden, forecourt and
caravanserai. In addition, individual three part triadic symmetry elements can be
noted in all the structures (mausoleum, gate, mosque, etc.). It is indeed fascinating
that all these integrate harmoniously in the overall plan of the complex. The
–
NEW INSIGHTS ON ARCHITECTS OF TA J
405
detailed analysis53 has confirmed the use of Arthasƒa–stra units to design the Ta– j
resulted in logical numbers, based on which the underlying symmetry elements
could be easily discerned. Additionally, it was confirmed that the modular design
reflected the traditional Indian planning principles of division of space by a sequence
of grids of increasing complexity54,55.
The present analysis also points out that most of the Mughal structures
and pre-Mughal Islamic structures of the Indian subcontinent can be understood
in terms of the traditional measurement units mentioned in the Arthasƒa–stra, with
.
the angulam considered as 1.763 cm. It would be enlightening to analyze other
significant structures of the subcontinent based on this understanding. In this manner,
the present communication has also shown a novel way of viewing the engineered
structures of the Indian subcontinent.
ARCHITECTS
It is now pertinent to focus our attention back to the original question of
who was the designer of the Ta– j Mahal complex. The above analysis has shown,
for the first time, that the entire design of the Ta– j complex can be rationalized in
terms of whole numbers if the traditional measures mentioned in the Arthasƒa–stra
are used. Detailed analysis53 has also revealed the modular design of the Ta– j
complex and that it was conceived using the traditional Arthasƒa–stra units in mind,
.
.
in particular the vitasti, measuring 12 angulams, with each angulam of 1.763
cm. This study adds further support to the continuing body of evidences35-38 that
prove the continuity of engineering tradition of the Indian subcontinent through the
ages, starting all the way back from the Harappan civilization. The basic unit that
.
was used in all these analysis was the angulam of 1.763 cm, which appears fairly
constant for a long period in Indian history.
The above analysis has also cleared the confusion regarding the skill set
employed by the architects who designed the Ta– j Mahal complex. Going by the
traditional measurement units used for designing the complex, it is clear that the
team of architects who designed the Ta– j complex were well versed in the traditional
building concepts of the subcontinent. These concepts were elaborated in texts
like Mayamatam56. This has been further confirmed by noting that the architects
of the Ta– j mausoleum avoided building over important intersection points in the
modular plan57.
406
INDIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY OF SCIENCE
The present communication has confirmed that the engineering of the
Taj Mahal is primary based on the civil engineering traditions of the subcontinent.
The ultimate realization of the grand design of Ta– j Mahal by the “precious self”
of the emperor Sha– hjaha– n was only possible due to the engineering abilities and
skill of these designers and craftsmen, in all likelihood, native, as their adherence
to the traditional measurement units of the subcontinent indicates30.
–
It is unlikely that the Indian architects alone would have supervised and
executed this enormous construction. Some import of architectural talent must
have taken place. All credit should go to the genius of this team for having
conceived and planned the magnificent Ta– j.
CONCLUSIONS
New insights on the architects who designed the Ta–j Mahal complex have
been obtained in this communication. The earlier theories about the possible
architect of the complex have been first reviewed from a historical perspective.
It was confirmed that the dimensional units used by the contemporary historian
–
La– hori to describe the measures of Ta– j Mahal was either Sikandari gaz or
–
Padsha–hi zi ra. The analysis further confirmed that these units were only used to
measure the complex but these were not used to design the complex. The entire
Ta– j complex was designed and constructed using traditional measurement units of
the subcontinent, mentioned in the Arthasƒa–stra. The study has also revealed that
the basic concepts of Mughal architecture are based on the traditional building
principles of the subcontinent. The continuity in the civil engineering tradition of the
Indian sub-continent is confirmed in the units used to design the Ta– j. The design
of the Ta– j complex was accomplished by persons trained in traditional building
concepts of the subcontinent.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author acknowledges the co-operation of the Archaeological Survey
of India in his studies on the world heritage Ta– j Mahal Complex and Michel
Danino for discussion related to metrology of the Indian subcontinent through the
ages.
REFERENCES
1.
E. Koch, “Chapter II: The Construction of the Ta– j Mahal,” in The Complete Ta–j Mahal:
And the Riverfront Gardens of Agra, 2006, Thames and Hudson, London, pp. 83-101.
–
NEW INSIGHTS ON ARCHITECTS OF TA J
407
2.
Abdul Hamid Lâhori, Pa–dshâhnâmâ, ed. by M. Kabiruddin Ahmad and M. Abdal
Rahim, Calcutta, 1866-72, Volume 2, pp 322-330
3.
E. Koch, “Lâhauri’s account of the complex of the Tâj Mahal on the occasion of its
formal completion, on the twelfth anniversary of Mumtaz Mahal’s death,” in The
Complete Tâj Mahal, pp. 256-257.
4.
W.E. Begley and Z.A. Desai, Tâj Mahal - The Illumined Tomb: An Anthology of
Seventeenth Century Mughal and European Documentary Sources, University of
Washington Press, Washington, 1989, pp. 64-76.
5.
Muhammad Amin Qazwini, Ami na-i Qazwini Pa–dshâhnama, British Library, Ms. Or.
173, folio 139a (refolio 140a).
6.
Muhammad Salih Kanbo, Shâhjahânnama, revised and edited by Wahid Quraishi,
based on the Calcutta edn of 1912-46 by Ghulam Yazdani, 2nd Ed., 3 vols, Lahore, 196772, Vol 1, p. 206.
7.
John Lall, Tâj Mahal and the Glory of Mughal Agra, Lustre Press, New Delhi, Third
Edition, 1987, pp. 101-114.
8.
Nur Bakhsh, “The Agra Fort and Its Buildings,” Archaeological Survey of India
Annual Review, 1903-4, 164-93.
9.
Abdul Hamid Lahori, Pa–dshâhnama, Vol 1, Pt 1, p 149.
10.
W.E. Begley and Z.A. Desai, Tâj Mahal - The Illumined Tomb, pp. xli-xlix.
11.
E. Koch, The Complete Tâj Mahal, p. 249
12.
S. Manrique, Travels of Fray Sebastien Manrique, 1629-1643, trans. By C.E. Luard
and H. Hosten, 2 vols, Hakluyt Society, Oxford, 1927, Vol. 2, p. 173.
13.
J.S. Dixon, “The Veroneo Controversy,” Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth
History, 15 (1987) 170-78
14.
P. Mundy, The Travels of Peter Mundy in Europe and Asia, 1608-1667, Ed. by R. C.
Temple, 3 vols, Hakluyt Society, London, 1911-19, New reproduction 1991.
15.
J.B. Tavernier, Travels in India, 2 vols, Trans. by V. Ball, 2nd edn by William Crooke,
Oxford Universities Press, London, 1925, Reproduced Oriental Books Reprint
Corporation, New Delhi, 1977.
16.
Z.A. Desai and H. K. Kaul, Tâj Museum, New Delhi, 1982, p. 20.
17.
R.P. Anderson, “The Tâj: A Translation from the Persian,” Calcutta Review, 57 (1873)
233-237.
18.
C. Rieu, Catalogue of the Persian Manuscripts in the British Museum, 3 vols, I (1879);
2 (1881); 3 (1888), Vol 3, p. 958.
19.
W.E. Begley and Z.A. Desai, Tâj Mahal - The Illumined Tomb, p. xxxii
–
408
INDIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY OF SCIENCE
20.
J.A. Hodgson, “A Memoir on the Length of the Illahee Guz or Imperial Measure of
Hindostan,” J. Roy. Asiatic. Soc., 7 (1834) 57-58.
21.
W.H. Sleeman, Rambles and Recollections of an Indian Official, 1844, New edn 1915,
Repro Oxford Universities Press, Karachi, 1973.
22.
Kounteya Sinha, “Shirazi, Afride, Hanif built Taj 350 years ago,” Asian Age, 6 July
2004.
23.
A.I. Qaisar, Building Construction in Mughal India, The Evidence from Painting,
Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1988, pp. 18-22.
24.
Muhammad Salih Kanbo, Amal-i-Salih, G. Yazdani, Bibliotheca Indica, Calcutta, 1912,
iii, p. 28.
25.
Ba–bu–rnama, “Bâbu–r Supervising the Laying Out of the Garden of Fidelity,” Victoria
and Albert Museum, Reference IM.276-1913, object id: http://collections.vam.ac.uk/
objectid/O17687
26.
D. Fairchild Ruggles, Islamic Gardens and Landscapes, University of Pennsylvania
Press, Philadelphia, 2008, p. 20.
27.
R. Lewcock, Materials and Techniques, in Architecture of the Islamic World, Ed. G.
Michell, Thames and Hudson, London, 1978, p. 131-132.
28.
Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah, trans. Franz Rosenthal, Pantheon Books, New York,
1958, pp. 363-365.
29.
Robert Hillenbrand, Islamic Art and Architecture, Thames and Hudson, London, 1999,
p. 217.
30.
R. Balasubramaniam, “New insights on artisans of Tâj”, Indian Journal of History of
Science, 2009, accepted.
31.
E. Koch, “Chapter IV: The Paradisical House of the Queen,” in The Complete Tâj
Mahal,, 2006, pp. 214-229.
32.
W.E. Begley and Z.A. Desai, Tâj Mahal - The Illumined Tomb, 1989, pp. 64-76.
33.
R.A. Barraud, “Modular Planning of the Tâj,” in E. Koch, The Complete Tâj Mahal,
pp. 108-109.
34.
R.A. Barraud, “Factfile,” in E. Koch, The Complete Taj Mahal, pp. 258-259.
35.
R. Balasubramaniam, “New Insights on Metrology during the Mauryan Period,” Current
Science, 97 (2009) 680-682.
36.
R. Balasubramaniam, “On the Mathematical Significance of the Dimensions of the
Delhi Iron Pillar,” Current Science, 95 (2008) 766-770.
37.
R. Balasubramaniam, “New Insights on Metrology during the Mughal Period,” Indian
Journal of History of Science, 43 (2008) 569-588.
–
NEW INSIGHTS ON ARCHITECTS OF TA J
409
38.
R. Balasubramaniam, “On the Confirmation of the Traditional Unit of Length Measure
in the Estimates of Circumference of the Earth,” Current Science, 96 (2009) 547-552.
39.
R. Shamasastry, Kautilya’s Arthasƒâstra, Translation, Third Edition, Mysore Printing
and Publishing House, Mysore, 1939.
40.
R.P. Kangle, The Kautilya Arthasĉstra, Part II, Motilal Banarsidass, New Delhi, 1986,
pp. 138-140.
41.
M. Danino, “Dholavira’s Geometry: A Preliminary Study,” Pu–ra–tattva, 35 (2005) 76-84.
42.
M. Danino, “New insights into Harappan town-planning, proportions, and units, with
special reference to Dholavia,” Man and Environment, 33 (2008) 66-79.
43.
S.R. Rao, Lothal – A Harappan Port Town, Manager of Publications, Government of
India Press, New Delhi, 1955-62, Vol. II, pp. 689-690.
44.
R. Balasubramaniam and J.P. Joshi, “Analysis of Terracotta Scale of Harappan Civilization
from Kalibangan,” Current Science, 95 (2008) 588-589
45.
C.B. Asher, Architecture of Mughal India, New Cambridge History of India, Cambridge
Universities Press, Cambridge, 1992, pp. 19-251.
46.
Jaswant Rai, “Mathematics and Aesthetics in Islamic Architecture: Reference to Fatehpur
Sikri,” Journal of King Saud University, Volume 5, Architecture and Planning, (AH
1413/1993) 19-48.
47.
Irfan Habib, “Changes in Technology in Medieval India,” Studies in History, Vol. II,
No 1 (1980) 15-35.
48.
Ain-i Akbari, in Auspicious Sayings, Vol II.
49.
Irfan Habib, “The Technology and Economy of Mughal India,” Indian Economic and
Social History Review, 17(1) (1980) 1-34.
50.
Irfan Habib, “Capacity of Change in the Technology of Mughal India,” Seminar on
Technology in Medieval India: Sixteenth to Eighteenth Century, September 1984,
Birla Industrial and Technological Museum, Calcutta.
51.
J.P. Joshi, Harappan Architecture and Civil Engineering, Rupa and Co, New Delhi,
2007.
52.
Engineering drawings (plans, sections and elevations) of monuments of Agra, Fatehpur
Sikri, Delhi, Ajmer, and other historical sites in India and Pakistan of Professor R. Nath
based on nearly half a century of research work on Mughal Architecture is available
from The Heritage, G-14, Akhilesh Tower, Hariparvat, M G Road, Agra - 282 002, India,
Email: [email protected] or [email protected]
53.
R Balasubramaniam, “New Insights on the Modular Planning of the Tâj Mahal,”
Current Science, 17 (2009) 42-49.
410
INDIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY OF SCIENCE
54.
G. Michell, The Hindu temple: An Introduction to its Meaning and Forms, Elek Books,
London, 1977, pp. 89-93.
55.
S. Kramrisch, The Hindu Temple, University of Calcutta, Calcutta, 1946, Motilal
Banarsidass, New Delhi, 1976 (reprint), pp. 73-97.
56.
Mayamatam: Treatise of Housing, Architecture and Iconography by Mayamuni,
Sanskrit text edited and translated by B. Dagens, 2 vols., Motilal Banarsidass, New
Delhi, 1994.
57.
R. Balasubramaniam, On the engineering connection between the Delhi Iron Pillar and
Tâj Mahal, Indian Journal of History of Science, 2009, communicated.