Mehreen Chida-Razvi
Introduction: Shah Jahan and his relationship with architecture
The
royal mind, which is illustrious like the sun, pays meticulous attention to the planning and
construction of these lofty and imposing
buildings, which, in accordance with the
saying, “Verily our relics tell of us,” speak with mute eloquence
of His Majesty’s
God-given high aspiration
and sublime fortune—and for ages to come will serve as memorials to his abiding love of
constructiveness, ornamentation and
beauty.1
So
wrote ‘abd al-hamid lahauri, one of the chief historians of
Shah Jahan’s reign,
explicitly stating the
link between the
pādshāh, imperial architectural commissions, and notions of commemoration and legacy.
It is recognized that imperial architecture of the Mughal period was meant to be reflective of the royal patron; this was particularly true of Shah Jahan, whose commissions were seen as physical visualizations of his imperial ideology. Shah Jahan’s role as an architectural patron and his deep involvement with his building projects is well known, an interest first fostered while he was a prince. his commissions from the years prior to his imperial reign stand as testimony to the fact that his interest in architecture pre-dated his ascension to the Mughal throne. Just a few examples of his princely architectural commissions or works he oversaw include the Shalimar gardens in Kashmir, the Moti Bagh (originally called the Shahi Bagh) in ahmedabad, a hunting resort near Burhanpur and the redesigning of buildings within the agra fort.2 as was the architectural trend, these constructions by and large conformed to the prevailing style of architecture popularized by Shah Jahan’s father, Emperor Jahangir, in his reign.
Once
Shah Jahan assumed the throne, however, there was a streamlining of architectural vocabulary and
formalization of style, all of which has
led scholars to refer to his reign as the
“classical phase” of Mughal architecture. ebba Koch in particular has noted that Shah Jahan, despite building
off of the architectural forms in use
during his father’s rule, stripped down the variety of architectural vocabulary and forms
utilized in order to create a more
uniform aesthetic in his imperial commissions.3 This uniformity was exemplified by the pervasive
use of the following: the Shahjahani
column, a multifaceted column with a muqarnas (stalactite vaulting) capital and
cusped-arch base; the use of qālib kārī (mould-work) vaults or coved ceilings;
the use of naturalistic plant and
floral motifs; the
“cyprus-bodied” baluster column;
the semicircular and polylobed arch; and
the curved profile of a roof or
cornice.4 in addition to this reduced vocabulary there were specific types of plans which were
favoured, in particular those that were
bi-symmetrical.5
There
was also great emphasis placed on a hierarchical and symbolic order to the architectural forms
and materials utilized in
Shah Jahan’s imperial
constructions. For example,
white marble and chūnā
(fine, highly polished
white stucco) were most commonly used to clad imperial
buildings;6 prior to this the systematic
use of these materials to surface imperial
commissions did not exist. in addition, architectural emphasis was given to areas within audience halls or
palace chambers where Shah Jahan would
sit for formal appearances; the baluster
column, bangala profile and semicircular arch were, for a period of time, reserved for use in these spaces,7
features exemplified by the great
jharoka throne constructed for the Diwan-i ‘amm [public Audience
Hall] in the
Lal Qila of
Shahjahanabad (figure 1). In addition to architectural forms and materials
being standardized, the decorative
repertoire too was adapted and streamlined for
Shah Jahan’s imperial commissions. Two key features of this were the use of naturalistic floral imagery
predominating over other decorative
motifs and the use of pietra dura.8
It
thus became the case that there was a consistency to Shah Jahan’s imperial architectural patronage. As
has been discussed by Koch, this was
accomplished through the hallmarks by which
we judge his buildings: symmetry, perfection of design and form, and hierarchical placement of materials and
design schemes.9 This consistency was aided by how involved he was as a
patron. it is an accepted tenet that he
was the ultimate architect of his
building projects and very hands-on, altering plans as he deemed fit and having to give final approval
before construction would begin.10 This
heavy involvement in architecture and how
important a medium it was for his own self-representation is clear in how many of his building projects
were discussed in his court histories and
in the detail in which they were described.11
According to
each of his
court historians, one
of the first
commissions embarked upon by Shah Jahan on ascending the throne was the construction of the mausoleum
of his father, Jahangir (figure 2).12
This would have conformed to the pattern of
patronage established by his immediate predecessors, whereby the new emperor constructed the tomb of his
father on his accession to the throne:
i.e. akbar built the tomb of his father,
humayun, after his accession while Jahangir in turn ordered the construction of Akbar’s on his. Due to Shah
Jahan’s recognized involvement in the
design and approval of his architectural
patronage, it would therefore have been the case that he would have been integrally involved in the
planning, style and execution of
Jahangir’s tomb, and that the monument was built to not only commemorate the newly deceased
emperor but also as a standing memorial
to Shah Jahan’s own rule.
As
I have argued elsewhere, however, Jahangir’s mausoleum is
clearly not a part of Shah
Jahan’s imperial oeuvre.13
rather, architecturally, stylistically
and decoratively it sits within the body
of works which comprise the architectural patronage of Jahangir’s
widow, Nur Jahan Begum, and
it is my
contention that she is
the true patron
of Jahangir’s mausoleum
complex. This would only have
been feasible, however, with the express
permission of Shah Jahan, who later appropriated the responsibility for the final resting place of
his father within his court histories as
a symbol of ultimate authority and imperial
power. There are several strands to this argument but only one of which will be presented in this chapter:
the various anomalies and imperfections
of construction and decoration at Jahangir’s
mausoleum. These would have been anathema to a patron like Shah Jahan, who valued perfection of
execution as an integral component of
his commissions.
Through
this discussion the importance of architecture as self-representation for not only Shah Jahan
but also Nur Jahan will become evident,
as she too intended her architectural
projects to be perpetual reminders of her own importance and legacy.
She was the
first royal Mughal
woman to commission
architecture on a vast scale, patronizing a wide variety of structures including gardens, tombs,
caravanserais and mosques. The gardens
ascribed to her include several in agra, such as the ram Bagh/Bagh-i Nur afshan, as well as in
lahore, like the Dilkusha Bagh and
Bagh-i Dilamiz, and another at achabal
which she is said to have planned as well as commissioned. She constructed the magnificent mausoleum of her
parents in Agra, which was completed the year after Jahangir’s death, and also subsequently her own tomb in lahore. of the
seraisshe built, the most famous is the
Serai Nur Mahal near Jalandhar, while a good
example of the mosques she commissioned is the patthar Masjid in Srinagar, also known as the Shahi or Nau
Masjid.14
Jahangir’s
Mausoleum and the textual Sources on its
Construction
Jahangir’s
mausoleum was built within a garden owned by Nur Jahan in the area of Shahdara, just north of
the Walled City of lahore on the
northern bank of the river ravi between 1628
and 1638, at a cost of 10 lakhs of rupees. it is a large square
tomb surrounded by a pillared arcade
with four manārs rising from its
corners. The manars are faced with multicoloured marble while the facade of the body of the tomb is
surfaced with red sandstone inlaid with
white marble. The interior decoration of
the monument is comprised of kāshī-kārī mosaic tile dados, fresco painting in the series of chambers and
passageways off the external
arcade (figure 3),
and marble panelling
in the central
tomb chamber (figure
4). The marble
sarcophagus of Jahangir
is exquisitely decorated
with pietra dura
floral imagery and calligraphic
inscriptions (figure 5), and is without
doubt the finest
feature of the
entire funerary complex.
The complex itself is comprised
of two entities—the tomb garden, which
was built as an enclosed, square chārbāgh subdivided into 16 parts, and the so-called akbari Serai
immediately adjacent to its west, which
served as a forecourt to the funerary enclosure. The north, east and south boundary walls of
the tomb garden are freestanding while
the fourth, the western wall, is shared
with the akbari Serai. To gain access to the mausoleum visitors first
have to enter
the serai through
either its northern
or southern gateway in order to
reach the entrance gate to the funerary
garden.
It
is in contemporary historical documentation from Shah Jahan’s
reign, in the
form of four
of his court
histories, that we
are told he
is the patron
of Jahangir’s mausoleum.
These are the Bādshāhnāma of ‘abd
al-hamid lahauri, Muhammad Amin Qazvini’s
Bādshāhnāma, Abu Talib Kalim’s
Pādshāhnāma and the ‘Amal-i Ṣāliḥ of Muhammad Salih Kanbu. each of
these authors wrote
a short passage
on Jahangir’s mausoleum
in their respective works which
ascribed responsibility for the
tomb’s construction to
Shah Jahan. While
each gives a
varied degree of
information on Jahangir’s
death, the construction
of his mausoleum and the materials used, all are in agreement that the construction of the tomb cost 10
lakh rupees, took 10 years to build, and
that both a sarcophagus and cenotaph were
placed there, the latter on the roof of the tomb.15 in each of
these there is nothing written about the
complex, only some brief, general
details about the mausoleum. This is in contrast to other architectural projects of Shah Jahan’s
discussed therein, where, comparatively,
a much greater amount of detail was given about
descriptions of architecture and built complexes. interestingly, the most detailed information given on any
aspect of Jahangir’s mausoleum within
these histories is the quality and perfection
of the marble sarcophagus and cenotaph and their pietra dura decoration,
a point which
will be returned
to later. One
final note on these excerpts is
that because of the brevity of their
descriptions and the lack of any other mention of this tomb throughout the remainder of these chronicles
it is possible to assume that Shah Jahan
had little to do with the production of
this mausoleum. as Catherine asher writes, these factors appear to indicate that “Shah Jahan had little
personal involvement in its planning and
execution, unlike many of his other architectural projects”.16
While
the histories of lahauri, Kalim, Qazvini and Kanbu are the only Shah Jahani sources which
provide contemporary documentation about
the production of Jahangir’s mausoleum,
it must be remembered that the details given within them were skewed
towards Shah Jahan’s
own wishes. As
official court histories, the writings of lahauri, Kalim and
Qazvini had to have been ultimately
approved by Shah Jahan himself and so
only historical information showing the emperor in a positive light is found within them. They were, after
all, each written to glorify Shah Jahan,
his reign and his deeds. As for Kanbu’s work,
although not an official historian, he aspired to win the favour of the padshah and so he too only wrote what
Shah Jahan would have approved of. it
should therefore be remembered that while
the information given in these four sources is conveyed as truth by their respective authors, there is an
inherent bias within them.
Despite the
textual evidence claiming
Shah Jahan’s patronage, stylistically, architecturally and
decoratively Jahangir’s mausoleum does
not conform to his imperial works. When
examined alongside these other constructions, the idea that Shah Jahan built Jahangir’s tomb “as a
grand testament to his own
sovereignty”17 is especially incongruous, particularly because there are instances of imperfections
and cost-cutting evident at
the site. While
Shah Jahan’s patronage
would not have
permitted these kinds of flaws in
the construction of
his father’s mausoleum,
Nur Jahan’s patronage
not only explains,
but justifies their occurrence
anomalies and imperfections in the
Construction of Jahangir’s Mausoleum
it
is impossible to address the issue of the imperfections in the
building and decoration
at Jahangir’s mausoleum
without discussing the cost of
construction, as the two are linked. as
unequivocally stated within
Shah Jahan’s court
histories, the expenditure on Jahangir’s mausoleum was 10
lakhs. To put this in context, it is
necessary to briefly give examples of pertinent
comparative expenditure; these include not only architectural but also decorative expenses. it is known
that Jahangir spent 7 lakhs on his new
structures at the lahore fort,18 and another 20
lakhs on the Tripolia bazaar mosque and the bazaar attached to it, also in lahore.19 The tank and pavilion
at Sheikhupura were built by him at a
cost of one and a half lakhs,20 while on his
father’s mausoleum at Sikandra he spent 15 lakhs.21 Nur Jahan’s brother, asaf Khan, built a grand ḥavīlī in
lahore at a cost of 20 lakhs, twice as
much as that spent on the entire mausoleum of
Jahangir. On her
parents’ tomb, a much
smaller structure and
funerary complex than that of Jahangir, Nur Jahan is supposed to have spent 35 lakhs,22 three and a half
times as much! on a non-imperial scale, it is
documented that during Shah
Jahan’s reign a tomb was
constructed for Abu’l-Hasan Khan, a noble in
lahore, at a cost of 10 lakhs,23 the same amount that was spent on Jahangir’s imperial tomb.
Regarding
expenditures by Shah Jahan, in lahore he spent
6 lakhs on the construction of the buildings associated with the Shalimar Bagh and an additional sum of
substantially more than 9 lakhs on his
new palace structures at the lahore fort.24 extravagant accoutrements for the
palace pavilions were also commissioned
by Shah Jahan during his reign, for example,
thrones. for the audience hall in lahore he commissioned an enamelled throne which by itself cost 5
lakhs.25 another new throne was
ordered to be
constructed for Shah
Jahan’s palace at agra, the peacock Throne. This elaborate,
bejewelled seat was valued at 100 lakhs,
ten times as much as the cost of Jahangir’s
mausoleum, and took almost as long to create—seven years.26
Comparing like-for-like with
Shah Jahan’s tomb
construction, the Taj Mahal was
initially priced at 40 lakhs but in reality ended up costing 50.27 in addition to this, the
gold screen which was originally created
to surround the cenotaphs in the central tomb
chamber cost 6 lakhs.28
Compared
with these other commissions for which the cost
of production is known, 10 lakhs being
spent on Jahangir’s
mausoleum was a relatively small amount in terms of architectural expenditure by the Mughal elite, especially
for an imperial funerary monument. Why
would this have been the case? Shah
Jahan, of course, had the entirety of the imperial treasury at his disposal, but what of Nur Jahan? During
Jahangir’s lifetime she became an
incredibly independently wealthy woman, holding a number of jāgīrs through which her personal
wealth increased; just one of these
brought her an annual income of 2 million
rupees, or 20 lakhs.29 She also
was granted her
father’s estate on his death in 1622, taking control of all
his many substantial assets;30 this would
have afforded her a tremendous amount of
money as he had been one of the most important grandees of the Mughal court. furthermore, she engaged in
trade and received vast amounts of
income from customs duties;31 for example, at
Bayana, a primary site of indigo production, Nur Jahan owned several large fields which contributed to her
personal fortune.32 in addition to this, she owned her own ships which engaged
in international trade as well as the
transport of pilgrims.33 Thus when Nur
Jahan was constructing
her parents’ tomb
and her other architectural commissions as Jahangir’s
queen, she had a huge personal fortune
to draw upon in addition to whatever was
granted to her from the royal treasury.
anomalies
and imperfections in the architecture of
Jahangir’s Mausoleum
The cost
of Jahangir’s mausoleum
being comparatively low,
even without any further income the 10-lakh expenditure would have been possible for Nur Jahan to pay out
of her 2-lakh per annum allowance.
Furthermore, the restrained cost of Jahangir’s
mausoleum accounts for many of the anomalies apparent in the structure’s
construction and decoration,
each of which
speaks against Shah Jahan’s
patronage of the site.
One
of the most curious elements of construction at this mausoleum is that the tomb chamber was
entered from the west, a singular instance, as the rest of the imperial Mughal
tombs, and Mughal funerary structures in
general, were entered from the south. as
the western entrance gate was the only one into
Jahangir’s tomb garden it might seem intuitive that the entrance to the mausoleum should be from this same
side so that a straight axis was created
between the two. however, west is the
direction of qibla in South asia and it is striking that by
building the entrance to Jahangir’s tomb
chamber from this direction the
resultant orientation meant that
the visitor’s back
faced qibla as they entered what
had come to be considered a quasi-sacred
space. As it had already been established as early as Akbar’s reign that imperial Mughal mausoleums had
connotations of being religious sites,
with visits to them being treated like ziyārat, or pilgrimage,35 this entrance orientation at
Jahangir’s tomb would have been
considered unorthodox. This was in spite of the fact that the ulama did not consider tombs as
religious spaces and did not approve of
this practice.
If Jahangir’s
tomb had been
planned according to the prevailing conventions of royal tomb
construction, it too should have been
entered from the south. Such non-conformity of
planning and the singular nature of this entrance direction do
not fit with
Shah Jahani principles
of architecture. Nor,
it must be added, does it follow
an orthodox way of thinking, an
important point in light of the fact that islamic orthodoxy was seen to increase during Shah Jahan’s reign.36
Why
would such an orientation to the tomb have been
created? The only explanation which presents itself for this construction enigma is that the entrance was
kept on the western side of the
mausoleum because the entrance gate was
to the west of the tomb, leading one to infer that it was the pre existing
nature of the garden which resulted in this orientation. This implies a desire for a single axis in
the tomb garden and complex, an
assumption that can be challenged on the grounds that
at Humayun’s tomb,
the first monumental
Mughal mausoleum, the tomb
chamber was only accessible from the
south despite the fact that the public entrance gate was to the west of the building. furthermore, two axes
of entrance existed at Humayun’s tomb
garden as the royal entrance gate was built
to the south of the monument. on a sub-imperial level, the same was
true of the
tomb of I‘timad
al-Daula (figure 6),
the tomb constructed by Nur Jahan for her parents in
agra, in which the entrance to the tomb
chamber was from the south despite the
entrance gates to the complex being from the east and west. at Jahangir’s mausoleum the orientation is
complicated even more by the fact that
passages leading to the central tomb chamber
were built on all four sides of the structure, yet it was only the western one which actually provided
access.
That
such an unorthodox axial alignment was maintained at Jahangir’s mausoleum indicates that it was a
purposeful decision by the patron. This
unique orientation does not conform to
Shah Jahan’s orthodoxy or
architectural principles but, rather, it
indicates Nur Jahan’s
desire to give
extra distinction to
the site on a restricted budget.
By making visitors to the mausoleum
enter the tomb and tomb chamber from the west, they must face east towards the deceased emperor. east is
also, of course, the direction of the
rising sun. With this orientation a link is thus made between the sun and Jahangir, who took
“Nuruddin” (nūr al-dīn—Light of the
Religion) as his honorific title. This symbolic relationship between the emperor and the sun
was made explicit in the histories of
the Mughal kings, and we know that Jahangir
used light symbolism and sun imagery frequently to highlight his divinely ordained kingship.37
From
an anomaly in construction we now turn to
imperfections at the
site, the first
to be discussed
being the entrance gate to the tomb garden. in relevant
examples of royal Mughal funerary
gateways, each face was decorated using
the same materials and in the same manner. This is evident at the entrance gates to the imperial tomb
gardens of humayun and Akbar,
Nur Jahan’s tomb
garden for her
parents, and the gateway built by Shah Jahan at the Taj
Mahal complex. As Jahangir’s
tomb garden was
created from a
pre-existing pleasure garden, the
gateway originally was located at the site
and it is likely that both of its faces were originally plastered and painted. When Nur Jahan’s garden was
transformed into an imperial funerary
garden to house Jahangir’s tomb, however, it
became necessary to make the entrance gate more grandiose and to distinguish this facade from the other
buildings of the adjacent serai.38 The
eastern gateway facade, the side facing the
mausoleum, was plastered and painted in floral motifs (figure
7), while a sandstone facade with white marble and stone inlay was placed on the western elevation, facing
the serai (figure 8). an indication that
the sandstone face of the west elevation is a
later addition to the original construction of the gateway is its position on the platform, which is the first
imperfection of the site to be
discussed: a corner of the sandstone veneer overlaps the water channel built into the edge of the
platform on which the gateway was
constructed (figure 10). Without the sandstone
slabs covering it,
the entrance gate’s
west facade would
not overlap the water channel and
would allow for visitors walking from
the eastern serai cells to directly access the portal of the gate with ease.39 The idea that Shah Jahan as
the patron would have permitted
something like this not only to occur, but then
not to have it fixed, goes against everything we know of him as a patron.
The
addition of a sandstone veneer to the original gateway also explains another imperfection related to
this structure, the inclusion of a
parapet on the west facade of the gateway but not on the east. The placement of the parapet is
strange, in that it wraps around the
west facade by only a metre or so, and does not
continue the full
circumference of the gateway
(figure 9). Not only does it give
the impression that this part of the structure
was incomplete when this was not the case, but it makes the western elevation of the gateway taller than
that of the eastern. The gateway itself
was therefore not aesthetically symmetrical
after its refit and
redecoration. The two
faces were decorated
differently, with different materials, and their heights differed as well. let it not be forgotten that
symmetry was one of the hallmarks of
Shah Jahani architecture. This gateway thus does not conform to one of his key principles of
construction. Also, a hallmark
of Shah Jahan’s
patronage was the
hierarchical use of materials, a trait in which this entrance gate falls short. The fact that the sandstone and
marble veneer was used on the western
face meant that the more expensive side
of the gate, and therefore the more important one, faced away from the mausoleum. This is quite remarkable,
for as Koch has highlighted, it tended
to be the case that the inner elevations
of mausoleum gateways were the more elaborate as they were the side facing the tombs,40 a convention
subscribed to by Shah Jahan. as part of
his building ideals the importance placed on
the hierarchy of materials and the resulting symbolism meant that marble, as the most important material,
would have been reserved for the more
important sections of a structure. in the
case of this gateway, this means that if only one side of the gate was to be decorated with white marble, Shah
Jahani principles of construction would
have utilized it on the eastern face of the
gate, the side facing the tomb.
However,
again considering the relatively low expenditure on the site and the attempts to give
distinction to certain areas, Nur
Jahan’s patronage allows for an understanding of this aspect of the decoration. it was deemed more
important not only to distinguish the
entrance facade of the gateway into the tomb
garden from the other buildings within the serai, but also to mark the importance of the space it led to—an
imperial funerary garden. The idea of
distinction being given to an entrance facade
of a gateway rather than the inner face was an element seen in some earlier examples of Nur Jahan’s and
Jahangir’s architecture. at her serai in
Jalandhar, for example, the entrance facade was
elaborately carved on its entire surface while the inner face was much simpler and did not include that
particular type of decoration.
The final
imperfection of the
architecture of the
funerary complex to be discussed
here relates to the subsidiary pavilions
of the tomb garden. The pavilions located in the centre of the northern and southern boundary walls are
similar in form and dimensions, but not
identical. each was built as a single-storey
“u” shaped building on top of a platform, within which was a rectangular pool placed in front of the
pavilions. The northern pavilion is
slightly larger than its southern counterpart, which appears
as the more
refined of the
two. Both exteriors
were plastered and decorated with
panelling but their facades are
different. The northern pavilion had three openings into it, the southern one had five, three in the recessed
entrance and one on each of the two
projecting arms. The southern pavilion was built with elegant accents in the shape of its
doorframes and arches which are absent
at the northern pavilion, where the doorframes
were shaped as sharp rectangles. as is evident from the central arch of the south pavilion’s facade, the arch
profile is more fluid and aesthetic than
those used on the north pavilion.
That the
pavilions are different
again immediately raises
questions about the idea that Shah Jahan was responsible for the construction of this tomb complex, as one of
the hallmarks of his imperial
architectural commissions was bilateral symmetry. as exemplified by the Taj Mahal complex, this
notion of symmetry was the
driving force behind
Shah Jahan’s architecture
and if he
were responsible for
Jahangir’s tomb garden
and complex, these two pavilions would undoubtedly have
been constructed (or reconstructed if
they were pre-existing) as identical mirror
images. This is especially true as there was a six-year overlap in the construction of Jahangir’s mausoleum
complex and that of the Taj Mahal, which stands as the epitome of Shah Jahan’s
architectural principles and decorative aesthetic. Yet, these two monuments and their respective complexes
could not be more different.
What is clear,
then, is that
the anomalies and
imperfections of the
architecture in Jahangir’s
tomb complex do
not fit with
the type of
architectural patron that
Shah Jahan was. if he were the
force behind the construction of this
tomb complex, mishaps like the gateway parapet and the sandstone facade overlapping a water channel
could not have occurred. Shah Jahan, who
was such a hands-on patron, or one of
his subordinates overseeing the construction, would not have condoned such a glaring fault as two
corresponding pavilions being different
sizes, styles and
forms. In the
same vein, the
hierarchical importance of materials, which is reflected in all of Shah
Jahan’s architectural commissions
once he was
emperor, would not have been
disregarded. Something would have been
done to change these features as Shah Jahan’s commissions, as reflections of himself and his reign, had to
be perfect.
inconsistencies
and Unique Decorative Features of
Jahangir’s Mausoleum
The
same perfection was true also of the decoration employed on Shah
Jahan’s imperial architecture, an aesthetic which was dominated
by white marble,
pietra dura, naturalistic
floral representations and the use of epigraphy (figure 11). Suffice it to say, the decorative aesthetic of
Jahangir’s mausoleum and its component
parts do not fall in line with the classical Shah Jahani one. rather, like the architecture, the
decoration is more clearly aligned with
Jahangiri-era architectural decoration, particularly that patronized by both Jahangir and Nur
Jahan. as such, there are several
decorative elements seen at the site which are unique in comparison to the other imperial Mughal
mausoleums.
The first
of these is
that there is
a profuse use
of animal imagery in the painted decoration employed at
Jahangir’s tomb. These mainly take the
form of animal-headed handles on jars or
ewers but also include stand-alone imagery and animal heads as part of furnishing designs. in the
external chambers of the mausoleum, duck
and bird heads were used with some frequency,
and they are also placed in the frescos of the interior entrance passages to the tomb chamber. This is not the
case for the more remarkable depictions
of elephant heads (figure 12), which onlyappear in the two largest external
chambers, on the western side of the
monument. in fact, it is in these western chambers that
the artists made
the most overt
use of animal
figures atthe tomb, where duck
heads, bird heads and elephant heads
were used in abundance. other instances of animal imagery at Jahangir’s mausoleum include depictions of
fish in some of the chambers,
representations which could possibly be of human figures, and dragon heads in the entrance
passages (figure 13). This last motif
was used to embellish not only the handles of
some of the painted vessels in these passages but also some of the stands of the vases, where these heads
were depicted on a larger scale.
The
use of elephant heads is the most unique animal feature at Jahangir’s mausoleum and their appearance is
again something which can be linked to
Nur Jahan’s desire to give distinction to
the site. The Mughal emperors considered the elephant to be an exceptionally important symbol of royalty
and kingship,41 so as a royal animal, their inclusion within the design
scheme of Jahangir’s
mausoleum would have
served to strengthen
and heighten the visual concept of kingship associated with the tomb. in addition, the location of these
elephant heads is extremely significant
in that they
were only depicted
in the largest external chambers of the mausoleum,
the three-bayed rooms on the western
facade, as noted above. This placement
thus meant that they were only placed within the chambers that were on the entrance facade to the monument.
This is indicative of an inherent
importance associated with their placement
which i would argue was directly related to Nur Jahan exploring unique methods to give an imperial
distinction to her husband’s sepulchral
monument. had these elephant images been placed
elsewhere, their symbolic
power in representing
Jahangir’shis commissioning of four life-sized carved elephant
sculptures which, when combined with the
inscriptions placed upon them which
highlighted the padshah as the patron, heightened the royal link between the animal and the Mughal
emperor.44
The
use of such overt animal imagery in a funerary monument is one of the most potent features relating
the structure to Nur Jahan’s patronage
and arguing against
it being that
of Shah Jahan. This is because these types of designs
were employed at both Jahangir’s
mausoleum and the tomb of I‘timad al-Daula, the
first example of such pictorial elements being used on a Mughal funerary monument. Nur Jahan disregarded the
dogmatic position that funerary
monuments were considered religious
spaces and as
such should not
include figural imagery
as part of their decoration, an idea sovereignty
would have been diminished.42 The use of elephants within this funerary space is further seen to
be significant when it is realized what
importance Jahangir himself placed upon the
elephant as a royal and dynastic symbol, a theme which has been previously discussed by Koch.43 This is
evident through that appeared to be condoned by
Jahangir as he had earlier incorporated human and animal figures in the
subsidiary structures at his father’s
mausoleum complex in Sikandra.45 in
addition, he is supposed to have included
representations of human
figures to decorate
the interior of
Akbar’s tomb chamber, although these have not survived.46
At
I‘timad al-Daula’s tomb
the first instances of
this type of
decoration encountered at the site are on the facade where the appearance of duck heads indicates a certain
level of confidence in the choice of
their inclusion as decoration (figure 14). Not only are they found inlaid at eye level on the
facade and intrados, but they are also
placed on the turrets and the roof pavilion. The motif used at these locations is always one of duck
heads appearing on the handles
of vases or ewers, just
as at Jahangir’s mausoleum. On the interior of I‘timad al-Daula’s tomb,
in which the walls are heavily decorated
with fresco painting, the same medium used
at Jahangir’s, there are also
several instances of animal imagery
including clouds taking the forms of birds, feline heads and even a winged face. In addition, on the interior face
of the tomb garden’s western
pavilion—the side facing the mausoleum—are painted depictions
of a winged
figure, human figures
and chinoiserie vases and bowls decorated with lions and a
deer.
The
decorative motifs of I‘timad al-Daula’s
tomb have been described as
belonging to the age of Jahangir, special attention being called to the extensive use of wine
vases, jars, cups and dishes, as well as
the portrayal of Chinese clouds and animal
motifs (figure 15).47 as such strong similarities can be
seen not only in the use of
these designs at Jahangir’s tomb, but in
the use of the same medium
on the mausoleum’s interior, this would
formally place the
decoration of Jahangir’s
tomb in the established decorative mode associated with
his reign rather than that of Shah
Jahan.
Animal
imagery was a common decorative feature in
Jahangir’s imperial architectural commissions seen, for example, at the Kala Burj (figure 16) and picture wall
at the Lahore Fort.48 This was also the case for structures patronized by Nur
Jahan. She had
a predilection for
using animal figures
as decoration in her architectural commissions, something
which Shah Jahan certainly viewed with
reserve and rarely employed. in addition
to the tomb of her parents, the pavilions she constructed at the ram Bagh in agra were decorated on their
interiors with winged beings, putti and
birds (figure 17),49 while the surface of
the gateway into Serai Nur Mahal was heavily decorated with animal imagery. There, carved elephants
composed the brackets of the jharokas on
the gateway’s facade, and the recessed niches
of the facade were carved in relief with imagery similar to that of the lahore fort kashi-kari picture wall,
including elephant fights and flying
winged figures (figure 18).50 Such imagery only
stresses the relationship
between Nur Jahan’s
architectural patronage and
Jahangir’s tomb.
Shah Jahan’s architecture, on the other hand, did
not make great use of animal imagery as
a decorative device, and certainly not
within mausoleums. There is really only one example of Shah Jahan incorporating animal images into his
architecture, when he had pietra dura
panels depicting birds and a separate one of
orpheus playing his lute placed into the wall behind his throne in his new Diwan-i ‘amm at the lal Qila in
Shahjahanabad.51
Among the
most noteworthy inconsistencies of
Jahangir’s mausoleum is the lack
of inscriptions at the tomb complex,
referring here to inscriptions on the structures and not whatis found on
the sarcophagus. This is out of the ordinary as the inclusion of inscriptions and epigraphy at
royal mausoleum sites had
become common practice
during Jahangir’s reign,
particularly the inclusion of Qur’anic inscriptions. We see
this employed at the tombs of
prince Khusrau and Sultana Nisar Begum
in allahabad,52 Akbar’s tomb in Sikandra
and the
tomb of i‘timad al-Daula in Agra.
Within the main vestibule of Akbar’s
tomb, for example,
Qur’anic verses are used exclusively
as the epigraphy within this
space.53 This is also the case for the
inscription panels which adorn the exterior of I‘timad al-Daula’s tomb—all are from the Qur’an.54
In addition
to the lack
of inscriptions on
Jahangir’s tomb itself, the fact that they were also absent
from the entrance gate is unusual; the
only exception to this was “Allāh” inlaid
onto the western facade twice. at the imperial level, there was a precedent for the use of extensive epigraphy
on these structures from Akbar’s tomb
gateway, where inscriptions extol Jahangir as
the ruler and the patron, compare the tomb garden to paradise,55 and
eulogize and lavishly praise akbar. additionally, isolated lines from the Qur’an were included.56
By the
time Jahangir’s tomb
complex was constructed
inscriptions had therefore become part of the accepted mode for inclusion at funerary sites for members
of the royal family, as well as on the
entrance gates into these spaces to explicitly tie together Qur’anic notions of Paradise with
the tomb garden. This reoccurs at the Taj Mahal, where the very visible
calligraphic inscriptions on the gateway
are Qur’anic verses to
this effect. on the south face of the entrance gate to the
Taj Mahal is the Sūrat al-Fajr, inviting
the believer into paradise, and on the north
face are verses pertaining to the end of time.57 The extensive and symbolic use of inscriptions on the Taj Mahal
itself (figure 19) is also in stark
contrast to the complete lack of epigraphy seen at Jahangir’s mausoleum.58
Shah
Jahan sought to continuously improve upon and surpass what had come before him, and so a complete
lack of inscriptions at the site, which
would have clearly been warranted based
upon precedent if nothing else, is further evidence that Shah Jahan
was not the
patron of Jahangir’s mausoleum. Instead, if we return to Nur Jahan’s patronage and the
idea of a restricted budget, we can
understand why inscriptions were not utilized on the tomb’s monuments as this aspect of
decoration would have added to the cost.
Comparative
architecture of nur Jahan and Shah Jahan
As has
already been noted,
Nur Jahan’s building
experience was impressive. She
considered her architectural commissions
to be her legacy, an idea corroborated by francisco pelsaert, a Dutch visitor to the Mughal empire during
Jahangir’s reign. He wrote the following
of her intention in commissioning the many
structures and projects that she did:
Meanwhile
she erects very expensive buildings in all
directions, sarais, or halting places for travellers and merchants, and pleasure-gardens and palaces
such as no one has ever made
before—intending thereby to establish an
enduring reputation.59
Most
relevant for this discussion on comparative architecture are the tombs Nur Jahan constructed for her
parents and herself. As has been seen,
Jahangir’s tomb is distinctive and due to the lack of contemporary sources on the actual
construction of the tomb it is
imperative to see how the sepulchral styles patronized by both Nur Jahan and Shah Jahan differed, thereby
allowing for a stylistic determination
of who is the more likely candidate for creating the building and the decorative programme at
Jahangir’s mausoleum.
Stylistically,
the platform tombs of Nur Jahan and i‘timad
al-Daula share much
in common with
Jahangir’s mausoleum, specifically in their shape, design scheme
and the motifs chosen for representation. I‘timad
al-Daula’s tomb, the
first of these
three to be built, is a small, compact, two-storey structure. from its four corners rise round turrets, the
bases of which are octagonal. They form
a part of the ground storey of the structure,
a concept repeated at Jahangir’s tomb where the octagonal bases of the minarets were built as part of the
mausoleum’s body. Also similar between
these two edifices is that on each roof terrace a small chabūtra was built in the centre of the
space which served as a base for the cenotaphs
placed at each site while the true
graves were located below in the central tomb chambers, covered by
their respective sarcophagi.
In its architecture
Jahangir’s mausoleum can be seen
as an expanded version of i‘timad al
Daula’s tomb, elongated on both its horizontal and vertical axes. Nur Jahan’s tomb, on the other hand, has an
external profile identical in form to
Jahangir’s but was built to a quarter of the
size and without
the minarets of
Jahangir’s tomb (figure
21). Both are square structures
with arcaded facades, projecting
entrance arches and octagonal bastions at their corners, and both have a chabutra built at the centre of
their roofs. The tomb stands as a shadow
of its original self, with an interior bereft
of almost all of its original decoration and an exterior that was completely pilfered. from the few remains of
interior paintings which survive it is
evident that the interior decoration was like
that used at Jahangir’s tomb in the large niches painted on the
walls “filled” with
floral sprays or vases
full of flowers
(figure 22). in addition, some of
the decorative accents are the same, like
the delicately wrought stands for some of the vases. This latter trait is something which ties the decoration
to both Jahangir’s and I‘timad al-Daula’s tombs.
It
is evident that many similarities exist between the construction and decoration of these two
tombs built by Nur Jahan and that of
Jahangir’s mausoleum, and that the likenesses
are not the result of mere circumstance. I‘timad al-Daula’s tomb was completed the year after Jahangir’s
death, and it is possible that Nur
Jahan’s tomb was built simultaneously or just after that of her husband’s; all that is known is that
her tomb was complete by the time of her
death in 1645. What is relevant is that at the
time of Jahangir’s death Nur Jahan already had direct experience with tomb construction and therefore had an
established idea of what she considered
appropriate for the burial structure of an
immediate family member.
What Shah
Jahan considered a
fitting burial monument
to a loved one is the tomb which
has become synonymous with Mughal
architecture, the Taj Mahal (figure 20). The mausoleum was started after Jahangir’s but a portion of
its construction was simultaneous,
overlapping from 1632 to 1638. as Shah Jahan
had a very particular relationship with architecture, creating structures which became immediately
identifiable with his reign, the style
and aesthetic of his commissions tended to be similar. As this was the case, if he had been the
force behind Jahangir’s tomb, it would
be expected that some similarities would exist
between the Taj Mahal and it. however, when one looks at the Taj Mahal it is immediately clear
that it is in adifferent class
than Jahangir’s tomb,
both architecturally and
decoratively. although a few parallels
can be seen, the architecture of these
two sites share very little, the Taj Mahal having much more in common with Humayun’s tomb.
Aesthetically,
the Taj Mahal is dominated by white marble,
and there is a complete lack of painted decoration. The decorative elements of this mausoleum are composed of
inscriptions, relief carvings and pietra
dura. The decoration of the sarcophagus
unit at Jahangir’s
tomb is the
only example of
pietra dura found at his tomb complex
today, and here is where we finally
see Shah Jahan’s hand at play in Jahangir’s mausoleum; for this was
undoubtedly his contribution
to his father’s
mausoleum, along with the
original cenotaph. The quality of the nlay on
the sarcophagus rivals
the finest produced under
the Mughals, as does the naturalistic
way in which the flowers were depicted.
The sides of the sarcophagus were inlaid with the 99 names and attributes of allah while Jahangir’s
name and the
date of his
death were inlaid at the foot, all in black marble. religious verses were inlaid into the head of the sarcophagus
and on the top were Qur’anic verses;
these are the only
passages from the
Qur’an employed at the tomb, and
in fact the only epigraphy of any kind
visible today. It would have taken the finest court artists to
create such a piece, and these
individuals were at work in agra creating
Mumtaz Mahal’s sarcophagus
when the time
came for these
accoutrements to be created for Jahangir’s mausoleum.60 The fact that the sarcophagus and cenotaph feature so
prominently in the descriptions of
Jahangir’s tomb given in the primary Shah Jahani sources discussed earlier is further
indication that these funerary
accoutrements were due to Shah
Jahan’s direct patronage,
in contrast to the rest of the
mausoleum and associated complex, the
details of which are so scant within these texts.
Conclusion
The
programme of the Vienna workshop where this chapter first came into being includes a telling
phrase. Referencing art historical studies, it states that “Shah Jahan’s rule
has emerged as a highly dynamic phase
where an increasing centralisation in the
administration goes hand in hand with a formalisation of court ceremonial, architecture and the
arts which, highly aestheticised, show
themselves as a persuasive statement of his
ideal and universal kingship. Shah Jahan becomes visible as the great perfectionist and systematiser of the
Mughal empire [italics mine].” As
indicated in the introduction by means
of Lahauri’s quotation, Shah Jahan saw
his architectural commissions as a means
of perpetuating his legacy. Since he considered his built structures as visual statements of the
perfection of his rule and as perpetual
physical reminders of himself and his reign,
would he really have built such an unassuming mausoleum for Jahangir? a tomb which not only did not
conform to the established conventions
of Shah Jahani architecture, but also one
which clearly exhibited anomalies and imperfections in both its construction and decoration?
It
is evident that the mausoleum of Jahangir does not fall into the characteristic oeuvre of Shah Jahani
architecture, being instead of a type
much more in line with the architecture and
decoration associated with
Jahangir’s reign and
specifically with the architecture
of Nur Jahan. With an annual stipend of
2 lakhs per year given to her from the royal treasury, and the remainder of her own personal fortune to
possibly draw on, Nur Jahan would have
been capable of
paying for Jahangir’s
tomb. Choosing a garden in lahore
she already owned, transforming it into
a funerary garden, and adapting the pre-existing structures would also have suited her limited resources.
The fact that Nur Jahan was drawing on
her own purse to finance the construction
of Jahangir’s mausoleum resulted in the many unique features of the site as it was necessary to experiment
with the question of how to make the
tomb “imperial” without having the imperial
treasury to pay the costs. as a result, the architecture of the structure is simple but striking, and the
decoration is innovative and more
profuse and vibrant than at the other imperial tombs.
The
importance of architectural patronage as a means of
perpetuating one’s legacy
was something recognized
and acted upon by both Nur Jahan and
Shah Jahan. Nur Jahan had a very strong,
impressive history as an architectural patron and regarded buildings as the best medium by
which to propagate her legacy.
Once an incredibly
powerful figure at the Mughal
court, after Jahangir’s death she made a final attempt at securing her legacy with the construction of the royal
Burial Complex of Shahdara, only to have
this project usurped by Shah Jahan. This
in itself shows the potent symbolic importance that architecture had to the Mughal rulers and elite. Despite
the site not conforming to
Shah Jahan’s principles
of architecture, despite
its having imperfections and oddities in its creation, Shah Jahan would still rather have claimed the credit
for the site. in this instance perhaps
it was not so much to glorify himself, but to
deny the attempt by Nur Jahan to add to her architectural legacy by taking away the prestige of having her
name associated with the production of
Jahangir’s imperial mausoleum.
Notes
1
‘abd al-hamid lahauri, Bādshāhnāma, 1866–72, Vol. 1, p. 149, quoted in ‘inayat Khan 1990, p. xxxvii.
2
asher 1992, pp. 171–72.
3
Koch 1991, p. 93.
4
ibid.
5
ibid.
6
ibid., p. 95.
7
ibid.
8
ibid.
9
ibid., p. 93; Koch 2005, p. 138.
10
Begley and Desai 1989, p. 10; Koch 1991, p. 96; Koch 2006, p. 89. 11 Koch 2006,
p. 84: “The important position of architecture is reflected
in the accounts
of the imperial
projects by the
court historians and in the
eulogies composed by the court poets.
Shah Jahan supervised his historians personally, so the detailed recording
of buildings must
have been due
to his specificorder. While theory and symbolism
were expressed in the buildings
themselves, the texts provide information about dates, architectural terminology, forms, types and
function, and clues to meaning.”
12
for these sources see: Brand 1993 (for lahauri); Qazvini MS.; Kalim MS.; Thompson 1911–12 (for Kanbu).
13
This topic was the subject of my phD thesis and will be the subject of an upcoming monograph. See Chida-razvi
2012.
14
for further information see, for example, asher 1992, pp. 127–33. 15 for the
relevant passages from each of these sources, see Chida razvi 2012, pp. 254–57.
16
asher 1992, p. 172.
17
findly 1993, p. 240.
18
latif 1892, p. 48.
19
ibid., p. 97.
20
Jahangir 1999, p. 350.
21
ibid., p. 99.
22
azhar 1975, p. 117.
23
latif 1892, p. 152.
24
‘inayat Khan 1990, p. 463. The minimum sum spent on the lahore fort constructionsis derived from the known
cost of the Naulakha pavilion, which
itself was 9 lakhs. i have thus far been unable to find construction costs for the remainder of the structures
built by Shah Jahan at the lahore fort,
which include a new Diwan-i Khass, the
Shah Burj, the ghusul Khana and the Khwabgah, but the total would therefore be much higher than 9
lakhs.
25
ibid.
26
ibid., p. 147.
27
ibid., pp. 73, 200.
28
ibid., p. 95.
29
Tirmizi 1979, p. 12.
30
Jahangir 1999, p. 376.
31
Tirmizi 1979, p. 12.
32
ibid., p. 102.
33
asher and Talbot 2006, p. 160.
34
i am grateful to Saqib Baburi for this information from Shah Jahan’s court histories.
35 See, for example, Koch 1993/2001, in which
the visits of Humayun’s successors to
his tombs taking on the trappings and ceremonial activities of ziyārat is discussed. The
spiritual quality of the deceased
emperors is also evident from the writings of Jahangir, who states in his memoirs that he went to
visit the “blessed tomb” of his father,
where he sought “assistance from his spirit” and was granted a “good omen … from the blessed
assistance of his Majesty”. See Jahangir
1999, pp. 50, 98–99.
36
asher 1992, p. 170. “under Shah Jahan islamic orthodoxy increased .... islam took on an importance as never
before in Mughal india, although it
is difficult to
say whether Shah
Jahan himself was
more orthodox than his predecessors.”
37 See,
for example: Abu’l Fazl 1897, Vols. 1–2, pp. 27–28, 33; Asher 1992, p. 133; Koch 1993/2001, p. 174.
38
The resurfacing and reuse of pre-existing structures was not an unheard of concept but at the imperial level
there was no precedent for this,
Jahangir’s tomb garden being the only such example of a pleasure garden being converted into an
imperial burial site while utilizing the
pre-existing boundaries and structures.
39
While true that the akbari Serai and the gateway were restored and repaired by the British in the early 20th
century, this placement of the water
channel—running under the sandstoneveneer—does
not appear to have been a result of their interventions. Not only is there nothing in the aSi reports dealing
with the work done on the area of the
serai platform and water channel to indicate its current placement is a result of their work,
but if any alterations to the course of
the channel had been perpetrated by the aSi there is no reason for it to have been purposefully
placed so that it ran under the facade
of the gateway. rather, it can be inferred that
during the repairs to the platform that were undertaken, they kept the water channel in its original
position.
41
Koch 2007, pp. 185–87.
42 Their location on the tomb’s entrance
resembles the placement of elephant
sculptures on the hathi pols of Mughal forts. 43 Koch 2007, p. 169.
43
Koch 2007, p. 169.
44
ibid.: images of two of these sculptures appear on p. 168.
45
These were described by Smith in his 1909 extended report on Sikandra for the
archaeological Survey of india (aSi), in which he also provided plates which
showed these details. See Smith1909, plates liV, lXii, lXiii, for example, for
images of humans,
elephants
and birds carved onto the elevations of the western and
eastern
gateways.
46
Manucci 1907, Vol. 1, p. 141; asher 1992, p. 108.
47
Nath 1973, p. 102.
48
for further information on the Kala Burj see Koch 1983/2001, and on the tiled picture wall see Vogel 1920, pp.
27–49.
49
See Koch 1986, pp. 51–65.
50
parihar 2015, pp. 53–66; for further information on the kashi-kari picture wall see Vogel 1920, pp. 27–38.
51
See Koch 1988/2001, in particular pp. 81–104 for the imagery of the panels.
52
Desai 1961, pp. 64–68.
53
Nath 1994, pp. 381–82.
54
ibid., p. 419.
55
ibid., p. 371.
56
ibid., pp. 372, 378.
57
Begley and Desai 1989, pp. 195–97; Koch 2006, p. 128. 58 In addition to the
Qur’anic inscriptions employed at the Taj Mahal, Shah Jahan utilized inscriptions on other
architectural commissions of his as
well. in these he was extolled as the ruler, his titles were given, as well as the date of the
inscription. for example, one is on the
Hathi Pol at the Lahore Fort, referencing Shah Jahan’s construction there of the Shah Burj and that it was done
in the fourth year of his accession,
corresponding to 1631. at the agra fort is an inscription on the Diwan-i Khass again extolling Shah
Jahan, his erection of the palace, and
the date of 1636–37. There are also assorted inscriptions included on the various pavilions of the lal
Qila in Shahjahanabad.
59
pelsaert 1925, p. 50. This notion of permanence through architecture is also discussed in findly
1993, p. 228.
ACKNOWlEDGEMENTS
I
am thankful to ebba Koch for the invitation to present my work at the
workshop on new
trends in the
research of Shah
Jahan’s reign. My thanks to her, Stephan popp and florian
Schwarz for organizing a stimulating
event at which
the first feedback
for this chapter
was received. i am further
indebted to ebba, ali anooshahr and robert
McChesney for their comments on this chapter and their work in putting together this volume. The final work
is all the better for their advice and
input, and any mistakes in the published version are my sole responsibility.
financial
support for my research trips to pakistan and india to undertake the work on which this chapter is
based was provided by The Barakat Trust
and iNTaCh uK. Work at the sites was facilitated by Pakistan’s Department of Archaeology and the Archaeological Survey of india; i am deeply grateful to these
institutions for their support in
accessing the sites needed to carry out my research.
Figure-Acknowledgement
All
images in this essay are by the author.
Bibliography
Primary
Sources
Abu’l Fazl
1897: Abu’l Fazl.
Akbar-Nama. Translated by h. Beveridge.
3 vols. Calcutta: Bibliotheca indica (reprint, lahore: Sang-e-Meel publishers, 2005).
Begley
and Desai 1989: W.e. Begley and Z.a. Desai. Taj Mahal, The Illumined Tomb. An Anthology of
Seventeenth-Century Mughal and European
Documentary Sources. Cambridge, Ma: aga Khan program for islamic architecture, harvard university
and Seattle: university of Washington
press.
‘inayat
Khan 1990: ‘inayat Khan. Shah Jahan Nama. Translated by a.r. fuller, revised and edited by W.e. Begley and
Z.a. Desai. New Delhi: oxford university
press.
Jahangir
1999: Nuruddin Muhammad Jahangir. The Jahangirnama. Memoirs of Jahangir, Emperor of India.
Translated, edited and annotated
by
Wheeler M. Thackston. Washington DC: freer gallery of art. Kalim MS.:
Abū Ṭālib Kalīm.
Pādshāhnāma, British Library,
MS. Ethé 1570, fols. 52a, 53b.
Manucci
1907: Niccolao Manucci. Storia do Mogor; or Mogol India, 1653–1708. Translated by William irvine. 4 vols.,
1907–08. london: John Murray. Qazvini MS.: Muḥammad Amīn Qazvīnī. Bādshāhnāma,
British library, MS. or. 173.
Secondary
Sources
asher
1992: Catherine asher. Architecture of Mughal India. The New Cambridge History of India. Cambridge:
Cambridge university press. asher and Talbot 2006: Catherine asher and Cynthia
Talbot. India Before Europe. Cambridge:
Cambridge university press.
azhar
1975: Muhammad azhar. European Travellers Under the Mughals (1580–1627). New Delhi: idarah-i adabiyat-i
Delli.
Brand
1993: Michael Brand. “orthodoxy, innovation, and revival: Considerations of the past in imperial Mughal
Tomb architecture”. Muqarnas: An Annual
of Islamic Art and Architecture 10: 323–34.
Chida-razvi
2012: Mehreen Chida-razvi. “The imperial Mughal Tomb of Jahangir: history, Construction and
production”. phD dissertation, School of
oriental and african Studies, university of london.
Desai
1961: Z.a. Desai. “inscriptions from the Khusrau Bagh, allahabad”. Epigraphia Indica: Arabic and Persian
Supplement 1961: 64–68. findly 1993:
ellison Banks findly. Nur Jahan. Empress of Mughal India. New Delhi: oxford university press (reprint,
2000).
Koch
1983/2001: ebba Koch. “Jahangir and the angels: recently Discovered Wall Paintings Under European
Influence in the Fort of lahore”. in
India and the West. Proceedings of a Seminar Dedicated to the Memory of Hermann Goetz. edited by
Joachim Deppert. New Delhi: Manohar.
(reprinted in ebba Koch. 2001. Mughal Art and Imperial Ideology. oxford: oxford university press,
2001, pp. 12–37.)
Koch
1986: ebba Koch. “Notes on the painted and Sculptured Decoration of Nur
Jahan’s Pavilions in the
Ram Bagh (Bagh-i Nur
Afshan) at agra”. in Facets of Indian Art. A Symposium
Held at the Victoria and Albert Museum
on 26, 27, 28 April and 1 May 1982. edited by r. Skelton, A. Topsfield, S. Stronge, R. Crill and G.
Parlett. London: Victoria and albert
Museum, pp. 51–65.
Koch
1988/2001: ebba Koch. Shah Jahan and Orpheus. The Pietre Dure Decoration and the Programme of the Throne in
the Hall of Public Audiences at the Red
Fort of Delhi. graz: akademische Druck- und Verlaganstalt (reprinted without introduction in Koch 2001:
pp. 61–129).
Constructing
Jahangir’s Mausoleum | 105
Koch
1991: ebba Koch. Mughal Architecture. An Outline of Its History and Development (1526–1858). Munich: prestel
Verlag.
Koch
1993/2001: ebba Koch. “The Delhi of the Mughals prior to Shahjahanabad as Reflected in the Patterns of
Imperial Visits”. In Art and Culture.
Felicitation Volume in Honour of Professor S. Nurul Hasan. edited by a.J. Qaisar and S.p. Verma. Jaipur
(reprinted in Koch 2001: pp. 163–82).
Koch
2005: ebba Koch. “The Taj Mahal: architecture, Symbolism, and Urban Significance”. Muqarnas: An Annual on
the Visual Culture of the Islamic World
22: 128–49.
Koch
2006: ebba Koch. The Complete Taj Mahal. london: Thames and hudson.
Koch
2007: ebba Koch. “My garden is hindustan: The Mughal Padshah’s realization of a political Metaphor”. in
Middle East Garden Traditions. Unity and
Diversity. Questions, Methods and Resources in a Multicultural Perspective. edited by Michel Conan.
Washington DC: Dumbarton oaks research
library, pp. 159–75.
latif
1892: Syed Muhammad latif. Lahore. Its History, Architectural Remains and Antiquities. lahore: The New imperial
press (reprint, lahore: Sang-e-Meel
publications, 2005).
Nath
1973: r. Nath. “Depiction of animate Motifs at the Tomb of i‘timad ud-Daulah at
agra”. Islamic Culture 47/4: 102–11 (reprinted in r. Nath. Some Aspects of Mughal Architecture.
New Delhi: abhinav, 1976).
Nath
1994: r. Nath. History of Mughal Architecture. Vol. III. The Transitional Phase of Colour and Design, Jehangir,
1605–1627 a.d. New Delhi: abhinav. Nath 2005: r. Nath. History of Mughal Architecture.
Vol. IV, Pt. I. The Age of Architectural
Aestheticism, Shah Jehan, 1628–1658 a.d. New Delhi: abhinav.
parihar
2015: Subhash parihar. Islamic Architecture of Punjab (1206–1707). New Delhi: aryan Books international.
pelsaert
1925: francisco pelsaert. Jahangir’s India. The Remonstrantie of Francisco Pelsaert. Translated by W.h.
Moreland and p. geyl. Cambridge: W.
Heffer & Sons.
Smith
1909: edmund Smith. Akbar’s Tomb, Sikandarah. allahabad: archaeological Survey of india.
Thompson
1911–12: J.p. Thompson. “The Tomb of emperor Jahangir”. Journal of the Panjab Historical Society 1:
12–30.
Tirmizi
1979: S.a.i. Tirmizi. Edicts from the Mughal Harem. Delhi: idarah-i adabiyat Delli.
Vogel
1920: J.p. Vogel. Tile-Mosaics of the Lahore Fort. Calcutta: Superintendent government printing (reprint,
Karachi: pakistan publication, 1972).
Post a Comment