See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/304529593

Transporting Sculptures and Transferring Prestige: Hoysaḷa-Style Reuse in the

Belur Āṇḍāḷ Shrine

Article · June 2016

DOI: 10.1080/02666030.2016.1176390

CITATIONS READS

0 108

1 author:

Katherine Kasdorf
Columbia University
3 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Katherine Kasdorf on 23 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Translating Sacred Space in Bijāpur: The Mosques of
Karı̄m al-Dı̄n and Khwāja Jahān*

katherine e. kasdorf
Columbia University

C elebrated for its ‘Ādil Shāhı̄ (1490–1686 ce) archi-

tectural treasures, the city of Bijāpur, in northern
Karnātaka (Fig. 1), has in recent years gained promi-
the monuments and urban layout developed during the
‘Ādil Shāhı̄ period,2 the city was already marked by a
cosmopolitan population and architectural activity be-
nence,˙ both in the popular domain as a destination for fore the ‘Ādil Shāhı̄s transformed it during the sixteenth
travel and tourism, and in the scholarly domain as and seventeenth centuries to serve as their capital.
an object of academic study.1 Although art-historical The city’s pre-‘Ādil Shāhı̄ periods, however, have
studies of Bijāpur have tended to focus attention upon received less attention. Two of Bijāpur’s lesser-known

Fig. 1. Map of Khaljı̄ sultanate (approxi-

mate boundaries).
58 ARCHIVES OF ASIAN ART

Fig. 2. Bijāpur citadel. ‘Ādil Shāhı̄ period. From Cousens, Bı̄jā-

pūr and its Architectural Remains. Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n is
no. 281, labelled ‘‘K-ud-D’s Mosque.’’ Mosque of Khwāja Jahān
is no. 294, labelled ‘‘Old Mosque.’’

monuments, the Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n (ca. 1320 ce)

and the so-called Mosque of Khwāja Jahān (ca. 14th c.),
stand approximately 400 yards apart within the citadel
at the center of the city, just inside its southern and Fig. 3. Plan of Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n. Bijāpur. Ca. 1320 ce.
From Cousens, Bı̄jāpūr and its Architectural Remains.
northern entrances, respectively (Figs. 2–6).3 Built dur-
ing a period when migrants from northern India were
changing the character of Bijāpur’s population, they
constitute the city’s earliest surviving ‘‘buildings of communication between members of multiple language
Islamic worship.’’4 Both mosques were constructed in groups and communities7 that will be central to my in-
local trabeate techniques from a combination of reused terpretation of both mosques’ incorporation of reused
and new architectural materials, which were carved materials and forms.
from stone and which bear a stylistic resemblance to Although previous scholarship has largely treated
their counterparts in the region’s surviving eleventh- to the mosques of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n and Khwāja Jahān as foot-
fourteenth-century temples. notes to a broader discussion on Bijāpuri or Deccani ar-
A bilingual Persian and Old Marāthı̄ foundation in- chitectural history, usually emphasizing constructions
˙
scription dates the Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n to 1320 ce from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, I hope
and names its patron, a local governor for the Khaljı̄ to demonstrate that bringing the fourteenth-century
sultanate of Delhi, which held power from 1290 to Bijāpuri mosques out of the margins and into the center
1320 and expanded its territories into the Deccan dur- of historical study yields rich material pertaining to a
ing the early fourteenth century.5 Both versions of the transitional moment in the region’s history. By consider-
inscription also name the mosque’s builder, Revaiye ing the architecture of the mosques, the inscriptions they
(called Rı̄bayya in the Persian transliteration of his contain, and the specific examples of reuse they present,
name), from the town Salehautage, identified as pres- I shall argue that the ways in which reused materials
˙ 6 This bilingual in-
ent-day Salotgi in Bijāpur district. were incorporated into each mosque suggest an attempt
scription is indexical of the cooperative interaction and on the part of the mosques’ architects and patrons to
 KATHERINE E. KASDORF  Translating Sacred Space in Bijāpur 59

express a conceptual similitude between two different

types of sacred space—in effect, to enact a visual and
conceptual translation between temple and mosque.8

The Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n is the larger of the two

structures, with a prayer hall of eleven aisles and six
bays measuring approximately 85.5 feet north-south by
51 feet east-west. The prayer hall stands at the western
end of a walled courtyard, which is accessed by a gate-
way to the east built from reused materials (Fig. 7). Al-
though Cousens believed this entrance to be a temple
mandapa (temple hall) left in situ,9 the absence of a
˙˙
plinth and the broken jālis (screens) around the door-
way reveal that it was a new construction out of reused
materials.10 Its roof is now missing, but slabs at the cor-
ners of the ceiling, arranged in octagonal form, suggest
Fig. 4. Schematic plan of Mosque of Khwāja Jahān. Bijāpur. the beginnings of a corbelled dome; it is not clear
Ca. 14th c. ce. whether such a dome was ever completed. Less elabo-

Fig. 5. Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n. Bijāpur. Ca. 1320 ce. View with shrine, prayer hall, staircase (on south), and northern courtyard
entrance.
60 ARCHIVES OF ASIAN ART

Fig. 6. Mosque of Khwāja Jahān. Bijāpur. Ca. 14th c. ce.

rate doorways are also found in the northern and south- no foundation inscription, but its mode of construc-
ern walls of the courtyard, closer to the prayer hall, tion from reused materials, like that of the Mosque of
but these have been filled in with blocks of stone (see Karı̄m al-Dı̄n, falls within a pattern of architectural
Figs. 3, 5). reuse seen in mosques built in the Deccani territories of
In its southeastern quadrant, the Karı̄m al-Dı̄n the Khaljı̄s and their Tughluq successors (1320–1414;
courtyard also contains a Sufi shrine, architecturally in Deccan ca. 1321–1347) during the first half of the
later than the mosque but thought to belong to the son fourteenth century. The 1884 Bombay Gazetteer states
of Pı̄r Ma‘barı̄ K’handā’it, an early fourteenth-century that the mosque was built under the order of the
Sufi figure associated with Bijāpur (Fig. 5).11 No epi- Bahmānı̄ minister Khwāja Jahān about 1488, but no
graph survives to record the date of the tomb’s installa- evidence is offered for this claim, and the mosque’s ar-
tion or the name of the person it commemorates, but chitecture suggests an earlier date.12 Although the reuse
examination of the structure could shed light on the of architectural materials is not unknown in the post-
character of the mosque’s community during and after Tughluq Deccan, regional dynastic styles developed dur-
the time of the shrine’s establishment. ing the periods of the Bahmānı̄ and subsequent Deccani
In contrast to the small complex connected to the sultanates (ca. 1347–1687) came to dominate new con-
Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n, the Mosque of Khwāja Jahān structions, and mosques tended not to be built primarily
consists solely of a prayer hall with nine aisles and six of reused materials.13 Since the forms of nearly all of
bays, measuring approximately 59.5 feet north-south its architectural elements can be identified with local
by 40 feet east-west; it has no extant courtyard wall idioms developed earlier through the region’s temple
or entrance gate. The Mosque of Khwāja Jahān has architecture,14 it is likely (though not definitive) that
 KATHERINE E. KASDORF  Translating Sacred Space in Bijāpur 61

Fig. 7. Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n. Interior of entrance hall.

the Mosque of Khwāja Jahān dates from the Khaljı̄ or the western qibla wall, which serve to orient prayer
Tughluq occupation of Bijāpur during the earlier part toward Mecca (Figs. 12–17). The central mihrāb of the
of the fourteenth century. Moreover, the additional fea- Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n is the only niche˙ in either
tures that it shares with the dated Mosque of Karı̄m al- mosque not to be contained within its wall, and is
Dı̄n suggest that a relatively short period of time sepa- marked by a rectangular projection on the exterior of
rated the building of the two mosques. the mosque’s western wall. Within each prayer hall, how-
In their architectural forms the two mosques show a ever, the central mihrāb is distinguished by the various
number of similarities, reflecting the common principles ˙
colors of its stone blocks (this is also true of the two
that informed their construction. Both have exterior minor mihrābs in the Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n). In both
staircases leading to the roof of the prayer hall—a fea- mosques, ˙reused beams—comprised of pilasters, sections
ture also seen in the Khaljı̄-period jāmi‘ masjid (congre- of adhisthānas (plinths), and lintels—are embedded into
gational mosque) of Daulatābād (1318)15 —where pre- the floor˙ ˙ of the prayer hall and arranged in a grid, outlin-
sumably the call to prayer was made (see Figs. 4, 5). ing the aisles of the pillared space (Fig. 8). In the Mosque
Also common to both Bijāpuri mosques and to the Dau- of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n these are now largely buried.
latābād jāmi‘ masjid are rounded bastions at the north- The reused pillars in both structures are stacked
west and southwest corners of each mosque’s exterior, together with blocks of stone and stand atop the beams
the heights of which are approximately half that of the of this grid. The irregular sizes of these pillars and their
walls to which they are attached (see Figs. 3, 4).16 The affinities with pillar styles seen in the region’s eleventh-
prayer chamber of each mosque consists of a pillared through fourteenth-century temples suggest that the pil-
hall with three rectangular mihrābs (prayer niches) on lars were reused from earlier structures.17 Most of the
˙
62 ARCHIVES OF ASIAN ART

Fig. 8. Mosque of Khwāja Jahān. Pillar and floor beams of

interior near qibla wall.

Fig. 9. Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n. Prayer hall pillars near north

mosques’ pillars are of a citrakhanda type (character- wall.
ized by block-like upper and lower˙ ˙segments separated
by one or more polygonal middle segments), although
both contain pillars of other types (Figs. 8–9). The
prayer hall of the Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n contains a stacked pillars and provides light to the interior of the
few pillars that disturb the regularity of its orthogonal prayer hall. Like the ceiling of the entrance hall, the ceil-
plan, including a particularly notable śrı̄kāra pillar (a ing of this extension is missing but has octagonally ar-
type characterized by its circular section, bell-shaped ranged slabs that suggest the base of a corbelled dome,
segments, and smooth finish) made of black stone, which may never have been finished.20 The prayer hall
which seems not only to be structurally functional but also receives light from two windows within its lateral
also to be intentionally arresting (Fig. 9). Uncharacter- walls, and in the Mosque of Khwāja Jahān there ap-
istic damage to the capital of the adjacent pillar suggests pears to have been a window, now filled with stone
that the śrı̄kāra pillar is a later insertion,18 and it may blocks, built into the prayer hall’s southern wall. Being
have been added to the mosque during the ‘Ādil Shāhı̄ situated toward the back of each prayer hall, these win-
period.19 dows—together with the lamps presumably used in the
An east-west axis is delineated in each mosque by mosques, as suggested by shelves built into the walls,
the central and widest aisle, which corresponds to the and by a hook and soot deposits found in at least one
principal mihrāb. In the Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n, this mihrāb (Fig. 20)—would have enabled visitors to see
central axis ˙ also extends to the courtyard’s entrance ˙ clearly the pillared space of each prayer hall and
more
gateway and to a central clerestory-like extension pro- the mihrābs toward which prayer was directed.
truding from the prayer hall’s roof, which is formed by As˙ will become clear, their interior visibility is signifi-
 KATHERINE E. KASDORF  Translating Sacred Space in Bijāpur 63

cant to the analysis of these two early Bijāpuri mosques Deccani military expeditions conducted by ‘Alā’ al-Dı̄n
and the architectural reuse they incorporate. Compar- and his general Malik Kafūr through the second decade
ing the mosques’ architectural forms with those of of the fourteenth century seem principally to have been
local idioms surviving from Kalyāni Cālukya-period aimed at filling the Khaljı̄ treasury with wealth from the
˙
(ca. 973–1189) and Yādava (Seuna)-period (ca. 1189– kingdoms of the Yādavas and their neighbors. After
˙
early 14th c.) temples, and considering the possible the Yādava ruler Siṅghana III (r. 1312–1313) neglected
meanings associated with each, suggests a ‘‘modified ˙
to pay tribute, however, Khaljı̄ forces occupied his king-
continuity’’21 between temple and mosque, both for- dom in 1313, killing the king in battle and reasserting
mally and in their meanings for visitors to the mosques. their power over his successors. Coins were struck at
Put in slightly different terms, the forms and meanings Devagiri in the name of the Khaljı̄ sultan beginning in
of the mosques’ reused materials might be considered 1314–1315, indicating the incorporation of Yādava ter-
to express a ‘‘dynamic continuity’’ between non-Islamic ritories into the Khaljı̄ sultanate and the introduction of
and Islamic modalities, or to be part of a ‘‘translation’’ sultanate governance to the region.24
between these modalities.22 The inscriptions within the It is likely that a Khaljı̄ governor was installed at
Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n—composed in local languages Bijāpur at about this time. Under the Yādavas and their
as well as languages that in 1320 ce are likely have Kalyāni Cālukya predecessors, Bijāpur—then known by
been relatively new to Bijāpur—add another dimension ˙
its Sanskrit name, Vijayāpura—had been a provincial
to the mosque’s capacity for expression and translation. capital.25 The city appears to have continued as such
If these inscriptions attest the heterogeneity of Bijāpur’s under Khaljı̄ rule, which became firmly established
population during the time of the city’s occupation by there before the end of the reign of Sultan Qutb al-Dı̄n
Delhi, so too does the building within which they are Mubārak Shāh (r. 1316–1320), as the foundation ˙ in-
contained: the mosque’s very materials and architec- scription of the Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n indicates. Mus-
tural forms invite multiple readings—not only by post- lims may have lived there prior to the establishment of a
modern academics seeking to challenge inherited binary sultanate government in the city, although the size and
constructs, I would argue, but also by Bijāpur’s four- character of Bijāpur’s early Muslim population is not
teenth-century inhabitants. As exemplified by both the clear; apart from the city’s earliest surviving mosques,
Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n and the Mosque of Khwāja no contemporary documentation of this community is
Jahān, the stylistic overlap between the region’s non- known to exist. Although later textual sources recount
Islamic and early Islamic architecture is not only a prod- the lives of individual Sufis who lived in or near Bijāpur
uct of the arguably pragmatic constructional method of during the end of the thirteenth century and the begin-
reuse, but also signals an act of communication—an act ning of the fourteenth, the historical accuracy of these
of translation—between individuals or groups of indi- accounts has been questioned.26 Although the exis-
viduals with very different cultural backgrounds. tence of Sufi figures in early fourteenth-century Bijāpur
need not be rejected entirely (even if their biographical
Although the type of translation I am proposing for representation by later texts is not accepted), their
Bijāpur’s earliest surviving Islamic ritual buildings can personalities and activities are impossible to character-
be argued for both mosques, it is more strongly ex- ize. Whether or not there was a Sufi presence in the
pressed in the Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n. This building is city, the Muslim community in early fourteenth-century
larger than the Mosque of Khwāja Jahān and seems to Bijāpur probably included Khaljı̄ officials, other mi-
be Bijāpur’s earliest surviving jāmi‘ masjid, as suggested grants to the area, and locals who had incorporated
by a Qur’ānic verse inscribed on the central mihrāb re- Islam into their religious lives.
ferring to congregational Friday prayers (Qur’ān ˙ 62:9– Since the patronage of mosques was considered an
23
11). The mosque was built at a time when new groups obligation owed by a sultanate ruler to his realm,27 the
of migrants were coming to the Deccan from northern establishment of a provincial capital at Bijāpur would
India and other regions, bringing with them languages have called for government sponsorship of a mosque
and cultural traditions that were not yet rooted in this there to be used by Muslim subjects. The Persian and
part of the subcontinent. Khaljı̄ incursions into the Old Marāthı̄ foundation inscription in the Mosque of
Deccan had begun in 1296 under Sultan ‘Alā’ al-Dı̄n ˙ represents the fulfillment of this obligation
Karı̄m al-Dı̄n
(r. 1296–1316), when the sultan’s forces invaded the through the patronage of the Khaljı̄ governor, Malik
Yādava capital Devagiri (renamed Daulatābād in the Karı̄m al-Dı̄n, in cooperation with a local craftsperson,
1320s) and forced king Rāmacandra (r. 1271–1312) Revaiye of Salehautage. Both versions of the inscription
to pay tribute to Delhi. Following this first raid, the are carved into a˙ simple citrakhanda pillar stacked
˙˙
64 ARCHIVES OF ASIAN ART

Fig. 10. Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n. Pillar with bilingual foundation inscription. (above) Persian; (below) Old Marāthı̄. Inscription repro-
ductions from Nazim, Bijapur Inscriptions. ˙

atop a stone fragment near the front of the prayer hall, speaking zones—several words in the inscription are u-
two pillars in from the north wall (Fig. 10).28 Facing ending ‘‘Kannadizations’’ of Marāthı̄ a- or consonant-
the courtyard, both receive enough light to be clearly ending nouns. ˙The inscription may˙ be translated as
32
legible, although the Devanāgarı̄ of the longer Old follows:
Marāthı̄ inscription is written in a more controlled man-
˙ the ‘‘broken Nasta‘lı̄q’’29 of the shorter Persian
ner than Hail! In the auspicious Śaka (year) 1242 (1320 ce),
inscription carved into the upper section of the pillar, in the Raudra year of the Samvatsara cycle, during
and is closer to (yet slightly below) eye level. Despite the victorious reign of the illustrious Sudubudı̄n
the aesthetic shortcomings of the Persian inscription, it (Qutb al-Dı̄n), Malik Krimı̄din (Karı̄m ˙ al-Dı̄n), who
is nonetheless legible and has been translated thus:30 ˙
was appointed by him, had a spacious33 mosque
made at Vijeyāpūra, the Varanāsi of the south.
Lord of the kings of the east, Karı̄mu’d-Dawlah
Revaiye, the architect/mason34˙ from Sālehautage,
wa’d-Dı̄n, may his fortune endure, gave as reward
constructed the mosque. The Malik gave him˙ a
to Rı̄bayya, the architect/mason31 of this mosque,
field in the village of Bitūr, (measuring) twenty-four
twenty-four nı̄tans of land in the village of Bitūr.
nı̄tans and twenty-four cubits, and made it free
The language of the Old Marāthı̄ text reflects Bijāpur’s from taxes and obstructions. (May there be) great
location at the intersection of ˙Marāthı̄- and Kannada- prosperity.
˙ ˙
 KATHERINE E. KASDORF  Translating Sacred Space in Bijāpur 65

It is likely that a local scribe executed both compo- the system of kingship prevalent at Bijāpur before
nents of the inscription: in keeping with local conven- the arrival of the Khaljı̄s. The structure of authority em-
tions, the Marāthı̄ and the Persian records are both in- bedded in a Cālukya inscription, dated Śaka 996 (1074/
cised (rather than ˙ being carved in relief, as is more 1075 ce), which records the construction of a temple
typical for mosque inscriptions), and the hesitant quality to Svayambhū Siddheśvara in Vijayāpura by the local
of the Persian letter forms suggests the work of someone governor on behalf of the Cālukya king,37 parallels the
relatively unfamiliar with the script. Furthermore, per- political hierarchy implied by the Old Marāthı̄ inscrip-
haps as a deliberate measure to reduce the amount of tion in the Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n, which ˙ acclaims
Persian to be carved, the Persian inscription is consider- Sultan Qutb al-Dı̄n before crediting the malik for his
ably shorter than the Marāthı̄, recording only the essen- patronage ˙of the mosque. Such commonalities in the ar-
tial information pertaining˙ to Karı̄m al-Dı̄n’s payment chitectural patronage of both the Khaljı̄s and their pre-
to Revaiye. The recognition of the head craftsman in decessors may have increased the translational potential
both versions of the inscription marks another continu- both of individual acts of patronage and of the new
ity with local conventions, for the names of craftspeople type of Islamic ritual architecture sponsored in early
are fairly commonplace in the epigraphical material of fourteenth-century Bijāpur. Within the city’s changing
temples in Karnātaka.35 As the Marāthı̄ version of the social and architectural landscapes, conventions pertain-
inscription indicates, ˙ ˙ a village near
Revaiye came from ing to patronage and its textual representation provided
Bijāpur; he had most likely been trained in the regional certain continuities. Although the Khaljı̄ sultanate is not
architectural modes used for the construction of temples known to have funded any temple in Bijāpur, its gover-
and other structures. It is likely that the team of workers nor’s patronage of a different kind of religious edifice—
who built the mosque were also locals, who would have and the bilingual record of this patronage—may have
been trained in the architectural methods used for tem- figured in the potentiality for non-Muslim residents of
ples. One should not, however, rule out the possibility Bijāpur to understand Karı̄m al-Dı̄n’s mosque as an
that builders who were familiar with the mosques analogue to the state-sponsored temples with which
located in the Khaljı̄s’ territory to the north also worked they were likely better acquainted.
on the mosque in Bijāpur, whether they were migrants Since the inscriptions in the Mosque of Karı̄m al-
from northern India or Deccanis who had perhaps Dı̄n are among the earliest surviving documents of Islam
worked on other Khaljı̄ mosques, such as the jāmi‘ in Bijāpur, some of the city’s early fourteenth-century
masjid built in the former Yādava capital of Deva- residents might not have been familiar with Islam prior
giri (present-day Daulatābād, Qutb al-Dı̄n Khaljı̄’s to the Khaljı̄ campaigns. Possibly, these individuals
Qutbābād), dated by inscription to ˙ 1318 ce and also would have learned about Islam at the mosque, which
˙
constructed with trabeate techniques from reused archi- as a jāmi‘ masjid is likely to have been a place to con-
tectural materials.36 gregate not only for prayer but also for discussion
It is also noteworthy that, although the Persian in- and education.38 Indeed, the Kannada-inflected Old
scription names the architect, or head craftsperson, of Marāthı̄ foundation inscription suggests ˙ that Marāthı̄
the mosque, it omits reference to Karı̄m al-Dı̄n’s over- speakers would have been among those who came ˙to
˙
lord, Sultan Qutb al-Dı̄n Khaljı̄. In the Marāthı̄ ver- the mosque; conceivably some of these individuals
˙
sion of the inscription, ˙
the sultan’s name—preceded would have been locals who had not been raised as
by the Sanskrit honorific Śrı̄—appears before the Muslims but had chosen to incorporate Islam into their
malik’s name. In the Persian inscription, however, lives in response to its growing presence in their city. It
Karı̄m al-Dı̄n is effectively represented as an indepen- is within this social context that we must view the con-
dent ruler. Not only through titulature but also through struction of the mosque that Revaiye and his team of
the documentation in stone of his act of patronage, both workers built under the patronage of Malik Karı̄m al-
inscriptions contribute to the authority of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n Dı̄n, for the forms of the mosque and its specific reuse
as Bijāpur’s ruler. Moreover, in addition to representing of architectural materials point toward the encounter
Karı̄m al-Dı̄n as a sultanate official carrying out his duty between local, non-Islamic traditions and recently intro-
to construct a mosque for the city, the inscriptions situ- duced modalities associated with Islam. While the dif-
ate him within the local tradition regarding state pat- ferent components of the mosque’s bilingual founda-
ronage of architecture. tion inscription translate the most essential information
As the construction of mosques was a duty of of the transaction they described, textually conveying
the sultanate government, so too was the construction that information to different linguistic communities, cer-
of temples a duty of the king and his governors within tain physical components of the mosque are used—or
66 ARCHIVES OF ASIAN ART

reused—in a way that would translate information about prayer halls are related to the pillared mandapas that
the function of the space they created, visually conveying were part of the local architectural tradition˙ ˙pre-dating
information about the mosque to individuals who were buildings associated with Islamic culture.39 Although
more familiar with different kinds of sacred space. possibly some of the pillars were carved anew for the
mosques in local styles, it is more likely that most, if
Although the foregoing sketch of early fourteenth- not all, were in fact reused elements, as they vary in
century Bijāpur has been related explicitly to the Mosque size and are stacked along with stone blocks to achieve
of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n, much of my discussion of the social the desired height for each prayer hall.
and historical context of its construction may also be Stylistically, the mosques’ pillars conform to con-
applied to the Mosque of Khwāja Jahān. As I have ventions that were current in northern Karnataka be-
argued above, based on its construction from reused tween the eleventh and fourteenth centuries; this dating
architectural materials, the Mosque of Khwāja Jahān is confirmed by five Old Kannada inscriptions of the Yā
is roughly contemporary with the Mosque of Karı̄m al- dava period preserved on some ˙ of the reused pillars
Dı̄n, built within the first half of the fourteenth century along the facade of the Mosque of Khwāja Jahān40 and
during Bijāpur’s Khaljı̄ or Tughluq period. Before detail- by a damaged Kannada inscription of 1256/1257 ce on
ing the similarities between the two Bijāpuri mosques, ˙
the interior of the Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n’s north
41
however, their differences (both actual and potential) wall. Cālukya- and Yādava-period inscriptions, which
should be acknowledged. were later built into the southern gateway of the ‘Ādil
Although both mosques were probably constructed Shāhı̄ walls to the citadel, suggest the presence of a
at a time when the city was occupied by a Delhi-based Narasimha temple in the city at least since the mid-
sultanate, and they share a number of architectural sim- eleventh˙ century,42 and a Sanskrit and Old Kannada
ilarities, it should not be assumed that the functions and foundation inscription later built into the same gateway ˙
meanings of the two mosques were identical. Perhaps records the consecration of a temple to Svayambhū Śiva
most significantly, the Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n was in 1074/1075 ce.43 The Narasimha and Svayambhū
distinguished as the city’s jāmi‘ masjid. As such, it is ˙
Śiva temples (neither of which survives), or buildings
the larger of the two mosques and it may have been associated with them, may have been the source of
more community-oriented than the Mosque of Khwāja some, if not all, of the two mosques’ materials. Indeed,
Jahān. The inscriptions of the Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n the Yādava-period inscriptions found in the Mosque of
suggest that it was intended for a wide community of Khwāja Jahān indicate at least that pillars were taken
Muslims, but we have no way of knowing for whom from the Svayambhū Śiva temple, or from a related
the Mosque of Khwāja Jahān was built. Worship on its structure, for the construction of that mosque. The
grounds may or may not have been restricted to a par- earliest of the inscriptions contained in the pillars of the
ticular social class or sectarian affiliation. Furthermore, mosque dates from the period of the Yādava ruler Jaitugi
because the precise date and patron of the Mosque of (r. 1191–1210) and records the donation of a pillar
Khwāja Jahān are unknown, it cannot be determined by Vijayabbe, wife of one Ayyanayya.44 This and two
whether it was constructed before or after the Mosque other inscriptions (the dates of which correspond to
of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n, or whether its patron held a govern- 1236 and 1272 ce) documenting payment to crafts-
ment post—and both relative date and nature of pat- people for their work on the temple of Svayambhū Śiva-
ronage may have been significant to its initial reception liṅgadeva45 indicate that additions or renovations were
and use. made to the eleventh-century temple during the thir-
Even while recognizing these differences, certain teenth century, and that the pillars on which the records
features common to both mosques are important, not are inscribed may also date from this period. The re-
only for the purposes of dating the Mosque of Khwāja maining two Yādava-period inscriptions on the Mosque
Jahān, but also for what they suggest about the pro- of Khwāja Jahān record gifts to the temple in 1222
cesses involved in the buildings’ construction and recep- and 1258 ce of presses to produce oil for the temple
tion. The pillars of both mosques provide especially rich lamps.46
information about these processes, and even point It is significant that the pillars bearing these inscrip-
toward possible sources for the mosques’ reused mate- tions have been placed along the facade of the mosque
rials. As in many South Asian Islamic ritual buildings —albeit with the inscriptions facing north or south
that incorporate styles and techniques first developed rather than east (front)—where they receive enough
for the non-Islamic architecture of their respective re- light to be read by someone who is literate in Kannada.
gions, in pillar style and arrangement both Bijāpuri Evidently, the builders or patron(s) of this mosque were ˙
 KATHERINE E. KASDORF  Translating Sacred Space in Bijāpur 67

Fig. 11. Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n. Facade.

interested in preserving the records that the inscriptions unlikely to have been merely coincidental. So too for
document, despite their relevance to a temple which the arrangement of the uninscribed materials that were
may at that point no longer have been in use. If the reused in both the Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n and the
Svayambhū Śiva temple in Vijayāpura had been politi- Mosque of Khwāja Jahān. Pragmatic though it may
cally significant to the Yādava state, perhaps it was have been, this reuse was no haphazard recycling of the
selectively dismantled, as in the frontier mosque model available materials, but rather demonstrates a deliberate
proposed by Eaton and others, which argues for the po- orchestration of architectural elements according to
litical significance of mosques constructed from spolia.47 their color and design, a process which suggests careful
If such was the case, the display of these inscriptions on planning for an aesthetic effect.48 Along the facades of
the facade of the Mosque of Khwāja Jahān may have both prayer halls, for instance, pillars and the blocks
been intended to accentuate the political statement of on which they are stacked exhibit vivid color combina-
the reuse itself. Alternatively, a certain historical con- tions of reds, grays, and beiges, produced by the differ-
sciousness on the part of the builders or patron(s) may ent types of stone used to carve each architectural ele-
have warranted the preservation of the documents, re- ment. Each mosque also contains a variety of pillars,
gardless of their significance to the community of the most being some form of the sectioned citrakhanda
new mosque. The language of the inscriptions begs the ˙˙
type, and their composition within each prayer hall indi-
question of their readability to visitors, and the num- cates aesthetically informed choices. In the Mosque of
ber of Kannada-literate individuals who came to the Karı̄m al-Dı̄n the more ornate pillars with prismatically
˙
mosque is a matter of speculation. To whatever degree carved central registers tend to be concentrated around
the mosque’s community itself was familiar with the in- the center of the mosque; in the prayer hall facade this
scriptions, their particular arrangement in the mosque type of pillar is reserved for the aisle that leads to the
suggests a choice informed by a sense that those inscrip- central mihrāb (Fig. 11). In both mosques the more
tions were in some way important. ˙
slender pillars tend to be located around the edges of
Even if the inscribed pillars had not been deliber- the prayer hall, with those of more substantial propor-
ately sought out but were simply among the available tions occupying the central space; although this arrange-
materials to be used for the construction of the Mosque ment is likely to serve structural purposes, it also
of Khwāja Jahān, their placement along the facade is contributes a visual effect (Figs. 3–6, 11). Similarly,
68 ARCHIVES OF ASIAN ART

Fig. 12. Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n. Cen-

tral mihrāb.
˙

the largest and most elaborate pillars of the region’s degree of commonality between the two.50 In four-
eleventh- through fourteenth-century temple mandapas teenth-century Bijāpur this architectural translation was
are usually reserved for the center of the hall. This˙ ˙over- expressed not only through pillars and their arrange-
lap between mandapa and mosque is likely to reflect the ment but also through the mihrābs of the mosques.
choices made by˙ local
˙ craftspeople, who may have inter- Moreover, I propose that it is the˙ central mihrāb, the
preted the pillared halls commissioned for the mosques sacred focus of the space, where the visual ˙and con-
in the architectural terms of a better-known type of pil- ceptual translation enacted by the architecture of each
lared hall,49 at the same time, these choices created a mosque is most highly concentrated.
space which for the visitor has the potential to recall Composed of eye-catching forms and color combi-
the space of a temple. In the mosque’s construction we nations, the Bijāpuri mihrābs compel visual attention
see a transfer of architectural form from mandapa to and, as niches that mark ˙the direction of Mecca, toward
prayer hall; in its reception by individuals who ˙ ˙ were
which Muslims pray, would have been seen by visitors
more familiar with temple practices than with Islam, to the mosques especially during the moments surround-
we see the visual translation of a temple space into a ing their acts of prayer (Figs. 12–17). Outlining the
mosque space. niches are stacked blocks of stone that have been cut so
as to form a pointed arch. Most seem to have been newly
In the translation that, I submit, informed Bijāpur’s carved, although the central mihrāb of the Mosque of
earliest surviving mosques, the aim was most likely not ˙
Karı̄m al-Dı̄n appears to incorporate previously sculpted
to find an exact equivalence between temple and mosque, materials into its lower register. Along with rosettes,
but rather to express one type of sacred space in terms ratnas and other decorative motifs, Qur’ānic passages
of the other, and in so doing to communicate a certain and Muslim prayers are carved into the borders of the
 KATHERINE E. KASDORF  Translating Sacred Space in Bijāpur 69

Fig. 13. Mosque of Khwāja Jahān.

Central mihrāb.
˙

central mihrāb of each mosque, and in the Mosque of inscribed with the Bismillāh, the Throne Verse, and the
˙
Karı̄m al-Dı̄n, the shahāda (the Muslim statement of following two Qur’ānic verses (2:255–57), and the
faith) is carved above each minor mihrāb. Unlike the already mentioned passage from the chapter on Friday
˙ these inscrip-
foundation inscription discussed above, prayers (62:9–11).51
tions are carved in relief in well-executed scripts. Al- The central mihrābs of both mosques are distin-
though the inscriptions on the central mihrāb of the ˙
guished by their bipartite conception, as articulated
˙
Mosque of Khwāja Jahān are badly worn, Qur’ān through their color schemes—a reddish stone con-
72:18, stating that mosques are for prayer to Allāh and stitutes the upper section of the Karı̄m al-Dı̄n mihrāb,
Allāh alone, can be deciphered on the right side of the ˙
and gray stone the lower section; for the Khwāja Jahān
niche’s framework, and the Darud prayer, invoking mihrāb the opposite is true (Figs. 12, 13). The vertical
peace upon Prophet Muhammad, appears on the left. ˙
moldings of each mihrāb are continuous between the
Between the two, above the point of the arch, is a two sections, creating˙an integrated design. This decora-
medallion containing the names of Allāh and Muham- tive treatment of both central mihrābs has the potential
mad. The Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n’s central mihrāb ˙ is ˙
to recall the doorframes of Cālukya and Yādava tem-
˙
70 ARCHIVES OF ASIAN ART

Fig. 14. Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n. South-

ern mihrāb.
˙

ples. Like the Bijāpuri mihrābs, the temple doorframes ple at Nimbal,52 located about 20 miles northeast of
were usually conceived in ˙ upper and lower sections ˙ a striking comparison, as their inner
Bijāpur, provide
that are unified through vertical moldings of contin- vertical moldings are carved in motifs identical to those
uous widths. Each mihrāb, however, also asserts differ- of the mihrāb and their lower sections are left un-
˙
ence from local, non-Islamic architectural conventions ˙
adorned (Figs. 18A, 19). The outer molding in the
through its Qur’ānic inscriptions and its pointed arch Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n’s mihrāb does not contain the
(a shape not found in surviving Deccani architecture same figural imagery as that of ˙ the Nimbal doorframes,
built before the fourteenth century); both mosques’ but neither do Cālukya and Yādava temple ˙ doorways
minor mihrābs are also distinguished by pointed arches. always contain such imagery. Moreover, the Karı̄m al-
˙
Whereas the lower moldings in the Mosque of Dı̄n mihrāb itself does not completely eschew figural
Khwāja Jahān’s central mihrāb are devoid of decora- imagery:˙ although subtle, small kı̄rtimukhas (‘‘face of
˙
tion, the central colonnette and vegetal motifs of those glory’’ motifs) can be seen in the central colonnette to
in the Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n’s central mihrāb resem- each side of the niche (Fig. 18B).53
˙
ble the sculptural framework around many doorways of For the Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n, there seems to
the region’s temples, being plain only at the base. The have been a deliberate choice to reuse these particular
lower section of this mihrāb seems to have been reused doorway components in the central mihrāb, since mold-
from the upper section˙ of a temple doorway. Door- ings have been carefully carved into the˙ upper section to
frames from the late twelfth-century Śaṅkarliṅga tem- correspond to the vertical courses already present be-
 KATHERINE E. KASDORF  Translating Sacred Space in Bijāpur 71

Fig. 15. Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n.

Northern mihrāb.
˙

low. Diamond-shaped ratna motifs have even been mihrābs—seems to have been informed by a perceived
˙
carved to match those of the innermost course. Signifi- similarity between the two forms of sacred space. In a
cantly, such doorframes were not only built around the move similar to the transfer of architectural conventions
entrances into temples but also frequently frame the from mandapa to prayer hall, it is likely that the local
doorway leading into the garbhagrha (sanctum), the ˙ ˙ who worked on the mosques conceptual-
craftspeople
˙ of a temple. As a
most sacred and ritually potent space ized the mihrāb in terms of a garbhagrha, using known
mihrāb also marks the sacred focus of a mosque, the principles to˙ build a new kind of space.
˙ Notably, this
˙
choice to reuse the doorframe for the Mosque of Karı̄m did not occur in Bijāpur alone, for Patel has convinc-
al-Dı̄n—and the overall design of both mosques’ central ingly argued that Gujarāti masons during the thirteenth
72 ARCHIVES OF ASIAN ART

Fig. 16. Mosque of Khwāja Jahān. South-

ern mihrāb.
˙

and fourteenth centuries also seem to have concep- a temple devotees proceed through the mandapa and
tualized mihrābs in the architectural terms of temple ˙˙
stop at the sanctum doorway, where they visually con-
sanctums.54˙ nect with the deity and priests offer pūjā (worship) as
The Bijāpuri mihrābs—particularly that of the jāmi‘ the devotees look on. In a mosque one also walks
masjid commissioned ˙ by Malik Karı̄m al-Dı̄n—were, I
through the pillared hall before offering prayer, which
would argue, conceived as garbhagrha doorways not is performed before the mihrāb. Although the process
˙
only architecturally but also in a ritually meaningful of Muslim prayer and Islamic˙ theistic principles differ
way. The spatial relationship between the prayer hall from those of Brahmanical temple pūjā, there is a cer-
and the mihrāb corresponds to that which exists be- tain amount of conceptual overlap between the two
tween a man ˙ dapa and a garbhagrha: in each case a
ritual systems. By reusing for its mihrāb the type of
˙ ˙ area precedes a smaller
wider pillared ˙ space that serves doorframe that would have marked a˙ garbhagrha, the
as the sacred focus for the building, namely, the sanc- ˙
Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n translates temple conventions
tum of a temple or the prayer-niche of a mosque. In into an Islamic context to signal the sacred focus of the
 KATHERINE E. KASDORF  Translating Sacred Space in Bijāpur 73

Fig. 17. Mosque of Khwāja Jahān.

Northern mihrāb.
˙

space, toward which worship and prayer are directed. a lamp would have hung, remains within the central
The design of the Mosque of Khwāja Jahān’s mihrāb po- mihrāb (Fig. 20). The lamp within the mihrāb un-
˙ subtly
tentially served this purpose as well, albeit more ˙ ˙
doubtedly would have resonated with individuals who
than its counterpart in the contemporary jāmi‘ masjid. knew of the Qur’ān’s Light Verse (24:35), which com-
The visual translation enacted by the Karı̄m al-Dı̄n pares the Light of God to the light of a lamp hung
mihrāb is further reinforced by an object that would within a niche. Considering this symbolism, the Karı̄m
˙ been placed within it. Whereas the doorway lead-
have al-Dı̄n mihrāb, we can imagine, framed what had be-
ing into a temple sanctum visually frames the image of ˙ for the formless God, much as a garbhagrha
come a sign
the deity or the liṅga (the symbol of the god Śiva’s un- doorway frames the iconic image or liṅga that stands ˙
manifest form) installed within the garbhagrha, the cen- for and embodies a particular god.55 The lack of dam-
tral mihrāb of the Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n˙ (and possi- age to the area around the hook suggests its contempo-
bly also˙ that of the Mosque of Khwāja Jahān) would raneity with the mihrāb, and the light symbolism is rein-
˙ of lamps carved into the mihrāb’s
forced by the images
have framed a lamp. Although lamps are no longer
colonnettes (Fig. 18A). These lamp motifs seem ˙ to
kept within the mosque, part of a hook, from which
74 ARCHIVES OF ASIAN ART

Fig. 18B. Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n (detail). Kı̄rtimukhas of

central mihrāb.
˙

Fig. 18A. Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n. Central mihrāb (detail). tions would have been read by many of Bijāpur’s resi-
˙
dents, but the verses chosen suggest the patron’s intent
in constructing the mosque: it was to be a jāmi‘ masjid
and its congregation would ideally include individuals
who had converted to Islam. Whatever form conversion
constitute the only area of the mihrāb’s lower section to Islam may have taken in fourteenth-century Bijāpur,
˙
to have been carved anew for the mosque, suggesting it is for such individuals that the translation between
the significance of lamp imagery to the community for temple and mosque would have been most useful: Mus-
which they were sculpted. lims who had migrated to Bijāpur from northern India
The association between God and light is reinforced or elsewhere are likely to have seen the prayer hall and
by the larger of the two inscriptions that frame the mihrāb primarily as the standard parts of a mosque,
upper portion of the Karı̄m al-Dı̄n mihrāb, correspond- ˙
whereas residents of Bijāpur who were newer to Islam
ing to the colonnette below. Following ˙ the Bismillāh may have understood them through the corresponding
and the Throne Verse (2:255), describing Allāh’s protec- elements of temples.
tion of all existence, the next two verses praise volun-
tary conversion to Islam (2:256) and admonish unbe- In the foregoing study, I have not discussed in de-
lievers, whose gods ‘‘lead them from light to darkness.’’ tail the possible political significance of Bijāpur’s early
Allāh, it is said, instead leads the faithful ‘‘from dark- mosques. Constructed on the Khaljı̄ frontier from reused
ness to light’’ (2:257).56 The other Qur’ānic passage materials, at least some of which came from Bijāpur’s
(62:9–11), inscribed closer to the mihrāb’s opening, in- temple of Svayambhū Śiva, the mosques plausibly could
structs believers in their observance˙ of congregational have incorporated political statements. As a congrega-
Friday prayer. It is unlikely that the mihrāb’s inscrip- tional mosque sponsored by a Khaljı̄ governor, Karı̄m
˙
 KATHERINE E. KASDORF  Translating Sacred Space in Bijāpur 75

al-Dı̄n’s mosque probably expressed its patron’s politi-

cal authority, and its reuse of materials may have con-
tributed to this assertion of power.57 Political motives
may also have informed the construction of the mosque
named for one Khwāja Jahān, but without more specific
information about this mosque’s patronage we can only
speculate about its political significance. Politics not-
withstanding, the mosques themselves should not be
viewed exclusively as a triumphal gesture made by the
new Muslim rulers of Bijāpur in the fourteenth century.
Whether or not the reused architectural parts were
perceived by some individuals as trophies of conquest,
each resulting architectural whole was to be used as a
space for worship. We should not assume that the reuse
of temple materials would have been uniformly offen-
sive to non-Muslims, for reused materials have also
been incorporated into temples such as the shrine of
Bhūbaneśvarı̄ at Vijayanagara.58 If Bijāpur’s jāmi‘ mas-
jid of 1320 did in fact play a role in converting locals to
Islam, then its architectural materials may even have
provided a setting which to them connoted a place of
worship. The manner in which reused materials have
been incorporated into both mosques, and the design of
newly produced materials, create bilingual visual cues
that mark each prayer hall as a space for worship and
each principal mihrāb as the focus of worship. At a
time and place where˙ Islam was only beginning to take
root, the functions of mosque architecture were ex-
pressed in a way that would have been recognizable to
Fig. 19. Śaṅkarliṅga Temple. Nimbal. Ca. late 12th c. ce. Muslims, non-Muslims, and new Muslims alike.
Detail of doorframe. ˙

Fig. 20. Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n (detail).

Hook for lamp in central mihrāb.
˙
76 ARCHIVES OF ASIAN ART

Notes vas, ‘‘Karimuddin Mosque of Bijapur,’’ in Art and Archi-

tecture in Karnataka, Papers Presented at the National
*This article further develops a paper I presented in Seminar on Archaeology, 1985, ed. D. V. Devaraj and
San Francisco at the American Council for Southern Asian Channabasappa S. Patil (Mysore: Directorate of Archaeol-
Art’s Symposium XIII, 3 March 2007. For their input on ogy and Museums, 1996), pp. 273–75; Michell and
earlier versions of this article, for bibliographical sugges- Zebrowski, Deccan Sultanates, p. 63 (where the mosque
tions, and for productive discussions, my deepest gratitude is incorrectly dated to 1310). For the foundation inscrip-
goes to Barry Flood, Phil Wagoner, Dick Eaton, Mark tion of the Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n, see M. Nazim, Bija-
Brand, Abdul Gani Imaratwale, John Henry Rice (whom I pur Inscriptions, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of
also thank for his contribution to the plan of the Mosque India, vol. 49 (Delhi: Manager of Publications, 1936),
of Khwāja Jahān and the map in Fig. 1), Alka Patel, Vidya p. 25; Verma, Glories, pp. 71–74. For the Mosque of
Dehejia, an anonymous reviewer, and the general editor Khwāja Jahān, see Cousens, p. 43. Although the patron
of Archives of Asian Art, Naomi Richard. Additionally, of this mosque is unknown, for the sake of consistency I
I have benefited from discussions in the colloquium ‘‘Inter- shall use the label ‘‘Khwāja Jahān.’’
cultural Islam: Betwixt and Between in the Medieval 4. I take the phrase ‘‘buildings of Islamic worship’’
World,’’ led by Prof. Barry Flood at New York Univer- (and ‘‘Islamic ritual buildings’’) from Alka Patel. See Build-
sity’s Institute of Fine Arts, Spring 2006. Any remaining ing Communities in Gujarāt: Architecture and Society dur-
shortcomings are, of course, my own. ing the Twelfth through Fourteenth Centuries (Leiden and
Travel to Bijāpur was made possible by the Douglas F. Boston: E. J. Brill, 2004), pp. 31–32.
Maxwell Award from New York University’s Department 5. Nazim, Bijapur Inscriptions, No. 3252, p. 25;
of Fine Arts (2003) and by a summer travel grant from Co- Verma, Glories, pp. 71–74. I shall discuss this inscription
lumbia University’s Department of Art History and Archae- below.
ology (2006). For their assistance and hospitality during my 6. Nazim, Bijapur Inscriptions, p. 25.
July 2006 stay in Bijāpur, I am grateful to Dr. Abdul Gani 7. For a detailed analysis of the cross-cultural interac-
Imaratwale and family, Maulana Muhummad Zakir, and tions indexed by another bilingual inscription, dated to
Sayyed Mujtaba Hussaini Jahagirdar and family. 1264 ce, from Somanātha-Verāval (Gujarāt), see Alka
1. For the most recently published study of ‘Ādil Shāhı̄ Patel, ‘‘Transcending Religion: Socio-Linguistic Evidence
Bijāpur, see Deborah S. Hutton, Art of the Court of Bija- from the Somanātha-Verāval Inscription of 1264 C.E.,’’ in
pur (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2006). Mark Ancient India and Its Wider World, ed. Carla Sinopoli and
Brand’s (Doctoral Candidate, Cambridge University) thesis Grant Parker (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,
titled ‘‘The Citadel of Bijapur: The Architecture and Ritual 2007), pp. 143–64. Composed in Sanskrit and Arabic,
Topography of a Deccan Sultanate Centre,’’ not only the Somanātha-Verāval inscription was perhaps directed
treats the ‘Ādil Shāhı̄ period but also considers the city’s toward a more elite audience than was the Marāthı̄ and
pre-‘Ādil Shāhı̄ stages. Persian inscription from Bijāpur, but both depend on ˙ simi-
2. In addition to the above sources, see Henry Cou- lar intercultural processes.
sens, Bı̄jāpūr and its Architectural Remains, vol. 37 of 8. See n. 22 below.
Archaeological Survey of India 1916 (reprint, Varanasi: 9. Cousens, Bı̄jāpūr, p. 41.
Bharatiya Publishing House, 1976); John Burton-Page, 10. My thanks go to Phil Wagoner for drawing my
‘‘Bijapur,’’ in Islamic Heritage of the Deccan, ed. George attention to this structure’s broken jālis.
Michell (Bombay: Marg, 1986), pp. 58–75; George 11. See Cousens, Bı̄jāpur, p. 43. For the traditions
Michell and Mark Zebrowski, Architecture and Art of the associated with Pı̄r Ma‘barı̄ K’handā’it, see Eaton, Sufis of
Deccan Sultanates, vol. 1.7 of The New Cambridge His- Bijapur, pp. 27–31; Carl Ernst, Eternal Garden: Mysti-
tory of India (New York: Cambridge University Press, cism, History, and Politics at a South Asian Sufi Center
1999), pp. 41–47, 86–98. (Albany: SUNY Press, 1992), p. 103.
3. Although neither mosque has been treated ex- 12. Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, vol. XXIII
tensively in any published discussion, for the Mosque of (Bombay: Government Central Press, 1884), p. 634. Actu-
Karı̄m al-Dı̄n, see Cousens, Bı̄jāpūr, pp. 41–43; B. D. ally, a perusal of the writings of Ibn Battūta (1304–ca.
Verma, Glories of Bijapur (Poona: B. D. Verma, n.d.), pp. 1377) and Muhammad Qasim Firishta (d.˙ ˙ 1611) ˙ reveals
67–74; Z. A. Desai, ‘‘Architecture—The Bahmanis,’’ in that ‘‘Khwāja Jahān’’ was a title given to several officials
History of Medieval Deccan, vol. 2, ed. H. K. Sherwani throughout the Tughluq and Bahmānı̄ periods. If the
and P. M. Joshi (Hyderabad: Government of Andhra Pra- name Khwāja Jahān was associated with this mosque be-
desh, 1974), pp. 229–30; Richard Maxwell Eaton, Sufis fore British scholars wrote about it in the nineteenth cen-
of Bijapur, 1300–1700. Social Roles of Sufis in Medieval tury, then the connection may have been with the vizier of
India (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978), pp. Muhammad ibn Tughluq (r. 1325–1351)—who is said by
15–17; Burton-Page, ‘‘Bijapur,’’ pp. 62, 65; M. V. Srini- Firishta to have been in the Deccan during the 1330s and
 KATHERINE E. KASDORF  Translating Sacred Space in Bijāpur 77

1340s—rather than with the Bahmānı̄ minister of the that the ‘‘iconic reuse’’ of Kalyāni Cālukya architectural
1480s. See Ibn Battūta, The Travels of Ibn Battūta, trans. ˙
materials by the Āravidus of Vijayanagara and the ‘Ādil
H. A. R. Gibb, 3 vols.˙ ˙ ˙ (New Delhi: Munshiram˙ ˙ Manohar-
˙ ˙
Shāhı̄s during the second half of the sixteenth century con-
lal, 1957; reprint, 1999), vol. 3, pp. 654–767 (passim.); stituted an attempt by each latter dynasty to connect itself
Muhhamad Qasim Firishta, History of the Rise of the to the imperial legacy of the former. The manner of reuse
Mahomedan Power in India till the Year a.d. 1612, trans. carried out in the sixteenth century is distinct from the
John Briggs, 4 vols. (Calcutta: S. Dey from Editions Indian, earlier construction of entire mosques from reused mate-
1829; reprint, 1966), vol. 1, pp. 214–77, vol. 2, pp. 280– rials; Phillip B. Wagoner, ‘‘Retrieving the Chalukyan Past:
316 (passim). The Politics of Architectural Reuse in the Sixteenth-Century
13. See Richard M. Eaton and Phillip B. Wagoner, Deccan,’’ South Asian Studies, vol. 23 (2007), pp. 1–29.
Power, Memory, and Architecture: Contested Sites in the 20. While this article was in press, I came across the
Sixteenth-Century Deccan (forthcoming). I am indebted to Huccappayya Matha (monastery) in Anegondi, a provin-
Eaton and Wagoner for sharing their work with me before cial center for the˙ dynasties ruling from Vijayanagara
publication. (1336–1565) that had been the earlier seat of the Sangama
14. It is possible that some materials used to construct dynasty (1336–1485) before they founded their new capi-
the mosques under discussion may have come from struc- tal across the Tungabhadra River (mid-14th century). This
tures other than temples, such as independent mandapas, rectangular, double-storied building appears to date to the
˙˙
gateways, or stepwells, but the majority of pre-fourteenth- 15th–16th century, as it is constructed from a combination
century stone pillared architecture surviving in the region of Kalyāni Cālukya-period (ca. 973–1189) and Vijayana-
of Bijāpur is associated with temple complexes. Stepwells, gara-period˙ materials. Aside from its eastern porch, which
though constructed in the same architectural styles as con- may be a later addition, the layout of this building bears a
temporaneous temples, were not always associated with striking resemblance to the Mosque of Karı̄m al-Dı̄n, con-
temple complexes. Although in most cases materials from sisting of a rectangular hall of orthogonally arranged pil-
stepwells would not have included pillars, which formed lars with a clerestoried central section that is supported by
an important component of the mosques under discussion, the hall’s four central pillars. Time constraints preclude
an exception is the stepwell next to the Manikeśvara tem- any detailed comparison between these two buildings in
ple at Lakkundı̄ (ca. 12th c.): this well has˙ some pillars, the present article, but their shared characteristics suggest
though these ˙ are˙ simpler than contemporaneous temple a dialogue between mosque and matha architecture in the
pillars; see Gerard Foekema, Cālukya Architecture: Medi- southern Deccan; see Sugandha, History ˙ and Archaeology
eval Temples of Northern Karnātaka Built during the of Anegondi (Ph.D. diss., Deccan College, Poona, 1986),
Rule of the Cālukya of Kalyāna and Thereafter, ad pp. 213–18. Sugandha’s photographs, which show a brick
1000–1300, 3 vols. (New Delhi: Munshiram˙ Manoharlal, and plaster tower that is now missing, reveal recent
2003), no. 149 (pp. 514–16, pls. 754–57). changes to the building, and numbers painted on each of
15. See John Burton-Page, ‘‘Daulatabad,’’ in Islamic its architectural elements indicate that it has been subject
Heritage of the Deccan, ed. George Michell (Bombay: to extensive restoration.
Marg, 1986), pp. 20, 25; M. S. Mate and T. V. Pathy, As Phil Wagoner has pointed out to me, the clerestory
Daulatabad (A Report on the Archaeological Investiga- feature in the Mosque of Kārim al-Dı̄n seems to be a later
tions) (Pune and Aurangabad: Deccan College Post Gradu- addition to the mosque; see Eaton and Wagoner, Power,
ate & Research Institute and Marathawada University, Memory, and Architecture.
1992), fig. 3(a). In addition to the monumental jāmi‘ mas- 21. See Alka Patel, ‘‘Architectural Histories Entwined:
jid, there is a smaller mosque built from reused materials in The Rudra-Mahalaya–Congregational Mosque of Siddh-
Daulatābād, located at the base of the hill. Although a de- pur, Gujarat,’’ JSAH, vol. 63, no. 2 (June 2004), pp.
tailed consideration of Daulatābād is beyond the scope 144–63 (esp. p. 159).
of the present article, it would be interesting to explore 22. Tony Stewart has usefully applied translation
the potential parallels between these two mosques and theory to analyze the intellectual processes implied by the
Bijāpur’s two earliest surviving mosques. use of certain terms in texts produced by communities
16. For the plan of the Daulatābād jāmi‘ masjid, see broadly labelled ‘‘Muslim’’ and ‘‘Hindu’’ in pre-colonial
Mate and Pathy, Daulatabad, fig. 4. Bengal; see Tony Stewart, ‘‘In Search of Equivalence: Con-
17. See below for further discussion of these questions. ceiving the Muslim-Hindu Encounter Through Translation
18. Unlike similar capitals used throughout the mosque, Theory’’ (2001), in India’s Islamic Traditions, 711–1750,
which are largely intact, the section of the adjacent pillar’s ed. Richard M. Eaton (New Delhi: Oxford University
capital that is closest to the śrı̄kāra pillar has been broken Press, 2003), pp. 363–92. Pertaining more immediately to
(see Fig. 9). My thanks go to Phil Wagoner for drawing architecture, Finbarr B. Flood has suggested the interpre-
my attention to this damage. tive model of translation for the material and conceptual
19. Based on his research with Eaton, Wagoner argues processes of transformation inherent to architectural reuse
78 ARCHIVES OF ASIAN ART

in northern India between the late twelfth and fourteenth states that the Old Marāthı̄ inscription is found on a pilas-
centuries; see Flood’s ‘‘Pillars, Palimpsests, and Princely ter in the north wall, but˙ this is the location of a damaged
Practices: Translating the Past in Sultanate Delhi,’’ Res, Old Kannada inscription found on a reused block of stone.
vol. 43 (Spring 2003), pp. 95–116 (esp. pp. 95–97); and ˙
Verma (Glories, p. 60) briefly discusses this inscription (his
‘‘Refiguring Iconoclasm in the Early Indian Mosque,’’ in No. 7), which contains the date Ś.S. 1179, equivalent to
Vt. Negating the Image: Case Studies in Iconoclasm, ed. 1256/1257 ce.
Anne McClanan and Jeff Johnson (Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate, 29. Verma, Glories, p. 71.
2005), pp. 15–40 (esp. pp. 28–29). I quote the phrase 30. Slightly emended from the translations of Nazim,
‘‘dynamic continuity’’ from ‘‘Pillars,’’ p. 95. Phillip B. Bijapur Inscriptions, p. 25 [No. 3252(b)] and Verma,
Wagoner has also fruitfully applied the concept of trans- Glories, p. 71. Verma translates ‘‘may his kingdom be per-
lation to Islamic ritual architecture in his discussion of petuated’’ rather than ‘‘may his fortune endure.’’
Ahmad Khān’s mosque at Vijayanagara (1439): ‘‘For- 31. Although both Nazim and Verma call Rı̄bayya a
˙
tuitous Convergences and Essential Ambiguities: Transcul- carpenter, I have substituted ‘‘architect/mason.’’ The term
tural Political Elites in the Medieval Deccan,’’ Interna- used in the Persian inscription reads ‘‘sūtahāra’’ (or, ac-
tional Journal of Hindu Studies, vol. 3, no. 3 (December cording to Nazim’s reading, ‘‘sūthahāra’’) which is not a
1999), pp. 249–60 (see esp. pp. 252–53). Persian word but instead a phonetic approximation of the
23. Cousens, Bı̄jāpur, p. 42. Sanskrit sūtradhāra, and may be a transliteration of the
24. For further discussion of the Khaljı̄s’ southern word’s pronunciation in Bijāpur in 1320 (I thank Barry
campaigns, the Khaljı̄ occupation of the Deccan, and Flood for this insight, and for reading the Persian for me).
Tughluq activities in the region, see P. M. Joshi and For the term sūtradhāra, see n. 34 below.
Mahdi Husain, ‘‘Khaljis and Tughluqs in the Deccan,’’ The Persian transliteration of the craftsman’s name
vol. 1 of History of Medieval Deccan, ed. H. K. Sherwani may be read either ‘‘Rı̄bya’’ or ‘‘Rı̄bayyā’’—Nazim has
and P. M. Joshi (Hyderabad: Government of Andhra Pra- transliterated the name as ‘‘Rı̄bya,’’ while Verma has ren-
desh, 1973), pp. 29–55; Eaton, Sufis, pp. 14–18; Ernst, dered it ‘‘Rebayyā.’’
Eternal Garden, pp. 107–17; Peter Jackson, The Delhi 32. Slightly emended from the translations of K. N.
Sultanate: A Political and Military History (New York: Dikshit in Nazim, Bijapur Inscriptions, p. 25 [No. 3252
Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 201–16. (a)], and Verma, Glories, p. 74. I am grateful to Jon Keune
25. For Cālukya- and Yādava-period inscriptions, see for discussing the Marāthı̄ text with me, and for emphasiz-
J. F. Fleet, ‘‘Sanskrit and Old-Canarese Inscriptions,’’ The ing its ‘‘Kannadizations.’’˙
Indian Antiquary, vol. 10 (1881), pp. 126–32; Verma, ˙
33. The word vadila is used unusually here, and has
Glories, pp. 57–60. See also M. M. Kalaburgi, Vijāpur puzzled translators of˙ this inscription. Here, I have fol-
Jilleya Śāsana Sūchi (Catalogue of the Inscriptions of lowed the translation of K. N. Dikshit (Nazim, Bijapur
Bijapur District) (Dharwar: Karnatak University, 1976), Inscriptions, p. 25). In a footnote Dikshit acknowledges
pp. 2–5 (in Kannada). A number of these inscriptions that vadila could alternatively refer to the father of Karı̄m
have been published ˙in South Indian Inscriptions, vol. 18. al-Dı̄n, ˙ and it is this interpretation that guides Verma’s
26. In Sufis of Bijapur, Eaton discusses these early fig- translation. Dikshit’s first interpretation, however, is sup-
ures as ‘‘Warrior Sufis,’’ drawing from 19th- and early 20th- ported by Tulpule and Feldhaus in their Old Marathi Dic-
c. compilations of earlier texts and oral accounts about Sufis’ tionary, where the authors cite this inscription in support
lives (pp. 19–44), but the veracity of his sources is questioned of their second definition of the term: ‘‘big; large; grand’’;
by Ernst (Eternal Garden, pp. 97–105). see S. G. Tulpule and Anne Feldhaus, A Dictionary of Old
27. Eaton has related this principle to his political Marathi (New York: Oxford University Press [1999]
analysis of ‘‘temple desecration’’ on the frontiers of Islam- 2000), p. 620 (s.v. vadila).
icate polities in South Asia; see Richard M. Eaton, ‘‘Tem- ˙
34. As with the Persian inscription, I have substituted
ple Desecration and Indo-Muslim States,’’ in Beyond Turk ‘‘architect/mason’’ for the earlier translations’ ‘‘carpenter.’’
and Hindu: Rethinking Religious Identities in Islamicate The word referring to Revaiye’s profession, sutāru, is
South Asia, ed. David Gilmartin and Bruce B. Lawrence thought to derive from the Sanskrit sūtradhāra and may
(Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2000), pp. 246– refer more generally to someone whose occupation has
81 (esp. p. 267). For discussion of this principle with spe- to do with architecture and masonry, not strictly to a car-
cific reference to the Khaljı̄s, see Sunil Kumar, ‘‘Assertions penter whose medium is wood (contrary to the modern
of Authority: A Study of the Discursive Statements of Two sense of the word); see Tulpule and Feldhaus, p. 760 (s.v.
Sultans of Delhi,’’ in The Making of Indo-Persian Culture, sutāra). Tulpule and Feldhaus again cite this inscription to
ed. Muzaffar Alam, Françoise ‘Nalini’ Delvoye, and Marc support their primary definition of the term sutāra as ‘‘an
Gaborieau (New Delhi: Manohar, 2000), pp. 37–65 (esp. architect; a sculptor.’’ See also R. N. Misra, Ancient Artists
p. 44). and Art Activity (Simla: Indian Institute of Advanced
28. Nazim (Bijapur Inscriptions, p. 25) erroneously Study, 1975), pp. 36–46.
 KATHERINE E. KASDORF  Translating Sacred Space in Bijāpur 79

35. See, for example: Carol Radcliffe Bolon, ‘‘Evidence 49. In her work on architectural reuse in western and
for Artists of the Early Calukya Period,’’ in Making Things northern India, Patel has emphasized the role of local
in South Asia: The Role of Artist and Craftsman, ed. builders’ conceptualizations of Islamic ritual space; see
Michael W. Meister (Philadelphia: University of Pennsyl- esp. ‘‘Architectural Histories,’’ pp. 157–59; Building Com-
vania, Department of South Asia Regional Studies, 1988), munities, pp. 153–54; ‘‘Toward Alternative Receptions of
pp. 52–66; Kelleson Collyer, The Hoysala Artists: Their Ghurid Architecture in North India (Late Twelfth–Early
Identity and Styles (Mysore: Directorate of Archaeology Thirteenth Century ce),’’ Archives of Asian Art, vol. 54
and Museums, 1990). (2004), pp. 35–61 (esp. p. 45).
36. For the jāmi‘ masjid of Daulatābād, see Burton- 50. Here, my ideas about translation are indebted to
Page, ‘‘Daulatabad,’’ pp. 20, 25, and figs. 4, 6; Mate and Tony Stewart’s discussion of translation theory, par-
Pathy, pp. 9–11, 63–64, and figs. 3–4. ticularly his comments on intersemiotic translation; see
37. Fleet, ‘‘Sanskrit and Old Canarese Inscriptions,’’ Stewart, ‘‘In Search of Equivalence,’’ p. 384.
pp. 127–31. 51. I am indebted to Maulana Muhummad Zakir and
38. By the fourteenth century in South Asia and else- Dr. Abdul Gani Imaratwale for reading the mihrābs’ in-
where in the Islamic world, it was not uncommon for a scriptions on site for me. ˙
jāmi‘ masjid to be used as both mosque and madrasa (a 52. See Foekema, Cālukya Architecture, No. 183 (pp.
center of Islamic learning); see Naseem Ahmed Banerji, 617–19, pls. 924–27).
The Architecture of the Adina Mosque in Pandua, India: 53. The kı̄rtimukha (‘‘face of glory’’) is a common dec-
Medieval Tradition and Innovation, vol. 6 in Mellen orative element in South Asian architecture, and seems to
Studies in Architecture (Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen have been retained in early South Asian mosques on ac-
Press, 2002), p. 17. count of its apotropaic properties; see Flood, ‘‘Refiguring
39. See Wagoner, ‘‘Fortuitous Convergences,’’ pp. Iconoclasm,’’ pp. 26–27.
249–50; Patel, Building Communities, pp. 86–98, 110– 54. Patel, ‘‘Architectural Histories,’’ pp. 158–59;
23, 138–53. Building Communities, pp. 153–54.
40. For their summaries, see Kalaburgi, Vijāpur 55. A similar principle seems to be at work in the
Jilleya, Nos. 73, 74, 76, 82, 83. Adina Mosque in Pandua, Bengal (1374–1375); Naseem
41. See Verma, Glories, No. 7 (p. 60). Due to its dam- Banerji has noted that lamps in that mosque are framed
age, the purpose of this record is unknown. by stele components which once would have framed im-
42. South Indian Inscriptions (SII), vol. 18, nos. 156, ages of deities; see Banerji, Adina Mosque, pp. 109–10.
158, 198, 216, 260, 271, 350, 377. See also SII, vol. 18, 56. My quotation comes from The Koran, trans. and
nos. 51 (1033 ce) and 165 (ca. 1180s), although the annot. N. J. Dawood, 5th rev. ed. (New York: Penguin,
authenticity of these is in doubt. 1999), p. 38.
43. Fleet, ‘‘Sanskrit and Old Canarese Inscriptions,’’ 57. For a politically inclined discussion of another
pp. 126–32. 14th-c. Deccani mosque, see Wagoner and Rice, ‘‘From
44. Kalaburgi, Vijāpur Jilleya, No. 73. Delhi to the Deccan’’ on the Tughluq jāmi‘ masjid at
45. Kalaburgi, Vijāpur Jilleya, Nos. 76, 83. Warangal.
46. Kalaburgi, Vijāpur Jilleya, Nos. 74, 82. 58. See Wagoner, ‘‘Retrieving the Chalukyan Past.’’
47. See: Eaton, ‘‘Temple Desecration’’; Phillip B.
Wagoner and John Henry Rice, ‘‘From Delhi to the
Deccan: Newly Discovered Tughluq Monuments at
Glossary
Warangal-Sultānpūr and the Beginnings of Indo-Islamic
Architecture in˙ Southern India,’’ Artibus Asiae, vol. 61, adhisthāna plinth of a temple, consists of several
no. 1 (2002), pp. 77–117; Elizabeth Lambourn, ‘‘ ‘A ˙˙
courses of decorative molding
Collection of Merits . . .’: Architectural Influences in the citrakhanda type of pillar consisting of block-like upper
Friday Mosque and Kazaruni Tomb Complex at Cambay, ˙ ˙ segments separated by one or more
and lower
Gujarat,’’ South Asian Studies, vol. 17 (2001), pp. 117– polygonally sectioned middle segments
49. garbhagrha the sanctum sanctorum of a temple
48. Such aesthetic principles also informed northern ˙
jāli stone-cut screen, often with decorative geometric
Indian mosques constructed from reused materials; see: openings
Michael W. Meister, ‘‘The ‘Two-and-a-Half-Day’ Mosque,’’ jāmi‘ masjid mosque used by a Muslim community for
Oriental Art, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 57–63; Meister, ‘‘Indian congregational Friday prayers
Islam’s Lotus Throne: Kaman and Khatu Kalan,’’ in Islam kı̄rtimukha ‘‘face of glory,’’ auspicious decorative motif
and Indian Regions, ed. Anna Dallapiccola (Stuttgart: Franz commonly found in Indian architecture
Steiner, 1993), pp. 445–52; Flood, ‘‘Refiguring Icono- liṅga oblong, visually abstract symbol of the god Śiva’s
clasm.’’ unmanifest form
80 ARCHIVES OF ASIAN ART

mandapa hall in a temple preceding the garbhagrha ratna diamond-shaped decorative motif commonly
˙˙
masjid mosque ˙ found in Indian architecture
mihrāb architectural niche on the qibla wall of a prayer shahāda Muslim statement of faith in Allāh as the only
˙
hall, marks direction of Mecca God and acceptance that Muhammad is God’s prophet
pūjā series rituals offering worship to an Indic deity ˙
śrı̄kāra type of pillar characterized by its circular
qibla the direction oriented to Mecca, which one faces section, bell-shaped segments, and smooth finish
in Muslim prayer

View publication stats