A Note on Babur's Lost Funerary Enclosure at Kabul

8/3/2019 A Note on Babur's Lost Funerary Enclosure at Kabul

1/9

A Note on Babur's Lost Funerary Enclosure at Kabul

Author(s): Salome Zajadacz-HastenrathReviewed work(s):Source: Muqarnas, Vol. 14 (1997), pp. 135-142Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1523241 .

Accessed: 16/11/2011 01:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range o

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Muqarnas.
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=baphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1523241?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1523241?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap


2/9

SALOME ZAJADACZ-HASTENRATH

A NOTE ON BABUR'S LOST FUNERARYENCLOSUREAT KABUL

Although mausolea form an important part of Islamicarchitecture, there is a tradition in Islam that it is betterto be buried under the open sky.This does not necessar-ily mean that the tomb has to be accessible to everyone,however; even in the rural areas of Sind or Baluchistan,tombs can be found secluded and protected by primi-tive walls, piled up cobblestones, or even heaps ofthorny branches. And, of course, enclosures may also bemade from brick or cut stone and provided with a gateand mihrab.

Babur, the founder of the Mughal Empire, was buriedin a tomb under the open sky surrounded by a funeraryenclosure in the Bagh-e Babur near Kabul. This kind ofburial, however, was rather unusual for a great ruler.According to tradition it was Babur's own wish to be bur-ied in this fashion,' and certainly this kind of burialsuited Babur's personality, for he had loved the open airand the gardens of Kabul.2 Babur's burial at Kabul hadalso taken place at a difficult time,3 when the construc-tion of a great mausoleum would have been out of ques-tion for political and practical reasons.But apart from these explanations of Babur's burial,we still have to study Babur's tomb and funerary enclo-sure in the context of Islamic art history. Since the enclo-sure itself has not survived, we have to rely for this pur-pose on a small print (6.5x 8cm) of a sketch, drawn byCharles Masson in 1832 and published in a book on histravels in 1842 (fig. 1).4 On this sketch one side of thebuilding is depicted as having a screen raised on a plinthwith arched openings filled in with grillwork; the archesare crowned by a floral motif, and rosettes are insertedinto the squinches. The arched openings are framed byvertical and horizontal ornamental stripes. In the middleof the screened wall is a gate slightly higher than the wall.It is closed by a double-winged door, one wing of which isbroken, thus permitting a glance into the inside, whereornaments similar to those outside are visible. Thereseems to be an inscription in the upper part of the frameof the gate, and on the right-hand side some remnants ofa decorative parapet are visible on top of the wall. Thebuilding, although obviously in a poor state of preserva-

tion, reveals fine workmanship in stone carving: higwalls with lavish jali-work and relief decoration.Given the fact that the enclosure no longer exists, anwe are able neither to enter nor walk around it, homuch more information can we possibly obtain frothis sketch? Is it possible to derive the design of Baburenclosure, extrapolating from any model or any tradtion in design which is known to us? Has this enclosurhad any impact on other buildings in Islamic architeture, and if so, in what way?First, we may sum up the facts known to us. Baburburied on the fourteenth terrace of a garden calleBagh-e Babur on the slope of the Sher-darwaza moutain, southwest of Kabul.5 The enclosure, which still surounded his tomb in 1832, when Charles Masson visitethe place, no longer exists, though some remnants ofwere seen in the garden and in the Kabul Museum1972.6

According to the sources, Babur died in 1530, and wfirst buried at Agra.7 He was still in there in 1539,8 bshortly afterwards his mortal remains must have beetransferred to Kabul, where he was already buried1544.9

In 1607, Emperor Jahangir paid a visit to KabulThere he ordered some calligraphic inscriptions to badded to Babur's tomb as well as to the tombs of Baburson Mirza Hindal and grandson Muhammad Hakimboth of whom were buried near him." Jahangir waccompanied on this visit by Ruqaya Sultana Begum, haunt, who had come to visit the tomb of her fatheMirza Hindal.'2 When, in 1626, Ruqaya Sultana Begumdied in her turn,'3 she was buried on the fifteenth terace of the Bagh-e Babur, and Jahangir ordered a plaform (chabutra)to be built there.'4Shah Jahan, who visited Kabul for the first time afthis accession to the throne in 1639,15 ordered the tomof Ruqaya Sultana Begum, who was his great-aunt anhad brought him up,16 to be surrounded by a marbscreen. He also ordered a mosque to be built in front Babur's tomb, on the thirteenth terrace of the gardenwhich was completed in 1646, when Shah Jahan visite


3/9


Fig. 1. Charles Masson. Sketch of the tomb of EmperorBabur(enlarged). (Photo: from CharlesMasson,NarrativeofVariousJneys London, 1842], 2: 328)

Kabul for the second time.7 There is no evidence in thesources available that any work was done on Babur'stomb itself during the reign of ShahJahan.In 1832, Masson has written of Babur's tomb:

The tomb of the great monarch is accompanied by manymonuments of similarnature,commemorative of his rela-tives, and they are surrounded by an enclosure of whitemarble, curiouslyand elegantly carved. A few arghawan-trees, in the early spring putting forth their splendid redblossoms, flourish, as it were, negligently,about the struc-ture. The tombs,for the truthmost be told, are the objectsof least attention in these degenerate days.No person su-perintends them, and great liberty has been taken withthe stones employed in the enclosing walls.18

It is only from this text and from the appended sketch(fig. 1) that we know about the enclosure that once sur-rounded Babur's tomb. In 1842, a severe earthquake hit

Kabul and caused considerable damage in the BaghBabur.19In 1923-24 Bogdanov stated that the tombs of MirHindal and Muhammad Hakim (and the tomb of a childwere situated on the east side of Babur's tomb, and ththe tombs of the three adults had stelae at their head

with the inscriptions ordered by Jahangir carved upothem.20 However, Bogdanov did not mention the enclsure described by Masson. Obviously, it no longer existeprobably it had been destroyed by the earthquake.From the fact that Shah Jahan had ordered a screeto be built around Ruqaya Sultana Begum's tomb, bnot around Babur's, we may conclude that, at the timof Shah Jahan's visits, Babur's tomb had already beeprovided with a screen or an enclosure. It seems reasonable to assume that this enclosure had been built at thtime of Babur's burial at Kabul.21

136


4/9

BABUR'S LOST FUNERARY ENCLOSURE AT KABUL

The transferof Babur'sbody to Kabul must have tak-en place between 1539 and 1544. These yearswere a crit-ical time for Humayun, the son and successorof Babur:after two serious defeats in the battles at Chausa and atKanauj,he had to give up Agrato Sher Shah and retreatto Lahore with his army,his court, and his family.22 utsoon he also had to give up Lahore and leaveIndia alto-gether.23On the wayto Kabul,on the banks of the riverChenab, the great caravansplit up, and Humayunwithhis train turned towards Sind. But the Arghun ruler ofSind, Shah Hassan, proved unwilling to cooperate withhim, and Humayun, after a difficult period passed inseveral regions of Sind - his son, Akbar was born atUmarkot- left for Kandahar in 1543.24 It was not until1555 that he was able to reconquer Delhi.25Against thisbackground, there is every reason to assume that thetransfer of Babur'sbody to Kabul had been organizedwhen Humayunwaspreparinghis retreat fromAgra.In Kabul,Babur was buried under the open sky;theenclosure surrounding his tomb had no roof.26Strangely,however,no model is known to us from whichBabur'smarble enclosure might have been derived. Butthen, only rather fewfuneraryenclosures are known tous to have survived rom the time priorto Babur'senclo-sure in the sixteenth century. Some enclosures madefrom brick in a totally different, rather simple kind ofgrillwork27annot be considered as its prototypes;nei-ther can some enclosures having high and closed stonewalls, some with window-like openings, surviving inAswan, in Sind, or eastern Baluchistan;28 or even thelow railing of white marble grillwork secluding Timur'stomb in the Gur-i Amir in Samarqand.29Enclosuresfound depicted in miniature paintings 30 are also differ-ent in design.We can take it for granted, however,that whatever thecircumstances,Baburwould have been buried in aman-ner benefitting his rank and dignity. One most appro-priate decision certainlywould have been to choose aworthy material - marble - which opened up a widerange of artistic possibilities in design. To send work-men versed in Indian jali-workto Kabul when Babur'sbodywas moved there would not havebeen difficult,giv-en the general shift of Humayun'scourt from Agra toLahore.Although burial in an enclosure wasorthodox,the high marblejali-workaround Babur's tomb appar-ently wasan innovation, and it was to set new standardsin design.Some enclosures rather closely resembling the mar-ble enclosure of Babur's tomb are found in Sind, onMakli Hill near Thatta. They are built of sandstone,

Fig.2. MakliHill.Tombof AmirSultanMuhammad.

however,not marble. One of them contains the tomb Amir Sultan Muhammad,who died in 1556 (figs. 2 an3a), and lies buried near the tombsof some members the then ruling Tarkhanfamily.A similar enclosureslightlysimpler in decoration and without any name odate - is situated farther north on Makli Hill.3s Compared to the earlier enclosures in Sind, which haclosed walls 32 these two enclosures on MakliHill prsented a novelty in design as well as in constructio

aC

0 8 216 32 FLFig.3a-b.MakliHill.Groundplansof the enclosuresof (Amir SultanMuhammad,nd (b) Mirza sa KhanTarkh(Plans:romS.H.Rashdi,MakliNamahHyderabad,967],p564,559)

b

13


5/9


They are raised on a plinth and built from stone postswith stone beams laid upon them, and the space in be-tween is filled in with slabs in which arched openingsfilled with stone grills are carved.Babur's enclosure was certainly larger than these twoenclosures on Makli Hill. Masson's sketch shows a gatein the middle of the wall and, on either side of the gate,two arches filled in with grillwork, making five bays alto-gether. Amir Sultan Muhammad's enclosure and theanonymous enclosure on Makli Hill have only threebays. Babur's enclosure also seems to have been tallerand was more profusely decorated than the two enclo-sures on Makli Hill.

But other elements are found in all three enclosures:all three are raised on a plinth; all three have walls withpointed arches filled in with grillwork; and finally, allthree have gates that are higher than the surroundingwalls. On Masson's sketch of Babur's enclosure, the pat-tern of the grillwork is only roughly rendered, but therecognizable structure of this pattern seems to point toone of two well-known geometrical ornaments: one con-sisting of hexagons only, the other consisting of hexa-gons and six-pointed stars. The latter is also found onthe grillwork of the two small enclosures on Makli Hill.

Somewhat later also some larger enclosures of tsame type were built on Makli Hill. One is the funeraenclosure of the first ruler of the Tarkhan dynastySind, Isa Khan Tarkhan the Elder, who came to power1555 and died in 1565 (fig. 3b) .3 Another is the funeraenclosure of his successor, Baqi Khan Tarkhan, dat1585,34 which closely follows the former in design.third of similar design, dated 1589, belonged to unknown lady named Hansa Bai (fig. 4).3' These threnclosures, two of the Tarkhan rulers and one of the laHansa Bai, were not of post-and-beam construction lithe two smaller and earlier ones. Instead, they were buin part from courses of stone. These three enclosurealso have seven bays filled with arches on either side, wionly every second arch containing grillwork. They supass in size the two smaller enclosures on Makli Hill (f3) and - at least in number of bays - even Babuenclosure at Kabul. These three enclosures also aamply decorated in relief on the inside and outsidBabur's enclosure seems to have been higher, but it is npossible from Masson's sketch to gauge its actual size.All these enclosures with grillwork on Makli Hill webuilt during the Tarkhan period. The Tarkhans, as welltheir predecessors, the Arghuns, were related to Babur

Fig. 4. Makli Hill. Tomb of the ladyHansa Bai.

138


6/9


The Arghuns had conquered Sind after Babur hadexpelled them from Kabul and Kandahar.37When thefirst two Arghun rulers of Sind had died, they were takento Mecca for permanent burial, but their successors, theTarkhans, were buried on Makli Hill. The new type of fu-nerary enclosure introduced during that period - withgrillwork included in the walls- seems to have beenadopted from Babur's enclosure at Kabul. Babur hadbeen the powerful rival of the Arghuns; he had also beenthe highest-ranking relative of the Tarkhans. And it maybe of some importance that when the enclosures for IsaKhan Tarkhan and Baqi Khan Tarkhan (and the ladyHansa Bai) were built, the reign of the Tarkhans in Sindwas still independent from the Mughal Empire in Hind.It may have been found appropriate, for reasons of rela-tionship and status, to adopt the manner of Babur's buri-al as well as the design of his enclosure.If we consider Babur's enclosure to have been themodel of the Tarkhan period enclosures on Makli Hill,by comparing Masson's sketch to the Tarkhan enclo-sures we can gain some further information aboutBabur's enclosure. On Masson's sketch (fig. 1), a smalldetail, which obviously is not part of the parapet, is seensurmounting the left corner of the enclosure. Whencomparing Masson's sketch with a photograph of AmirSultan Muhammad's enclosure (fig. 2) taken fromabout the same angle, we may assume that this detailprobably is the upper part of a mihrab, which had risenabove the walls just as the gate had done.

The mihrab is necessarily on the qibla side of theenclosure; in Kabul that would be the southwesternside; the side containing the gate on Masson's sketch is,then, the southeastern side. The same position for thegate - i.e., on the south side 38 is found in all the newenclosures on Makli Hill, where this position was aninnovation. Earlier enclosures in Sind with closed wallsand later enclosures following their tradition had theirgates opposite the mihrab (i.e., on the east side).39 Asthe enclosures on Makli Hill that have grillwork in theirwalls also have a square ground plan, we may assumethat their model, Babur's enclosure, was also built on asquare ground plan. We may also suppose that the gateon Babur's enclosure had some decorative parapets, likethe gate of Amir Sultan Muhammad's enclosure. If thegate surmounting the walls had decorative parapets, themihrab had also; on Makli Hill such parapets have sur-vived on Baqi Khan Tarkhan's mihrab.40Masson's original sketch was drawn in the Bagh-eBabur, and we may consider it to be fairly reliable: Mas-son was carrying along a camera lucida, an instrument

invented to facilitate accurate drawing from nature.41using this instrument, the composition of the sketmay have become less selective and more detailed, moin the way of a photograph. For publication, the skethad to be transferred into print. Of Charles Massonmany sketches, two in each of the three volumes of tNarrative of VariousJourneys were transferred into fupage lithographs; the rest, reduced to a suitable sizwere placed in the text. These latter figures are listed "woodcuts"; the label "wood engraving" would be moaccurate, however. This method allowed the sketches be reduced to an incredibly minute scale. Even the snature of the engraver, "T. Gilks, sc." (=sculpsit),hardly legible in the print.42In this process, some information contained in Mson's original sketch was hidden away in the small-sizprint, and possibly some misinterpretations of the orinal sketch may also have occurred. First, the stranobject in front of the gate cannot be identified. At thspot, we would rather expect some kind of stairs leadinup to the gate (as in figs. 2 and 4). It is also not quiclear what exactly the slanting lines at the left end of tplinth are meant to tell us about the position of tslabs, and what the block lying on the ground nearbmight be. Since this block is carved on its right side (f1), we may possibly consider it to be part of the protruing exterior of the mihrab niche, which has fallen dowOn fig. 2, a corresponding part of the mihrab is still vible in the shadow at the left side of Amir SultaMuhammad's enclosure.In the upper part of the wall (fig. 1), near the left enof the sketched inscription on the gate, we find somlines, but they seem to delineate the position of indiviual stones rather than the general lines of the buildinBeneath the grilled openings, we also observe on thsketch some undecorated horizontal slabs, with somdecorated vertical posts inserted between them. Posbly, these parts of the illustration reflect a particulainterest in the construction of the building takenMasson when he drew the sketch. Thus, we may assumthat Babur's enclosure had been constructed from stonposts and stone beams like Amir Sultan Muhammadenclosure and the similar, but anonymous one on MakHill and that the openings between posts and beamsBabur's enclosure had been filled in, in the same wawith slabs from which the grilled openings were carveout. At their upper end, these openings are framed wiarches, slightly narrower than the lower part of thopening and inserted into the rectangular frame witout having supports, like the arches at Amir Sulta

1


7/9


Muhammad's enclosure (fig. 2) and the similar smallone on Makli Hill. It is amazing to see the faithful repeti-tion of details from Babur's enclosure at these twoenclosures on Makli Hill. The workmen who built themmust have been familiar with Babur's enclosure.

In the absence of any other source, we may venture toimagine the mihrab of Babur's enclosure to have beensimilar to the mihrabs in Amir Sultan Muhammad's andthe other Tarkhan-period enclosures, having five-sidedniches with a four-centered arch, the upper curves ofwhich are straightened towards the apex.43 Such detailshad been first introduced on Makli Hill in the Tarkhan-period enclosures, of which they are characteristicfeatures.

Some details in Babur's enclosure, however, cannotbe clarified. The inscription on the gate, the vertical andhorizontal ornamental stripes, and the rosettes in thesquinches are roughly rendered; only in the case of thetwo rosettes in the squinches on the gate is the individ-ual pattern clearly perceptible.There seems also to have been some correspondencein customs. In Babur's enclosure as well as in the enclo-sures of the two Tarkhan rulers, some male relativeswere buried close to the ruler (fig. 3b).44Ruqaya SultanaBegum's tomb, according to the sources, was situatedbehind Babur's tomb, on the fifteenth terrace. The rea-son obviously was that women were not buried amongmen. Ruqaya Sultana Begum was probably not the onlylady of the family to have been buried on this fifteenthterrace. Her enclosure may also have contained tombsof female relatives, as does the enclosure of the ladyHansa Bai.

An exception to the custom of burying women sepa-rately from men can be found at the tomb of GauharNisa Begum in the Bagh-e Babur. Bogdanov describedher tomb as being situated on the west side of Babur'stomb, i.e., between Babur's tomb and the mihrab. How-ever, Gauhar Nisa Begum had died and was buried in1788. She was the daughter of Alamgir II of Delhi, whowas of Timurid descent, as the inscription on one of thetwo stelae at her tomb emphasize.45 In her case, the cus-tom of burying women separately was ignored in orderto stress her descent from Timur and her relationship toBabur.

The work done under Shah Jahan in the Bagh-eBabur seems to have transformed that section of the gar-den which contained the tombs into a proper graveyard.The mosque was built on the thirteenth terrace, the ter-race nearest to Mecca; the next, the fourteenth terrace,was to contain the funerary enclosure of Babur's tomb

and the tombs of some of his male relatives; the last terace, the fifteenth, was to contain Ruqaya SultanBegum's enclosure and probably also the tombs of othladies of the family.Of Ruqaya Sultana Begum's enclosure not evensketch has survived, and we may be inclined to assumthat it looked somewhat like Babur's enclosure on Mason's sketch. But we have to bear in mind that RuqaSultana Begum's enclosure was built about a century ler- even later than the Tarkhan ruler's and HanBhai's enclosures on Makli Hill - during the reignShah Jahan. At that temporal distance, Ruqaya SultanBegum's enclosure was probably rather different in styfrom Babur's.

Essentially, a funerary enclosure without any roof issimple building. However, in the case of an enclosurwhich is meant to surround the tomb of an emperorthe absence of a mausoleum it was imperative to demonstrate the majesty of the deceased in a suitable way -it was demonstrated during his lifetime by court equette. The enclosure thus required some formgrandeur. At Babur's enclosure this was achievedthe white marble used as the building material andthe enclosure's being raised up on a platform, by thlavish use of jali-work and relief ornaments, andthe height of the walls. Decorative battlements on toof the walls - a traditional feature of surrounding wain Islamic architecture - also added to the majestythe building. Thus, in Babur's enclosure, the "simpenclosure without any roof" had been transformed ina type of building appropriate to enclose the tomb of aemperor.In the design of Babur's enclosure some details mhave been derived from earlier traditions: the use of aelevated platform on which the cenotaph as well as thenclosure surrounding it was raised conforms to Timurid customs.46 Several other details, however, recamotifs from Delhi Sultanate architecture: the archfilled in with jali-work in the pattern of hexagons ansix-pointed stars may recall, for instance, arches on thAlai Darwaza at Delhi, exhibiting the same patterntheir grillwork;47the motif of an arch inserted withouany supports into the upper part of a rectangular framis frequently found in Sultanate architecture.48 The costruction of Babur's enclosure from posts and beamwith jali-work set in between, resembles a constructiofound in some pavilions (chattris) where the space btween the pillars had been filled in with jali-work carvein geometrical patterns. Such "closed" chattrisare frquently found in Gujarat as well as in Delhi,49 and th

140


8/9


usually contain tombs. But all these motifs are onlydetails: the general plan of Babur's enclosure was appar-ently a new and original one.In Sind, Babur's enclosure was imitated during theTarkhan period and by the Tarkhan rulers who wererelated to Babur. In consequence, Babur's enclosurealso influenced the further development of funeraryenclosures in Sind.5" Babur's enclosure certainly wasalso well known to Babur's successors from their variousvisits to Kabul, even though they preferred mausolea fortheir own tombs. But we may consider the formal andsplendid grandeur of Babur's enclosure under the opensky to have been the decisive starting-point for the evengreater splendor of the enclosures built under ShahJahan: the enclosure made of gold surrounding MumtazMahal's tomb while the Taj Mahal was under construc-tion; and the high octagonal marble screen in the TajMahal made of extremely fine jali-work, entirely differ-ent in design from Babur's enclosure, and with semi-precious stone inlay.5' Both these examples far surpassthe elegance of, as well as probably the money spent on,Babur's tomb. It was Aurangzeb who eventually re-turned to the orthodox burial under the open sky.Grobenzell,Germany

NOTES1. See Zahir al-Din Babur Padshah, Baburnama, trans. Annette

Beveridge (London, 1921; rpt. Lahore 1987), p. 709 (Trans-lator's note) and Supplement, p. lxxx; Alexander Burnes,Travels nto Bukhara,vol. 1 (London, 1834), p. 141;MJ. Dar-mesteter, "Inscriptions de Caboul. Epitaphe de l'EmpereurBaber et d'autres princes mogols," Journal Asiatique 8, 11(1888): 491-92; H.H. Hayden, "Notes on Some Monuments inAfghanistan," Memoirsof the Asiatic Societyof Bengal, 2 (1907-10): 345 (referring to Ferishta).2. See Maria Teresa Shephard-Parpagliolo, Kabul: The Bagh-eBabur:A Project nd Researchnto thePossibilitiesof a Complete e-constructionRome, 1972), p. 9.3. See Michael Brand, "Orthodoxy, Innovation, and Revival:Considerations of the Past in Imperial Mughal Tomb Architec-ture," Muqarnas10 (1993): 325.4. Charles Masson, Narrative of VariousJourneysin Balochistan,Afghanistan,and thePanjab,3 vols. (London, 1842), vol. 2, fig.on p. 238; the year of his visit in Kabul is mentioned on p. 244.5. See Shephard-Parpagliolo, Kabul,fig. 1 (aerial photograph);plans 7-9 on pp. 22-23; figs. 26-28 (photographs of thetombs); figs. 32-33 (upper terraces).6. Ibid., pp. 24-25; Shephard-Parpagliolo advocated a recon-struction in some other place.7. Gulbadan Begunm,TheHistoryofHumayun (HumayunNamah),trans. Annette Beveridge (London, 1901;rpt. Lahore, 1987),pp. 110-11.

8. Ibid., p. 138; Babur nama, trans. Annette Beveridge, p. 7(Translator'snote).9. The Tezkerehl-Vakiat,or Private Memoirsof theMoghulEmpHumayun, writtenbyJouher,trans. Charles Stewart (Londo1832), p. 83.10. The Tuzuk-eJahangiri r MemoirsofJahangir, rom theFirst toTwelfthYearof His Reign, trans. Alexander Rogers and HenBeveridge, vol. 1 (London, 1909), p. 110.11. The inscriptions are to be found in Darmesteter, "Inscriptiode Caboul," pp. 491-503, and L. Bogdanov, "The TombEmperor Babur near Kabul," Epigraphia ndo-MoslemicaCcutta, 1923-24), pp. 1-12. Darmesteter translated the inscrtions from a copy made by a British regiment's munshidurithe Britishoccupation of Kabul in 1879. Bogdanov had himsvisited the site and was able to give valuable topographicinformation, in addition to photographs of the tombs.12. Tuzuk-eJahangiri,rans. Rogers and Beveridge, p. 110.13. HumayunNamah,trans. Beveridge, p. 274. For the calligraphinscription on her tomb, see Darmesteter, "InscriptionsCaboul," pp. 496-97; Bogdanov, "Tomb of Emperor Babuhowever, does not mention her tomb.

14. Abd al-Hamid Lahawri, BadshahNamah, ed. M. Kabir al-DAhmad and M. Abd al-Rahim, vol. 2 (Calcutta, 1867), p588-89; English translation in BaburNamah,trans. BeveridSupplement, p. lxxx (erroneously giving Muhammad AmQazvini as the author). See for a chabutraserving as platfofor a tomb, WayneE. Begley and Z.A.Desai, TajMahal: The mined Tomb:An Anthologyof 17th-CenturyMughal and EuropSources(Cambridge, Mass., 1989), p. 67.15. On the visits of ShahJahan to Kabul (though not on the wodone in the Bagh-e Babur), see TheShahJahanNamahoflnaKhan: An AbridgedHistory of the Mughal EmperorShahJahCompiled yHis RoyalLibrarian, rans.A.R. Fuller, ed., and copleted by W.E. Begley and Z.A. Desai (Delhi, Oxford, NYork,1990), pp. 254, 256-58 (13th regnal year, i.e., 1639); p340, 363 (19th regnal year, i.e., 1646); on further visits, in 16and 1652, see pp. 423-33 and 466-73.16. HumayunNamah,trans. Beveridge, p. 274.17. Lahawri, Badshah Namah, p. 589, and Babur Namah, traBeveridge, p. lxxx, stating that the mosque was finished in t19th regnal year (i.e., 1646).18. Masson, Narrativeof VariousJourneys, : 239.19. See Shephard-Parpagliolo, Kabul,p. 11.20. Bogdanov, "The Tomb of Emperor Babur," pp. 6-8. Theinscriptions were carved on the north sides of the stelae (tsides turned away from the cenotaphs) and they mentiJahangir as the donor. Only at Babur's tomb does the siturned towards the cenotaph have an inscription; it contaithe chronogram giving the date of Babur'sdeath in the wor"Paradise s forever the abode of BaburBadshah." In the othtombs, however, this side was left blank.21. Shephard-Parpagliolo, Kabul,p. 10; Michael Brand, "Ortdoxy, Innovation, and Revival,"p. 332, assumed, however, ththe enclosure was built during the reign of ShahJahan.22. HumayunNamah,trans. Beveridge, Introduction p. 29.23. Ibid., pp. 33-34.24. Mahmudul Hasan Siddiqui, HistoryoftheArghunsand Tarkhof Sind (1507-1593) (Mir MaCsum,Tarikh-iSind) (Hyderaba1972), pp. 79-104.25. HumayunNamah,trans. Beveridge, Introduction, p. 52.26. For sources on this type of burial, see Lisa Golombek, The

1


9/9

SALOME ZAJADACZ-HASTENRATHmuridShrineofGazurGah(Toronto, 1969), pp. 100-109.27. For illustrations, see ibid., fig. 159 (Khvaf);Bernard O'Kane ,TimuridArchitecturen Khurasan Costa Mesa, Calif., 1987), figs.34,1 (Dih-i Manar) and 49,1 (Ziyaratgah).28. See Ugo Monneret de Villard, La NecropoliMusulmana diAswan (Cairo, 1930), pp. 1-4, 19-21, figs. 25-31; Salome Zaja-dacz-Hastenrath, "FuneraryEnclosures in Sind," IslamicArt4(1990-91), figs. 1-2, p. 266; and eadem, "Die frfihesten Grab-umfriedungen in Sind: Ursprung und Uberlieferung," CentralAsiaticJournal,36, 3-4 (1992): 282-95.29. For illustrations, see Julius Smolik, Die Timuridischen audenk-mdleraus derZeitTamerlansVienna, 1929), p. 35, figs. 61-63.30. See Golombek, TimuridShrineofGazurGah, ig. 160,and p. 122,n. 31.

31. For further illustrations of both these enclosures, see Zajadacz-Hastenrath, "FuneraryEnclosures," figs. 9 and 10, p. 270.32. For illustrations, see ibid., figs. 1-3 on pp. 266-67; figs. 7-8 onp. 269.33. For further illustrations, see ibid., fig. 13, p. 272; fig. F,p. 263.34. For illustrations, see ibid., fig. 16, p. 273; fig. G, p. 264 (groundplan).35. See Muhammad Amin, "Inscription on the Tomb of Hansa Baiat Makli Hill (Thatta)," Pakistan Archaeology 3 (1987-88):269-71, pl. xli; further illustrations in Zajadacz-Hastenrath,"FuneraryEnclosures," figs. 18-19, pp. 274-75.36. Siddiqui, History of the Arghuns and Tarkhans,pp. 249-52,Appendix K, "The Origin of the Arghuns and Tarkhans ofSind."

37. For the conquest of Kabul, see BaburNamah,trans. Beveridge,pp. 199 and 227; for the conquest of Kandahar, see Siddiqui,History of the Arghuns and Tarkhans,pp. 17-18 and 207-12,Appendix A, "The Siege of Kandahar."38. The qibla direction is approximately west on MakliHill.39. See for illustrations Zajadacz-Hastenrath, "Funerary Enclo-sures," fig. 2, p. 266 (Deh Gujro); fig. 7, p. 269 (MakliHill).40. Ibid., fig. 16, p. 273.41. It was invented by W.H. Wollaston, who had it patented in1806. For a comprehensive study of this small and easily trans-portable instrument, used by several authors for making

sketches while traveling, see John H. Hammond andJill Aten, The CameraLucidain Arts and Science Bristol, 1987); espcially pp. 89-110. Masson mentioned his use of the camlucidaonly in connection with a curious event in the Narraof VariousJourneys,:18-19.42. The engraver was Thomas Gilks, who is known to have beworking between 1840 and 1876, illustrating several books awriting, as well as illustrating, a book on The Art of WoodEgraving: ee U. Thieme and F.Becker, Allgemeines exikonderdendenKinstler,vol. 14 (Leipzig, 1921), p. 32.43. See for illustrations, Zajadacz-Hastenrath, "Funerary Encsures," figs. D.3, 13, 16; the colonnettes at both sides of theTarkhan mihrabs have to be left out, since they conform tospecial tradition developed on Makli Hill from the late 15early 16th century onwards.44. See for illustrations, ibid., fig. 13,p. 272; fig. F,p. 263; fig. 16273; fig. G, p. 264. For the inscriptions, see SayyidHussamudin Rashdi, Makli Namah, (Hyderabad, 1967), figs. 58-61 pp. 817-21; figs. 67-70 on pp. 825-27, and the genealogy bfore p. 765.45. The complete inscription of this tomb, including the last setence mentioning her Timurid descent, is found only in Bodanov, "The Tomb of Emperor Babur,"p. 9.46. For the tradition of cenotaphs raised on a platform, or taksee Golombek, TimuridShrineofGazurGah,pp. 107-9.47. For illustrations, see J.A. Page, An HistoricalMemoir n theQuDelhi (Calcutta, 1926), pls. 13-14.48. For illustrations, see Friedrich Wetzel, IslamischeGrabbauteIndien aus der ZeitderSoldatenkaiser320-1540 (Leipzig, 191figs. 77, 79, 85 (Firoz Shah's mausoleum), 89, 102,176 (anonmous mausolea), etc.49. Illustrations from Delhi, ibid., figs. 24 (Imam Samin's tombefore 1537), 45 (YussufQattal's tomb, 1526), 46 (anonymotomb).50. For this development see Zajadacz-Hastenrath, "FunerEnclosures," pp. 253-58, figs. 14-15, 23, 24, 28.51. Begley and Desai, TajMahal,pp. 51-53 and 67, 73, 79.

142

A Note on Babur's Lost Funerary Enclosure at Kabul

Documents

Transcript of A Note on Babur's Lost Funerary Enclosure at Kabul