Architectural Histories Entwined: The Rudra-Mahalaya/Congregational Mosque of Siddhpur,

Gujarat
Author(s): Alka Patel
Source: Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 63, No. 2 (Jun., 2004), pp. 144
-163
Published by: Society of Architectural Historians
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4127950
Accessed: 08/03/2010 21:24
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sah.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society of Architectural Historians is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians.

http://www.jstor.org

Architectural Histories

Entwined

The Rudra-Mahalaya/Congregational Mosque

of Siddhpur, Gujarat

ALKA PATEL

Marinadel Rey,California

At

inca.1140 theRudra- of the MuslimsultanAhmadShahI (r. 1410/11-1444)of

thetimeofitsconstruction
cE, andmost
the Muzaffarid
was
one
of thelargest
of
dynasty,andmanyof its componentswere
mahalaya Siddhpur
Its
into
of
mosqueerectedin its
importanttemplecomplexes Gujarat.1 patron incorporated the congregational
of a largecourtyard
The
consists
whose
wastheemperorJayasimha
(r.1094-1144CE),
mosque
place(Figure3).
Siddharaja
forthe Chaulukya anda spaciousprayerarea(Figures4, 5).Twoof the standreignmarkeda periodof greatprosperity
wereintegrated
This
held
950-1303/4
CE). dynasty swayoverthe ing minorshrinesof the Rudra-mahalaya
(ca.
dynasty
determinedthe
faced
Mecca
and
wall
that
of
into
the
states
within
the
now
modem
Gujarat
mosque
region encompassed
Rudra-mahaThe
of
direction prayer (the qibla) (Figure 6). The third
in westernIndia(Figure1).2
andRajasthan
andhadits ownsmallportico(Figfamily remainedsemidetached
layawasdedicatedto Shiva,andsincethe Chaulukya
waswith thisdeity,theirpatronageof thismajor ure7).The twointegratedshrineswereconnectedbya rubaffiliation
asanactof dynastic
Shaiva
legit- blewallandwerefacedwithseveralrowsof plaquescarved
complexhasbeeninterpreted
existence
ofa
Shaiva
theearlier
Moreover,
templeat with alternatingvase-and-foliageand meandering-vine
imization.3
ordertomakewayforhislarger motifs(Figure8), iconographicelementswellknownfrom
atSiddharaja's
thesite,removed
of the region.
in
a
the
ruler
long andcontinuousline of the survivingarchitecture
complex,placed
of
Islamic
Unlike
other
in
the
buildingsin Indiaconstructed
surveys
city.Preliminary
royalpatronage
Chaulukya
where
the exactsourcesof the recythe
nineteenth
in
with
older
KinlochForbes
the complexby Alexander
materials,
century,4andHenryCousensin the earlytwentieth,'were cled componentscan only be hypothesized,the originsof
of thevariouselements the fragmentsformingthe fabricof AhmadShah'scongreasto theexactdimensions
inconclusive
remnants gationalmosqueat Siddhpuraremorecertain.'Ratherthan
thestanding
the
comprising complex.Nevertheless,
in previous
was
conceived
foundation
thatthemid-twelfth-century
indicate
supportingthe generalizedcharacterization
onagrandscale,withamultistory
temple,alargeopen scholarshipof reused building materialssimply as spoprincipal
hall,andseveralgateways(Figure2). Three minorshrines lia-with the attendantconnotationsof this terms-the
of the oldermaterialsin thisexamplefurnishes
standingto the west,at the backof the maintemple,were traceability
a
with
it.6
uniqueopportunityto examinethe processof constructamongmanyassociated
consecrationduringthe ing a "new"buildingwithold components.
Since the Rudra-mahalaya's
most sigWhatis historicallyandhistoriographically
mid-twelfthcentury,it hasundergonemuchmorethanthe
is its dualrelevanceto
effectsof the passageof time.The complexwasdismantled nificantaboutthe Rudra-mahalaya
duringthefirstquarterof thefifteenthcenturybytheforces whathavebeenconsidered,untilnow,two disparateschol-

, Kiradu
R

IndusR.

Pafan*J
Siddhpure

Bhadresva

iIDA

IDAP

Figure 1 Map of Gujarat

mosque
Figure 2 Rudra-mahalaya/congregational
complex, Siddhpur,Gujarat,ca. 1140 and 1414 CE,
plan

Ahmadabad
holka
Khambhambhat
Junagadh

*Bharuch
aruch

SMangrol
Somanatha-pattana

THE RUDRA-MAHALAYA/CONGREGATIONAL

MOSQUE

145

Plate 6

SIr. "

Plate

"It

Plate 4

I
Plate 7

Plate 10
(ceiling).
mosque complex. Detail of the conversion of the temple
Figure 3 Rudra-mahalaya/congregational
complex into a mosque
mosque, prayerarea, as entered from the east
Figure 4 Rudra-mahalaya/congregational

146

JSAH

/ 63:2,

JUNE

2004

Figure 5 Rudra-mahalaya/
congregational mosque, prayer
area
Figure 6 Rudra-mahalaya/
congregational mosque, west
perimeter (qibla)with its two
integrated shrines

arly discourses.Due to the extent of the remains,and references to them in both the Sanskritand Persianhistories
from Gujarat,the complex is importantto Indic as well as
Islamicscholarship.The Indo-Muslimarchitecturalhistory
of northern India, particularlythat of the pre-Mughal or
Sultanateperiod(ca. 1193-1526), claimsthe complexas one
of the manyinstancesof reuse-if not deliberatedestruction
and spoliation-of temples or their fragmentsin mosque
is considconstruction.Concurrently,the Rudra-mahalaya
ered fundamental to the development of Maru-Gurjara

architecture,a style now survivingmostly in Hindu temples

and practicedduring the late tenth through fifteenth centuries in modern-dayGujaratand Rajasthan.9This collection of partiallystandingstructures,columns, ceilings, and
sculpturesclearlybelongs to one complex.But the same set
of materials-reconfigured over time for varyingreligious
purposes-has been separatelyincorporatedinto two divergent trajectoriesof architecturalhistory.These paradigms
have operatedseeminglyunawareof each other, delineated
as if they were virtuallyunconnected.
THE RUDRA-MAHALAYA/CONGREGATIONAL MOSQUE

147

The disadvantages of this bifurcation are methodological as well as material. First, treating the complex from two
nonintersecting perspectives is dissonant with the physical
remains themselves, as indeed these are one and the same
regardless of intellectual constructs that place them in different categories. Second, the strict historiographical separation of Indic and Islamic architectural histories can
prevent us from discerning the physical and historical connections between buildings housing different religious practices, and the architectural innovations ensuing from the
application of established forms of building to new social
and ritual functions.
Furthermore, rupture has been the framework most
often invoked in historical studies of medieval India. It has
generally been assumed that all newly forming Muslim
principalities of northern India from the late twelfth century
onward were primarily occupied with severing ties with
their dynastic predecessors, especially if the latter were
Hindus. In architectural history, the dynastic deity thesis
proposes that Muslim sultans carefully chose the sites of
desecration based on their status as embodiments of their
Hindu forebears. Selective eradication would leave the area
in question renewed and prepared to accept Muslim rule.10
However, assumptions about six hundred years of
architectural recycling by Muslim military forces, beginning in the late twelfth century and continuing through the
seventeenth, in regions as historically and culturally distinct
as Gujarat, Delhi, and the Deccan,"1 beg for a closer look at
mosque, semidetached
Figure 7 Rudra-mahalaya/congregational
shrine associated with the prayerarea, viewed from the east

Figure 8 Rudra-mahalaya/
congregational mosque,
qiblawall surface. Detail of
covering slabs

148

JSAH

/ 63:2,

JUNE

2004

the specific circumstances pertaining to each area. One can

then decide whether rupture, continuity, or another paradigm would be the most consistent with the surviving evidence. This investigation of Gujarat will demonstrate that
regional specificity is not only beneficial methodologically,
but also requisite in determing the applicability of the concept of rupture to medieval northern India.
I propose to treat the Rudra-mahalaya/congregational
mosque within the scholarly narratives of both the architectural history of Islamic buildings in western India and
that of Maru-Gurjara architecture. The Rudra-mahalaya
had a definite place within the Maru-Gurjara style, but the
complex's fragments were given new contexts and functions
in the mosque. Having been practiced in the region for at
least three centuries,12 the western Indian style of mosque
construction was equally influential in the use and placement of the recycled materials. It is hoped that the results
of this examination will suggest new methodological possibilities for future studies of the many such buildings surviving from pre-Mughal India.
A word of caution must be interjected here. The complex still has two standing double-story halls, and two gateways east of the principal temple (see Figure 2). Since these
structures at least partially overlap with the spaces that would
have been occupied by the large open hall, it is worth considering that they were arrangements of available fragments
erected sometime between the temple's fifteenth-century
transformation by Ahmad Shah, and Cousens's early-twentieth-century documentation of the site. Furthermore, the seismic activity of Gujarat very possibly contributed to the
structures' dilapidation over the centuries.'3 Indeed, James
Burgess, the nineteenth-century archaeologist who first published the ruins of Siddhpur, mentioned that the 1819 earthquake "[had thrown] down two of the loftiest columns."'4
Due to the complex's continued activity as a mosque
until the late 1970s, it must be assumed that maintenance
and repair of various sections had also been carried out. The
complex, then, has by no means remained "true" to its state
after Ahmad Shah's 1414-15 intervention and the integration of the fragments into the mosque. One must proceed
carefully in an analysis of the Rudra-mahalaya/congregational mosque: it would be naive to see it as a static monument preserving the traces of only selected past phenomena,
like a historical snapshot.'5

Historiographical

Issues

Siddhpur was not the capital city of the Chaulukyas, despite

the impression that Siddharaja's lavish royal patronage of
buildings there created. The capital of Aiahillavlida (mod-

ern Patan) lay ten miles south of Siddhpur (see Figure 1),
and according to surviving inscriptional evidence, also
received much architectural patronage from both courtly
and lay circles since its founding in the early ninth century.16
Siddhpur was, however, prominent as a pilgrimage center,
not only for Shaivism but also for the separate religious
creed of Jainism; indeed, many Jain monastic orders were
based in the city."7Thus the Shaiva significance of Siddhpur
was shared with the economically important Jain community, which was integral to the stability of the Chaulukya
empire.18 Siddhpur's sacred geographical importance and
its proximity to the Chaulukya capital together explain why,
at least in part, Siddharaja devoted significant resources to
the construction of the complex there.
A long span of Muslim rulership began in the region
with the defeat of the Chaulukyas in 1303/4'19 by the Khalji
dynasty (1290-1320) and the designation of Gujarat as a
province of Delhi. Eventually the Tughluq dynasty
(1320-ca. 1400)-another Muslim family based in Delhiousted the Khaljis and deputed their own governors there.
Among the Tughluq deputies was Zafar Khan, who was
eventually crowned the first, albeit reluctant, ruler of the
sultanate of Gujarat as Muzaffar Shah I.20 His grandson
and successor Sultan Nasir al-Din Ahmad Shah I
(r. 1410/11-1444) took over the Muzaffarid sultanate with
a forceful vision, using violence and perhaps even patricide
in the name of power.2' While the Khalji and Tughluq governors of Gujarat had been content to remain at the old
Chaulukya capital of Patan, Ahmad Shah shifted the sultanate's capital to the newly founded city of Ahmadabad (see
Figure 1) almost immediately upon assuming royal prerogatives in 1410/11.
The reign of Ahmad Shah I was treated by at least one
contemporaneous Persian author, and by perhaps as many
as five sixteenth-century writers.22 The Tdrikh-e Ahmad
Shahi, a Persian historical poem by Hulvi Shirazi (the "poet
chronicler of Ahmad Shah I"23), survives only in quotations
by the famous Sikandar ibn Muhammad 'urf Manjhu
(1554-after 1617) in his Mir'at-e Sikandarl.24 In the later
Persian histories of the Muzaffarid sultanate, the chroniclers' preferred literary tropes for portraying Ahmad Shah's
dominating personality included the scholar and patron of
the arts, but also the unswerving iconoclast generally intolerant toward the non-Muslims within his domains.25
Surviving Sanskrit and Persian inscriptions temper the
admiring Persian historical texts' portrayal of the sultan.
This epigraphical evidence suggests that Ahmad Shah faced
many of the same challenges of territorial consolidation that
had plagued his Chaulukya, Khalji, and Tughluq predecessors.26Like them, he engaged throughout his reign in camTHE RUDRA-MAHALAYA/CONGREGATIONAL

MOSQUE

149

paigns againstlocal ruling groupswho attemptedto appropriate power and resources.The outlying territoriesof the
Saurashtrapeninsula (see Figure 1), as well as those surroundingthe formercapitalof Patan,requiredconstantmilitaryanddiplomaticattention.27In October 1414, the sultan
returnedto the mainlandafterthe firstof severalcampaigns
to subjugate the intermittently rebellious princes of
Saurashtra.This conflict was resolved through negotiation
rather than military confrontation, when the Hindu ruler
ofJunagadh, Ra Malag, agreed to recognize Ahmad Shah's
overlordshipand pay tribute.28Evidently,the sultanwas not
averse to negotiation, even with non-Muslim rebels who
flagrantlydisregardedboth his ambitions and his growing
political and militarypower.
In 1414 or early 1415, shortly after the treatywith Ra
Malag, Ahmad Shah marchedto the northern areasof the
territorieshe was continuallytryingto control, and besieged
the city of Siddhpur.A descriptionof the campaignin the
late-sixteenth-centuryMir'dt-eSikandari,the earliestavailable Persian text, relates that the sultan's forces rallied
aroundthe bannerof Islamiciconoclasmand desecratedthe
Rudra-mahalaya.The complex'sconversion into the city's
congregationalmosque is portrayedin the text as a violent,
propagandisticact, signaling that Ahmad Shah was defeating his political and military foes not only for the sake of
state building, but also for the glory of Islam.21 In Ahmadabad too, large-scale foundations dating to the sultan's
reign-namely the mosque now known as the AhmadShah
mosque (1411), the mosque of Haibat Khan (1415), and the
congregationalmosque (1424)-also demonstrateextensive
reuse of older components,3"at least some of which came
from earliertemples.3'
For interpretations of this widespread architectural
reuse, scholarshave relied primarilyon the Persian histories' descriptionsof events and attitudes during the reigns
of medievalIndian Muslim rulers, deemphasizingthe surviving epigraphical evidence. Ahmad Shah's reign is no
exception. This sultan'sarchitecturalpatronage has been
interpretedin line with the texts'descriptionsof the ruleras
zealousyet savvy,willing to use Islam as a political and militaryweapon.32The buildingsconstructedof older materials during his reign, then, are generally interpreted as
propagandistic.
While the textual histories of the Muzaffaridsultans
may be informativeabout some aspectsof their reigns, they
are not enlightening about changes in the architectural
landscape.The Mir'at'sdescriptionof AhmadShah'sintervention at Siddhpuris not much more than a quotation of
the verses composed by Hulvi Shirazito commemoratethe
Hulvi was the panegyristof Ahmad Shah I, and
occasion."33
150

JSAH

/ 63:2,

JUNE

2004

Manjhu the panegyrist of the Muzaffariddynasty in general. Their writings evince a tendency to pass over certain
events with little or no detainment,such as those which the
authorsdeemed unimportant,and particularlythose reflecting unfavorablyon the rulers.Many aspectsof their reports
have been modified or contradictedby other evidence.34
Manjhu claims that all of the idols found at the Rudramahalayawere made of gold and silver;the verses of Hulvi
are also concerned with the materialwealth of the RudraHowever,in these
mahalayaand its centralityfor idolaters.3"
writings there is no descriptionof the physicaltransformation of the Rudra-mahalayainto a congregationalmosque,
a process that must have been protracted and involved,
given the extent of the temple complex. A physicalunderstandingof this metamorphosiscan be instructiveregarding
the application of conventional temple forms to the religious functions of Islam, and perhaps also concerning the
historicalcircumstancesleading to this phenomenon.

Siddharaja'sRudra-mahalaya and Ahmad Shah's

Congregational Mosque
Since excavations at Siddhpur in the late 1970s by the
Archaeological Survey of India were prematurely terminated, they did little to remedy Forbes'sand Cousens'sinitial lackof detailedinformationabout the Rudra-mahalaya's
dimensions.The actualsize of the complex and its individual componentscan be listed here only from pre-excavation
data as recorded by Burgess and Cousens and their assistants, along with additional information extrapolated by
scholarsfrom similarlarge-scaletemple foundations.Examination of the excavatedremainshas yielded many estimates
for the mid-twelfth-century complex's principal temple,
ranging from 125 by 84 feet to 275 by 210 feet. Despite
these differencesin calculations,it is generally agreed that
the temple itself was multistoried.The preceding hall was
likelytwo stories,its upperlevel supportedby an inner octagon of columns rising higher than the outer supports, and
its inner ceiling measuringapproximately33 feet in diameter.36
Siddharaja'smid-twelfth-century temple complex has
dominated both historical and contemporary accounts of
the site. Its prominence in the lay and scholarly imaginations has prevented any serious investigation into the possibility that earlier structuresexisted there. However, this
line of inquiry has potential significance for our understandingof both pre-Mughal temple complexes in western
India and the patternsof dynastic patronagethat gave rise
to them. Tracingthe history of worship at Siddhpurbefore
the construction of Siddharaja'sRudra-mahalayamay pro-

vide a context for understanding the subsequent use of the

temple, even when that use consisted of a different ritual
practice, that is, its reconsecration as a mosque.
The Rudra-mahalaya was not the first such foundation
at the site. The copper-plate inscription recording the Kamboika land grant of 986/7 CEmentions in passing that the
first Chaulukya ruler, Mularaja I (r. 941/2-996/7 CE) had
"bathed on the day of an eclipse of the sun at Sristhalaka
[Siddhpur] in the water of the eastern Sarasvati, [and] worshipped the lord of the gods, the deity of the Rudra-mahalaya."37The reference suggests that there had been a shrine
at this location. This possibility is supported by some minor
but noteworthy archaeological evidence: the floor level of
the principal temple was too low for a structure its size, a
discrepancy that is consistent with the low height within the
sanctum of the main Shaiva cult object, the phallic lingam.
Moving the lingam was proscribed by ritual literature even
if the enclosing temple was rebuilt.38
These data indicate, then, that there was a temple at
the site, which Siddharaja ordered completely removed for
the construction of his own complex. None of the temple's
remains were utilized in the later construction, its only trace
being the placement of the lingam and the level of the floor.
Since no tenth-century fragments have been recovered, it is
difficult to say whether the earlier structure was constructed
during the time of Mularaja. It is also possible that, since
the site held great sanctity for centuries, a Shaiva temple
may already have graced it. In this case, the shrine where
Mularaja worshiped would have antedated his reign.
Although there are no tenth-century fragments at
Siddhpur, evidence exists from the eleventh century in the
form of column parts. According to Madhusudhan Dhaky,
these elements are now incorporated within the central bay
of the mosque's prayer area (discussed at greater length
below). Although they have been summarily labeled as
"spoilsbrought from some early eleventh century shrines,"'39
it is plausible that they were salvaged from a previous temple at the same site. Regardless of whether such a temple
had been constructed by Mularaja toward the end of the
tenth century or before, the structure would have required

plexes was by no means unusual. In fact, in the same way

that the layout and form of the Siddhpur congregational
mosque was largely predetermined by the Rudra-mahalaya,
many other reconstructions of temple complexes were in
this sense directed by their predecessors. Repeated reconstructions were carried out, for example, at the legendary
Somnath temple in the coastal city of Somanatha-pattana
(now Prabhasa Patan). This temple bears the significant
advantage of having been excavated without interruption
during the mid-twentieth century.4' The archaeological
work unearthed the remains of at least two stone temple
foundations, the earliest of which dated to ca. 960 CE,falling
within the reign of Mularaja. Due to the long-standing
importance of the site as a pilgrimage center, however, it is
likely that a shrine existed there prior to the tenth century,
and was either incorporated into or replaced entirely by the
later temple. The mid-tenth-century temple was the structure encountered by Ghaznavid forces and sacked in
1025-26. After the raid, it was rebuilt by the Chaulukya
ruler Bhimadeva I (r. 1021/2-1063/4) on top of the midtenth-century base.42
While Bhimadeva I's new Somnath temple was necessitated by the Ghaznavid raid, a subsequent reconstruction
by the Chaulukya ruler Kumarapala (r. 1144-1173/4) in the
1160s was carried out under more ambiguous circumstances. According to the chronicler Merutunga (late thirteenth-early fourteenth century), Kumarapala's motive
was "the diffusion of [his] fame [and its endurance] till
the end of the Kalpa." In his dynastic history of the
Prabandhacintamani of 1304 CEChaulukyas-the
Merutunga recounts the genesis of this project: when the
Chaulukya ruler asked his Jain minister, Hemacandra
(1089-1172), how he might attain perpetual renown,
Hemacandra replied that reconstruction of the Somnath
temple would not only ensure worldly glory, but also bestow
spiritual merit upon the executor of such an accomplishment. Merutunga's account further relays that, after the new
Somnath temple was completed, both Kumarapala as well as
his adviser Hemacandra worshiped Shiva there.43
The supposed motivation for Kumarapala's interven-

renovation and constant maintenance. Indeed, until its

complete reconstruction by Siddharaja during the midtwelfth century, it could have been refurbished and even
rebuilt more than once, given its location in a city whose
importance as a pilgrimage center for both Shaivas and Jains
is well known.40 The eleventh-century columns now in the
congregational mosque's prayer area could have come from
routine repairs or reconstruction of the complex carried out
during the preceding century.
The continual upkeep and rebuilding of temple com-

tion at Somnath is, however, countered by the Bhava Brihaspati epigraph of 1169 CE.44This inscription records that
the Shaiva priest of Somnath, Brihaspati, convinced
Kumarapala to rebuild the temple because it was in a state
of complete dilapidation. In gratitude for such a pious suggestion, the ruler conferred on Brihaspati the title of principal priest, thereby making him the leading Shaiva
authority in the area. The evidence of the inscription seems
to provide the historically more convincing version of the
events leading to Somnath's reconstruction, as Merutunga's
THE RUDRA-MAHALAYA/CONGREGATIONAL

MOSOUE

151

account echoes stories already present in Jain sacred and

didactic literature, which he may have put to self-serving
ends.4"
The factuality of these incidents is not important here,
for whether Hemacandra participated in Shaiva worship or
not, epigraphical and other evidence indicates that since the
beginning of Chaulukya ascendancy in the region, there was
an intertwining of the Shaiva inclinations of the dynasts
with those of the economically powerful Jain communities
in their realm.46 Hemacandra was a revered figure in the
writings ofJainism, and his purported obeisance to Shiva is
significant for a general comprehension of Chaulukya rulership. Hemacandra's acceptance of Kumarapala's creed was
reciprocated, for the sovereign was an important patron of
Jain foundations and reportedly worshiped at Jain temples.
This mutual participation in the practices of the other hints
at meanings of religion and community identification that
are not always acknowledged in modern academic frameworks. Recent works in the history of religion point out that
the notion of exclusive religious adherence is a modern construct imposed on nonmodern social relations, which were
likely more flexible in their expression.47
As probably occurred at Siddhpur, the eleventh-century Somnath temple was torn down, and in its place a
much larger, multistory temple with several attendant
shrines was constructed. This structure was 140 feet long
and 118 feet wide, in its size comparable to the Rudramahalaya at Siddhpur. It could be suggested that Kumarapala's commission of the new Somnath temple was based on
emulation of his illustrious predecessor Siddharaja, both in
the act of replacing an already existing and important temple, as well as the scale on which this was done.
Considering the example of the temple of Somnath, it
would not be unreasonable to propose that the Rudramahalaya had also undergone a series of reconstructions. A
long history of worship at the site is historically plausible
due to its sanctity, and its location in Siddhpur-a prominent Shaiva and Jain pilgrimage center-suggests that it and
other temples there most likely received extensive maintenance through the centuries. The subsequent appropriation
of the complex by Ahmad Shah and its conversion into the

deployment of the numerous older components and fragments not only from the Rudra-mahalaya, but also evidenced by many other mosques of the region,48 belies this
assumption. Instead, the presence of small as well as large
carved components from subsequent mosques demonstrates
the appreciable adaptability of the existing materials for
meeting the needs of differing ritual spaces.
Ahmad Shah's "new" mosque for Siddhpur, constructed
with the remains of the temple complex probably soon after
his military campaign in 1414-15, deployed many of the
elements from the previous foundation in similar types of
locations. As indicated above, three minor shrines were
incorporated into the prayer area (see Figures 6, 7), which
was apparently constructed almost entirely of columns and
ceilings of a pre-fifteenth-century date (see Figure 5). In
turn, these reused materials determined the size and other
aspects of the mosque. Certainly, the length of the prayer
area was dictated by the distance between the two wholly
incorporated minor shrines, approximately 78 feet. The
third, though not entirely integrated into the prayer area,
was nonetheless spatially associated (see Figure 7).
The depth of the bays was also determined by the preexisting materials. It is clear that the principal ceilings (Figure 9) were taken either from the Rudra-mahalaya or from
other twelfth-century Jain or Brahmanical temples in the
vicinity. While the diameter of the ceiling of the principal
hall of the Rudra-mahalaya is assumed to have been 3 3 feet,
the surrounding shrines' ceilings were considerably smaller.
Three ceilings of approximately the same dimensions were
incorporated into the prayer area. Since the Rudra-mahaone
laya's main hall likely provided only one-moreover,
that was too big-it is probable that the ceilings came from
other minor shrines or even other temple complexes in the

congregational mosque of Siddhpur, though consecrated

for the different ritual practice of Islam, essentially did little at variance with established patterns of renovation and
even reconstruction that had taken place at the site possibly
several times before.

area--including the projections of the two minor shrines

on the western wall as markers of the foci of prayer within
(mihr~abs)-is approximately 31 feet.49
The qiblais punctured by three apertures, two of which
were probably windows providing the prayer area with light
and ventilation. The third provides a threshold framed by
slender pilasters at the center of the western wall. Its shape
at either end (see Figure 6). It is unclear
echoes the
mih.rabs
whether this small archway always served as an entrance

The reuse of materials from the Rudra-mahalaya in the

Siddhpur congregational mosque would seem to imply that
the previous complex's contours were radically altered to
create a layout suitable for Islamic worship. However, the
152

JSAH

/ 63:2,

JUNE

2004

city.
Along with the larger ceilings over the principal bays,
a series of smaller ceilings, also reused, caps an aisle in front
of the qibla (Figure 10). Like their larger counterparts, these
lithic elements required a substructure of thick walls, and
probably issued from another group of shrines that were
either part of the Rudra-mahalaya or other, nearby temple
complexes of Siddhpur. The overall depth of the prayer

Figure 9 Rudra-mahalaya/congregational
mosque prayerarea. Centralbay, principalceiling
Figure 10 Rudra-mahalaya/congregational
mosque prayerarea, ceilings capping the qiblaaisle

THE RUDRA-MAHALAYA/CONGREGATIONAL

MOSQUE

153

into the prayer area as it does presently. If it was not part of

the original scheme, access to this area would have been
from the east (see Figure 4). Indeed, it is unusual in north
Indian mosques to have an entrance on the qibla wall, so the
possibility of an intervention in recent times is likely. Once
again, the constantly changing state of "monuments" during nonmodern times-and even now in parts of the world
where old buildings are not perceived as static-must be
kept in mind.

Understanding the Transformation

According to recent reinterpretations of architectural reuse
in medieval South Asia, the reconfiguration of the Rudramahalaya as Siddhpur's congregational mosque was not an
act of random destruction by Muslim iconoclasts.50 These
works have challenged the Persian dynastic histories' portrayal of architectural reuse as exclusively propagandistic,
with Siddhpur as one among numerous examples attesting
to the reputation of Muslim rulers and their forces as unforgiving and steadfast idol-smashers. Instead, the studies have
proposed that there was a discernible pattern among the
desecrations.
Recent analyses propose that beginning in the twelfth
century and continuing through the next several centuries,
newly forming Muslim rulerships in South Asia were
focused on the eradication of symbolic and political presence of their Hindu (including Shaiva and Vaishnava) predecessors in the region they aimed to dominate. It is
claimed that, toward this end, Muslim rulers carefully
selected the Hindu foundations they disturbed, limiting
themselves to the principal sites of Hindu dynastic patronage. These sites were dedicated to the previous dynasty's
representative deity, or rdshtra-devata, and had supposedly
served as the embodiments of the past rulership's power. By
eliminating the architectural representations of a Hindu
dynasty and its deity, ties with these institutions would be
severed, facilitating the installation of Muslim hegemony.
Ahmad Shah's transformation of the Rudra-mahalaya into
the congregational mosque of Siddhpur has been integrated
into this dynastic deity interpretation: the Muzaffarid sultan
supposedly chose the temple complex for conversion into a
mosque because it had been dedicated to Shiva, the
Chaulukyas' dynastic deity. By dismantling the Rudramahalaya and reconsecrating it as a mosque, Ahmad Shah
replaced the dynastic symbols of the Chaulukyas with those
of the Muzaffarids.51
While these studies have been welcome departures
from oversimplifying works on the architectural history of
pre-Mughal India,52 they would also benefit from more
154

JSAH

/ 63:2,

JUNE

2004

detailedand criticalanalysis.In the case of the Muzaffarids,

for example, it should be emphasized that the dynasts
directly preceding them were not the Hindu Chaulukyas,
but rather the Muslim Tughluqs. The congregational
mosques of such cities as Bharuch(1321), Khambhat(modern Cambay,1325), and Dholka (1333, 1360) (see Figure 1)
were symbolicallyrepresentativeof the Tughluqs,and their
desecrationwould have been the Muzaffarids'most effective
attack on their predecessors' dynastic symbols. These
mosques, however, were left undisturbedby Ahmad Shah
and later Muzaffaridsultans.
Furthermore,if the Muzaffarids'principalgoal was the
eradicationof Shaivasymbols, they would have desecrated
only Shaiva temples. The Persian histories list the defilement of only the most prominent and quasi-legendarypilgrimage sites, such as Somanatha-pattanaand Siddhpur.s3
But sacredsites were sharedby many religious sects housed
in varioustemples and complexeslocated in the same urban
area. The surviving temples at Somanatha-pattana, for
example, included those consecratedto non-Shaiva deities
such as Surya and Varaha.s4Although Hulvi and Manjhu
mention only Ahmad Shah's disturbance of the Rudramahalayaat Siddhpur,the city was sacred to both Shaivas
andJains, and was studdedwith complexesdevoted to both.
In fact, Siddharajahimself had founded a Jain temple at
Siddhpurimmediately following his commissioning of the
Rudra-mahalaya.55
Although the Persian histories do not specify the precise religious affiliationsof the desecratedsites, other texts
do. MedievalJain texts record that Jain temples were disturbed by Khalji and Tughluq armies, and most likely by
the Muzaffaridsas well. For example,Khaljitroops attacked
the famed Jain temples of Shatrunjaya (Saurashtra) in
1312/13 CE.56Siddhpur'stemples also included important
Jain establishments,and it is possible that only the Rudramahalayais mentioned in the Persian histories because its
fame surpassed that of the Jain complexes that probably
received similar treatment. Consequently, the desecration
Ahmad Shah I and his successors periodicallyinflicted on
Shaiva,Vaishnava,or Jain complexes would not have had
the motivation proposed by the dynasticdeity thesis.
The patternsof Chaulukyapatronagealso suggest that
the connection between deity and dynasty was not clearcut. As discussed above, Chaulukyapolitical consolidation
did not rely exclusivelyon the patronageof Shaivatemples
and complexes, but encompassed Jain establishments as
well. Beginning with MularajaI (r. 941/2-996/7) and continuing through the reigns of Jayasimha Siddharaja
(r. 1094-1144), Kumarapala(r. 1144-74), and beyond, the
Chaulukyas' religious inclusiveness extended beyond

employing Jain ministers in their administrations." The

rulers reportedly also participated in the rituals that were
significant for the Jain community within their protection,
and underpinned the political and social stability of their
realm. It is also noteworthy that the Chaulukya capital of
Anahillavridawas associated with a Jain foundation myth: in
addition to being the dynastic center, the city was also the
seat of the most prominent and influential Jain monastic
order of the region.18
Since the Jains of Gujarat were important contributors
to the region's commercial and overall economic prosperity,
the Chaulukyas' sectarian catholicity was politic. Nevertheless, patronage by the Chaulukyas of sites and sects not
associated with their dynastic lineage questions the assumption that one creed embodied the family's political identity.
Reexamination of the sectarian and political life of a specific region calls for plausible motivations for desecration
other than eradication of a dynastic deity, at least for the
Muzaffarid rulers of Gujarat.
By turning back to Chaulukya patronage of large religious complexes, we can gain insight into the significance of
the temple complex and its social and political fabric. More
specifically, alternative reasons behind the Rudra-mahalaya's
attractiveness for the Muzaffarids also begin to emerge.
This perspective is particularly necessary since the Rudramahalaya predetermined the congregational mosque in several ways. It is true that the temple complex's physical
components-such as ceilings, columns, and shrines-were
useful for the construction of the congregational mosque.
But the Rudra-mahalaya's social and political significance
for the inhabitants of Siddhpur, as well as those of nearby
Patan, was also valuable for the coalescing Muzaffarid
sultanate.
The histories of many medieval states in northern India
record the allocation of vast financial resources such as land,
labor, and production to temple complexes during the seventh through the twelfth centuries. Even during the declining years of Chaulukya rule during the mid- to late
thirteenth century, for example, the temple complex of
Somnath continued to receive major structural additions.
The temple was not rebuilt, but in 1217 Bhimadeva II
(r. 1178-1241/2) added a two-story hall.s" Siddhpur's
Rudra-mahalaya was another complex on which comparable royal attentions were bestowed. As we have seen, the
Chaulukyas were generous patrons ofJain foundations as
well as Shaiva complexes.
While some scholars have interpreted these donations
as demonstrations of royal largesse during debilitated economic and social conditions,60 others have suggested that
they were far more than mere displays of power.61 It can be

argued, for instance, that generous patronage was essential

for the intertwining of otherwise disparate social and political contingents of society. The repercussions of construction or enlargement of temples and monastic complexes
were felt far and wide, as they encouraged economic activity in the form of endowments by other parties. The sizable
allocations to both new and established institutions were
fundamental to the consolidation and dissemination of centralized authority, and ultimately contributed to a regional
and political cohesiveness.62
Virtually innumerable inscriptions record large and
small grants of immovable property-such as villages and
parcels of land-to individual temples and complexes on
their original foundations and later additions. There are
equally numerous epigraphs recording smaller endowments
of cash as well as gifts in kind. The grants were not made
exclusively by the Chaulukya royalty and nobles; albeit on
a smaller scale, other groups such as merchants, ascetics,
and stoneworkers were equally generous. Those controlling volatile or small-scale resources could also create interest-bearing endowments whose effects continued over
subsequent centuries.63
During Chaulukya rule, temples were not the only
foundations eligible for these grants. According to surviving
inscriptions, mosques also received land, villages, and gifts
in kind for their operation and maintenance.64 Close analysis of the surviving epigraphical evidence suggests that
though the Chaulukyas themselves did not contribute to
Islamic foundations as they did to Jain establishments, the
resulting integration of communities around the building
was no less efficacious. The Sanskrit version of the bilingual Arabic-Sanskrit Somnath-Veraval inscription of 1264
CE, for example, clearly details the various artisan groups
and officials responsible for maintaining a mosque in a
proper state of repair. Moreover, the local non-Muslim
leaders were charged with the stipulated disbursement of
the proceeds from the endowment's financial interests,
including the forwarding of any surplus to the holy cities of
Mecca and Medina. Thus, whether an endowment served a
temple complex or a mosque, the societal integration it set
in motion, sanctioned by the rulership's central authority,
ultimately contributed to the contractual intertwining of
social and occupational groups.6s
Important and long-established pilgrimage sites such
as the Rudra-mahalaya and the Somnath temple attracted
the generosity of many individuals and groups throughout
their existence, and their endowments provided them with
sufficient if not ample means of support. In the end, these
centers were the proprietors of vast movable and immovable resources, both in wealth as well as social focus and loyTHE RUDRA-MAHALAYA/CONGREGATIONAL

MOSQUE

155

alties. Outright destruction of these complexes, which were

so intricately embedded within communities near and far,
would have resulted in a violent disruption of economic and
social life in the area, possibly alienating the pilgrimage sites
from their numerous possessions and, more important, relegating the latter to a liminal and ultimately useless administrative status.
The complexes as conduits of social interaction in
urban centers, and their generation of revenue and solidification as established during Chaulukya rulership, had survived the larger political changes wrought by the Khalji and
Tughluq annexations of Gujarat.66 During the Muzaffarid
sultanate's consolidation in the early fifteenth century, the
modified appropriation of these resources was certainly
more beneficial than the unforeseeable ends of random
destruction. Just as these complexes had served edifying and
unifying purposes for the Chaulukyas (and perhaps also the
Khaljis and the Tughluqs), their "conversion" to similar
ends for the Muzaffarid house was infinitely more productive than their sudden discontinuation.
Furthermore, it is quite possible that the transformation of the Rudra-mahalaya into Siddhpur's congregational
mosque was the only way the temple complex's abundant
resources could be dissociated from it and appropriated by
the Muzaffarid treasury, even if only temporarily, to be subsequently redistributed as the sultan and his administrators
deemed most advantageous. The social and political nexus
of the immediate area would experience less disturbance
from transformation than annihilation.67 I would propose,
then, that the transformation from Rudra-mahalaya to congregational mosque, rather than symbolizing a complete
rupture with the institutions established by the Chaulukyas
of Gujarat, was an attempt on the part of the newly forming Muzaffarid sultanate to create an adapted continuity
with them.
Finally, it must not be forgotten that Ahmad Shah I
established his new capital city of Ahmadabad in 1411, only
three years before the Siddhpur campaign. This act of royal
prerogative attempted to recast the political geography of
the region, with the center of power shifting from Patan in
the north to Ahmadabad in south-central Gujarat. The
region next to the area ofJunagadh in Saurashtra, northern
Gujarat, and particularly the holdings of the local rulers of
Idar had been the most persistent loci of rebellion during
the past several centuries. But with the reduction (if not
elimination) of Siddhpur's centrality as a Shaiva and Jain pilgrimage site, the processes of location and consolidation of
political and economic power in Ahmadabad were that
much more complete.
The most influential Jain monastic order of Gujarat
156

JSAH

/ 63:2,

JUNE

2004

duringChaulukyarule had been centered at Patan,only ten

miles south of Siddhpur.The prominence of Patan'sJain
monastic order had continued unabated even during the
establishment of Khalji presence in the city in the first
decade of the fourteenth century. In fact, it lingered
throughoutTughluq suzeraintyand was still in place at the
beginning of the fifteenth century.68Although Patan had
alreadybeen relegated to the status of a provincialsettlement soon after the foundation of Ahmadabad,dislodging
the influenceof its Jain monasticordersmost likelyrequired
some perseverance. With Patan's proximity to Siddhpur,
and the latter'sprominence as a ShaivaandJain pilgrimage
site, northern Gujarat surely continued to compete with
Ahmadabadin political and religious importance.
In light of these realities,AhmadShah'sdismantlingof
the importantShaivaandJain temple complexes of Siddhpur could have been a drasticmeasureto dislodge the political and religious power of the city and of northernGujarat
in general.With the shift of the politicaland economic center from the north to Ahmadabadin south-centralGujarat,
the geography of Jainism also had to change. While on a
political level the Siddhpurcampaignlikely servedto legitimate the establishment of the Muzaffarid dynasty, on a
concomitant pragmaticlevel it also fomented the solidification of Ahmadabadas Gujarat'snew capital.It is plausible,
then, that AhmadShah undertook his mission to Siddhpur,
at least in part, to aid in refocusing the Jain community's
energies from north Gujaratto the vicinity of Ahmadabad.
The sultan'sefforts were evidently successful, as the Jain
monastic order of Ahmadabaddid indeed appropriatethe
influence previouslybelonging to Patan and the north.69

Reception of the Transformation

Scholarly analyses of architecturalreuse have focused on
the treatmentof the phenomenon in Persian dynastichistories and the possible motivations behind Muslim rulers'
desecrationof importantHindu sites. The fragmentsresulting from this apparentlythoughtless destructionwere further mutilatedbefore or duringthe processof incorporation
into Islamicbuildings,indicatingthe victors'disdainfor the
vanquished.70Thus far, interpretationshave assumed that
the majorityof the population, including both Hindus and
Muslims, perceivedthe destructionof standingbuildingsby
Muslim elites as a violent, propagandisticact.
The textualsources,producedprimarilyfor courtlycircle, arenot informativeabout the reception of architectural
reuse among nonruling echelons of medieval Indian society. Studiesof Indo-Persianchronicleshave rightlypointed
out the imbricationin these works of their authors'politi-

cal and personal motives, which together with the abundance of literary tropes renders them less than transparent.71Nevertheless, a close examination of the physical
tracesof the Rudra-mahalaya's
transformationinto the congregational mosque provides important insights into the
reception of the change by at least one segment of the
nonelite population-the stoneworkerswho executed the
work.

During nonmoderntimes, religiouscreedwas not divisive amongthe artisanalandlaboringstrataof Gujaratisociety. Within Hinduism,occupationswere largelycastebased,
and conversionto Islamdid little to shakeloose this association, which persistedin a familyfor generations.Muslims
and non-Muslims would then work side-by-side in their
inherited occupation.72Moreover, inscriptions from the
mid-thirteenth century and afterwardindicate that many
Islamicbuildingswere constructedand maintainedby both
Hindu andMuslimcraftsmen.Indeed,the mixtureof creeds
in many occupationalguilds remained largely unchanged
for the next severalcenturies,as inscriptionsfrom the reign
of AhmadShahI also recordthat Hindu stoneworkerswere
employedin the constructionof Islamicbuildings."Therefore, both Muslim and Hindu stoneworkersmay have participatedin the transformationof the Rudra-mahalaya.
The method of reuse of large, structurallyintegral
components such as the ceilings from the temple complex
yields importantinformationabout responsesto the transformationprocess, both among the stoneworkersand others. The ceilingswere carved(Figure 11),with pieces fitting
togetherlike a three-dimensionaljigsawpuzzle.In the event
that these pieces sustaineddamage,they would have to be
recarved if the ceiling were to be structurallyfunctional,
which was inefficient both economically and temporally.
Blind destruction would have been counterproductiveto
the successfulextractionof the variouspieces of a ceiling or
any other structurallyimportant component. It is more
likely that buildingsincorporatingolder componentswere
the resultof salvageratherthan pillage, carefuldismantling
ratherthan randomdestruction.
The integrationof the Rudra-mahalaya's
minor shrines
into the congregationalmosque is perhapsthe most informative exampleof how the complex'stransformationinto a
"new"place of worship was received by the stoneworkers.
As indicated above, three minor shrines were not only
incorporated into the mosque's prayer area, but the two
fully integrated ones became the foci of the worshipers'
prayersalong the qibla.Based on the shrine entrancesgiving onto the interiorof the prayerareatoday (Figure 12), it
would seem that much of the iconographyof the jambsand
lintelsof these entranceswas left intact.On the lowerjambs,

Figure 11 Rudra-mahalaya'sprincipaltemple (ca. 1140), ceiling

fragment

the unfinished-rather than effaced-portions are clearly

visible. There is little evidence of the token effacementof
figural imagery that usually took place when temple elements were recycled.It is possible that these framesserved
as supportsfor mihrdbsmade of perishablematerials,which
were fastened onto them, as has been suggested for the
mihrdbsof other Gujaratibuildings.7Thus, in keepingwith
the requisites of Islamic worship, the survivingiconography would have been concealed from view.
The full incorporation of the two Rudra-mahalaya
shrines into the congregational mosque'sprayer area has
importantformalprecedents.As noted by other scholars,it
is probablethat these projectionson the westernwall were
architectural conventions "imported"by the immigrant
Muslim communities of western India. Due to the differing ritual practices according with the requirements of
Islam, which made new or rare demands on the skills of
THE RUDRA-MAHALAYA/CONGREGATIONAL MOSQUE

157

mosque prayerarea.
Figure 12 Rudra-mahalaya/congregational
Uncovered entrance to the southern shrine, incorporatedinto prayer
area

Figure 13 Tomb of Ibrahim,Bhadredvar(Kachh),Gujarat,mid-twelfthcentury. Exterior,qiblawall

locally trainedstoneworkers,it is more than likely that the

latter relied on their patronsfor descriptionsof what they
were to build or carve.The recentlysettled Muslimswould
have communicatedto the workersthe forms that were not
only appropriatefor their own ritual needs, but probably
also most familiarto them from memories of their homeon Indian
lands. The exterior projections of the mih4rabs
been
with
similar
have
then,
compared
projecmosques,
tions on mosquesin southwesternIran,whence manyof the
settlers hailed.75
Recent studies have analyzedwestern India'sarchitectural practices and their application to Islamic buildings,
concluding that this applicationcontinued unabatedfrom
the mid-twelfth through the fifteenth century and probably later.76By the fifteenth century,the canons of mosque

construction were fully integrated within the Maru-Guran architecturaltreatisefrom

jaratradition.The Vrksdarava,
western India that codified generationsof building experience, contains a chapter describing the construction of a
Numermosqueaccordingto the Maru-Gurjaratradition.77
ous other architecturaltreatises also specify the requirements governingresidential,civic, and temple architecture,
indicating a continued demand for these other types of
buildings as well. The architectural knowledge of this
region, then, was applied to and itself benefited from the
constructionof Islamicbuildings.
The stoneworkers were evidently left to their own
devicesfor the actualfashioningof newly introducedarchitectural designs. The exteriorsof the mid-twelfth-century
mihrabprojections at Bhadresvar(Figure 13), as well as

158

JSAH

/ 63:2,

JUNE

2004

plan were conceptualized and executed as the analogous

locations in temples.
It should be noted that there is evidence of token
effacementof figuralelementson the Siddhpurshrines'surfaces, perhapsa consequenceof the fact that the removalof
iconismwould haverenderedthe minorshrinesstructurally
unstable.It must also be borne in mind that at least some of
this effacement might have taken place long after the
mosque'sconstructionaround 1415, since Islamicworship
continued at the site until the last quarterof the twentieth
century.
Thus, the incorporation of the Rudra-mahalaya's
minor shrines into the qiblaof the congregationalmosque
(see Figure 6) is an actualization of the visual reference
made by the mihrdbprojectionsdiscussedabove.At Siddhpur,the skeletalmorphemesof the three-moldingsequence,
along with the additional aniconic elements of earlier
projections (see Figures 13, 14), were effectively
mihr.ab
filled in with the teeming figuralprogramsof a Shaivacomplex.This literalizationof whatwas previouslyan analogous
structuraldevice saysmuch about the relationshipbetween
the stoneworkersand the fruits of their labors:in essence,
this incorporation was consistent with the long accepted
conventions for mosque constructionin westernIndia.

Conclusions

Figure 14 Congregationalmosque, Bharuch,Gujarat,ca. 1325.

Exterior,western wall (qibla)

those in subsequent centuries throughout western India

(Figure 14), all carry the essential elements of a temple
sanctum'selevation": this includes a standardthree-molding sequenceof the "hoof,""invertedpot,"and torusmolding, along with an overhangingcornice, a plain wall frieze,
and an abbreviatedspringing of the superstructure.79In
temple architecture,the whole elevationis the culmination
of the main axis and the pinnacle of sanctityin the shrine.
This overlapswith the mihrdbas the most sacredfocal point
in an Islamic ritual building. While the newly constructed
mosques at Bhadre'varand later foundations were given
mihrabprojections devoid of the figuraliconography that
would have been present on a temple elevation, these projections possessedother importantmarkersof the latter.It
would appear that these most sacred points in a mosque

This investigationhas attemptedto show thatthe paradigm

of historicalrupture,which has generally been applied to
Islamic buildings exhibiting architecturalreuse, has not
takenall of the survivingevidenceinto account.Indeed, the
evidence taken as a whole suggests that, both historically
and historiographically,a frameworkof modified continuity would be more fitting than one of complete rupturefor
the analysisof survivingexamplesof reuse from medieval
India.
A reexamination of the surviving physical and epigraphicalevidence from Gujaratsuggests that a complete
breakwith past institutionswould have been neither fully
possible nor advantageousfor the Muzaffarids.The large
architecturalfoundationsof the Chaulukyarulershad created vast and intricatesocietal nexuses,maintainedby subsequent royal and lay patronage. Indeed, these webs of
social, political, occupational, and religious connections
among communities were valuable for the new dynasts.
These links continued to generate revenue and comprise
the bases of political support for the rulers and their
regional governors. The refocusing of financialresources
and social loyalties toward a new ruling power requireda
modified continuitywith past institutions. One method of
THE RUDRA-MAHALAYA/CONGREGATIONAL

MOSQUE

159

achieving this was by means of the transformation of prominent temple complexes such as the Rudra-mahalaya into
mosques. The transformation did not destroy all the social
networks created by the complex, but rather redirected
them toward the new regional hegemony of the Muzaffarids.
Historiographically, the combination of the divergent
trajectories of Indic and Islamic architectural history proves
beneficial in understanding the creation of Siddhpur's congregational mosque. Many of the characteristics of the temple complex were instrumental in shaping the physical
components and measurements of the mosque. More
important, however, temple iconography was also essential
in understanding how standing elements of the temple
complex could have been incorporated into the mosque as
its most sacred and focal point. In light of the long-standing presence on exterior mihrab elevations of elements from
Indic architectural iconography, the integration of actual
minor shrines as the minhrabsof the Siddhpur mosque does
not appear as jarring as might be assumed. The construction
of Islamic buildings in India seems not to be an endeavor so
alien to temple architecture as to warrant a completely separate scholarly discourse. Indeed, the mutual benefit ensuing from a convergence of Indic and Islamic architectural
histories, particularly in analyses of architectural reuse, cannot be overestimated.
In the end, Hulvi and Manjhu's reports of Ahmad
Shah's campaign to Siddhpur were, in broad contours, representative of the historical results of the act while simultaneously serving panegyric purposes. The sultan did indeed
gain tremendously after his appropriation and redeployment of the architectural and economic resources of the
city. Although he most likely did not add "idols of gold and
silver" per se to his treasury, he did garner something much
more enduring and influential, namely more of the political and economic capital necessary to establish the longevity
of the Muzaffarid house in Gujarat.

Notes

"TempleDesecration and Indo-Muslim States," in David Gilmartin and

BruceLawrence,eds., BeyondTurkandHindu:ShapingIndo-MuslimIdentity
in Pre-ModernIndia(Gainesville,2000), 246-81.
4. Sir AlexanderKinloch Forbes,RasMala:HindooAnnalsof theProvinceof
Goozeratin Western
India,ed. H. G. Rawlinson,2 vols. (London, 1924), vol.
1, 165ff., figs. 3, 4.
5. JamesBurgessand Henry Cousens, TheArchitecturalAntiquities
ofNorththe
Districts
Included
in
the
Baroda
ern Gujarat,MoreEspecially
State,vol. 9,
of
Western
India
(Calcutta,
1903).
of
Survey
Archaeological
6. Since the Rudraaspectof Shivawas dividedinto eleven minor aspectsor
rudras(knowncollectivelyas the ekaddsarudra),it is possiblethat the minor
shrines could have numberedup to eleven. See T. A. GopinathaRao, Ele2 vols., 2d ed. (Varanasi,1971), vol. 2, pt. 2,
mentsofHindu Iconography,
386-92. Without thoroughexcavationof the site, it is difficultto determine
the originalnumberof these minor shrines.
7. Although architecturalrecyclingseems to have been especiallycommon
between the late twelfth and fifteenth centuries, there is virtuallyno evidence indicatingthe precise origins of the reused fragments.Only specific
elements in a given building have been identified, and these are based on
speculation.See J. M. Nanavatiand M. A. Dhaky, The Ceilingsin the Templesof Gujarat,ed. B. L. Mankad,Bulletinof theMuseumandPictureGallery,
Baroda,specialissue,vols. 16-17 (Baroda,1963),esp. pls. 2, 4, 22, 33-3 5, 58,
60, 61, 66, 67, 70-73, 83, 89-92, 94.
8. See Beat Brenk, "Spolia from Constantine to Charlemagne:Aesthetic
Versus Ideology,"DumbartonOaksPapers41 (1987), esp. 103, where it is
explainedthat the derivationof the word spoliafrom the Latin spoliumstill
bears implicationsof the original meaning: "removedhide of an animal,
soldier'sbooty or spoils of war."
9. See esp. Dhaky,"Chronology,"45-50; and M. A. Dhaky,"The Genesis
and Development of Maru-GurjaraTemple Architecture," in Pramod
Architecture
Chandra,ed., Studiesin IndianTemple
(Varanasi,1975), 114-65.
10. See RichardH. Davis, "IndianArt Objects as Loot,"Journalof Asian
Studies52, no. 1 (1993), 22-48, expandedto include some treatmentof the
Ghaznavidincursionsinto northernIndiain RichardH. Davis, TheLivesof
IndianImages(Delhi, 1997). Eaton, "TempleDesecration,"focuses exclusively on Muslim desecrationsof Hindu sites. See also Sheldon Pollock,
"Ramayanaand PoliticalImaginationin India,"JournalofAsianStudies52,
no. 2 (1993), 261-97.
11. Eaton'sparadigmhas been appliedmost recentlyin a study of architecturalreuseby Phillip B. WagonerandJohn Henry Rice, "FromDelhi to the
Deccan: Newly Discovered Tughluq Monuments at Warangal-Sultanpur
and the Beginnings of Indo-IslamicArchitecturein Southern India,"ArtibusAsiae61, no. 1 (2001), 77-117.
12. See R. Nath, "On the Theory of Indo-Muslim Architecture,"in Anna
LiberaDallapiccola,ed., ShastricTraditionsin IndianArts (Stuttgart,1989),
in Gujarat:Architecture
and
esp. 200; and AlkaPatel, BuildingCommunities
Societyduringthe TwelfththroughFourteenthCenturies(Leiden, 2004), ch. 3.
13. See C. P. Rajendranand KusalaRajendran,"Characteristicsof Defor-

I am grateful to the Michigan Society of Fellows at The University of

Michigan, Ann Arbor, for supporting this work. I also thank the police commissioner and constables of Siddhpur (Mehasana District, Gujarat), whose
cooperation made the essay possible.

mation and Past Seismicity Associated with the 1819 Kutch Earthquake,
Northwestern India," Bulletin of the Seismological Society ofAmerica 91, no. 3
(2001), 407-26; and C. P. Rajendran, Kusala Rajendran, and Biju John,
"Surface Deformation Related to the 1819 Kachch Earthquake: Evidence

1. Madhusudhan Dhaky, "The Chronology of the Solanki Temples of

Gujarat," Madhya Pradesh Itihasa Parishad 3 (1961), 45.

for Recurrent Activity," Current Science75, no. 6 (1998), 623-26. I am grateful to Dr. Peter Wilf in the Department of Geological Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, for his initial suggestion that seismic disturbances

2. Ashok Majumdar, Chaulukyas of Gujarat (Bombay, 1956), 67ff.

3. See Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya, The Making of Early Medieval India
(Delhi, 1994), 22, 30-37, for the link between legitimization of dynastic lin-

could provide at least one source of recyclable materials.

14. Burgess and Cousens, Antiquities, 64.
15. As Bernard S. Cohn noted, in the context of objects, in "The Transfor-

eages and patronage of sectarian establishments; and Richard M. Eaton,

mation of Objects into Artifacts, Antiquities, and Art in Nineteenth-Cen-

160

JSAH

/ 63:2,

JUNE

2004

tury India," in Cohn, Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge (Delhi, 1997),
76-105. Of course, this important historicization can also be applied to
buildings.
16. See Kantilal E Sompura, The Structural Templesof Gujarat, vol. 4, Thesis Publication Series (Ahmadabad, 1968), 91, 98, 120, 153 n. 151, 161, 184.
17. See John E. Cort, Jains in the World(Delhi, 2001), 34-40; and G. Biihler, On the Indian Sect of the Jainas, trans. James Burgess (London, 1903),
esp. 79.
18. See Patel, Building Communities, ch. 2.
19. The annexation of Gujarat as a province was attempted twice by the
Khalji forces of Delhi, once in ca. 1300 and again in 1303. Most chroni-

23. Tirmizi, Medieval Gujarat, 29.

24. Sikandar ibn Muhammad 'urf Manjhu (1554-after 1617), Mir'adt-e
Sikandari, ed. S. C. Misra and M. L. Rahman, Department of History Series
3 (Baroda, 1961), 43-46; and The Local Muhammadan Dynasties: Gujarat,
trans. Sir Edward Clive Bayly (1886) in Nagendra Singh, ed., The History
of India as Told by Its Own Historians (Delhi, 1970). Hulvi's work was perhaps also consulted by Bukhari, in his late sixteenth-century Tarikh-e
Salatin-e Gujarat. See Tirmizi, Medieval Gujarat, 28-31.
25. For the conventions of portraying a royal patron, see Peter Hardy, Historians of Medieval India: Studies in Indo-Muslim Historical Writing (London,
1960); Tirmizi, Medieval Gujarat, 10-11; and Misra, Rise of Muslim Power,

175-76.

clers mention only one Khalji military campaign against Gujarat in

1298-99. However, the more accurate date for the first Khalji incursion
may be 1300. See Zia' al-Din Barani (ca. 1285-after 1360), Tarikh-e

26. For the Chaulukya campaigns in Saurashtra, and the reversion of territorial "conquests" to the local rulers, see G. Biihler, "Eleven Land-Grants

Firuzshahi, ed. Syed Ahmad Khan, Bibliotheca Indica: Collection of Oriental Works (Bengal, 1862), 74-76; Isami (fl. ca. 1350), Futuh al-Salatin, ed.
A. S. Usha, Madras University Islamic Series 9 (Madras, 1948); and G. Biih-

of the Chaulukyas of Anahilawada," Indian Antiquary 6 (1877), 190ff; and D.

B. Diskalkar, "Inscriptions of Kathiawad," New Indian Antiquary 1
(1938-39), 579.

ler, "AJain Account of the End of the Vaghelas of Gujarat," Indian Antiquary
26 (1897), 194-95. A bilingual Persian-Sanskrit inscription of 704 AH/1304
CEconfirms that Gujarat reverted to Vaghela rulership after Ala al-Din

27. Zafar Khan (later Muzaffar Shah I) had to subjugate Idar at least three
times, even though his center of authority was nearby, at Patan. He also
made forays into Saurashtra. Ahmad Shah I inherited equally restive territories: he went to Idar and Saurashtra several times for similar reasons.

Khalji's first offensive in 1300, requiring a second Khalji campaign in

1303/4. See Z. A. Desai, "A Persian-Sanskrit Inscription of Karna Deva
Vaghela of Gujarat," EpigraphiaIndica, Arabic and Persian Supplement (1975),
13-20.
20. Differing textual accounts have led to confusion surrounding the declaration of the Gujarat sultanate. The Tughluq governor Zafar Khan was
reluctant to assume royal insignias while his overlord, the virtually powerless Nusrat Shah Tughluq, was still alive. However, his son Tatar Khan was
apparently impatient for royal prerogatives, and imprisoned his father after
declaring himself Sultan Nasir al-Din Muhammad Shah in 1404. The latter painfully arranged for the assassination of his son. But Tatar Khan had
begun an irreversible process, so that two months later, Zafar Khan de facto
assumed the title of Sultan Muzaffar Shah I. See Z. A. Desai, "Inscriptions
of the Sultans of Gujarat from Saurashtra," Epigraphia IndicaArabic and Persian Supplement(1953-54), 52-53; and S. C. Misra, The Rise of Muslim Power
in Gujarat (New York, 1963), 151-65.
21. As in the case of his grandfather, there is doubt concerning the year of
Ahmad Shah I's accession. Muzaffar Shah I maintained a certain loyalty to
his deceased eldest offspring in spite of the latter's deception. Eventually
he appointed Tatar Khan's first-born son, Ahmad Khan, as heir. Ahmad
Khan might have inherited the overwhelming ambition of his father, and it
is possible that he facilitated the demise of his grandfather in 1410, in order
to assume royal titles and prerogatives as Sultan Ahmad Shah I. Other

See Misra, Rise of Muslim Power, 146ff, 168-70, 174-75; Desai, "Inscriptions of the Sultans of Gujarat"; and Diskalkar, "Inscriptions of Kathiawad," 579-80.
28. See Misra, Rise of Muslim Power, 174.
29. Manjhu, Mir'adt,43-46; and Local Muhammadan Dynasties, 98-99.
30. For these three foundations, see George Michell and Snehal Shah, eds.,
Ahmadabad (Bombay, 1988), 32-39, 42-43.
31. A Sanskrit inscription of ca. 1251, found on a pillar in the Ahmad Shah
mosque, records a donation to the temple of Uttaresvara at Mahimsaka.
This evidence suggests that the column once belonged to this temple. See
J. E. Abbott, "Ahmadabad Inscription of Visaladeva, Samvat 1308,"
Epigraphia Indica 5, no. 13 (1898-99), 102-3. See infra in main text.
32. See esp. Michell and Sah, Ahmadabad, 32-39.
33. Manjhu, Mir'dt (1960) 44-46.
34. For example, Manjhu reports the battle between Ahmad Shah I and
Maharwal Gopinath of Dungarpur in 1433 with some restraint. Although
he attributes victory to the sultan, the Antri inscription of 1468 CEclaims
that Gopinath was victorious. See Local Muhammadan Dynasties, 120, 527.
35. Manjhu (quoting Hulvi), Mir'at, 44, 45. Both Manjhu and Hulvi Shirazi
seem to have continued in the descriptive vein established at least two centuries earlier. The multivolume work by the Mamluk-period historian Ibn

accounts, however, state that due to a protracted illness, Muzaffar Shah I

appointed his grandson Sultan before his death in 1411. See Desai, "Inscrip-

al-Athir (d. 1234), al-Kimilfi-t-Tdrikh (Beirut, 1989), vol. 6, 14-19, provides a long account of the temple of Sumnat (Somnath) and the riches
plundered there by Mahmud Ghaznavi. See Alka Patel, "A Note on Mah-

tions of the Sultans of Gujarat," 52-53; Z. A. Desai, "Khalji and Tughluq

Inscriptions from Gujarat," Epigraphia Indica Arabic and Persian Supplement

mud Ghaznavi, Somanatha, and the Building of a Reputation," paper presented at Conference of South Asian Archaeology, Paris, 1-4 July 2001.

(1962), 32-34; and Misra, Rise of Muslim Power, 151-65.

22. The later texts include the Ma'asir-i Mahmud Shahi by 'Abd al-Husain

36. Dhaky, "Chronology," 44-47 (see n. 1); Sompura, Temples, 136.

37. Biihler, "Eleven Land-Grants," 191-93 (see no. 16); and Harihar Vitthal Trivedi, Chaulukyan Inscriptions(Bhopal, 1994), 27-28.

Tuni (from Khurasan), covering the period ending in 1486; the Tarikh-i
Gujardt by Sharaf al-Din Muhammad Bukhari (d. 1515); another Tarikh-e
Gujardt by Mir Abui Turab Vali, starting with 1525; Sayyid Mahmiid
Bukhanri'sTarikh-e Saldttn-e Gujardt (late sixteenth century); and the Mir'adte Ahmadi by Mirza Muhammad Hasan, composed during the eighteenth
century. One sixteenth-century Arabic history also survives: Zafar al- Wadlih
bi Muzaffar wa dlih, written by'Abd Allah Muhammad ibn 'Umar al-Makki
al-Asafi al-Ulughkhani. None of these texts details the reign of Ahmad Shah
I. See S. A. I. Tirmizi, Some AspectsofMedieval Gujarat (Delhi, 1968), 15-17,
24-34.

38. See Dhaky, "Chronology," 46-47 (see n. 26); and Sompura, Temples,
135-36.
39. Dhaky, "Chronology," 49, my emphasis.
40. The twelfth-century Dvyasrayakavyd of Hemacandra notes that
Jayasimha Siddharaja commissioned a Mahavira temple at Siddhpur. See
Satya Pal Narang, Hemacandra's "Dvyasrayakavya":A Literary and Cultural
Study (New Delhi, 1972), 21; also Sompura, Temples,141-42, who mentions
fifteenth-century sources, most notably the Somasaubhagya-kavyd (1468 CE)
of Somapratisthasuri, which describes surviving Jain temples at Siddhpur.
THE RUDRA-MAHALAYA/CONGREGATIONAL

MOSQUE

161

41. The excavation findings are set out in M. A. Dhaky and H. P. Shastri,
The Riddle of the Templeof Somanatha (Varanasi, 1974).
42. Ibid., 16-18.
43. Merutungacarya, The Prabandhacintamanior Wishing-Stone ofNarratives,
trans. C. H. Tawney (Delhi, 1982, reprint), 126, 131-32.
44. Vajeshankar G. Ozha, "The Somnathpattan Prasasti of Bhava Brihaspati," Vienna OrientalJournal 3 (1889), 1-19.
45. Merutunga was most likely inspired by a similar story from the Prabhavakacarita (ca. 1250), which describes Kumarapala and Hemacandra's
involvement in the Somnath temple. See G. Biihler, The Life of Hemacandracarya, trans. Manilal Patel (Santiniketan, 1936, German original 1889).
I am indebted to Dr. Phyllis Granoff of McMaster University for this reference.
46. As the first Chaulukya ruler, Mularaja I established this pattern of royal
patronage ofJain complexes (see M. A. Dhaky, "Some Early Jain Temples
in Western India," in U. P. Shah, ed., Shri MahavirJain Vidyalaya Golden
Jubilee Volume (Bombay, 1968), esp. 284. Inscriptions from the reigns of
Karnadeva I (r. 1065-94), Jayasimha Siddharaja, Kumarapala, and Arjunadeva (r. 1261-75) all attest to the patronage ofJain establishments by the
later Chaulukyas. This participation in Jain foundations seems to have been
reciprocated: after the Ghurid desecration of the Somesvara temple at
Kiradu (Barmer district, Rajasthan) in ca. 1172, a new image of Shiva was
given by the wife of Tejahpala to the temple in 1178. Tejahpala was the Jain
minister of one of the feudatories of Bhimadeva II. See Trivedi, Chaunlkyan
Inscriptions.
47. See Peter Van der Veer, "The Foreign Hand: Orientalist Discourse in
Sociology and Communalism," in Carol A. Breckenridge and Peter Van der
Veer, eds., Orientalism and the PostcolonialPredicament (Philadelphia, 1993),
29-30; Peter Van der Veer, Imperial Encounters: Religion and Modernity in1
India and Britain (Princeton, 2001), esp. 3-29; and Richard King, Orientalism and Religion (New Delhi, 1999).
48. Architectural reuse is evident in Gujarati mosques and tombs particularly of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. For the buildings constructed
with older materials during Muzaffarid rule, see Michell and Shah, Ahnmadabad (see n. 30).
49. Nanavati and Dhaky, Ceilings, pls. 60-61 (see n. 7), identify one of the
principal ceilings, namely that of the southernmost bay, as having come
directly from "one of the minor shrines behind [the] Rudra-mahalaya," as
well as one of the two smaller ceilings above the ornately carved stone minbar (pl. 94).
50. See Davis, "Indian Art Objects"; Davis, Lives of Indian Images (see n.
10); Eaton, "Temple Desecration" (see n. 10); and Pollock, "Ramayana and
Political Imagination" (see n. 3).
51. For the Rudra-mahalaya specifically, see Eaton, "Temple Desecration,"
table 10.1 no. 34.
52. See Robert Hillenbrand, "Political Symbolism in Early Indo-Islamic
Mosque Architecture: The Case of Ajmir," Iran 26 (1988), 105-17; and
Anthony Welch, "Architectural Patronage and the Past: The Tughluq Sultans of Delhi," Muqarnas 10 (1993), 311-22.
53. The Mir'at only mentions "the temple of Sidhpur [sic], the idols of
which were all made of silver and gold" (Local Muhammadan Dynasties,
98-99 [see n. 24]). However, there is extensive epigraphical evidence ofJain
temples in Siddhpur. See Sompura, Structural Temples(see n. 16), 141-42;
and Misra, Rise of Muslim Power, 174-75 (see n. 20).
54. See Sompura, Temples, 147, for sun worship at Somanfitha-pattana.
55. Trivedi, Chaulukyan Inscriptions,62ff.
56. This was reported in the Samra-rasu by an anonymous author (ca. 1315);
in Jinaprabhasuri's Vividhatirthakalpa (1333); and the Nabhinandan-jinoddharprabandhaby Kakkasuri (1336-37). The desecration caused widespread

162

JSAH

/ 63:2,

JUNE

2004

protest among the economically powerful Jain communities of north India.

The weight of the outcry was such that Alp Khan, the Khalji governor of
Gujarat (r. 1300-15), attempted to remedy the situation not only by giving
permission to repair the temples, but also by contributing to the cause. See
Misra, Rise of Muslim Power, 68 n. 2, 68-70.
57. Karnadeva I made grants to a Jain temple. Siddharaja eventually repaired
the Jain temple of Neminatha at Raivtaka, and made endowments to the
famed Jain site of Satrunjaya (Saurashtra). See Narang, "Dvyasrayakavya,"
126 (see n. 40).
58. Prabandhdcintdmani,16-18 (see n. 43); and Cort, Jais, 35-36, 39 (see n. 17).
59. The other addition to the Somnath complex, a commemorative gateway,
was commissioned by the priest Tirupantaka. See Dhaky and Shastri, Riddle, 27-28 (see n. 41); G. Biihler, "The Cintra Prasasti of the Reign of
Sarangadeva," Epigraphia Indica 1 (1888-91), 271-86; and G. Biihler and
Vajeshankar G. Ozha, "Sridhara's Devapattana Prasasti," Epigraphia Indica
(1894), 437-46.
60. For the interpretation of medieval Indian patronage as the theory of
Indian feudalism, see D. D. Kosambi, An Introduction to the Study of Indian
History (Bombay, 1956); and R. S. Sharma, Indian Feudalism, c. 300-1200
(Calcutta, 1965).
61. Recent reexaminations of these allocations are found in Chattopadhyaya,
Early Medieval India (see n. 3); and Chattopadhyaya, "State and Economy in
North India: Fourth Century through Twelfth Century," in Romila Thapar,
ed., Recent Perspectivesof Early Indian Histoly (Bombay, 1995), esp. 311-25,
334ff.
62. See Chattopadhyaya, Early Medieval India.
63. These endowments were made in perpetuity, as explicitly stated in many
of the royal grants. See Bbhler, "Eleven Land-Grants" (see n. 26). For
endowments made by the merchant and laboring classes, see esp. Diskalkar,
"Inscriptions of Kathiawad," 687, 691, 695 (see n. 26). An ascetic's grant is
found in Biihler, "Cintra Prasasti"; and Chattopadhyaya, Early Medieval
India, 143-44.
64. For a mosque in the port city of Somnath, see Z. A. Desai, "Arabic
Inscriptions of the Rajput Period from Gujarat," Epigraphia Indica Arabic
and Persian Supplement (1961), 10-15; E. Hultzsch, "A Grant of Arjunadeva
of Gujarat, Dated 1264 A.D.,"Indian Antiquary 2 (1882), 241-45; and D.C.
Sircar, "Veraval Inscription of Chaulukya-Vaghela Arjuna, 1264 A.D.,"
Epigraphia Indica (1961), 141-50. For a donation to the congregational
mosque of Khambhat during the early fourteenth century, see Desai, "Persian-Sanskrit Inscription" (see n. 19).
65. See Hultzsch, "Grant of Arjunadeva"; Sircar, "Veraval Inscription"; and
Alka Patel, "Communities in Collaboration: The Somanatha-Veraval
Inscription of 1264 CE(Gujarat)," in Carla M. Sinopoli and Grant R. Parker,
eds., Ancient India and Its Wider World (Ann Arbor, 2004).
66. Misra, Rise ofIMuslim Power.
67. The economic history of the Muzaffarids has been investigated only for
the later period of the sultanate. See Z. A. Desai, "An Untapped Eighteenth-Century Persian Source for the Administrative-cum-Economic History of Gujarat," author's manuscript, n.d. The measures taken during the
consolidation of their power are not known well enough to explore this
hypothesis thoroughly. But it is nevertheless necessary to pose the idea, as
previous explanations for architectural reuse have fallen short of encompassing the social and economic consequences of the phenomenon. Unfortunately, information regarding the continued function of large temple
complexes, such as Kumbhariya and Ranakpur, has not yet come to light.
68. Misra, Rise of Muslim Power, 66-67.
69. Cort, Jains, 39 (see n. 17).
70. See Hillenbrand, "Political Symbolism" (see n. 52); and Welch, "Architectural Patronage" (see n. 52).

71. For an analysisof the Persian and Arabic histories of Gujaratdating

from the fifteenth to the eighteenth centuries, see Tirmizi, Medieval
Gujarat,18-44 (see n. 22). The textsproducedin the Delhi region between
the twelfth and fifteenth centurieswere also analyzedwith similarhistoricization by Hardy,HistoriansofMedievalIndia(see n. 25).
72. For the associationbetween caste and occupation, see M. N. Srinivas,
CollectedEssays(Delhi, 2002), 363. For epigraphical analysis, see Patel,
"Somanatha-Veraval
Inscription."
73. The foundationinscriptionof a mosquein PrabhasaPatandatesto 1428
during the reign of Ahmad Shah I, and names Shivdas, a Hindu, as the
stoneworker.See Z. A. Desai, Arabic,Persianand UrduInscriptions
of West
List (New Delhi, 1999), 122.
India:A Topographical
74. MehrdadShokoohy,Bhadreivar,the OldestIslamicMonumentsin India,
Studiesin IslamicArt and Architecture2 (Leiden, 1988), 16ff.
75. Shokoohy,Bhadreivar,16-17.
76. See Patel, BuildingCommunities
(see n. 12);and M. A. Dhaky,"Renais-

sance and the Late Maru-GurjaraTemple Architecture,"Journal of the

IndianSocietyof OrientalArt,specialnumber,WesternIndianArt (1965-66),
4-22.
77. For discussionof this treatise,see R. Nath, "Rehmana-Prasada:
A Chapter on the Muslim Mosque from the Vrks~rnava,"
Vishveshvaranand
Indological
Journal15,no. 2 (1977),238-44;Nath, "Onthe Theory of Indo-Muslim
Architecture"(see n. 12);andPatel,BuildingCommunities,
ch. 3.
78. See Patel, BuildingCommunities,
chs. 3-5.
79. See Dhaky,"Genesis,"fig. j (see n. 9).

Illustration Credits
Figure 1. Misra,Riseof MuslimPower,frontispiece
Figures 2, 3. Burgessand Cousens,Antiquities,pl. 38
Figures4-14. Photographsand illustrationsby the author

THE RUDRA-MAHALAYA/CONGREGATIONAL

MOSQUE

163