SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS IN INDIA: A CIVILIZATIONAL LEGACY ACROSS THE AGES- Part II
PART II
— CIVILIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS
1.
MONUMENTAL ARCHITECTURE, URBAN DESIGN, TEMPLE ENGINEERING & HYDRAULIC
SYSTEMS
[by Ved Pal, IRSE; FIE, FIPWE,
MBA; Former Chief Administrative Officer (Ministry of Rlys, Govt of India);
Former Principal Chief Engineer (Min. of Rlys, GOI)]
1.1 Epic
Age Architecture: Palace Engineering, Urban Planning & Oceanic Construction
Traditions (c. 8th–6th Millennium BCE)
The Valmiki Ramayana and Mahabharata
describe highly developed traditions of palace architecture, fortified cities,
and large-scale civil engineering works. Ayodhya and Mithila (Janakpur) are
depicted as planned cities with wide roads, gateways, defensive walls,
and multi-storeyed palatial complexes. Lanka is described as a fortified island
metropolis with elevated palace structures, metallic embellishments, and
complex urban layout.
The descriptions of Lanka and Ravana’s
palace suggest a mature tradition of palace engineering integrating defence,
structural design, and ornamental architecture. (Sources: Valmiki Ramayana, Bala Kanda and Ayodhya Kanda, Critical
Edition, Baroda Oriental Institute; Valmiki Ramayana, Sundara Kanda and Yuddha
Kanda)
The construction of the Ram Setu across
the sea between Rameshwaram and Lanka represents a coordinated large-scale
engineering effort. Geological formations in the Palk Strait correspond to this
alignment and have been studied through satellite imagery and marine surveys. (ISRO–NRSC Coastal Studies Report, 2014; Geological Survey of
India Reports on Palk Strait formations)
The Mahabharata describes
Indraprastha as a planned royal capital featuring the Maya Sabha, an
advanced assembly hall constructed with illusion-based architectural design.
The structure incorporated reflective surfaces, optical effects, and highly
polished materials, creating visual illusions of water and solid ground. The
hall served as a ceremonial and administrative centre, indicating advanced
knowledge of spatial design, material finishing, and architectural aesthetics. (Mahabharata, Sabha Parva, Critical Edition, Bhandarkar Oriental
Research Institute)
Dwarka is
described as a fortified coastal city with palatial complexes, organized urban
layout, and maritime infrastructure. The Mahabharata records its
submergence by the sea approximately 36 years after the war i.e. in c. 5525
BCE. Marine archaeological investigations off the Gujarat coast have revealed
submerged structural remains including stone blocks, wall-like formations, and
anchors indicative of maritime activity. These findings demonstrate the
existence of ancient coastal settlements and port-related construction
traditions. (S. R. Rao, The Lost City of Dvaraka, 1999;
National Institute of Oceanography Marine Archaeology Reports).
From
above it becomes amply evident that textual descriptions in the Ramayana
and Mahabharata, when viewed alongside corroborative geological and
marine archaeological evidence, point to a remarkably advanced tradition of
architecture, urban planning, and large-scale engineering in early India.
The depiction of planned cities, fortified capitals, sophisticated palace
complexes, and ambitious works such as the Ram Setu and the maritime city of
Dwarka collectively indicate a high degree of technical knowledge,
organizational capability, and material mastery. Far from being merely
literary embellishments, these accounts—supported by scientific studies—serve
as compelling evidence of a deeply rooted and highly developed civil
engineering and architectural tradition in ancient India. This also pushes
Indian antiquity much further back than conventionally assumed.
1.2
Standardized Metrological Architecture, Urban Drainage & Subterranean
Sanitation Engineering (c. 6000 BCE to c. 2600 BCE)
The Harappan civilization developed one of the
world’s earliest standardized systems of architectural measurement using
precisely calibrated ivory and shell rulers. Excavated specimens from Mohenjo-daro,
Harappa, Lothal, and Kalibangan reveal fine gradations corresponding to
modular brick proportions in the ratio of 1:2:4. This standardization enabled
uniformity in construction, alignment of structures, proportional design, and
structural stability across geographically dispersed urban centres. The
precision of measurement suggests the existence of regulated construction
practices, codified engineering principles, and possibly centralized oversight
of urban planning.
Harappan cities such as Mohenjo-daro, Harappa,
and Rakhigarhi exhibit highly advanced urban sanitation systems
consisting of covered drainage channels, soak pits, sedimentation chambers,
inspection traps, and gradient-regulated wastewater conduits. Brick-lined
underground drains ran parallel to streets and were connected to individual
household bathing platforms, indicating a well-integrated civic sanitation
network. The drainage system incorporated access points for maintenance and
cleaning, demonstrating foresight in urban infrastructure management. This
represents one of the earliest known examples of systematic urban sanitation
engineering anywhere in the world.
(Sources: John Marshall, Mohenjo-daro and the Indus Civilization, Vol. I,
1931, pp. 374–382; D.P. Agrawal, The Archaeology of India, 1982; M.S. Vats,
Excavations at Harappa, ASI, Vol. I, 1940, pp. 221–240; Gregory Possehl, The
Indus Civilization, 2002)
1.3
Hydraulic Reservoir & Rainwater Harvesting Engineering - Dholavira (c. 6000
BCE to c. 2600 BCE)
At Dholavira (in present-day Gujarat),
Harappan engineers constructed an elaborate system of reservoirs designed to
capture, store, and regulate rainwater and seasonal runoff. The system
comprised massive rock-cut tanks, interconnected channels, bund walls, sluice
gates, and overflow mechanisms. The reservoirs were strategically located to
intercept water from seasonal streams and direct it into storage basins through
controlled gradients.
Sedimentation tanks were incorporated to
ensure water purification before storage, while stepped embankments stabilized
hydraulic pressure and facilitated access during varying water levels. The
integration of urban settlement planning with water management systems
demonstrates advanced hydrological engineering, climate adaptation, and
sustainability practices in an arid environment. The scale and precision of
these reservoirs indicate a high degree of engineering organization and
environmental understanding.
(Sources: R.S. Bisht, Dholavira: A Harappan
City, ASI Memoirs, 1991, pp. 112–148; UNESCO World Heritage Dholavira
Nomination Dossier, 2021)
1.4
Maritime Dockyard Basin Engineering — Lothal (c. 2400 BCE)
The port settlement of Lothal in Gujarat contains
one of the earliest known dockyard structures in the world. The dock basin
was constructed with trapezoidal geometry and connected to a tidal channel that
allowed controlled inflow and outflow of water. The design minimized silt
deposition and protected vessels from tidal fluctuations, indicating a
sophisticated understanding of coastal hydraulics and tidal behaviour.
The dockyard included spillways, inlet
channels, and protective embankments, enabling berthing, loading, and unloading
of goods in a controlled environment. The presence of warehouses, bead-making
units, and trade-related infrastructure suggests integration of maritime
engineering with commercial activities. This structure reflects advanced
knowledge of navigation, ship handling, and coastal engineering in the Harappan
period.
(Sources: S.R. Rao, Lothal and the Indus Civilization, 1973, pp. 56–89;
A.L. Basham, The Wonder That Was India, 1954)
1.5 Pyramidical structure of Ahikshetra, Rampur (c. 1200–600 BCE)
The
archaeological site of Ahikshetra , also called Ahichchhatra (ancient capital
of Northern Panchala), located in the Bareilly–Rampur region of Uttar Pradesh,
presents one of the most intriguing examples of early pyramidal or
tiered structural formation in the Gangetic plains. Excavations
conducted by the Archaeological Survey of India have revealed a massive,
multi-layered mound with distinct terraced elevations, suggesting a
consciously engineered, vertically accentuated architectural form rather than a
natural accumulation.
The structural core of Ahichchhatra consists of successive
occupational deposits rising to considerable height (over 15–18 m in places),
reinforced and regularized through brick revetments, retaining walls,
and horizontal terraces. These terraces create a stepped
pyramidal profile, particularly evident in the central mound, where
each phase appears to have been deliberately consolidated. Such continuity
indicates not merely habitation but a sustained effort to maintain elevated
sacred or administrative space above the surrounding flood-prone terrain
of the Ganga basin.
From a constructional perspective, the use of mud-brick and
burnt-brick facing, combined with compacted earth cores, reflects an
advanced understanding of load distribution, slope stabilization, and
erosion control. The geometry—though not geometrically perfect like
Egyptian pyramids— exhibits a functional pyramidal logic,
wherein mass tapers upward through receding terraces, ensuring structural
stability. This form also facilitates drainage and surface runoff,
critical in monsoonal conditions.
Culturally, the pyramidal mound at Ahichchhatra is often associated with fortified
citadel architecture, possibly supporting palatial,
administrative, or ritual structures at its summit. The elevated
platform would have served both defensive and symbolic purposes,
marking authority and reverence. The site shows continuous occupation from at
least the Painted Grey Ware phase (c. 1200–600
BCE) through the Northern
Black Polished Ware period and early historic era (up to Gupta times i.e.
upto 4th century CE), indicating that the pyramidal
build-up is the result of long-term stratified construction rather than
a single-phase monument.
In contrast to later temple superstructures (sikhara or vimana), which are
overtly symbolic and formally codified, the Ahichchhatra pyramid represents a stage
of vertical monumentality, emerging from practical needs—defence,
flood protection, and spatial hierarchy—but gradually acquiring ceremonial
and urban significance. It may thus be viewed as an early precursor to
the Indian tradition of elevated sacred platforms and vertically
accentuated architecture.
(Sources: A. Ghosh, Excavations at Ahichchhatra, Archaeological Survey of India, 1944; B.B. Lal, Excavations at Hastinapura and Other Explorations, ASI, 1955; R.C. Gaur, Excavations at Ahichchhatra, Delhi, 1983; Percy Brown, Indian Architecture (Buddhist and Hindu Periods), 1942.)
1.6 Vaishali (6th–5th Century BCE) — Early Republican urban centre lying at the transition from protohistoric to historic phases
Vaishali, now a district of Bihar, emerged as a major urban and political
centre that represents an early historic, pre-Mauryan urban centre lying at the
transition from protohistoric to historic phases. It is closely associated with
Siddhartha, Mahavira, and the Licchavi–Vajji
confederacy. It represents one of the earliest known examples of a complex
urban settlement governed by collective political institutions.
First
Democracy of the World: Vaishali is widely regarded as one of the
earliest republics (gana-sangha) in world
history, governed by the Vajji confederacy, with the Licchavis as the main clan. Decision-making
was carried out through assemblies and councils rather than monarchy.
Institutionalised participation of multiple clan representatives reflects an
advanced understanding of political organisation, governance systems, and civic
space planning.
Urban
Planning & Fortified Settlement: Massive earthen ramparts formed a
fortified enclosure. The use of mud-brick and compacted earth construction
indicates early mastery of urban planning and zoning, as well as defensive
engineering. Large rectangular reservoirs with embanked edges, controlled
access, and water retention demonstrate a high level of hydrological knowledge
and civic water management.
Santhagara
(Republic Assembly Hall): Found in Basarh excavations, consisting of
large pillared or open hall structures and platforms (inferred from excavations
and texts such as the Mahaparinibbana
Sutta) used for deliberative gatherings, representing one of the
earliest examples of institutional civic architecture.
Caves
& Structural Nature: Due to the alluvial plains, Vaishali lacks
rock-cut caves. Structures such as platforms, habitation layers, and monastic
units were primarily constructed using mud, timber, and early bricks.
Conclusion:
Vaishali of the Licchavi–Vajji era (c. 6th–5th century BCE) represents a fine examples
of a planned republican urban centre, integrating fortified settlement
planning, hydraulic engineering, civic assembly architecture, and emerging
monastic institutions. Its predominantly earthen and brick-based structural
remains, adapted to the Gangetic plains, reveal a sophisticated knowledge
system encompassing governance, engineering, hydrology, and philosophical
traditions in the pre-Mauryan period.
(Sources:
Archaeological Survey of India, Excavations at Vaishali (Basarh & Kolhua);
Upinder Singh, A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India, 2008; D.D.
Kosambi, An Introduction to the Study of Indian History)
1.7 Stupa Architecture (c. 250 BCE-12th century CE)
The stupa represents the earliest fully developed form of monumental religious architecture in India, evolving from pre-Buddhist funerary mounds into a highly symbolic structure enshrining relics of the Buddha or revered monks. Relic Stupa of Vaishali (at Kolhua in Vaishali district of Bihar, 5th century BCE) with brick construction and circular geometry is one of the earliest stupas
By the Mauryan period (3rd
century BCE), particularly under Ashoka, the stupa had acquired a canonical
form embodying Buddhist cosmology—the hemispherical dome symbolising the
universe, the central axis (yasti) representing the cosmic pillar, and
the circumambulatory path reflecting the ritual journey toward enlightenment.
Unlike later temple architecture, stupas were solid, non-enterable
structures, intended for ritual circumambulation (pradakṣiṇa) rather
than internal worship, thus marking a distinct architectural and conceptual
category.
Architectural
Style and Form
Stupas do not belong to the
later classified Nagara or Draviḍa temple styles; rather, they constitute an independent
early Buddhist architectural tradition characterised by:
- Hemispherical dome (anda)
- Square railing (harmika)
- Central mast with umbrellas (chhatra)
- Enclosing railings (vedika) and gateways (torana)
- Emphasis on geometry, axiality, and symbolic form rather than
vertical elevation or interior space
Oldest
Stupa: The earliest datable
monumental stupas are those commissioned by Ashoka in the 3rd century BCE,
among which the Sanchi Stupa at Sanchi (Madhya Pradesh) is the most prominent
surviving example. Originally constructed as a brick stupa c. 250 BCE
by Ashoka, it marks the transition of the stupa from a simple burial
mound to a state-sponsored monumental structure.
Grandest
Stupa: The same Great Stupa at Sanchi
(Stupa No. 1), enlarged during the Shunga–Satavahana period (c. 1st century
BCE), represents the grandest and most complete early form of stupa
architecture. With its massive hemispherical dome, double circumambulatory
paths, and elaborately carved toranas, it exemplifies the mature integration of
structure, symbolism, and narrative art in early Indian architecture.
Author at Great Stupa of Sanchi
Conclusion: The stupa tradition,
emerging clearly in the 3rd century BCE, precedes and partly overlaps with
the development of rock-cut cave architecture, and should be treated as a distinct
and foundational architectural category in the evolution of Indian sacred
architecture. Las or latest example of the classical stupa tradition in India
(before its decline) can be taken as Kesaria Stupa in Bihar, from the Pala
period (c. 8th–12th century CE), when Buddhist architecture continued to
flourish in eastern India. However the
tradition continued more strongly in Sri Lanka, Southeast Asia and Tibet.
(Source: Percy Brown, Indian
Architecture (Buddhist and Hindu Periods), 1942.)
1.8 Mauryan
Stone Architecture & Monolithic Pillar Engineering (c. 3rd Century BCE)
During the Mauryan period, especially under
Ashoka (c. 268–232 BCE), large-scale stone architecture reached an
unprecedented level of sophistication in the Indian subcontinent. Monolithic
pillars, carved from single blocks of finely grained sandstone—primarily
quarried from Chunar—were erected across the empire, many exceeding 12–15
metres in height and weighing several tonnes. These pillars exhibit
extraordinary precision in shaping, tapering, and finishing, producing a
characteristic mirror-like surface known as Mauryan polish, comparable
to high-grade surface finishing techniques.
Prominent examples include the Ashoka Pillar
at Sarnath, Lauriya Nandangarh Ashoka Pillar, Rampurva Ashoka Pillars, and
Allahabad Pillar. These pillars were often crowned with intricately carved
capitals—most notably the lion capital at Sarnath, now India’s national
emblem—demonstrating a refined integration of structural engineering with
sculptural artistry.
In addition to pillars, Mauryan stone
architecture is exemplified by the rock-cut caves of Barabar and Nagarjuni
Hills in Bihar (covered in detail in next para 1.6), which display highly polished granite
interiors with precise geometric execution, and by early structural remains at
sites such as Pataliputra (Kumrahar), where pillared halls indicate
advanced use of stone in large-span architectural spaces. The Didarganj
Yakshi sculpture (originally discovered in 1917 at Didarganj on
the banks of the Ganga River near Patna; presently shifted to the Bihar Museum, Patna) further reflects the same high level of stone polishing and finishing
associated with Mauryan craftsmanship.
The transportation and erection of these
massive monoliths—often over long distances—indicate sophisticated knowledge of
quarrying, shaping, transport logistics (possibly using rollers,
sledges, and riverine routes), and vertical erection techniques. The
uniformity in dimensions, alignment, and polish across geographically dispersed
pillars suggests a centralized and highly organized engineering system. The
remarkable durability and stability of these structures over more than two
millennia stand as testimony to their superior material selection and
engineering precision.
(Sources: John
Marshall, The Monuments of Sanchi,
Archaeological Survey of India, 1940, pp. 1–25; Alexander Cunningham,
Archaeological Survey of India Reports, Vol. I, 1871, pp. 70–95; D. R.
Bhandarkar, Asoka, Archaeological Survey of India, 1925, pp. 82–120;
Archaeological Survey of India, Annual Reports (1902–1903; 1906–1907) on
Ashokan Pillars and Barabar Caves; Upinder Singh, A History of Ancient and
Early Medieval India, Pearson, 2008, pp. 324–330.)
1.9 Rock-Cut Structural Engineering & Cave
Architecture — Barabar, Nagarjuni, Bhaja, Karla, Ajanta & Ellora (c. 3rd
Century BCE – 10th Century CE)
Rock-cut architecture in India represents a
continuous and highly sophisticated tradition of structural engineering
beginning in the Mauryan period (3rd century BCE). The oldest rock-cut caves in
India are the Barabar Caves (c. 260–250 BCE, Ashokan period), located in
the Jehanabad district of Bihar, in the Barabar hill range. These caves,
excavated during the reign of Ashoka, constitute the earliest surviving
examples of fully developed rock-cut architecture in the Indian subcontinent.
The earliest highly refined extensions of this
tradition are the Nagarjuni Caves, which are generally considered to
have been excavated under Dasharatha Maurya (c. 230–220 BCE), as
attested by their Brahmi inscriptions. These caves, associated with the
Ajivika sect, are distinguished by their mirror-like polished granite interiors
(Mauryan polish) and precisely executed curved surfaces, indicating advanced
knowledge and exceptional precision in stone cutting and finishing. Their
relatively simple Brahmi inscriptions record royal donations and may, in some
cases, have been engraved after the completion of excavation. The contrast
between the extremely high level of surface finishing and the simplicity of the
inscriptions suggests that excavation may have begun in the late Ashokan period
(c. 250–235 BCE) and that the caves were subsequently commissioned or formally
assigned to the Ajivikas under Dasharatha Maurya. (Author’s
view: It is
highly improbable that a cave exhibiting such remarkable precision was the
earliest example in the region—or in entire India—achieved solely through
advanced technological knowledge. Such refinement and technical mastery are
more plausibly the result of a long process of experimentation and gradual
improvement over time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that earlier caves
must have existed prior to the Nagarjuni examples, though they may not have
survived or are yet to be discovered.)
This tradition continued in western India with
early Buddhist cave complexes such as the Bhaja Caves (c. 2nd century BCE)
and the Karla Caves (c. 1st century BCE–1st century CE), developed under
Satavahana patronage with significant contributions from merchants and guilds,
as indicated by donative inscriptions. These sites introduced fully developed chaitya
halls with apsidal plans and vaulted ceilings, notably featuring wooden
ribs affixed to stone ceilings, some of which have survived for nearly two
millennia—an exceptional example of early material integration and
architectural continuity.
The tradition attained further refinement at the Ajanta Caves (c. 2nd century BCE–5th century CE), developed in two major phases—an early phase under the Satavahanas and a later phase under the Vakataka ruler Harisena—representing the zenith of Buddhist monastic planning, rock-cut architecture, and mural painting.
Udayagiri caves (Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh; c. 401–402 CE; Chandragupta II of Gupta Empire) situated on a sandstone hill between the Betwa and Bes rivers, bridges gap between Mauryan rock-cut tradition and Gupta structural temples. These are of significant importance for their monumental Varaha relief, early sanctum forms, inscriptions, and solar alignments, marking a decisive transition from rock-cut experimentation to classical temple architecture.
Author at Cave 6 (Bhagwan Vishnu on
Shesh-Shayya), Udayagiri, Vidisha, MPIt reached its peak in scale and engineering complexity at the Ellora Caves (c. 6th–10th century CE), particularly in the monolithic Kailasa Temple (at Ellora near Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Maharashtra), excavated under the Rashtrakuta king Krishna I (c. 756–773 CE) exemplified an alternative and highly sophisticated tradition of monolithic rock-cut engineering, representing one of the most complex and grandest temple constructions in the world. This freestanding temple complex was carved downward from a single rock mass.
Across these sites, complete architectural
systems—including pillars, beams, halls, stairways, façades, and sculptural
programs—were excavated directly from living rock with careful planning,
sequencing, and execution. The engineering challenge of removing large volumes
of rock while preserving structural integrity, symmetry, and load distribution
reflects a highly advanced empirical understanding of rock mechanics and
architectural design. The precision, durability, and monumental scale of these
constructions establish Indian rock-cut architecture as one of the most
remarkable achievements in the history of ancient engineering.
(Sources: Ramaprasad
Chanda, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, No. 5: The Barabar and
Nagarjuni Hill Caves, Archaeological Survey of India, 1920, pp. 1–60 (esp. pp.
44–45); James Burgess, Report on the Buddhist Cave Temples and Their
Inscriptions, Archaeological Survey of Western India, 1883, pp. 30–52; James
Fergusson, History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, John Murray, London,
1876, pp. 120–145; Walter M. Spink, Ajanta: History and Development, Vol. I,
Brill, 2005, pp. 1–25;Percy Brown, Indian Architecture (Buddhist and Hindu
Periods), D.B. Taraporevala Sons, 1956, pp. 40–75.)
1.10 Stepwell Hydraulic
Architecture & Subterranean Water Management Systems (c. 2nd Century BCE –
12th Century CE)
Stepwells (baolis or vavs), particularly in western India (Gujarat and
Rajasthan), represent one of the earliest and most sophisticated traditions of
groundwater harvesting and hydraulic architecture in the world. Their origins
can be traced back to rock-cut step-access water cisterns of the 2nd
century BCE, which served as proto-stepwells and gradually evolved
into fully developed subterranean structures by the 6th–8th century CE,
as seen in early examples such as Navghan Kuvo and Adi Kadi Vav at Junagadh.
These structures consist of deep vertical shafts connected to a series of
descending steps, corridors, pillared pavilions, and landings, enabling
reliable access to groundwater despite seasonal fluctuations. The architectural
planning ensured both functional efficiency and structural stability through
the use of retaining walls, lateral load distribution via colonnades, and
moisture-resistant masonry techniques designed to withstand hydrostatic
pressure and soil movement.
Stepwells reached their architectural zenith between the 8th
and 12th centuries CE, culminating in monumental structures such as Rani
ki Vav at Patan—widely regarded as the most complex and grandest
stepwell in the world, with its multi-storeyed layout, elaborate
sculptural program, and temple-like inverted design. Similarly, Chand Baori
at Abhaneri represents one of the largest and deepest stepwells,
notable for its immense scale, depth (approximately 30 metres), and
geometrically precise arrangement of thousands of steps.
There is another stepwell like structure in India which is farthest from core
Gujarat–Rajasthan–Delhi belt of stepwells. The Hampi
Pushkarini, located within the Royal Enclosure at Hampi in present-day
Karnataka, was constructed during the Vijayanagara Empire (c. 14th–15th
century CE), most likely under rulers such as Krishnadevaraya or his predecessors. This
geometrically precise, stone-lined stepped tank—though technically a pushkarini
rather than a classical western Indian stepwell—exhibits a highly symmetrical,
pyramidal arrangement of steps descending to a central water reservoir. Its
construction far from the Gujarat–Rajasthan stepwell heartland reflects independent
yet convergent hydraulic design, driven by the need for efficient
water storage, ritual purification, and controlled access to water in a
semi-arid environment. Integrated with an advanced system of aqueducts
and channels supplying water from the Tungabhadra River, the structure
demonstrates how the step-form was adapted in southern India to serve both functional
and ceremonial purposes within a sophisticated urban and royal
architectural setting.
While the core tradition of stepwell architecture is concentrated in western
India, a few significant examples also occur in present-day Pakistan (undivided
India) and, in adapted forms, in adjoining regions. Notable among these are the
Rohtas Fort Baoli, constructed by Sher Shah Suri in the 1540s CE
at Rohtas (Punjab, Pakistan), and the Makli
Necropolis Baoli at Thatta in Sindh. The Makli baoli is particularly
noteworthy for its location, as it lies far beyond the Gujarat–Rajasthan
stepwell belt and is situated within a vast necropolis—a planned funerary
landscape with elaborate tombs. It dates to the Samma and early Mughal
periods (c. 14th–15th century CE), when the region was ruled by the
Samma dynasty and later came under Mughal control. Although the exact patron is
not known, it was likely commissioned by a local ruler or noble to meet both
practical and ritual needs of the necropolis in the arid environment of Sindh.
Beyond their hydraulic function, stepwells also served as social, cultural,
and climatic spaces. Their subterranean configuration maintained temperatures
significantly lower than the surrounding environment, demonstrating an advanced
application of passive cooling integrated with water management systems.
The seamless integration of engineering efficiency, environmental
adaptation, and architectural ornamentation establishes stepwells as one of the
most distinctive and technically advanced contributions of early Indian
civil engineering.
(Sources: Jutta Jain-Neubauer, The Stepwells of Gujarat, Abhinav Publications, 1981,
pp. 15–28; Morna Livingston, Steps to Water: The Ancient Stepwells of India,
Princeton Architectural Press, 2002, pp. 12–35; Archaeological Survey of India,
Rani ki Vav Conservation Reports, ASI, New Delhi, various years;
Catherine B. Asher & Cynthia Talbot,
India Before Europe, Cambridge University Press, 2006)
1.11 Evolution of Indian Temple
Superstructures — From Early Structural Forms to Monumental Granite and
Monolithic Systems (c. 2nd Century BCE – 12th Century CE)
The development of temple superstructures in
India reflects a long and continuous evolutionary trajectory beginning with
early rock-cut and structural traditions from the 2nd century BCE onwards.
These early experiments established the fundamental principles of load-bearing
masonry, geometric planning, and sacred spatial organization, which later
matured into regionally distinct architectural systems. (details about Rock-cut
temples are given in earlier para 1.6).
Over time, Indian temple architecture evolved
into three major traditions—Nagara (North India), Dravidian (South
India), and Kalinga (a sub-style of Nagara, Eastern India)—each
shaped by local materials, climatic conditions, and cultural practices, yet
unified by a common structural logic of stone-based load-bearing
construction, geometric planning, and vertical symbolic expression. The earliest
surviving temples across different regions illustrate the gradual transition
from simple shrine forms to more elaborate, fully developed architectural
systems.
Early
Structural Phase (c. 2nd–5th Century CE): Among the earliest surviving structural temples is the Mundeshwari
Temple (c. 2nd–4th century CE; Kaimur, Bihar; built by early regional
rulers of Gupta-era influence) notable for its rare octagonal plan,
simple sanctum–mandapa layout, and early use of stone in load-bearing construction.
It represents a formative stage in temple architecture, where structural
principles were established with minimal ornamentation.
A more refined stage is visible in the Tigawa
Temple also known as Kankali Devi Temple (c. 4th–5th century CE; Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh), belonging to the
Gupta period. This temple exemplifies the emerging Nagara style,
characterized by a square sanctum, originally flat roof, and well-proportioned
stone masonry.
The Gupta period marked a turning point, establishing clear
architectural grammar—proportions, symmetry, and structural clarity—that
influenced temple construction for centuries.
Regional
Consolidation (c. 6th–8th Century CE): In eastern India, the Parashurameshwar Temple (c. 7th century
CE; Bhubaneswar, Odisha; Shailodbhava dynasty) represents the early development
of the Kalinga style, characterized by
the rekha deul (curvilinear tower)
over the sanctum and a separate assembly hall (jagmohana). The temple displays
increasing complexity in both structure and ornamentation, with
sculptural detailing integrated into the load-bearing walls, reflecting a mature
synthesis of engineering and aesthetics.
Yogini temples: Another
specialised type of Nagara style of temples evolved over Central and Eastern
India called Yogini temples. They represent a
distinct and highly specialised branch of Indian temple architecture
characterised by circular, open-to-sky plans (symbolising cosmic mandala geometry), peripheral cells (usually 64)
housing individual Yogini images, hilltop siting, and Tantric ritual function. While
broadly related to the Nagara tradition, they constitute a modified, esoteric
architectural form centred on mandala geometry rather than vertical
monumentality. Among these, the Hirapur temple (Odisha; 9th century CE)
stands as one of the earliest surviving examples, while the Morena
(Mitaoli) temple (MP; 11th century CE) represents the grandest and
most architecturally developed form which inspired old Parliament building og
New Delhi. The Jabalpur Chausath Yogini temple (MP; c. 10th century CE; Kalachuri
rulers) illustrates the continued evolution of this tradition in central
India.
Inside arc view of Chausath
Yogini Temple, Jabalpur, MP (Photo: Author)
In western India, the earliest form of the Somnath
Temple (pre-7th century CE; Prabhas Patan, Gujarat; now lost due to
destruction by Islamic invaders repeatedly and rebuilt multiple times) demonstrates the continuity of the Nagara tradition. Repeated
reconstruction of Somnath temple over centuries underscores both its religious
significance and the resilience of traditional construction techniques. Historical references describe it as a large stone temple with a
prominent shikhara, serving both as a major pilgrimage centre and a maritime
landmark (incidentally, at the Somnath Temple there is
a pillar, often called the Baan Stambh, with an inscription stating “There is
no land in a straight line between this point and the South Pole.” This claim
is largely true as it traverses through Arabian Sea, Indian Ocean and Southern
Ocean avoiding any land mass and hits South pole through Antarctica, but
antiquity of Baan Stambh is not established).
A specialized regional adaptation is seen in
the Kedarnath Temple (traditionally attributed to Adi Shankaracharya; c. 8th
century CE;), located in the high Himalayas in Uttarakhand. Constructed with massive,
tightly interlocked stone blocks (Each stone block of grey granite weighing 1-6
tons), the temple is engineered to withstand extreme climatic conditions,
including heavy snowfall, seismic activity, and freezing temperatures. Its raised
plinth, 12 feet thick walls, minimal openings, and compact pyramidal
superstructure over the sanctum reflect a design focused on structural
stability, thermal efficiency, and durability, rather than ornamentation.
Its survival through centuries of environmental stress highlights advanced
knowledge of material behaviour, structural stability and site-specific
engineering.
Transition
to Structural Granite Architecture (South India, 7th–8th Century CE): A major transformation occurred during the Pallava period. At
Mahabalipuram (Mamallapuram, Tamil Nadu), earlier monuments
were predominantly rock-cut and monolithic (Mahabalipuram Rathas; 630–668 CE),
representing experimental phases of temple design. The Shore Temple (built by Narasimhavarman
II; c. 700–728 CE) marks an early structural phase, built using
assembled stone blocks rather than excavation.This transition reached full
maturity at the Kailasanatha Temple (Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu; c. 700–728 CE),
constructed under Narasimhavarman II. This temple represents one of the
earliest examples of granite-based load-bearing structural architecture in
South India, with a well-developed pyramidal vimana, precise stone
jointing, and an integrated complex of subsidiary shrines—marking the mature
expression of early Dravidian architecture.
Zenith of
Monumental Temple Architecture (c. 10th–12th Century CE): This architectural evolution reached its peak
under the Cholas in monuments such as the Brihadeeswarar Temple, built
by Rajaraja I (1003–1010 CE; Thanjavur city, Tamil Nadu). Brihadeeswarar
Temple, having the tallest granite vimana
(66-metre) ever built, demonstrates
advanced load-bearing system using
heavy stone blocks (capstone ~80 tonnes), precision engineering,
and large-scale construction capability. The construction required advanced
techniques for lifting and positioning heavy stone elements, possibly involving
inclined planes or ramp systems extending over long distances. The structural
design ensures stability through precise load distribution and geometric
alignment. The temple remains one of the tallest and most enduring stone
structures of the pre-modern world.
Simultaneously, temple architecture expanded
into urban-scale complexes, exemplified by the Ranganathaswamy Temple
(Srirangam near Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu). With origins in early Chola times
and major expansions between the 10th and 17th centuries ((Chola, Pandya,
Hoysala, Vijayanagara, Nayaka patronage). Spread over 156 acres, it evolved
into the second largest functioning temple complex in the world (largest
being Angkor Wat complex of Cambodia spread over nearly 402 acres).
combining architecture, water management, and urban planning into a
unified system.
Survival pattern of temples: While
patterns of temple survival in India vary regionally, it is evident that northern
and western India were more frequently exposed to successive waves of warfare,
invasions, and political upheaval from the early medieval period onward,
which resulted in the damage, desecration, or reconstruction of several major
temples and institutions. Well-documented examples include the destruction of Somnath Temple multiple times, repeated attacks
on Kashi Vishwanath Temple and Krishna Janmbhumi
temple, and the destruction of major centres of learning such as Nalanda University in the 12th century
covered in detail by the author in “EDUCATION SYSTEM IN INDIA THROUGH AGES Pt.
V- Destruction of Ancient Education System by Muslim Invaders-Nalanda Case
Study” https://vedpal-irse.blogspot.com/2025/06/education-system-in-india-through-ages_43.html.
These
processes contributed to the comparatively limited survival of early temples of
the Nagara tradition, especially in their original form.
At the same time, it is important to recognize that not all regions
were affected uniformly, and many monuments did survive.
Somnath temple was destoyed/damaged number of times (1. In 1025 CE invaded
& plundered by Mahmud of Ghazni when Temple was looted and destroyed and
its wealth carried to Ghazni; 2, In 1299 CE destruction under Alauddin Khalji through his general Ulugh
Khan; 3. Repeated disturbances during 14th–15th century Gujarat Sultanate rule;
4. In 1706 CE Final major destruction ordered
by Aurangzeb. Modern Reconstruction after independence done under
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel during 1950–51).
Kashi Vishwanath temple of Varanasi which is of immemorial
antiquity (the earliest historically plausible temple
structure can be placed around the 7th–9th century CE,
with earlier forms of worship likely existing even before this period)
underwent multiple cycles of destruction and reconstruction (1. c. 1194 CE
during campaigns of Qutb-ud-din Aibak after the defeat of Jaichand of Kannauj
it was destroyed or severely damaged. 2. 15th century (Sharqi / Lodi period)
damage during the rule of the Jaunpur Sultanate. 3. 1669 CE demolished and
Gyanvapi Mosque constructed at the site after major destruction of all temples
ordered by Aurangzeb. Present temple was built by Ahilyabai Holkar adjacent to
the original site during 1777–1780 CE).
Krishna Janmbhumi temple, Mathura was also attacked and damaged many times (1. c.
1018 CE Attack by Mahmud of Ghazni. 2. Late 15th–early 16th century damaged
during Lodi Sultanate period. 3. Final major destruction took place in 1670 CE after
major destruction of all temples ordered by Aurangzeb and Idgah mosque constructed abutting temple site.
Many more temples were attacked,
damaged and destroyed repeatedly. Martand Sun Temple built during 8th
century in Kashmir by Lalitaditya
Muktapida (still lying in damaged condition and being callaed ‘Shaitan ki Gufa’
by locals); Vijay Vitthala Temple of Hampi built during 15th–16th century CE (Vijayanagara
Empire); Hoysaleswara Temple at Hassan district, Karnataka built during 12th century CE (Hoysala Empire); Jagannath
Temple, Puri; Dwarkadhish Temple, Gujarat and Srisailam Mallikarjuna Temple Srisailam
in Nallamala Hills in Nandyal district Andhra Pradesh are some of the examples.
Temples such as those at Khajuraho Group of
Monuments, Lingaraj Temple,
and the partially preserved Konark Sun Temple
demonstrate the continued vitality and endurance of the Nagara and Kalinga
traditions despite historical disruptions.
In contrast, southern India experienced relatively greater political
continuity under powerful dynasties such as the Pallavas, Cholas, and later the
Vijayanagara Empire, which enabled sustained temple construction and
preservation on a monumental scale, as seen in Brihadeeswarar
Temple and the expansive Ranganathaswamy
Temple complex. Nevertheless, the South was not immune to conflicts.
Events such as the raids of Malik Kafur in the early 14th century, the
destruction of Vijayanagara Empire, the last Hindu Empire of South India, after
the Battle of Talikota (fought in 1565 between Vijayanagara forces led by the de facto
ruler Aliya Rama Raya,
and an alliance of the four Deccan Sultanates
viz. Bijapur, Bidar, Ahmednagar, and Golconda), and
destruction of Guruvayur and other temples by Tipu, and earlier by his
father Hyder Ali, during 18th century also impacted temples and urban centres.
Taken together, the uneven survival of temples across India reflects a
combination of historical contingencies—warfare, patronage patterns,
and cycles of reconstruction—rather than a single uniform cause,
though the higher exposure of northern and western regions to repeated
incursions remains a significant contributing factor.
Conclusion:
Across this long developmental arc—from early
structural temples to monolithic excavations and vast temple complexes—Indian
builders achieved a remarkable synthesis of engineering precision, material
mastery, environmental adaptation, and artistic expression. This continuous
evolution provides compelling evidence of a highly advanced and enduring
tradition of architectural and civil engineering knowledge in ancient and early
medieval India.
(Sources: K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, The Cholas, University of
Madras, 1935, pp. 120–145; Adam Hardy, Indian Temple Architecture: Form and
Transformation, Abhinav Publications, 2007, pp. 45–110; Michael W. Meister
(ed.), Encyclopaedia of Indian Temple Architecture, American Institute
of Indian Studies, Vol. I, pp. 1–60; Percy Brown, Indian Architecture
(Buddhist and Hindu Periods), D.B. Taraporevala Sons, 1956, pp. 40–90; Archaeological
Survey of India, Annual Reports (various years) on Pallava, Gupta, and
Chola temples)
_______________________________________
1.12 Observatory Structural Platforms & Pre-Instrumental Astronomical Architecture and Observatories (c. 12th Century BCE–18th Century CE)
Astronomical observation in India long
predates the construction of monumental masonry observatories such as those at
Jaipur and Delhi. From the Vedic period onward, carefully aligned platforms,
altars, temple axes, and elevated terraces functioned as observational devices,
enabling measurement of solar motion, cardinal directions, solstices,
equinoxes, and stellar positions without mechanical instruments. These
pre-instrumental observatories relied on geometry, shadow tracking, and horizon
alignment, demonstrating a sophisticated integration of architecture with
astronomy (jyotishastra).
Early Origins, First Observers and Classical
Astronomers
The earliest systematic astronomical ideas are
found in the Vedanga Jyotisha (c. 1200–800 BCE), attributed to sage
Lagadha, who established calendrical astronomy, solstitial points, and
time-reckoning using shadow lengths. Shanku (gnomon-like vertical posts or
projecting devices) were used for casting shadow on calibrated surfaces.
The most celebrated early astronomer is Aryabhata
(476 CE), who relied on observational methods using shadow, angular
measurement, and horizon alignment. He proposed Earth’s rotation and explained
eclipses scientifically. Later authorities include Varahamihira (6th century
CE), author of Panca-siddhantika (a synthesis of five earlier astronomical traditions presenting
planetary motion, calendrical calculations, eclipse prediction, and
observational astronomy within a unified scientific framework).
Varahamihira carried out observations using traditional instruments and aligned
platforms at Ujjain, then considered a principal meridian in Indian astronomy.
Brahmagupta (7th century CE) further
refined observational constants. These scholars depended on fixed observational
platforms, often integrated into temple or urban layouts.
Early Observational Structures
(Pre-Instrumental Phase)
Following are some examples of distributed
observatories embedded within architecture, rather than separate institutions:
• Udayagiri Caves (c. 4th–5th century CE,
Gupta period): These caves had alignment corresponding to summer solstice
sunrise, indicating precise solar observations.
• Ujjain Observatory (5th century CE): Ujjain functioned as a major
astronomical centre long before the masonry observatory of Jai Singh (c.
1725–1730), where scholars like Varahamihira carried out observations using
aligned platforms.
• Konark Sun Temple (13th century CE): Temple wheels function as
sundials, and axial alignment captures sunrise over the Bay of Bengal.
• Temples in general, and Sun Temples in particular, incorporated
east–west alignment for solar-ray entry, elevated plinths for unobstructed
horizon view, and shadow-casting calibrated surfaces.
• Vedic ritual altars (vedi) themselves were geometrically aligned
structures oriented to cardinal directions and solar events, indicating early
architectural astronomy.
Transition to Formal Observatories
Jantar Mantar of Delhi (c. 1724 CE): It was the
first confirmed major masonry observatory (controversy
about Qutab Minar/Vishnu Stambha being first
observatory will be dealt later) in India and was built by Sawai Jai Singh
II. It marked the transition from implicit architectural astronomy to
explicit scientific instrumentation, with instruments (yantras) constructed as
architectural forms.
Author at Jaipur Jantar
Mantar
Jantar Mantar Jaipur (c. 1728–1734 CE): This
is the grandest and tallest observatory in India, built by Sawai Jai Singh II.
It contains the largest stone sundial in the world (Samrat Yantra, ~27 m high)
and represents the most extensive and sophisticated development of
observational architecture. It is a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
Monumental Astronomical Context, Gupta
Scientific Tradition & Qutb Complex Controversy
The existence of highly developed astronomical traditions
during the Gupta period—often regarded as a classical age of Indian
science—raises an important question regarding the scale and nature of
observational infrastructure available to scholars such as Varahamihira (c.
505–587 CE), one of the foremost astronomers of classical India, and
traditionally associated with the Navaratna tradition linked to Vikramaditya.
Varahamihira’s works, particularly Pañca-siddhāntikā and Bṛhat Saṃhitā,
demonstrate not only advanced theoretical knowledge but also reliance on
systematic observations—implying the use of calibrated observational platforms
and possibly elevated structures aligned to celestial phenomena.
In this broader
context, attention has been drawn by some scholars and researchers to the Qutub
Minar and the surrounding Qutb complex in Delhi. While conventionally
attributed to early Delhi Sultanate rulers (12th–13th century CE), the site
itself clearly incorporates extensive remains of earlier Hindu and Jain
temples, including pillars, bases, and sculptural fragments bearing
unmistakable Indic motifs such as lotus medallions, ghata–kalasha forms, bell
chains, and foliated patterns characteristic of classical temple architecture.
The density and
scale of these reused architectural elements strongly indicate that the
location was already a major sacred or monumental centre prior to the Sultanate
phase. P. N. Oak (an Indian writer known
for historical theories like ‘Tejo Mahal instead of Taj Mahal) and later
proponents—have stated that the Minar may represent either a modified
pre-existing structure or a continuation of an earlier monumental tradition, sometimes
described as a “Vishnu Stambha.”
Author has tried to study this controversy analytically.
First let us take claim of mainstream historians that it was started by Qutb-ud-din
Aibak (reign: 1206–1210 CE and remaining major portion completed by Iltutmish
(reign: 1211–1236 CE). Let us first discuss Qutb-ud-din. He was General of
Muhammad of Ghor before becoming ruler. During his reign of 4 years he was
heavily engaged in military expeditions like battles of Tarain aftermath
campaigns, suppression of Rajput resistance in North India and expansion into
Ajmer, Meerut, Delhi region. Apart from foundation stage of Qutab Minar, Adhai
Din ka Jhonpra (Ajmer) and Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque (Delhi) are
attributed to him.
Adhai
Din ka Jhonpra (Ajmer)
presents a clear example of architectural forgery or misattribution (rather
piracy). The building was originally a Sanskrit
college and a complex of Jain and Hindu temples built by the Chauhan ruler Vigraharaja
(also known as Visaladeva; reign: 1150-1164 CE) Following the conquest
of Ajmer by Muhammad of Ghor (c. 1192 CE), the structure was ordered to be
converted into a mosque. Under Qutb-ud-din Aibak, the initial phase appears to
have involved the rapid adaptation of the existing structure, including
the erection of a façade or screen wall to give it an Islamic architectural
identity. The subsequent expansion, particularly under Iltutmish (who is credited to have completed most of the Qutab Minar), retained
much of the original structural framework. Even today, numerous pillars,
brackets, and ceilings within the complex display unmistakable Jain and Hindu
motifs—such as lotus medallions, kalasha forms, and intricate figurative
carvings—indicating that the mosque was not constructed ex novo but evolved
through conversion and reuse of an earlier temple-based institution.
This monument thus stands as a clear case of architectural forgery or
intellectual piracy during Sultanate period and both Sultans credited to have
started and built Qutub Minar (Qutub-ud-din and Iltumish) were in fact
plunderers and intellectual pirates.
The Quwwat-ul-Islam (lit. 'Might of Islam') mosque, also
known as the Qutub Mosque or the Great Mosque of Delhi, was built near the site
of a pre-demolished large temple located in the centre of a citadel using
spolia from 27 temples. Its Pillars have lotus medallions, kalasha motifs,
floral and figurative carvings which are prohibited in Islam.
Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque
Intricate stone carvings on the cloister columns at
Quwwat ul-Islam Mosque – Hindu pillars sporting Hindu iconography
From photograph of columns of so called “Quwwat ul-Islam
Mosque” shown above, it can be seen that lotus medallions, kalasha motifs,
floral and figurative carvings are from a Hindu temple. Islamic raiders of that
era either used to destroy/burn Sanatan temples and structures or used to knock
off top portion and build domes over them to make them look like mosques.
Iltumish (reign: 1211–1236 CE), who is credited to
have built most of the Qutab Minar, had to fight Rajput kingdoms and quell
rebellions of governors in order to consolidated Sultanate. He also had to defend
against Mongol threat, thus was heavily engaged in constant military
expeditions. Other constructions attributed to him are Iltutmish’s Tomb
(Delhi) and expansion of Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque. Quwwat-ul-Islam
Mosque is already dealt in detail in previous paragraph and needs no further
elaboration. Iltutmish’s Tomb is only worthwhile structure that is
attributed to him apart from Qutab Minar which is discussed in detail below.
The structural contrast between the tomb of Iltutmish and the Qutub Minar is not merely one of scale but of an entirely different order of engineering. The former is a compact, single-chamber masonry structure (~10–15 m high), governed by simple vertical load-bearing through thick walls, whereas the Minar—rising over 72 metres—embodies a sophisticated and structurally far more complex high-rise system requiring controlled tapering, precise load distribution, resistance to lateral forces caused by wind & earthquake and careful multi-stage construction sequencing. Such engineering principles do not emerge abruptly; they are typically the result of long, cumulative development. In the Indian context, this evolutionary trajectory is clearly visible in earlier traditions—from the monolithic pillars of Ashoka (3rd century BCE), demonstrating mastery of vertical erection and material finishing, to the progressively rising temple superstructures culminating in monuments like Mahabodhi Temple of Bodh Gaya (55 metres; c. 500 CE- 1010 CE), Lingaraja Temple at Bhubaneswar [(55 metres; c. 11th Century CE; built by Yayati I (Yayati Keshari) of Somavamsi (Keshari) dynasty], the Brihadeeswarar Temple (~66 metres; 11th century CE), Jagannath Temple at Puri (65 m, c. 12th century CE, built by Anantavarman Chodaganga), Annamaliyar Temple of Tiruvannamalai (66.4 metres; major expansions pre-13th century; Builder: Chola period origins), Sun Temple Konark [original height (estimated) ~65–70 m, 13th century CE, built by Narasimhadeva I (Main tower now collapsed)]
etc. which reflect centuries of refinement in load-bearing geometry and vertical scaling. By contrast, early Sultanate constructions such as the Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque and Iltutmish’s tomb reveal reliance on reused temple structures and transitional construction techniques rather than fully developed structural systems. The sultanate era was that of destruction/burning/looting (multiple times destruction of Somnath temple, burning of Nalanda and other universities and converting Jain institute of Ajmer into ‘Adhai din ka Jhonpra’ are few of the examples). The Tomb of Iltutmish represents a low-rise, gravity-dominated masonry system, where stability is achieved through mass and simple load transfer.
The dome
of Iltutmish’s tomb, constructed c. 1235 CE, collapsed at an undetermined date during
the medieval period itself (possibly 14th–15th century and was never
reconstructed) suggesting limitations in early Sultanate mastery of
large-span dome engineering. This makes the contemporaneous attribution of far
more complex and stable vertical structures such as the Qutub Minar highly
improbable.
In this context, the sudden appearance of a
highly advanced, tall tapering tower like the Qutub Minar—within a phase
otherwise marked by destruction and architectural forgery—raises fundamental
questions regarding continuity of technical knowledge, sources of design
expertise, and the possible role of pre-existing indigenous engineering
traditions in its conception and execution.
Within this line
of reasoning, it is argued that a civilization capable of producing scholars
such as Varahamihira—who systematized planetary models, eclipse prediction, and
astronomical constants—would plausibly have employed large-scale architectural
devices or elevated observation points as part of its scientific apparatus.
The region surrounding the
present-day Qutub Minar was already a well-established political, cultural, and
possibly scientific centre prior to the advent of the Delhi Sultanate. The
fortified complex of Qila Rai Pithora—associated with Prithviraj Chauhan—itself
represents an expansion of the earlier Tomar stronghold (Lal Kot), indicating
continuous occupation, urban planning, and strategic importance of the Mehrauli
region well before the late 12th century. The traditional derivation of
“Mehrauli” from “Mihiravali” further suggests an enduring
association—whether literal or symbolic—with astronomical learning, sometimes
linked in cultural memory to figures such as Varahamihira and the
broader Gupta-period scientific milieu.
Significantly, the
archaeological fabric of the Qutb complex itself preserves unmistakable
evidence of earlier monumental activity: large numbers of pillars, bases, and
carved elements bearing classical Indic motifs—lotus medallions, kalasha forms,
bell chains, and intricate vegetal patterns—clearly derived from pre-existing
Hindu and Jain temple structures. This demonstrates not only reuse of materials
but also the prior existence of a substantial and architecturally sophisticated
complex at the very site.
In addition to material
evidence, local traditions have long preserved the memory of a tall tower in
this region, from which royal members—often associated in folklore with
the Chauhan court—are said to have viewed the Yamuna River as part of daily or
ritual observance.
When these strands are
considered together—(i) the confirmed pre-Sultanate urban and fortified
landscape of Rai Pithora, (ii) the strong material evidence of earlier
temple complexes at the site, (iii) the cultural memory embedded in the
Mihiravali tradition suggesting links with astronomical knowledge systems,
and (iv) the enduring folklore of a pre-existing tall tower—the
emergence of a highly sophisticated, vertically engineered structure such as
the Qutub Minar within this exact location appears less as an isolated
architectural event and more as part of a continuum of structural reuse
(architectural piracy), transformation, and inheritance of earlier original
Indian monumental traditions, most probably an observatory, that was also used
for religious purposes.
All above evidences suggest a pre-existing towering
structure that was reused or converted into a minar by making alterations and
additions.
Nevertheless, the Qutb complex stands as a compelling
example of architectural continuity, reuse, and even architectural piracy,
where earlier Indic structural and artistic traditions are visibly embedded
within later constructions. In this sense the site itself reflects a deeper and
more ancient civilizational layer—one that aligns with the broader tradition of
integrating astronomy, architecture, and sacred space in the Indian knowledge
system.
(Sources: David Pingree, Jyotiḥshastra,
1981; K.S. Shukla, studies on Indian astronomy; Kapila Vatsyayan, The
Square and the Circle of Indian Arts; ASI Reports on Udayagiri &
Konark; UNESCO dossier on Jantar Mantar Jaipur; Alexander Cunningham, ASI
Reports; Catherine B. Asher, Architecture of Mughal India, 1992; Percy Brown,
Indian Architecture, 1942; P. N. Oak, Some Blunders of Indian Historical
Research, 1986 ).
1.13 Institutional Buildings & Universities (8th Century CE)
During
ancient times India only had universities where students from all over world
came for education and a large number of universities existed in
India. During Pala dynasty itself about thirty universities were set up between
6th century CE to 8th century CE (770 CE to 810 CE) by Maharaja Dharmapala, the
second emperor of the Pala Empire. This topic is covered in full details
by the author in para 1.2 of Part I ‘Education In Ancient India’ of main
Article “Education System In India Through Ages” where details of 25
universities are given-https://vedpal-irse.blogspot.com/2025/06/education-system-in-india-through-ages.html)
1.14 Town Planning, Architecture,
Ventilation, Light Regulation, Passive Climate Engineering & Acoustic
Architecture (c. 9th–11th Century CE)
Temple architecture in India, particularly during the mature phase of the
9th–11th centuries CE, reveals a highly evolved system of passive
environmental control, integrating ventilation, light modulation,
thermal regulation, and acoustics into a unified architectural language. These
developments represent the culmination of earlier experiments visible in
rock-cut prototypes such as the Lomas Rishi
Cave (c. 260 BCE; Barabar, Bihar) and the chaitya halls of Karla Caves, where controlled airflow and
directed illumination were first systematically explored.
In fully developed structural temples such as the Brihadeeswarar Temple, high plinths,
axial corridors, and multi-layered enclosures (prakaras) facilitated
continuous air movement through pressure differentials and stack effect. The
use of perforated stone screens (jalis), aligned doorways, and
clerestory-like openings enabled regulated ventilation while
maintaining ritual enclosure. Thick granite walls acted as thermal mass,
moderating diurnal temperature variations, while expansive mandapas functioned
as shaded transitional zones ensuring thermal comfort.
Simultaneously, temples such as the Kandariya
Mahadeva Temple (c. 1025–1050 CE; Chandela period; Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh) demonstrate a refined
system of graduated light regulation, wherein illumination is
carefully modulated from bright exterior spaces to dim inner sanctums
(garbhagriha). This effect, achieved through layered spatial sequencing
and intricately carved jalis, not only enhances visual perception but
also reinforces symbolic movement from the material to the sacred. Earlier
precedents of such controlled illumination are evident in the chaitya window of
Karla, which directs sunlight precisely onto the stupa.
A further dimension of environmental integration is visible in temples like
the Modhera Sun Temple (1026–1027 CE;
built under Bhima I of the Chaulukya dynasty; Mehsana district, Gujarat,),
where hydrological and solar principles are combined. The
adjacent stepped tank (Surya Kund) functions as a thermal regulator,
cooling the ambient air, while the temple’s precise solar alignment ensures
controlled seasonal light penetration. Such synthesis of water
architecture, solar geometry, and airflow management reflects an
advanced understanding of passive climate engineering suited to arid and
semi-arid regions.
Equally sophisticated is the treatment of acoustics and resonance.
Early experimentation in rock-cut chaitya halls such as Ajanta Cave 26 (c. 5th century CE) demonstrates
how barrel-vaulted ceilings and apsidal plans (apse
shape is a semicircular recess covered with a hemispherical vault or semi-dome)
amplify and sustain sound. This knowledge reaches a high degree of refinement
in structural temples, where mandapas with calibrated column spacing,
proportional geometry, and stone surfaces enable clear sound propagation
and uniform auditory (hearing) experience during ritual chanting. Later
Chola examples such as the Airavatesvara
Temple (completed c. 12th century CE; Rajaraja II of Chola
dynasty at Kumbakonam, Thanjavur district of Tamil Nadu.) further
illustrate this tradition through features like resonant “musical steps,”
representing the culmination of earlier acoustic innovations.
Textual traditions corroborate these practices. Agamic
literature (Hindu literature e.g. Vedas, Puranas etc.), including the Kamikagama
(the first and most prestigious of the 28 principal Śaiva Tantras. Some
important texts are described below:
KAMIKAGAMA: It is one of the principal texts of the
Shaiva Siddhanta tradition, especially influential in South Indian
temple architecture and ritual systems. it is framed as a dialogue between Shiva and
Parvati, rather than a human-authored treatise. Hence, in academic terms, it is
treated as an anonymous, tradition-based compilation rather than a work of an
identifiable individual. Core composition of the Kamikagama is generally placed in c. 5th–8th
century CE. It is authoritative in ritual performances in the Shiva temples of
Tamil Nadu). It covers following important topics:
·
Temple construction (Prasada-lakṣaṇa): site selection,
layout, orientation
·
Spatial geometry: proportional canons governing sanctum,
mandapas, and enclosures
·
Iconography (Murti-lakṣaṇa): measurements, attributes,
placement of deities
·
Ritual procedures (Pratiṣṭha & Puja-vidhi): consecration,
daily worship
·
Environmental aspects: orientation, light entry,
airflow, sacred zoning
SAMARANGANA SUTRADHARA: It is a treatise on classical
Indian vastu shastra: written in
the Sanskrit by Paramara King Bhoja of Dhar (popularly called Raja
Bhoj; r. c. 1010–1055 CE) it elaborate architectural principles conducive
to structural stability and sensory optimisation. Thus, temple architecture of
this period embodies a holistic environmental intelligence,
where climatic adaptation, sensory experience, and ritual symbolism are
seamlessly integrated—achieving sustainable design solutions long before the
advent of mechanical systems. It is a very detailed treatise on town
planning, architecture, civil & structural engineering for all types of
structures like palaces, temples, forts, commercial establihments etc covering
all aspects. Samarangana Sutradhara
describes the incorporation of mechanical devices within buildings, including
automated doors, moving statues, and water-driven mechanisms. These devices
were powered by concealed mechanical systems such as gears, levers, and
hydraulic pressure.
The Samarangana Sutradhara provides one of the
most complete list and descriptions of 64 designs of Indian temples as
they existed by the 11th century. The text is significant in its discussion
about Nagara, Dravida, Bhumija and other diversified styles of Hindu
temples. It is particularly notable for the sections that match with the
unfinished 11th-century temple in Bhojpur (Madhya Pradesh) and the
earliest known architectural drawings of a Hindu temple engraved on the
surrounding rocks (see photographs taken by author in Oct. 2025).
Samarangana
Sutradhara covers following important topics:
(i) Foundational Principles &
Vāstu (Ch. 1–7)
• Cosmological basis of architecture (vastu as reflection of cosmic order)
• Qualifications of architect (sthapati) and craftsmen
• Principles of measurement (māna, tāla, aṅgula)
• Orientation, cardinal directions, and auspicious alignments
• Classification of land and preliminary site considerations
(ii) Site Selection & Soil
Science (Ch. 8–10)
• Bhuparikṣa (soil testing: colour, smell, texture, fertility, load-bearing
capacity)
• Ground preparation, levelling, and drainage systems
• Ritual purification and sanctification of site before construction
(iii) Layout Planning &
Vāstu-Puruṣa Maṇḍala (Ch. 11–15)
• Grid-based planning (square mandala layouts)
• Plot division into modules (pada-vinyasa)
• Functional zoning and spatial hierarchy
• Placement of entrances, courtyards, and circulation paths
(iv) Materials &
Construction Technology (Ch. 16–20)
• Timber selection and seasoning (Ch. 16 – daru-vicara)
• Stone selection, quarrying, and dressing techniques
• Mortars, binding materials, and durability considerations
• Structural stability, jointing, and load distribution principles
(v) Domestic Architecture – Early
House Types (Ch. 21–30)
• Classification of houses according to social hierarchy
• Layout of residential units (rooms, courtyards, verandahs)
• Ventilation, light entry, and functional zoning
• Proportions of doors, windows, and pillars
(vi) Mechanical Devices
(Yantra-vidya) (Ch. 31)
• Mechanical contrivances (yantras) including automata
• Moving statues, mechanical birds, bees, and figurines
• Water-driven devices and fountains
• Conceptual references to self-operating systems and flying machines
(vii) Public Buildings &
Urban Planning (Ch. 32–40)
• Layout of towns and cities (streets, markets, public spaces)
• Fortifications, gateways, and defensive structures
• Palaces and royal complexes
• Water systems: tanks, wells, reservoirs
(viii) Masonry & Brick
Construction (Ch. 41–45)
• Brick-making techniques (Ch. 41: proportions, firing, durability)
• Wall construction and bonding patterns
• Foundation systems and superstructure integration
(ix) Temple Architecture (Core
Section) (Ch. 46–65 approx.)
• Classification of 64 temple types
• Nagara, Draviḍa, Bhūmija and hybrid styles
• Design of garbhagṛha, śikhara, maṇḍapa, antarāla
• Vertical elevation systems and mouldings
• Proportional ratios governing temple geometry
(x) Iconography & Sculpture
(Ch. 66–69)
• Measurements and proportions of deities (murti-lakṣaṇa)
• Postures (mudra) and attributes (ayudha)
• Placement of images within architectural framework
(xi) Painting & Decorative
Arts (Ch. 70–72)
• Techniques of painting (citra)
• Wall decoration and pigment preparation
• Principles of aesthetic ornamentation
(xii) Advanced Domestic
Architecture (Ch. 73–83)
• Detailed house plans for different social groups
• Interior planning and spatial organisation
• Functional zoning for comfort and usability
• Integration of aesthetics with everyday living
(xiii) Implicit Technical Insights
Across Chapters
• Ventilation and airflow through layout and openings
• Light regulation via orientation and spatial sequencing
• Thermal comfort through material choice and wall thickness
• Integration of engineering, aesthetics, and ritual function
It has some visionary verses as well, such as envisioning machines that
could fly. However, the author stated that he would not explain
how to construct such machines, for the sake of secrecy, and not due to
lack of knowledge. This text also influenced later Indian treatises such as the
12th-century Aparajitaprccha.
APARAJITAPRCCHA: Littoral meaning of Aparajitaprccha is Questions of
Aparajit. It is a 12th-century Sanskrit text by Bhuvanadeva, an
architect-scholar 12th century CE from western India most plausibly
Gujarat–Rajasthan (Solanki/Chaulukya cultural zone). It is predominantly
a Hindu text having major sections on architecture (Vastu Shastra) and arts
(Kala). It largely reflects the north and western Indian While both the
Aparajitapṛcchā and the Samarāṅgaṇa Sūtradhāra emerge from a shared
vastu–shilpa tradition and exhibit substantial overlap in topics such as temple
planning, proportions, and iconography, they differ fundamentally in
orientation: the Samarāṅgaṇa is an encyclopedic, theoretically expansive
treatise reflecting royal intellectual ambition, whereas the Aparajitapṛccha is
a more regionally grounded, practically oriented manual that systematizes and
refines temple-building knowledge for actual application, particularly
within the Nagara tradition of western India. traditions with some chapters on
Jain architecture and arts also.
(Sources: Percy Brown, Indian Architecture (Buddhist and Hindu Periods), 1942; Stella Kramrisch, The Hindu Temple, 1946; George Michell, The Hindu Temple, 1988; V. Ganapati Sthapati, Building Architecture of Sthapatya Veda, 1999; ASI Reports on Brihadeeswarar Temple &
Khajuraho Group of Monuments; Kamikagama, Ch. 45; Samarangana Sutradhara,
Dvivedi ed., 1924; Felix Otter (2009). Residential Architecture in Bhoja's
Samaranganasutradhara: Introduction, Text, Translation and Notes, ISBN
978-81-208-3447-7; Bhuvanadeva, 1950, Aparajitaprccha of Bhuvanadeva,
Translated by Popatbhai Mankad, Oriental Institute)
1.15 Sacred
Alloy Casting & Structural Iconography Integration (c. 10th–13th Century
CE)
Origins of
Bronze Casting in India: The origins of bronze
casting in the Indian subcontinent can be traced back to the Indus Valley
Civilization, exemplified by the Dancing Girl of Mohenjo-daro (c.
7th Millennium BCE, although conventionally considered as c. 2500
BCE), which represents the earliest known bronze sculpture from the region and
demonstrates an early mastery of the lost-wax (Cire Perdue) technique (casting process in which a wax model of the object is encased in a
mould, melted out, and replaced by molten metal to produce a precise sculpture0. This establishes a long technological continuity that persisted into
the historical and medieval periods.
Temple architecture in India, particularly
during the mature medieval phase (c. 10th–13th century CE), demonstrates a
highly developed integration of metallurgical science with sacred architecture
through large-scale metal casting, especially bronze icons. These icons were
not merely decorative adjuncts but formed an essential component of the ritual
and spatial system of the temple, functioning as utsava-murtis (ceremonial
deities) and extending the sacred presence beyond the sanctum into the public
domain.
Medieval
Zenith in Chola Bronze Tradition: The
tradition reached its highest refinement under the Chola rulers (c. 10th–12th
century CE). The iconic image of Śiva as Naṭarāja, produced during the reign of
Rajaraja I and his successors, exemplifies the perfect synthesis of iconometric
precision, aesthetic balance, and metallurgical expertise. These bronzes were
not static objects but were integral to temple ritual, especially in
processional worship.
Metallurgical
Process and Alloy Composition: The casting
process involved meticulous preparation of wax models, mould formation,
controlled heating, and careful pouring of molten metal. The alloys used,
commonly referred to as pancaloha, typically comprised copper, tin,
zinc, silver, and gold in varying proportions. This required advanced knowledge
of temperature control, metal behaviour, and shrinkage compensation, indicating
a sophisticated level of metallurgical science.
Integration
with Temple Architecture: Metal icons were
systematically integrated into temple architecture. While the principal deity (moola-vigraha)
was generally fixed in stone within the sanctum, bronze icons served as mobile
ritual counterparts.
Other Metal
Sacred Forms: In addition to bronze icons, metal casting was
also employed for ritual objects such as lamps, utensils, and occasionally
metal lingas, as prescribed in Agamic texts. Even in major temples such as the
Brihadeeswarar Temple, where the principal linga is monumental and stone-based,
metal icons and implements form an essential complementary component of ritual
practice.
Parad
linga’s core material is mercury (parada) that has undergone classical saṁskaras
(purificatory and stabilising operations); it is then amalgamated with specific
metals and mineral binders (like silver and/or gold) along with sulphur-derived
compounds—to render it solid, stable, and safe for handling. Biggest parad
(mercury) liṅga is situated at Siddha Ashram, Ujjain weighing about 2.5 tons.
(Sources: P.C. Ray, History of Hindu
Chemistry, Vol. I, 1903; C. Sivaramamurti, Indian Bronzes, 1963; Douglas
Barrett, Early Chola Bronzes, 1965; R. Nagaswamy, studies on Chola art; ASI
Reports; Sharada Srinivasan, archaeometallurgical studies)
PART III (To be continued…)
Comments
Post a Comment