Lack of research in pre Islamic Indian architecture

#1
there is a shocking lack of research in indian pre islamic architecture, one such example is the notion that domes were introduced by muslim rulers, i think this is a very widespread fallacy. when the evidence is so clear, why is there scholarly ignorance on such topics on the indian architecture? despite the remains and overwhelming data which can be sought through there is a certain colonial standard maintained in the indian research.

1553347882419.png

Gumbatona vihara, the architecture may resemble a local mosque, but it simply isnt, its a buddhist architecture dated to the second century an is surmounted by a true dome, despite such clear example of the use of true domes, the current western scholarship maintains, they were introduced by the islamic rulers.

so far i have read zero research papers which discuss pre islamic domes from indian subcontinent and many declare that domes were introduced in indian subcontinent after twelfth century AD.

The structural development of masonry domes in India

regards
 
Last edited:
Feb 2019
88
Mumbai
#2
Onion dome is one example, several hindu temples dates to 10th and 11th century show onion domes. Also 'Mughal Architecture' was mostly rajput architecture mixed with some persian elements.
 
#3
Onion dome is one example, several hindu temples dates to 10th and 11th century show onion domes. Also 'Mughal Architecture' was mostly rajput architecture mixed with some persian elements.
i would rather say central asian than persian, because the most obvious characteristics are central asian which were innovated buddhist/hindu styles as the idea went west, one such characteristic, charbagh/fourfold gardens is totally attributed to the persians even though persians still didn't properly apply the idea even after borrowing the design from the mughals.

regards
 
Apr 2019
78
India
#4
I always thought 'Islamic' domes have been taken from Buddhisht architecture. We have plenty of them as 'proof'. Indian influence on the ancient world is severely downplayed in both media and academia. Buddhism was once the religion of half of the world. Even Arabic word for an idol is 'But' taken from buddha.
But I don't think the domes essentially came after Buddha. We also have ruins of dome like structure in Indus valley.
We have wealth of pre-historic sites in India which are under threat due to negligence.

That's why a country should never have a foreign rule. Now domes are Persian, biryani is Persian, samosa is Arabic, tabala is Arabic, Indian miniature painting is Persian, Hindustani music is Persian, Indian learnt their maths from Arabs, all of Indian genealogy of it's kings is mythical but if it was written on papers/stone-tables of other world is absolute truth, Indian did not wear an armour/upper cloth/sewen clothes etc or what not.
Need to learn a few lessons of self-appreciation from neighbouring country China.
 
#5
I always thought 'Islamic' domes have been taken from Buddhisht architecture.
actually there have been domes in the middle east since very long time as well so buddhism didn't spread domes in the middle eastern islamic lands.

We also have ruins of dome like structure in Indus valley.
domes in IVC, where is the evidence of it?

That's why a country should never have a foreign rule. Now domes are Persian, biryani is Persian, samosa is Arabic, tabala is Arabic, Indian miniature painting is Persian, Hindustani music is Persian, Indian learnt their maths from Arabs
mate so why the indian historians dont challenge this eurocentric theory?

all of Indian genealogy of it's kings is mythical
chinese xia dynasty is also mythical even though chinese consider them real, the issue is, indians had no prominent grave culture, secondly a lot of indian archaeology is surprisingly missing indian texts from pre mauryan periods. Even the nanda dynasty are missing their writings and even the chandragupta maurya has no written material.

, Indian did not wear an armour/upper cloth/sewen clothes etc or what not.
thats eurocentric view which should be corrected, nothing to do with muslims.
 
Apr 2019
78
India
#6
there have been domes in the middle east since very long time as well so buddhism didn't spread domes in the middle eastern islamic lands.



domes in IVC, where is the evidence of it?



mate so why the indian historians dont challenge this eurocentric theory?



chinese xia dynasty is also mythical even though chinese consider them real, the issue is, indians had no prominent grave culture, secondly a lot of indian archaeology is surprisingly missing indian texts from pre mauryan periods. Even the nanda dynasty are missing their writings and even the chandragupta maurya has no written material.



thats eurocentric view which should be corrected, nothing to do with muslims.[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying that Buddhist spread those domes in middle-east. I don't think we can attribute an invention specifically to a particular culture(specially in pre-historic times). But the onion domes were strongly associated with Buddhism and with it's spread the significance and application of domes also increased.

I'm talking about this dome:
images.jpeg

Maybe those historians are also Eurocentric.

Do you think Nandas and Mauryans did not know how to write? Indian prefer cremation so nothing can be done in that regard.

I didn't even mention Muslims. I was talking about foreign rulers and apathetic historians.
 
Likes: Ashoka maurya
Oct 2015
987
India
#7
The debate is on what is called "true arch". It is said that construction of "true arch" began in India only after arrival of Muslim kings.
 
#8
indians knew all kinds of arches, segmental, semicircular, pointed arches, trefoil arches etc along with the domes. This is a report made by colonial archaeologist alex cunningham himself



1554399315785.png



the propaganda any how has been continued by most of the indian colonial era inspired historians especially bloggers.

The Story of India's Arch

regards
 
Last edited:

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
13,496
Europix
#9
there is a shocking lack of research in indian pre islamic architecture ...
there's that saying: "nobody serves You better than Yourself".

If the lack of research in Indian pre-Islamic architecture is shocking, the first place to look at is at Indian research, not at "Eurocentric", "colonial", or whatever else. Especially as India isn't a country of 3,485 inhabitants, thus the excuse not having where from to recrute researchers doesn't stand ...

I have tho a question: what exactly is "colonial archeologist" supposed to mean?
 
Likes: prashanth

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
13,496
Europix
#10
so far i have read zero research papers which discuss pre islamic domes from indian subcontinent and many declare that domes were introduced in indian subcontinent after twelfth century AD.

The structural development of masonry domes in India

regards
With all do respect, the article You linked doesn't serve Your statement in any way:

The subject of the paper is masonry domes in India, and the author clearly states that besides looking at a specific aspect (masonry domes), it's looking at a specific period (and I quote) : " ... The period under review covers Islamic rule overnorthernand central Indiaframthe late 12th centuryto the mid18th century. ... " (end of quote)

To be honest, it's a bit like me complaining that there isn't a talk about black spotted white cats in a paper dealing with spotted dogs.

______
PS: thank You for the link, it's interesting.
 

Similar History Discussions