South Asian Archaeology 2007

Proceedings of the 19th Meeting of the

European Association of South Asian Archaeology
in Ravenna, Italy, July 2007

Volume II
Historic Periods
Edited by
Pierfrancesco Callieri
Luca Colliva

BAR International Series 2133

2010
Published by

Archaeopress
Publishers of British Archaeological Reports
Gordon House
276 Banbury Road
Oxford OX2 7ED
England
bar@archaeopress.com
www.archaeopress.com

BAR S2133

South Asian Archaeology 2007, Volume II: Historic Periods’ Proceedings of the 19th Meeting of the
European Association of South Asian Archaeology in Ravenna, Italy, July 2007 Volume II:

© Archaeopress and the individual authors 2010

ISBN 978 1 4073 0674 2

Cover image: Sculpture from Butkara I (Swat, Pakistan), inv. no. B 6000 (Drawing F. Martore, courtesy IsIAO).

Printed in England by CMP (UK) Ltd

All BAR titles are available from:

Hadrian Books Ltd

122 Banbury Road
Oxford
OX2 7BP
England
bar@hadrianbooks.co.uk

The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available
free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com
 ROAD NETWORKS AND TRADE ROUTES IN THE
GOLCONDA KINGDOM (AD 1518-1687)
Robert Simpkins
Following the death of Shihabu’d-din Mahmud Shah in
AD 1518, the Bahmani Empire of the Deccan fragmented
into five independent polities. One of these was based at
Golconda, capital of the Telingana province, and
governed by Sultan-Quli Qutb’ul-Mulk. Sultan-Quli, as
an independent ruler, became the first of a dynasty of
eight rulers to control a large part of the central and
eastern Deccan. After his son Ibrahim adopted the title
Qutb Shah in AD 1550, they became known as the Qutb
Shahi Dynasty (Sherwani 1971). In this paper, the polity
over which the dynasty maintained control until its end in
AD 1687 will be referred to as the Golconda Kingdom.
Research on the Golconda Kingdom has been based on
historical, epigraphic, and archaeological/architectural
sources, including periodic efforts to synthesize all data
to that point (Siddiqui 1956; Sherwani 1971; Nayeem
2006). These works, although laudable, reveal several
shortcomings in the existing research. Among them are:
1) a lack of attention to the stylistic evolution of
architecture, resulting in errors in the dating of some
structures; 2) neglect of minor and ruined structures that
can be associated with Kingdom on basis of stylistic
criteria, creating a biased corpus and misrepresentative
patterns of geographic distribution; 3) neglect of
structures outside the capital, and a general lack of
exploration for such structures.
The situation with respect to the Bahmani Empire and its
successors differs significantly from the attitude toward
earlier kingdoms in the Deccan, in which detailed records
and surveys are made of sites, ruins, and inscriptions.
This difference in perception is not simply chronological,
because far more interest has been generated in the
monuments of the Mughal Empire, throughout their
geographic distribution. It is most likely a reflection of a
modern bias against the Deccan Sultanates, which are
seen both as less legitimate subjects of archaeological
research than earlier periods, and not as interesting as
larger, or perhaps more famous kingdoms, both to the
north and south.
My own research since 2003 has attempted to rectify
some of these biases, and emphasize the place of the
surviving, standing architecture of the Golconda
Kingdom in creating or testing hypotheses about the
evolution of the kingdom. Proper use of this category of
data required three efforts: 1) creation of a single,
authoritative list of reported structures from a
combination of historical sources and epigraphic and
archaeological reports; 2) evaluation of the sources from
new, empirical observation of the sites themselves; and 3)
exploration of additional, ‘high probability’ sites or areas
to determine the presence or absence of additional,
327
previously unreported structures. The outcome of these
efforts has been the production of a single updated,
verified data-base of surviving structures associated with
the kingdom linked to an archive of digital photos, GPS
locations and, where possible, high-resolution satellite
imagery.
Roads and Routes
Of particular interest within the data set of the Golconda
Kingdom I developed during my research are structures
that occur along the major roads in use during the
kingdom’s existence. Of course, all structures in use
during a given period are linked to each other in some
way; these connections are often assumed, and are only
the subject of archaeological investigation inconsistently
- most commonly, among those polities where the roads
are highly developed, such as the Roman Empire, the
‘Silk Road’ under the Han and Tang Dynasties, and in
India, among the Mughals. In all these examples, the
empire behind the roads may be described as ‘highly
integrated’ in Carla Sinopoli’s terminology (Sinopoli
1994). The bias in existing research toward the study of
roads only among ‘highly integrated’ empires leads to a
neglect of other kinds of polities, and other forms of
integration among sites and territories. In the context of
South Asian archaeology, a monumental effort to correct
this bias was initiated by Jean Deloche (1993), but is still
not standard.
Understanding the road network of a polity is important
not only because it reveals the individual places of
significance within that polity’s territory, but also the
specific paths by which those places were connected.
Knowing the paths is significant, because places located
along paths between major nodes on a network are likely
to contain evidence of the traffic they supported, such as
by providing goods and services, as well as the economic
consequences that come from fortuitous location. A
newly developed road between major locations will
reflect this, for example, in the form of buildings that date
to the period in which the road came under increased or
new use. In this paper, a road is defined as any path
between two sites of cultural activity. A route is a
specific path between sites favoured during one or more
periods over other possible roads. A road network is the
total system of roads and routes within a polity, or even
over a larger region, that defines the extent of human
movement and interaction.
The subject of roads in the Golconda Kingdom has been
addressed in other recent historical syntheses (Sherwani
1971; Deloche 1993), although these accounts are
primarily based upon contemporary historical accounts,
 Robert Simpkins
particularly those of European travellers like Jean-
Baptiste Tavernier. Such accounts are presumed to focus
on the primary, or trunk roads in use during the Qutb
Shahi Dynasty, which in the context of this paper would
be considered the routes favoured at the time. There are
problems with the use of these accounts, including: 1) the
acceptance of the source as authoritative; 2) the
assumption that the route the author used is a standard
one; 3) the tendency of modern historians to use multiple
accounts from different periods to build up a single image
of the kingdom throughout its history, or to use an
account from one period as a proxy for other periods
during which evidence is lacking. This is especially
significant with the use of the European accounts, in
which the majority of them date to the later decades of
the dynasty, during the rule of Abdullah (AD 1626-72)
and Abul Hasan Qutb Shah (AD 1672-87). The
consequence is to homogenize the kingdom, rather than
see it as an evolving, adapting socio-economic system. It
is unlikely that over the one hundred and sixty-nine years
of the kingdom’s existence the same routes were in use,
supported or patronized in the same way. These problems
can be rectified in part through a more critical
examination of and organization of existing evidence, but
this does not resolve the bias in data caused by the
neglect of minor and ruined structures, and the lack of
archaeological survey work for structures of this period
outside the capital alluded to previously. Only by
examining the evidence along the roads themselves and
the changes in that evidence throughout the kingdom’s
duration, does a clearer picture emerge of the kingdom’s
history, and its changing pattern of integration as
reflected in its road network.
Evidence of Standing Architecture along Golconda
Kingdom Roads
The evidence of standing architecture along Golconda
Kingdom roads can be discussed according to three
categories: A) typology, B) chronology, and C)
geography. Each of these is discussed in detail below.
A - Typology
Prior to more extensive exploration of the Golconda
Kingdom’s road network in 2006 and 2007, my early
expectations for the types of architectural remains I might
encounter were based upon a combination of previous
historical and archaeological writings (principally
Bilgrami 1927; Yusuf 1953; Sherwani 1974; Shorey
1984; Desai 1989), and personal observations from a
brief visit to Andhra Pradesh made in 2003. From this, I
expected evidence from the kingdom’s rulers along their
roads to take three major forms: 1) caravanserai; 2)
mosques; and 3) kos minar, each of which are explained
below.
Caravanserai associated with the kingdom had already
been reported from several locations around the capital. A
large structure in the village of Sheikhpet, north of
Golconda Fort, had been described in previous literature
328
as a serai (Reddy-Pringle 2003), as had another structure
in the village of Hayatnagar, on the eastern border of
modern Hyderabad (Reddy 2003). These two structures
are quite different, with one (Sheikhpet) having a long
row of rooms in a block with two levels, and the other
(Hayatnagar) having a rectangular enclosure or
quadrangle around a central plaza. This immediately
suggested at least two major designs or types - referred to
here as block and quadrangle - to compare to other
structures found in explorations. A third example known
within Hyderabad is the enclosure associated with the
mosque of Miyan Mishk, located on the northern end of
the Purana Pul, the bridge built by Ibrahim Qutb Shah in
AD 1578 across the Musi River. This enclosure is
somewhat irregular in shape, but is attested as a serai
from historical sources and contains rooms facing the
central area, although it is smaller than the other
examples (Sherwani 1971). Historical accounts by
European travellers refer to serai, but do not generally
describe them in sufficient detail to be certain of the
diversity of architectural designs that they might have.
Mosques in the ‘Qutb Shahi’ style are the most common
and easily identifiable form of architecture associated
with the kingdom, and are abundant within the capital.
Although there are mosques associated with the serai at
Sheikhpet and Hayatnagar, there are additional mosques
in other locations not associated with other extant
architecture, but likely to indicate former stopping points
on roads, or even vanished villages. Based on my 2003
visit, I was aware of at least three along the National
Highway 9 between Hyderabad and Vijayawada past
Hayatnagar, and expected more along this, and
potentially other roads. Also unclear was the precise
dating of the mosques.
Kos minar are a category of architecture with a clear
association with roads, since their primary function is to
serve as road markers. Kos minar are well-known in
Northern India, dating to the time of the Mughal Empire,
but their existence in the Deccan is not widely recognized
(Deloche 1993). According to Deloche, based on
historical accounts and personal observations, kos minar
in the Deccan are only found on the route between
Hyderabad and Masulipatnam, the port in the delta region
of Andhra Pradesh (Deloche 1986, 1993). Deloche was of
the opinion that these road markers must date to the 18th
century and time of Mughal occupation, since they are
mentioned in the accounts of Europeans in the region at
that time, but not in the 17th century AD, widely-known
accounts of Jean-Baptiste Tavernier (Ball 1995) and Jean
de Thevenot (Sen 1949). They are clearly referred to in
the account of Dutch VOC employee Daniel Havart, who
visited the region multiple times during the reign of the
final Qutb Shahi ruler, Abul Hasan, and as such they
must date to no later than the 1670s; defining a more
precise date or period for their construction is one of the
goals of this project. Havart reports that as one travels to
the kingdom from the port city of Machilipatnam, they
first appear on each side of the road after the village of
Oepul, and then are found at regular intervals for the rest
of the journey to Hyderabad (Havart 1693).
 ROAD NETWORKS AND TRADE ROUTES IN THE GOLCONDA KINGDOM (AD 1518-1687)
It is possible that other categories of structures exist, but
in the absence of inscriptions or diagnostic stylistic
elements, their attribution to a specific period may be
difficult.
Although space does not permit a detailed discussion of
the results of my explorations in various locations within
Andhra Pradesh, in general, I verified the continued
presence of several known structures, and identified
several additional structures associated with the kingdom
on the basis of stylistic criteria, as well as a large number
of other structures of potential interest but either of
unclear date or possessing diagnostic elements clearly
pre-dating or post-dating the kingdom.
1 - Caravanserai
Structures similar to those found at Sheikhpet and
Hayatnagar were found in several locations. Although
their precise function as a serai cannot be established with
certainty, reasoning by way of analogy, at least two other
structures can be compared to the ‘block’ type of serai,
and three others can be compared to the ‘quadrangle’
type.
The block type was also found with a mosque just outside
the northern part of the enclosure for the royal necropolis
area. It is on land owned by the Department of
Archaeology and Museums, Government of Andhra
Pradesh, and thus is known to local archaeologists, but is
not listed in publications, and is not obvious to visitors of
the tombs due to obstructions. Here it will be referred to
as the ‘Qutb Shahi tombs serai’. A very similar serai, also
with an attached but larger mosque, was found in a
remote portion of Nalgonda district south of Suriapet.
This location has no nearby settlements, and is located
along unpaved paths. It may be the location referred to by
Thevenot as Sarchel-Quipentche, identified by Sherwani
as Sirkipeta (Sherwani 1971: 581). The village of
Sirikipeta is listed on US Army Corps of Engineers 1954
maps in a location consistent with Thevenot and Ball’s
description, but in the present day, no village can be
found at this location. There is only a large mosque in the
Qutb Shahi style, adjacent to which is a block type
caravanserai. It will be referred to here as the ‘Sirikipeta
serai’.
The quadrangle type serai has analogous structures found
within Hyderabad itself in the Karwan area, enclosing the
Kulthumpura mosque, and in the Old City area at Dar
Ush shifa. The former, although within the city itself, is
in a suburb of Hyderabad on the road one used to pass
between the fort area and the old city, and where
merchants are known to have stayed while doing business
in the city. The latter, according to historical tradition,
was built as a hospital during the time Hyderabad was
first erected under the reign of Muhammad-Quli, but
reportedly functioned as a serai as well (Sherwani 1971).
In addition, far to the south at the fortress of Gandikota in
Cuddapah District, a substantial and well-preserved
quadrangle enclosed another mosque in the Qutb Shahi
style. The mosque is mentioned in some publications
(Michell & Zebrowski 2000), but the enclosure is not.
329
2 - Mosques
Over one hundred Qutb Shahi-style mosques were
identified in the course of my research, at least half of
which do not appear in other records examined of Qutb
Shahi architecture. Approximately three-quarters of these
were within the Greater Hyderabad area (the extent of
modern Hyderabad city and its suburbs), but in the era of
the Golconda Kingdom, some of these were beyond the
strongly nucleated areas of settlement, and may reflect
formerly outlying villages, or stopping points on roads
leading outside of the city. Nevertheless, once one gets
beyond this core area, Qutb Shahi style mosques are rare
in the territory of the Golconda Kingdom. In terms of
those located in places that might imply an ‘official’
route, one only finds such a sequence of structures along
the road leading east from the city to Machilipatnam.
They occur with some regularity along the current
National Highway 9, such as at the aforementioned
Hayatnagar, and subsequently at Toofranpet, Almaspet,
and Choutappal. After this point, on the modern highway,
nothing is found from the Golconda Kingdom for some
distance, which is consistent with the European
itineraries. The road in that era appears to have turned
south, toward Panagal and Nalgonda, before turning east
again, eventually reconnecting with the modern highway
near the village of Goojaluru (Thevenot’s Gougelou,
identified by Sherwani as Gurglur).
Panagal does contain a Qutb Shahi mosque, and another
occurs east of it just before the Musi River at Amangala,
consistent with Thevenot and Havart’s route. Not far
across the river is the aforementioned mosque at
Sirikipeta. Although a small number of other early
mosques are known as one continues toward the delta,
none are unambiguously in the Qutb Shahi style, and
some may be just before or just after the Golconda
Kingdom’s era. In addition, inscriptions suggest at least a
few more structures were once extant, but have not
survived, such as at Guduru and Machilipatnam itself
(Desai 1989). In the Machilipatnam and delta region, the
effects of severe monsoons have generally impacted early
examples of standing architecture, including a major one
in AD 1800 (Arasaratnam & Ray 1994), which may have
destroyed or increased the damage to Golconda Kingdom
monuments in this area.
3 - Kos minar
Consistent with the account of Daniel Havart, kos minar
beyond the Greater Hyderabad area are only found along
the Hyderabad-Machilipatnam road (modern NH9). No
evidence of kos minar was found beyond the point of this
road noted by Deloche in his 1986 study (Deloche 1986),
which is consistent with Havart’s contemporary account.
The only specific kos minar observed in my explorations
on this road were already noted by Deloche in 1986. I did
locate one pair of kos minar not in Deloche’s report,
however, found within Hyderabad itself. This pair is in
the Gudi Malkapur neighbourhood, in the midst of a
modern shanty town and not far from the later temple of
Jham Singh; this is likely to be the same pair noted by
Sherwani as being in the Kulthumpura area (Sherwani
1971: 445). This location is surprising, and may have
 Robert Simpkins
implications for dating the kos minar, which are not
mentioned in any indigenous sources to my knowledge.
B - Chronology
None of the structures discussed from my explorations
can be dated by inscription - none were identified,
although more detailed examination of the sites and
interviewing of local populations is still required. Some,
such as the quadrangle at Gandikota, can be roughly
dated by inference from historical accounts of activity at
the site - Tavernier visited the fort in AD 1652, and
shortly after its conquest by Abdullah’s Mir Jumla
Muhammad Said, associated with the expansion into the
Karnatic region in this period (Ball 1995; Sherwani
1971). Most, however, can only be dated by comparison
with other structures whose dates are known from
inscriptions or unambiguous historical reference.
Although a more detailed statistical analysis of diagnostic
stylistic elements is planned as part of this project, at this
writing it has not yet been completed. In general,
however, comparison with other structures suggest that
the mosques at Toofranpet, Almaspet, Choutappal,
Sirikipeta, are likely to date to the 17th century in
general, and are best compared to other structures dated
to the period between the 1630s and 1650s. This is
significant, because this is the period in the reign of
Abdullah Qutb Shah after his coming of age (his mother,
Hayat Bakshi Begum, ruled on his behalf from AD 1626
to AD 1632, after the early death of her husband,
Muhammad Qutb Shah), and during which time the
kingdom was wealthy but subject to a ‘deed of
submission’ under the Mughal Empire signed in
AD 1636. Further conflict after AD 1656 caused
Abdullah to retreat to Golconda Fort, which had been
largely unused after the construction of the new capital of
Hyderabad in AD 1591.
It is worth noting, however, that there is little clear
evidence of the Qutb Shahi style during the reign of
Muhammad Qutb Shah, beyond the unfinished Mecca
Masjid and his own tomb. Features found on a structure
from the 1630s might, therefore reflect a style that
developed in the 1620s, for which no known examples
survive. In this context, the assertion of Havart that the
mosque at Almaspet was built by Muhammad Qutb Shah
is significant (Havart 1693).
The presence of the kos minar along the same road as
these mosques might suggest that they are contemporary.
There is nothing in their style that demonstrates a clear
connection to these mosques, however, other than the fact
that tall minarets on Qutb Shahi mosques, which are
much the same as the kos minar themselves, are not
found on any dated mosque in this region before the reign
of Muhammad-Quli Qutb Shah (AD 1580-1611). In fact,
one such mosque found at Mirpet, dated to AD 1610, as
well as a few other, undated examples, has simple
minarets of this sort, without the projecting arcaded
galleries found on most other Qutb Shahi-style mosques
(Michell & Zebrowski 2000). On those kos minar where
330
the plaster decoration survives, the only clue as to style is
in the presence of a single row of simple petals along the
bottom of the minaret dome. Many mosques contain a
double-row of petals below the minaret domes, but the
domes over the tombs of the early rulers of the dynasty,
Sultan-Quli, Ibrahim, and Muhammad-Quli have a
similar single row of petals. We can at least hypothesize,
then, that the likely earliest date for the kos minar is the
reign of Muhammad-Quli, although another date cannot
be eliminated.
C - Geography
If we return again to the significance of the pair of kos
minar in the Gudi Malkapur neighbourhood of
Hyderabad, we can ask why they would have been placed
along this particular road. From their location, this road
appears to lead, heading southeast, to the Purana Pul
bridge built by Ibrahim Qutb Shah in AD 1578, and used
subsequently to cross the Musi River to the new capital of
Hyderabad after AD 1591. Heading northwest, it appears
to lead to the Qutb Shahi tombs complex or just north of
it, in the eventual direction of Bidar, the later capital of
the Bahmanis and their successors there, the Barid
Shahis. This is significant because most later accounts
assume that the main 17th century AD route through this
part of the city passed through the Karwan suburb, along
which numerous Qutb Shahi-style buildings can be seen
today, including the Toli Masjid, dated by inscription to
AD 1671, and a smaller nearby mosque dated to AD
1633. These two dates fall within the reign of Abdullah.
In contrast, the road on which the kos minar are found
contains no such monuments from this ruler’s reign. The
only Qutb Shahi-style building that might be associated
with this road in the vicinity of the kos minar is a small,
dilapidated mosque in the earlier style consistent with the
reign of Ibrahim or possibly the early reign of
Muhammad-Quli (i.e., between AD 1550 and 1590).
If the kos minar are associated with the reign of
Abdullah, as Sherwani (1971: 445) suggests, it seems
strange that there would be no other structures on this
road from his reign, particularly as this is the road that
would appear to lead into the capital from the west. It is
equally strange that the Karwan road, roughly parallel
and just to the south, which links Hyderabad to Golconda
Fort, would have mosques dating to Abdullah’s reign, but
not the kos minar. This discrepancy, combined with the
features of the petals on the kos minar that imply an
earlier date, suggest that the kos minar themselves may
pre-date Abdullah’s reign. Because the road on which
they are found does not appear to be linked to the fort, but
rather passes north of it, and just north of the area of the
royal tombs as well, it seems unlikely that the markers are
in any way connected to the fort’s period of use. This
means they are most likely from the period in between
the fort’s two main eras of use, i.e. between
AD 1591 and AD 1656. If they are additionally not
associated with Abdullah’s reign, this further reduces the
range to the period between AD 1591 and AD 1626, or
during the reigns of Muhammad-Quli and Muhammad.
 ROAD NETWORKS AND TRADE ROUTES IN THE GOLCONDA KINGDOM (AD 1518-1687)
Of all the structures discussed, only one falls outside this
main east-west route through the capital - the quadrangle
and mosque within Gandikota Fort, clearly associated
with a specific and dated historical event. The remaining
structures, however display stylistic variation, even when
- in the case of mosques and serai - their function is the
same. Only the kos minar are identical, strongly implying
that they were all conceived and constructed in a short
time span under a single plan. The other structures are
more likely to have accumulated over time. But
collectively, they demonstrate a strong interest in the
patronage of this primary route through the kingdom, and
a consistency in the use of that route over time.
Conclusions
Although the rulers and other elites of the Golconda
Kingdom were responsible for a variety of structures
found within their territory, evidence for those found
along roads in a pattern that suggests a route are rare. The
locations of many sites and their known historical
significance suggests that traffic must have passed along
the roads between there and the capital or other important
centres, but the evidence in the form of standing
architecture - so abundant in the capital - is not found.
Although some structures in the style of the capital may
have been lost to time, and some may continue to exist
unidentified, the overall pattern suggests that such
structures were simply not built. In this respect, the
account of Thomas Bowrey, who visited the Golconda
Kingdom in the 1670s, is enlightening:
One thinge more I must needs Mention for the honour and
Praise all travelers ought to give it, (beinge what is it’s
desert) I meane the Kingdome in General, through out
which great care is taken both for the Safety wee Enjoy,
and for relieve all travailers may have, which is first it is
blessed with good and cleane Roades, and Upon Every
common of aove 4 or 5 miles in length, there is built a
Small house or two where, if the travailer is thirsty, a
thinge frequent in these warme climates, he may have
milke or Congy, which is water boyled very well with
Some rice in it, at the King’s charge, and the people
demand nothinge for it, but if any man will give them a
penny or two, they have the wit to receive it very
thankfully.
Moreover, att Every 12 miles End a house or two,
(accordinge as the Roade is frequented) are built and kept
in repaire (att the King’s charges) for the conveniency of
lodgings, for any comers or goes, the first come first
Served, without any respect of Persons, which are fine
conveniences for them, more Especially for that the
Idolatrous people who inhabit most of the Countrey
Villadges dare not admit of any of another Cast to enter
their doors (Temple 1967: 117).
This account suggests that the Golconda rulers, or at least
one of them, took a strong interest in providing for
travellers along their roads. We cannot be sure if this
description is true of all the routes in use at this time, but
regardless, the evidence known today in terms of
architecture in the style of the capital does not match this
description. This means that a variety of structures were
built which either have not been identified, or - and
331
probably more likely - do not survive because they were
not built to survive, having been built in the vernacular
style, such as with wood and mud brick as is common
still today.
Returning to the significance of the structures which do
survive today, then, we cannot interpret them in a simple
presence/absence way. Their presence does not simply
indicate an ‘imperial’ presence, and their absence does
not simply indicate a lack of an ‘imperial’ presence.
Rather, their presence seems to imply something
different, and perhaps of a more symbolic nature.
Choosing to build deliberately in the ‘imperial’ style may
have served the function of a political statement, serving
multiple audiences (Bawa 2002). For residents of the
capital itself, it was a further expression of the wealth and
style of the city, reaching out into the distant countryside.
For the residents of the outlying areas it was a reminder
of the imperial presence and their connection to it. For
long-distance traders, such as Europeans beginning in the
reign of Muhammad-Quli, and increasing dramatically in
the decades to come, it was both an introduction to the
style to be found at the capital, an indication that they
were on the right path, and an expression of power.
In this sense, it is worth noting a journey undertaken by
Abdullah in AD 1639. With what amounted to a
travelling city of royalty, advisors, soldiers, and servants,
Abdullah devoted two months to the round trip journey
from Hyderabad to the port city of Machilipatnam and
back. H. K. Sherwani, in describing the trip, interpreted
its significance as follows:
The journey to Masulipatnam […] served the double
purpose of showing the might of Haiderabad to the restive
population of the east coast and exhibiting the
magnificence and viability of the State to European factors
(Sherwani 1971: 504)
Although such tours might be effective on a grand scale,
they were also ephemeral. Monuments, however, were
lasting, and made a similar statement to the population in
each place in a more permanent way. What is significant
for the Golconda Kingdom, then, is the desire to mark
this route, and doing so, distinguish it from all others in
their kingdom, perhaps as a kind of ‘royal road’. This
also suggests that in terms of the two-part typology used
by Sinopoli (1994, 1995), there is room for additional
categories beyond ‘weakly integrated’ and ‘highly
integrated’ empires. In this case, the Golconda Kingdom
seems to show features in its road network not seen in its
contemporary, neighbouring Deccan Sultanates, but
found in its northern neighbour, the Mughal Empire. The
symbolic, imperial elements of the road network are less
widespread, however, and primarily concentrated in the
capital and along its main road, the route from Hyderabad
to its port city of Machilipatnam.
Acknowledgements
I wish to acknowledge the support of the George Franklin
Dales Foundation and the College of Social Sciences
 Robert Simpkins

Research Fund at San Jose State University in conducting
my research, and a University of Wisconsin-Madison
Vilas Travel Grant enabling me to present this research in
Ravenna. I would additionally like to thank the
Department of Languages and Cultures of Asia at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Departments of
Anthropology at UW-Madison, San Jose State University
and DeAnza College, Potti Sreeramulu Telugu
University, Garuda Tourism in Hyderabad, the
management of the Athithi Inn in Hyderabad, and the
American Institute for Indian Studies, as well as
numerous individuals including my advisor, Joe Elder,
and V. Narayana Rao, Preeti Chopra, Phil Wagoner,
Richard Eaton, John Fritz, George Michell, Jean Deloche,
Gijs Kruijtzer, Ian Wendt, Helen Philon, Jonathan Mark
Kenoyer, Heather Miller, V. K. Bawa, M. A. Qaiyum,
Ranga Reddy, Srinivas Rao, Adrian Simpkins, Tina
Fordham, and Jennifer Simpkins, as well as the European
Association for South Asian Archaeologists. Special
thanks to Gijs Kruijtzer for translation assistance with the
account of Daniel Havart.
Bibliographic References
Havart, D. (1693) Op- en ondergang van Cormandel.
.ook Op- en ondergang der Koningen, die zedert
weynige jaren, in Golconda, de hoofd-stad van
Cormandel geregeerd hebben (3 parts in 1 vol.).
Amsterdam.
Michell, G. & Zebrowski, M. (2000) The New Cambridge
History of India 1:7 – Architecture and Art of the
Deccan Sultanates. Cambridge.
Nayeem, M.A. (2006) The Heritage of the Qutb Shahis of
Golconda and Hyderabad. Hyderabad.
Reddy, P.A. (2003) ‘Sarai Hayat Ma Saheba’, INTAC
Heritage Awards Annual 2003: 15-18.
Reddy-Pringle, U. (2003) ‘Sheikpet Sarai – Golconda’,
INTAC Heritage Awards Annual 2003: 25-28.
Sen, S., ed. (1949) Indian Travels of Thevenot and
Careri. New Delhi.
Sherwani, H.K. (1971) History of the Qutb Shahi
Dynasty. New Delhi.
Shorey, S.P. (1984) In Search of Monuments: An Atlas of
Hyderabad’s Protected Monuments. Hyderabad.
Siddiqui, A.M. (1956) History of Golconda. Hyderabad.

Arasaratnam, S. & Ray, A. (1994) Masulipatnam and Sinopoli, C. (1994) ‘The Archaeology of Empires’,
Cambay: a history of two port-towns 1500-1800. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23: 159-80.
New Delhi. Sinopoli, C. (1995) ‘The Archaeology of Empires: A
Ball, V. (1995) Jean Baptiste Tavernier, Travels in India, View from South Asia’, Bulletin of the American
translated from the original French edition of Schools of Oriental Research, 299/300: 3-11.
1676 with a biographical sketch of the author, Temple, R., ed. (1967) A Geographical Account of
notes, appendices, &c. New Delhi (first ed. 1925). Countries Round the Bay of Bengal 1669 to 1679
Bawa, V.K. (2002) ‘The Politics of Architecture in Qutb by Thomas Bowrey. Nendeln-Lichtenstein.
Shahi Hyderabad: A Preliminary Analysis’ in Yusuf, S. (1953) Antiquarian Remains in Hyderabad
M.A. Nayeem; A. Ray & K.S. Mathew (eds), State. Hyderabad.
Studies in the History of the Deccan, Medieval
and Modern: Professor A.R. Kulkarni Felicitation
Volume, 329-41. Delhi.
Bilgrami, S. (1992) Landmarks of the Deccan: A
Comprehensive Guide to the Archaeological
Remains of the City and Suburbs of Hyderabad.
New Delhi (first ed. 1927).
Deloche, J. (1986) ‘Bornes Milliaires de l’Andhra
Prades’, Bulletin de l’École française d’Extrême-
Orient, 75: 37-42.
Deloche, J. (1993) Transport and Communications in
India Prior to Steam Locomotion, Vol. 1: Land
Transport. New Delhi.
Desai, Z. (1989) A Topographical List of Arabic, Persian
and Urdu Inscriptions of South India. New Delhi.

332
 ROAD NETWORKS AND TRADE ROUTES IN THE GOLCONDA KINGDOM (AD 1518-1687)

Fig. 1 - The mosque at Hayatnagar, contained within a quadrangle with dozens of rooms. This village is associated with Hayat Bakshi Begum,
daughter of Muhammad-Quli Qutb Shah, wife of Muhammad Qutb Shah and mother to Abdullah Qutb Shah (Photo R. Simpkins).

Fig. 2 - Sheikhpet serai, north of Golconda Fort in Hyderabad. This structure and mosque are associated with the reign of Abdullah Qutb Shah
(Photo R. Simpkins).

333
 Robert Simpkins

Fig. 3 - The Qutb Shahi mosque at Gandikota Fort, enclosed within a large quadrangle quite similar in many ways to serai at other sites. The Qutb
Shahi-style structures most likely are associated with the use of this fort as a southern base by the kingdom’s Mir Jumla after 1652, following his
conquests in the Karnatic region (Photo R. Simpkins).

Fig. 4 - Sirikipeta serai, in Nalgonda District south of Suriapet. This mosque (the minaret for which can be seen in the background) and serai were
found while looking for the place name ‘Sirikipeta’, hypothesized by Sherwani to be equivalent to the village of ‘Sarchel-quipentche’ identified by
Thevenot on his route through the Kingdom (Photo R. Simpkins).

334
 ROAD NETWORKS AND TRADE ROUTES IN THE GOLCONDA KINGDOM (AD 1518-1687)

Fig. 5 - Qutb Shahi Tombs serai, north of the main royal tombs in Hyderabad. This is a ‘block type’ serai, similar to the Sirikipeta serai and Sheikhpet
serai, although the latter is a more complex structure (Photo R. Simpkins).

Fig. 6 - Qutb Shahi kos minar along National Highway 9 in Nalgonda District, Andhra Pradesh. This road marker is one of two flanking the sides of
the old road near the current highway connecting Hyderabad to Machilipatnam. The scale of these structures is indicated by my assistant/driver, Mr.
K. Rajender Reddy (Raju) (Photo R. Simpkins).

335
 Robert Simpkins

Fig. 7 - Map of selected major sites during the period of Golconda Kingdom. The route connecting Hyderabad with Bidar to the west and
Machilipatnam to the east is shown approximately. The territorial boundary shown is that of modern Andhra Pradesh, the borders of which are quite
similar to the territory controlled by the Qutb Shahis in the final decades of the dynasty (Drawing R. Simpkins).

336
Addendum and Errata:
"Road Networks and Trade Routes in the Golconda Kingdom (AD 1518-1687)"
By Robert Simpkins

Published in:
South Asian Archaeology 2007
Proceedings of the 19th Meeting of the European Association of South Asian
Archaeology in Ravenna, Italy, July 2007
Volume II: Historic Periods
Edited by Pierfrancesco Callieri & Luca Colliva
BAR International Series 2133
2010
Pages 327-336.

My article for this volume was written nearly three years ago, and unfortunately
contains a much earlier version of my thinking on these topics, as well as a few
small but regrettable errors. For those interested in this research, I ask you to
keep in mind the following corrections:

The repeated reference to (Sherwani 1971) for his work The History of the Qutb
Shahi Dynasty is incorrect. The publication date is 1974.

The spelling for the name of the village of Gunjalooru is incorrectly listed as
'Goojaluru' on page 329.

In this article, I state as unlikely the possibility that the milestones on the highway
east of Golconda were built earlier than the reign of Muhammad-Quli Qutb Shah
(1580-1611) and were not associated with Golconda fort - a position that
contradicts the argument I advanced in my recent article "The Mysterious
Milestones of Andhra Pradesh" from the Jan-June issue of the Journal of Deccan
Studies. This contradiction stems from the fact that the JDS article was written
nearly two years later, when upon further reflection and analysis I concluded that
an association between the milestones and the time for the fort was occupied
(pre-1591) made more sense. See that article for the full argument, but note that
the JDS article reflects my current thinking on that subject.

Any other errors not noted here are of course entirely my own and regretted, and
will be amended in future publications.

Robert Alan Simpkins