Was The Taj Mahal A Vedic Temple

Was the Taj Mahal A Vedic Temple
Was the Taj Mahal a Vedic Temple?

The Photographic Evidence
This presents photographs (listed below) that show the Vedic influence found in such buildings
as the Taj Mahal, Red Fort, and other structures in India. It also presents photos of drawings
and art that have been discovered from other parts of the world, such as Arabia, Egypt, Greece
and Italy, that show a definite Vedic influence. No matter whether you accept all of this or not, it
nonetheless makes for an extremely fascinating and interesting story. Take a look and decide
for yourself what you think. Also, let other people know about these, or download them to print
and use them for your own displays in your temple, office or home.
We have all heard how the Taj Mahal, which is considered one of the great wonders of the
world, was built as the preeminent expression of a man's love for a wife. That it was built by
emperor Shah Jahan in commemoration of his wife Mumtaz. However, in our continuous effort
to get to the truth, we have recently acquired some very important documents and information.
There is evidence that the Taj Mahal was never built by Shah Jahan. Some say the Taj Mahal
pre-dates Shah Jahan by several centuries and was originally built as a Hindu or Vedic temple/
palace complex. Shah Jahan merely acquired it from its previous owner, the Hindu King Jai
Singh.
This controversy is something I have explained more thoroughly in my book, "Proof of Vedic
Culture's Global Existence." So, for those who want to know the details of this issue, you can
find it there. And here is the photographic evidence that will provide greater insights into this.
The point to consider is how much more of India's history has been distorted if the background
of such a grand building is so inaccurate.
These photographs are taken from an album that was found and then smuggled out of India. On
the back of each photo there is a stamp mark that says, "Archaeology Survey of India." This
signifies their authenticity and that they were the property of that institution. This means a
number of things: That the Archaeology Survey of India (ASI) has been researching the
evidence that proves the Taj Mahal and many other buildings were not of Muslim origin, and that
they know this information but remain silent about it. It also shows that in spite of this evidence
they refuse to open up further research that would reveal the true nature and originality of the
buildings, and lead to understanding another part of the real history and glory of India.
These photos are black and white and were found in a simple photo album in India. Except for
old age and some water damage on some of them (creating white spots in areas), most are still
in relatively good condition. Each photograph was accompanied by a typed caption taped in the
album near the photo, each of which gives a very interesting explanation of the subject and the
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/was_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_temple.htm (1 of 4)10/7/2006 9:41:04 AM

Vedic influence recognized on the building and what it means. The captions accompany the
photos on the following pages just as they were written in the album, so the style of
English and the explanations are kept the same. I did not write them myself. They are
obviously written from an Indian perspective. Whatever I may say about the photos are
displayed in brackets [ ]. Otherwise I let the captions and photos speak for themselves. Some of
these photos will show areas of the Taj where the public has no access, or what is rarely seen
or noticed.
It is because of the manipulation of history by invaders that the true greatness of India and
Vedic culture has been stifled or hidden. And it is time that people everywhere realize how
numerous lies and false propaganda have been passed around as if it were the truth in regard
to India and its past, as well as its art, archeology, and the wonder of its culture. India and its
Vedic society was one of the preeminent civilizations of the world, as I explained in "Proof of
Vedic Culture's Global Existence." Now, through the increasing amount of revealing evidence
that is being uncovered, that greatness of India's past and its contributions to the world are
gradually being recognized. It is because of this that it is now time to rewrite the history of India.
ADDITIONAL ONLINE ARTICLES
"The Question of the Taj Mahal" (Itihas Patrika, vol 5, pp. 98-111, 1985) by P. S. Bhat and
A. L. Athavale is a profound and thoroughly researched and well balanced paper on the Taj
Mahal controversy. This paper goes well with the photographs listed below. It uncovers the
reasons for the rumors and assumptions of why it is said that Shah Jahan built the Taj Mahal,
and presents all the inconsistencies of why that theory doesn't hold up. It also covers such
things as the descriptions found in the old Agra court papers on the Taj; descriptions and
measurements of the building in the old records; Aurangzeb's letter of the much needed repairs
even in 1632 which is unlikely for a new building; records that reveal Shah Jahan acquired
marble but was it enough for really building the Taj or merely for inlay work and decorative
coverings; the observations of European travelers at the time; the actual age of the Taj; how the
architecture is definitely of Indian Hindu orientation and could very well have been designed as
a Shiva temple; the issue of the arch and the dome; how the invader Timurlung (1398) took
back thousands of prisoner craftsmen to build his capital at Samarkhand and where the dome
could have been incorporated into Islamic architecture; how it was not Shah Jahan's religious
tolerance that could have been a reason for Hindu elements in the design of the Taj; how the
direction of the mosque does not point toward Mecca as most mosques do; the real purpose of
the minarets at the Taj; the Hindu symbolism recognized in the Taj which would not have been
allowed if it was truly Muslim built; and even as late as 1910 the Encyclopaedia Britannica
included the statement by Fergusson that the building was previously a palace before becoming
a tomb for Shah Jahan; and more. A most interesting paper.
"An Architect Looks at the Taj Mahal Legend" by Marvin Mills, is a great review of the
information available on the Taj Mahal and raises some very interesting questions that make it

obvious that the Taj could not have been built the way or during the time that history presents,
which makes it more like a fable than accurate history. This suggests a construction date of
1359 AD, about 300 years before Shah Jahan.
The True Story of the Taj Mahal. This article by P. N. Oak (from Pune, India) provides an
overview of his research and lists his 109 proofs of how the Taj Mahal was a pre-existing Hindu
temple palace, built not by Shah Jahan but originally at least 500 years earlier in 1155 AD by
Raja Paramardi Dev as a Vedic temple. Mr. P. N. Oak is another who has done much research
into this topic, and such a study is hardly complete without considering his findings. The
evidence he presents here is a most interesting read, whether you agree with it all or not, or
care for some of the anger in his sentiment. Mr. Oak has presented his own conclusions in his
books, most notably Taj Mahal--The True Story (ISBN: 0-9611614-4-2).
The Letter of Aurangzeb ordering repairs on the old Taj Mahal in the year just before it is
said to have been completed.
The Badshahnama is the history written by the Emperor's own chronicler. This page shows
how Aurangzeb had acquired the Taj from the previous owner, Jai Singh, grandson of Raja
Mansingh, after selecting this site for the burial of Queen Mumtaz.
THE PHOTOGRAPHS
The following photographs are divided according to content and accessed through the links.
Click on the photo number for access:
Taj Mahal Photo #1 Aerial view of the Taj Mahal

Taj Mahal Photo #2 The interior water well
Taj Mahal Photo #3 Frontal view of the Taj Mahal and dome
Taj Mahal Photo #4 Close up of the dome with pinnacle
Taj Mahal Photo #5 Close up of the pinnacle
Taj Mahal Photo #6 Inlaid pinnacle pattern in courtyard
Taj Mahal Photo #7 Red lotus at apex of the entrance
Taj Mahal Photo #8 Rear view of the Taj & 22 apartments
Taj Mahal Photo #9 View of sealed doors & windows in back
Taj Mahal Photo #10 Typical Vedic style corridors
Taj Mahal Photo #11 The Music House--a contradiction
Taj Mahal Photo #12 A locked room on upper floor
Taj Mahal Photo #13 A marble apartment on ground floor

Taj Mahal Photo #14 The OM in the flowers on the walls

Taj Mahal Photo #15 Staircase that leads to the lower levels
Taj Mahal Photo #16 300 foot long corridor inside apartments
Taj Mahal Photo #17 One of the 22 rooms in the secret lower level
Taj Mahal Photo #18 Interior of one of the 22 secret rooms
Taj Mahal Photo #19 Interior of another of the locked rooms
Taj Mahal Photo #20 Vedic design on ceiling of a locked room
Taj Mahal Photo #21 Huge ventilator sealed shut with bricks
Taj Mahal Photo #22 Secret walled door that leads to other rooms
Taj Mahal Photo #23 Secret bricked door that hides more evidence
Taj Mahal Photo #24 Palace in Barhanpur where Mumtaz died
Taj Mahal Photo #25 Pavilion where Mumtaz is said to be buried
Now for the Next Section:
The Photographic Evidence of the Vedic Influence Found in the Red Fort and
Other Buildings in Delhi and India, as well as in Drawings and Art from
Elsewhere in the World.
Click Here
[This is available at: http:www.stephen-knapp.com]
[ Home ] [ The Books by Stephen Knapp ] [ Book Reviews ] [ CD Slide Shows ] [ Order Form ]
[ The World Relief Network ] [ Articles to Read ] [ Seeing Spiritual India ]
[ A Little Book of Prayers Mantras & Gayatris ] [ Krishna Darshan Art Gallery ]
[ Vegetarian Recipes and Resources ] [ Stay in Touch with Us ] [ Links to Other Websites ]
[ Jokes and Anecdotes ]

The Question of the Taj Mahal

By P. S. Bhat and A. L. Athawale
(from the Itihas Patrika, Vol. 5, pp 98-111, 1985)
ABSTRACT
This paper deals with the Taj Mahal, the magnificent marble edifice on the banks of the river
Jamuna, in the southern part of Agra city. It is generally believed by historians and laymen alike
that the building was erected as a mausoleum by the 5th generation Mogul Emperor Shah Jahan
in the memory of his wife Mumtaz Mahal, and that the period of its construction was 1631-53
AD.
The basis of these claims has been questioned by Shri P. N. Oak in his book "The Taj Mahal is
a Temple Palace." The substance of Shri Oak's thesis is that the edifice was originally built as a
temple in the 12th century AD, and was subsequently used as a palace by the alien aggressors.
The building again fell into the hands of the Rajput kings during the period of Humayun, and was
put to use as a palace by Raja Man Singh of Jaipur. And that it was finally commandeered by
Shah Jahan from Raja Jai Singh of Jaipur, and was converted into a mausoleum.
The controversy assumes importance as it questions some of the basic premises of mediaeval
Indian archeology. This paper attempts to place in perspective some of the pertinent questions
that arise on the subject.
I HISTORY
1. INTRODUCTION
The legend of the Taj Mahal tells us that it was built by Shah Jahan (1628-1658 AD), the fifth
generation Mogul Emperor, as a mausoleum to his wife Mumtaz Mahal. And that 20,000 men
worked incessantly for 22 years to complete the magnificent marble edifice.
Mumtaz died in 1631 AD, at Barhanpur where she was buried and a mausoleum was erected.
Six months later her body was shifted to Agra to be buried in what is known as the Temporary
Grave--which is demarcated and can be seen even today--a few meters to the southwest of the
Taj Mahal. And subsequently her body was laid to rest inside the Taj Mahal.
The main supporting pieces of the above thesis are cited from the following documents, which
will be discussed in detail in the course of this paper.
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (1 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

i) The Badshahnama1, an important court journal of Shah Jahan, written by Mulla Abdul Hamid
Lahori.
ii) The firmans (court orders) of Shah Jahan to Raja Jai Singh of Jaipur2, pertaining to the
acquisition of marble from the Makrana quarries in Rajasthan.
iii) Travelogue of Peter Mundy3, an employee of the East India Company, who visited Agra
between 1631-1633 AD.
iiii) Travelogue of J. B. Tavernier4, a French merchant who visited India five times between 1638-
1668 AD.
The Taj Mahal is a seven storeyed edifice with its plinth at the level of the riverbed. The
courtyard in front of the building corresponds to the third storey of the edifice. The entire
skeleton of the edifice is made of red stone, the top four floors being plastered with marble. It
measures a height of 243 ½ ft (whereas the Qutb Minar of Delhi is only 238 ft). The marble
platform (4th storey) on which the central edifice is standing has a floor area of 328 ft x 328 ft,
and has four marble minarets at its corners. The marble superstructure covers an area of 187 ft
x 187 ft with 33 ft chambers cut off at each corner. It has a huge central dome with an inner
diameter of 58 ft and a wall thickness of 14 ft -- surrounded by four smaller copulas with a
diameter of 26'8".
The central edifice is flanked with two identical red-stone buildings--the one on the western side
is a mosque and the other a community hall--each having three domes. Facing the main
building at the other end of the courtyard is the Main Gateway, which is a four-storeyed edifice
covering a floor area of 140 ft x 110 ft. Midway between the Gateway and the marble edifice,
there are two identical double-storeyed buildings, placed on either side of the courtyard known
as the "Nagar Khanas" (Drum Houses). The courtyard covers a net area of 1460 ft x 100 ft.
Outside the Main Gateway is the Great courtyard, which covers an additional area of 430 ft x
1000 ft, having rows of redstone constructions, at present used as shops. Thus, the Taj
Complex covers a net area of 1890 ft x 1000 ft, which is roughly equal to half the area of the
Red Fort of Agra. The whole complex is perfectly symmetrical about the North-South axis, the
two halves forming mirror images of each other to minutest details.
It must have been a challenging project both architecturally and financially, so much so that it
made both Shah Jahan and his wife immortal. But it is surprising that in none of the hitherto
known court papers of Shah Jahan--there are several of them--there is any record of the date of
its commencement or of its completion, or the total period of its construction or the details of
expenditure. (There is a brief remark in the Badshahnama that the expenditure incurred upon
the building was Rs. 40 lakhs. And the present estimate of 20,000 workers and 22 years are
based upon the writings of Tavernier, which shall be examined later.) Besides, several details of

traditional Hindu symbolism can be located at various places in the Taj Complex. Therefore, it is
a pertinent question whether Shah Jahan himself built the edifice, or he converted an existing
building into a mausoleum.
2. Court Papers
Badshahnama, one of the most important court journals of Shah Jahan, deals with the burial of
Mumtaz in two pages of its first volume (pp.403-404). A line by line translation of these pages
was provided by Sri P. N. Oak5 in his book published in 1966. The following passages are
quoted from that source.
(On) "Friday--15th Jamadi-ul Awwal, the sacred dead body of the traveller to the kingdom of
Holiness, hazrat Mumtaz-ul Zamani--who was buried temporarily.... was brought to the capital
Akbarabad (Agra)...
The site covered with magnificent lush garden, to the south of that great city and amidst which
(garden) the building known as the palace of Raja Mansingh, at present owned by Raja Jaisingh
(Pesh az ein Manzil-e Rajan Mansingh bood Wadaree Waqt ba Raja Jaisingh), grandson (of
Mansingh) was selected for the burial of the queen whose abode is in heaven.
"Although Raja Jaisingh valued it greatly as his ancestral heritage and property, yet would have
been agreeable to part with it gratis for the Emperor Shahjahan. (Still) out of sheer
scrupulousness so essential in the matters of bereavement and religious sanctity, in exchange
of that grand place, he was granted a piece of government land (Dar' awaz aan aali Manzil-e az
khalisa-e sharifah badoo marahmat farmoodand) after the arrival of the dead body in that great
city on 15th Jamadul Soniya.
"Next year that illustrious body of the heavenly queen was laid to rest. The officials of the
capital, according to the royal orders of the day, under the sky-high lofty mausoleum hid the
pious lady from the eyes of the world, and the edifice so majestic and with a dome, and so lofty
in its stature, is a memorial to the courage of sky-dimensions of the king--and a strength so
mighty in resolution so firm--the foundation was laid and geomatricians of farsight and architects
of talent incurred an expenditure of Rs. 40 lakhs (chihal lakh roopiah) on this building."
Normally, the above quoted passages would need no further commentary. It is explicitly stated
that the "palace of Raja Mansingh was selected for the burial of the queen". That it is no
ordinary building is obvious as Raja Jaisingh "valued it greatly as his ancestral heritage and
property". And piece of government land was given in exchange of that great palace (aali
manzil). The transaction was clinched only after the arrival of the dead body in Agra (which
explains the presence of the Temporary Grave). The body was finally buried in the "sky-high
lofty mausoleum" the following year (probably soon after the palace was suitably modified). And

the subsequent decorations and calligraphical work upon the building cost Rs. 40 lakhs.
What then is the basis of the claim that Shah Jahan built the edifice? In the last paragraph
quoted above, there occurs a phrase, "...foundation was laid..." Some historians interpret it to
mean that Shah Jahan laid the foundation of a new edifice--the Taj Mahal, and the support to
this view is drawn from the Persian line quoted in the third paragraph dealing with the
transaction. It is interpreted as a grand palace being granted to Raja Jai Singh in exchange of
the land for building the mausoleum.
From the clear and explicit reference to Raja Man Singh's palace, and the absence of any
details about the duration and efforts involved in building the gigantic edifice, the operative
phrase, "foundation was laid" can also be viewed as a figurative reference to the initiation of
alterations in the edifice. However, the controversy makes it necessary to examine the issue
more carefully.
The confusion can be resolved only by examining all other evidences including the architecture
of the edifice. The details of architecture--the bulbous dome and the minarets being Mogul
characteristics, etc.--are examined in the second part of this paper; but it is relevant to examine
one particular aspect of the architecture at this stage.
As mentioned earlier, the Taj Mahal is a multi-storeyed edifice with its plinth at the level of the
riverbed. The entire skeleton of the edifice is of brick and red-stone, with the superstructure
standing upon the red-stone terrace being plastered with marble. In Mogul tombs it is customary
to have two graves: the real grave containing the dead body in the basement of the building,
and a well decorated cenotaph meant for the public eye on the upper floor. In the Taj Mahal the
real grave is on the third storey of the edifice and the decorated cenotaph is on the fourth.
The basement floor is now completely sealed; but the floor immediately below the real grave
has long corridor running East-West on the northern part of the edifice, which can be entered at
either end by means of staircases from the red-stone terrace. The corridor is 5'8" wide and
about 322 ft long and opens into 22 rooms (between the corridor and the river side wall) of sizes
ranging from 11 ft x 20 ft, to 22 ft x 20 ft. These rooms had windows opening to the riverside, but
all of them are permanently sealed with brick and mortar from inside and with red-stone slabs
having floral decorations from outside. On the other side of the corridor there are at least three
entrances opening to the South, which are crudely sealed with brick and mortar. The staircases
to the corridor from the floor above were detected in 1900 AD.
If the edifice was originally constructed for the purpose of a tomb, of what utility were these
underground chambers conceived? And then why were they sealed subsequently? Or, was it
that the edifice was originally constructed for an altogether different purpose?
Badshahnama (vol I, p. 384) records the date of Mumtaz's death at Barhanpur as the 17th Zi-it
Quada 1040 AH (20th June, 1631). The passages quoted above mentions the date of arrival of

the dead body at Agra as the 15th Jamad-ul Sanya 1041 AH (8th Jan., 1632). But the date of
final burial of Mumtaz inside the Taj Mahal is not precisely recorded, except that it was done the
following year.
That it was done certainly before the 25th February, 1633 becomes obvious from the writings of
Peter Mundy (see Section 5), who finally left Agra on the date but has recorded that he had
seen a rail of gold around the tomb of Mumtaz.
A completed mausoleum at Barhanpur indicates that the idea of a sepulcher in Agra must have
occurred to Shah Jahan at least a few months after the death of Mumtaz. And the burial inside
the Taj was complete with costly decorations and the tourists were allowed to visit by February,
1633. Even if one were to accept that the burial was done when the building was still under
construction, it is unlikely that the cenotaph on the 4th storey would be decorated with gold, etc.,
unless the three lower floors of the edifice were complete.
How does it compare with the supposed period of construction of the Taj Mahal, 1631-53 AD? Is
it plausible that beginning with the selection of the architects and building plan, the lower three
floors of the edifice would be raised upon the riverbed within the span of a year?
Therefore, the translations quoted above regarding the acquisition of Raja Man Singh's palace
seem to be the correct interpretation of the Badshahnama. However, there is another aspect of
the question which needs to be examined. Could it be that the marble superstructure upon the
red-stone terrace was erected by Shah Jahan himself?
3. Aurangzeb's Letter
In the year 1652 AD, Aurangzeb assumed charge as the Governor of Deccan. On his way, he
visited Agra and inspected the Taj Mahal. In his letter written from Dholpur6, he wrote about the
badly needed repairs to the Taj Mahal. Excerpts from the translation of the letter provided by M.
S. Vats are quoted below:
"The dome of the holy tomb leaked in two places towards the north during the rainy season and
so also the fair semi-domed arches, many of the galleries on the second storey, the four smaller
domes, the four northern compartments and seven arched underground chambers which have
developed cracks. During the rains last year the terrace over the main dome also leaked in two
or three places. It has been repaired, but it remains to be seen during the ensuing rainy season
how far the operations prove successful. The domes of the Mosque and the Jama'at Khana
leaked during the rains...
"The master builders are of the opinion that if the roof of the second storey is reopened and
dismantled and treated afresh with concrete, over which half a yard of mortar grout is laid the

semi-domed arches, the galleries and the smaller domes will probably become watertight, but
they are unable to suggest any measures of repairs to the main dome..."
The letter is eloquent enough. In 1652 AD, the dome of the holy tomb, the fair semi-domed
arches, the four smaller domes and the domes of the Mosque and the Jama'at Khana all had
developed serious defects. How does it compare with the supposed period of its construction
1631-53 AD?
And do the master builders of Shah Jahan who were "unable to suggest any measures of
repairs to the main dome" appear to be the original architects of the edifice? Does it mean that
the statement of Badshahnama, "Next year that illustrious body... was laid to rest... under the
sky-high lofty mausoleum... with a dome" is literally true?
4. The Firmans
There are records of three firmans by Shah Jahan to Raja Jai Singh of Jaipur pertaining to the
acquisition of marble2. These firmans are cited as a conclusive proof of the claim that it was
Shah Jahan who built the Taj Mahal.
i) dated 9 Rajab, 1041 Hijra (Jan 21, 1632)
"As a great number of carts are required for transportation of marble needed for constructing
building (at the capital), a firman was previously sent to you (to procure them). It is again desired
of you, that as many carts on hire be arranged as possible in the earliest time, as has already
been written to you, and be dispatched to Makrana for expediting the transport of marble to the
capital. Every assistance be given to Allahood who has been deputed to arrange the
transportation of marble to Akbarabad. Account (of expenditure on carts) along with the previous
account of amount allocated for the purchase of marble be submitted (to the mutsaddi in charge
of payment).
ii) dated 4 Rabi-ul-Awwal, 1043 Al Hijra (Sept. 9, 1632)
"Mulkshah has been deputed to Amber (Amer) to bring marble from the new mines (of
Makrana). It is commended that carts on hire be arranged for transportation of marble and
Mulkshah be assisted to purchase as much marble as he may desire to have. The purchase
price of marble and cartage shall be paid by him from the treasury. Every other assistance be
given to him to procure and bring marble and sculptors to the capital expeditiously."
iii) dated 7 Saffer, 1047 Al Hijra (June 21, 1637)

"We hear that your men detain the stone-cutters of the region at Amber and Rajnagar. This
creates shortage of stone-cutters (miners) at Makrana and the work (of procuring marble)
suffers. Hence it is desired of you that no stone-cutter be detained at Amber and Rajnagar and
all of them who are available be sent to the mutsaddis of Makrana."
The firmans conclusively prove that Shah Jahan did acquire marble from the Makrana quarries.
But does it also prove that he was the original builder of the Taj Mahal?
The marble walls of the cenotaph chamber, the border of the door arches and the top border of
the entire edifice are replete with Koranic inscriptions which can be attributed only to Shah
Jahan, even if he was not the builder of the edifice. It is said that fourteen chapters of Holy
Koran are inscribed on the walls of the Taj Mahal. In addition, there is commendable amount of
inlay-work and flower carving in the Taj Mahal. All these would require considerable amount of
fresh marble.
The body of Mumtaz arrived at Agra and was buried in a temporary grave on the 8th of January,
1632. In the firman written barely a fortnight later, Shah Jahan refers to a previous letter and
orders Jai Singh to arrange for the transportation of marble "in the earliest time". That is, the
acquisition of marble had begun at about the same time when the body was shifted to Agra. As
noted earlier, the lower two floors (and all the other buildings in the Taj Complex) are completely
of brick and red stone. Even the skeleton of the marble superstructure is made of brick--for
example, the Central dome has a wall thickness of 14 ft, of which only 6 inches on either side is
of marble and the rest of 13 ft is of brick. Therefore, if the edifice were to be raised from the
foundation onward--not to speak of the selection of architects and building plan, etc.--it is
unlikely that the work involving marble would have begun so soon. (It is noteworthy that a
completed mausoleum at Barhanpur indicates that the idea of a sepulcher in Agra must have
occurred to Shah Jahan only a few months after the death of Mumtaz.) Therefore, it is only
reasonable to attribute the acquisition of marble to the alterations in an already existing edifice--
the palace of Raja Man Singh.
5. Peter Mundy
He was an employee of the East India Company, and visited Agra three times between 1631
and 1633. His last visit was between 22nd Dec, 1632 and 25th Feb, 1633. He has noted in his
Travelogue (pp. 208-213):
"Places of note (in and about Agra) are castle, King Akbar's tombe, Moholl's tombe, garden and
bazare...
"The king is now building a sepulchre for his late deceased queen Taje Maholl... There is
already about her tombe a rail of gold... the building is begun and goes on with excessive labor

and cost, prosecuted with extraordinary diligence, gold and silver esteemed common metal and
marble but ordinary stones..."
Mundy uses two phrases, "The king is now building a sepulchre..." and "The building is begun..."
which can be understood as Shah Jahan was actually erecting an edifice.
But he also states that the Taj Mahal was already a centre of tourist attraction (in 1632-33 AD)
comparable with Akbar's tomb and the fort. The cenotaph on the fourth storey was complete
with a gold railing around it, and the tourists were allowed to visit the grave. "The building is
begun", declares Peter Mundy, and the work in progress had much to do with "gold and silver...
and marble". Was it the erection of the edifice or was it calligraphy and decorations?
6. J. B. Tavernier
Great importance is attached to Tavernier's (a French merchant) records about the Taj Mahal,
as he was an impartial foreigner. His writings form the most important basis of the claim that
Shah Jahan was the original builder of the Taj Mahal. He visited India five times between 1638-
1668 AD. Excerpts from his Travelogue (Book I, pp. 110-111):
"I witnessed the commencement and accomplishment of the great work on which they
expended 22 years during which 20,000 men worked incessantly...
"It is said that the scaffolding alone cost more than the entire work, because, for want of wood,
they had all to be made of brick as well as the support of the arches."
Tavernier made his first appearance in Agra in the winter of 1640-41 AD (Dr. Ball's Introduction,
p. xiv) nearly a decade after the death of Mumtaz and makes the claim that he was an eye-
witness to the commencement of the Taj Mahal. In the light of the discussion so far, it is
superfluous to comment upon this part of the claim. But was he a witness to the completion of
the building?
The marble walls of the cenotaph chamber are full of Koranic inscriptions8, which ends with the
name of the calligrapher and the dates "...written by the insignificant being Amanat Khan Shirazi
in the year 1048 Hijri and the 12th year of His Majesty's reign." (i.e, 1639 AD)
That is, the calligraphical work was complete at least a year before Tavernier first visited Agra.
Therefore, if at all he had seen any work going on in the building, it can only be the last stages
of decorations, not to speak of the erection of the edifice.
He then makes the other important claim that 20,000 men worked incessantly for 22 years to
complete the building. This statement seems to the be the basis of the claim that the building

was constructed between 1631-53 AD, though, obviously, it does not tally with his claim about
its commencement. Nor does the supposed date of completion (1653 AD) tally with Tavernier's
claim of seeing it completed. It is true that he visited India during 1651-55; but he did not visit
Agra during that trip. His route, according to V. Ball, was Masulipttam-Madras-Gandekot-
Golconda-Surat-Ahmedabad-Surat-Ahmedabad-Golconda-Surat. It is probable, as noted earlier,
that he had seen the decorative work completed in the Taj during his first visit to Agra in 1640-
41 AD. However, the validity of his claim can be more conclusively examined by comparing it
with the expenditure incurred upon the building (Rs. 40 lakhs) as claimed in the Badshahnama.
If the above amount is assumed to have been spent purely upon the labour charges to the
exclusion of material costs, then the average salary of a worker comes out to be three-quarters
of a rupee per month. Obviously, the lowest paid worker would be getting only a small fraction of
this amount. Compare it with Tavernier's own account (Book I, p. 46) of contemporary labour
charges "...you pay each attendant for everything only 4 rupees a month, but up to 5 rupees
when the journey is long."
Surprisingly, he then goes on to quote a rumour, that the brick scaffolding alone had cost more
than the entire work! Is this claim reliable? Can the cost of brick scaffolding be more than that of
the marble edifice? If at all it is true, then the "entire work" can only mean the alterations in the
building and not the erection of it.
That is, the claims of Tavernier regarding the commencement of the edifice, the duration of the
work and the labour involved are unreliable; but the rumour he quoted appears to be closer to
truth.
7. Other Records
(i) Havell9 quotes a Persian manuscript having the name of several chief craftsmen working in
the Taj Mahal as drawing monthly salaries ranging from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 1000/-. The name of
the chief calligrapher (Amanat Khan Shirazi) listed in the manuscript is also inscribed inside the
cenotaph chamber (Section 6). And, therefore, the manuscript seems to be authentic (Table 1).
It lists the names of a chief architect (Ustad Isa), a dome expert (Ismail Khan Rumi), two
pinnacle experts, four calligraphers, four inlay workers, five flower carvers, six master masons,
etc. The net salary of 20 of these craftsmen exceeds Rs. one lakh per year. It further weakens
the claim of Tavernier, since it reduces the average salary of the rest of 20,000 workers to less
than half the amount calculated above.
It is also noteworthy that the chief architect (Ustad Isa), the chief mason (Muhammad Hanief)
and the chief calligrapher (Amanat Khan Shirazi)--each was drawing the highest salary of Rs.
1000/- per month. If the chief architect were the one who conceived and designed the Taj

Mahal, it is unlikely that he would be treated at par with the chief mason and the calligrapher.
Note also the fact that among the names listed, the architect and the dome expert are vastly
outnumbered by the masons, calligraphers, flower-carvers and inlay workers.
(ii) Fray Sebastion Manrique10, a Portugese traveller who also visited Agra at about the same
time (winter of 1640-41) as Tavernier did. Excerpts from his Travelogue:
"On this building as well as other works, 1000 men were usually engaged as overseers, officials
and workmen; of these many were occupied in laying out ingenious gardens, others planting
shady groves and ornamental avenues; while the rest were making roads and those receptacles
for the crystal water, without which their labour could not be carried out.
"The architect of these works was a Venetian, by the name Geronimo Veroneo, who had come
to this part in a Portugese ship and died in the city of Lahore just before I reached it... Fame, the
swift conveyor of good and evil news, had spread the story that the Emperor summoned him
and informed him that he desired to erect a great and sumptuous tomb to his dead wife, and he
was required to draw up some design for this, for the Emperor's inspection... The architect
Veroneo carried out this order... He (Shah Jahan) told Veroneo to spend 3 crores of rupees, that
is 300 lakhs, and to inform him it was expended."
Manrique quotes a prevalent story about the architect Veroneo (who died before the arrival of
Manrique) and the expenditure of Rs. 3 crores. But this seems to be a boneless legend, since it
is enormously at variance with the Persian manuscript (which records the name of Ustad Isa as
the chief architect) and the official account of expenditure (Rs. 40 lakhs) as recorded in the
Badshahnama.
But Manrique seems to be an eye-witness for the work inside the Taj Complex, since he is very
specific about the nature of the work in the gardens. He does not say anything about the work
upon the edifice, which also tallies well with the inscription inside the cenotaph chamber that the
calligraphical work was complete by 1639 AD.
He mentions the number of workers to be around 1,000. This is significantly different from the
claim of Tavernier; but it tallies well with the expenditure upon the building, as stated in the
Badshahnama. If it is assumed that a thousand workers worked in the Taj Complex for a decade
since 1632 AD, making allowance for the salaries of the chief craftsmen mentioned in the
Persian manuscript, the average salary of the rest of 1000 workers comes out to be Rs. 25/- per
month. Compared with the contemporary labour charges, this claim appears to be more
reasonable than that of Tavernier. (The actual number of workers would certainly be fluctuating
and their average number over the decade could be substantially lower than what Manrique had
seen in 1641.)
TABLE - 1

Taj Mahal - Details of Monthly Salaries
(From a Persian Manuscript placed in the National Library, Calcutta, as quoted by E. B. Havell,
pp. 31-33)
1. Ustad Isa (Agra/Shiraz) Chief Architect Rs. 1,000

2. Ismail Khan Rumi (Rum) Dome Expert Rs. 500
3. Muhammad Sharif (Samarkhan) Pinnacle Expert Rs. 500
4. Kasim Khan (Lahore) Pinnacle Experts Rs. 295
5. Muhammad Hanief (Khandahar) Master Mason Rs. 1,000
6. Muhammad Sayyid (Multan) Master Mason Rs. 590
7. Abu Torah (Multan) Master Mason Rs. 500
8. - - - (Delhi) Master Mason Rs. 400
11. Amanat Khan Shirazi (Shiraz) Calligrapher Rs. 1,000
12. Qadar Zaman Calligrapher Rs. 800
13. Muhammad Khan (Bagdad) Calligrapher Rs. 500
14. Raushan Khan (Syria) Calligrapher Rs. 300
15. Chiranji Lal (Kanauj) Inlay Worker Rs. 800
16. Chhoti Lal (Kanauj) Inlay Worker Rs. 380
17. Mannu Lal (Kanauj) Inlay Worker Rs. 200
18. Manuhar Singh (Kanauj) Inlay Worker Rs. 200
19. Ata Muhammad (Bokhara) Flower Carver Rs. 500
20. Shaker Muhammad (Bokhara) Flower Carver Rs. 400
21. Banuhar Flower Carver ---
22. Shah Mal Flower Carver ---
23. Zorawar Flower Carver ---
24. Pira (Delhi) Carpenter ---
25. Ram Lal Kashmiri (Kashmir) Garden Expert ---

8. Age of the Taj Mahal
Modern techniques of archaeometry are used to determine the approximate age of historical
buildings with reasonable accuracy. Marvin Mills11 of New York reports about the Carbon-14
dating of the Taj Mahal: "Another item of evidence concerning the alleged date of the Taj is
adduced from a radiocarbon date from a piece of wood from a door on the north facade of the
Jumuna River's bank. The sample was tested by Dr. Even Williams, director of the Brooklyn
College Radiocarbon Laboratory. The date came to 1359 AD with a spread of 89 years on either
side and 67% probability, Masca corrected."
That is, it can be said with 67% certainty that the particular door was made during the period
1270-1448 AD. However, the radio-carbon dating of a single door is not a conclusive evidence
about the age of the building for two reasons; the sample itself might be contaminated. And that
there is a possibility of the door being a subsequent replacement of the original one in the
ancient edifice. Therefore, to arrive at a conclusion, more such samples need to be examined.
To sum up: The statement of Badshahnama about the acquisition of Raja Man Singh's palace
for the burial of the queen is clear and explicit. The numerous underground chambers and
Aurangzeb's exhaustive list of defects in all the three major buildings, including all the five
domes of the marble edifice give the distinct impression that the edifice was already ancient and
was built for an altogether different purpose. The statement of Peter Mundy that the cenotaph
(which is on the fourth storey of the edifice) was complete with costly decorations in 1632-33
AD, and that the Taj Mahal was already a centre of tourist attraction, only support the above
claim. The radio carbon test result, though not conclusive about the date, makes the above
conclusion more emphatic.
The work upon the building might have started in 1632 AD and must have lasted as the
inscription inside the cenotaph chamber indicates--for nearly a decade. The records of Tavernier
regarding the date of commencement, total duration of work and labour involved are not reliable.
The firmans, if viewed in isolation, can mean that Shah Jahan was actually erecting the marble
superstructure. But in the light of other evidences, the acquisition of marble could only be for the
purpose of alterations in the edifice. The Persian manuscript listing the names of several
craftsmen and their salaries, and the rumour quoted by Tavernier, further support this thesis.
It may be relevant to discuss another pertinent point at this stage. Usually the court historians do
not spare an opportunity to indulge in needless hyperboles to enhance the glory of their
paymasters. But in the 1600 pages of Badshahnama, only two pages deal with the burial of
Mumtaz and only one paragraph can be construed as dealing with the construction of the Taj
Mahal. If Shah Jahan were to undertake so challenging a project like the Taj Mahal, does it not
merit greater attention in the Badshahnama than the single paragraph quoted above? And that

the date of Mumtaz's burial more than a casual reference?
II - ARCHITECTURE
The discussion upon the historical evidences raises many pertinent questions regarding the
architecture of the building. Does the edifice look like a palace or like a Mogul tomb? Is not the
dome--the bulbous dome--a characteristic of Mogul architecture? Do the minarets and the single
pointed arch not have religious significance in Islamic architecture? The discussion upon the Taj
Mahal cannot be complete unless one finds satisfactory answers to the above questions.
Many historians (Havell, Batley, Kenoyer, Hunter, etc.), from time to time, have pointed out that
the architecture of the Taj Mahal is not in the traditions of Saracenic style but resembles that of
a Hindu temple. But this view has largely gone unnoticed primarily because it runs against the
grain of some of the accepted premises of Indo-Saracenic architecture.
The single pointed door arch had great religious significance in Saracenic architecture as it
represents the one and the only God of Islam. Such arches are commonly seen in the Islamic
architecture of Bagdad and surrounding places, and hence it is generally believed that the single
pointed arch and the arcuate style (as against the trabeate style) of constructing it are exclusive
innovations or Saracenic architecture. And that it arrived at India as a resultant contribution of
Afghan invasion at the close of the 12th century.
It is also generally believed that the bulbous dome seen in the Taj Mahal, migrated to India from
Samarkhand, subsequent to the establishment of Mogul dynasty by Babur in the 16th century.
There are significant differences between the Arab domes seen in Bagdad and Egypt and the
dome of Taj Mahal, the bulbous dome of Samarkhand forming the link between the two. Since
the arcuate style of constructing the arches and domes is believed to be exclusively of
Saracenic origin, it is also believed that the bulbous dome originated outside India.
These premises were originally propounded by the well-known British historian James
Fergusson12 who conducted the pioneer work in the field of Indian archaeology for nearly five
decades from around 1835 AD. His assumptions--widely accepted today--preclude the question
of the Taj Mahal being a Hindu construction. However, the historical evidences discussed so far,
call for a thorough examination of the architecture of the edifice, notwithstanding the
assumptions.
9. The Arch And The Dome
It is not necessary here to go into the debate whether the single pointed arch (and the arcuate
style of constructing it) was exclusively of Saracenic origin. Even if it were so, it was well

assimilated into the Hindu architecture by the middle of the 14th century. In the latter half of the
14th century the rulers of Vijayanagara (1346-1563 AD) in South India employed the single
pointed arch in their construction. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that it was used in
the Hindu architecture of North India several decades earlier. This tallies well with the
approximate period of construction of the Taj Mahal, as suggested by the radio-carbon dating (i.
e. 1359 AD).
However, the assumption that the bulbous dome originated in Samarkhand requires a closer
examination. The initiation and development of medieval architecture of Samarkhand is
attributed to Timurlung (1394-1404 AD), the 6th generation predecessor of Emperor Babur. He
invaded India in 1398 AD and after sacking Delhi and surrounding cities, carried off a large
number of architects and other craftsman as captive labour to build his capital Samarkhand. A
passage from his autobiography (Malfuzat-i-Timuri) would be illustrative:
"I ordered that all the artisans and clever mechanics who were masters of their respective crafts
should be picked out from among the prisoners and set aside, and accordingly some thousands
of craftsmen were selected to await my command. All these I distributed among the princes and
amirs who were present, or who were engaged officially in other parts of my dominions. I had
determined to build a Masjid-i-Jami in Samarkhand, the seat of my empire, which should be
without a rival in my country; so I ordered that all builders and stone masons should be set apart
for my own especial service."13
It is important to note that the approximate period of construction of the Taj Mahal is around
1359 AD, whereas Timurlung invaded India in 1398 AD. Could it be that the bulbous dome was
prevalent in India during that period and migrated to Samarkhand through the captive
architects?
There are several important points which need to be considered in favour of the above
conjecture:
(i) Similar buildings of the same period: There are several (more than a hundred) Jaina temples
in the sacred mounts of Sonagarh (Bundelkhand) and Muktagiri (Berar) which contain the
bulbous domes as well as the single pointed arches. Fergusson (p.62) attributes these temples
to the 16th and 17th centuries, but it is important to note his uncertainty about their true antiquity:
"So far as can be made out most of these temples date from 16th and 17th centuries, though a
few of them may be older. Their original foundation may be earlier, but of that we know nothing,
no one having yet enlightened us on the subject, nor explained how and when this hill became a
sacred mount.
In fact, Fergusson here uses his own assumption (about the origin of the bulbous dome) as the
touchstone to determine the period of the superstructure though he could not reconcile their
foundations to the same period.

(ii) The Lotus Canopy: various kinds of domes were used in the ancient temples of Mount Abu,
Girnar, Udayapur, Mylass, Carla, etc., some of them as old as the 4th century AD. All types of
domes in these temples are topped with an inverted lotus flower, its stem forming the pinnacle
of the building. The bulbous domes of Sonagarh and Muktagiri also contain the lotus canopy.
And every single dome in the Taj Campus contains a similar lotus canopy. Havell (pp.23-26)
traces the constituent elements of the Taj dome to the Hindu Shilpa Shastra, and the lotus
canopy to the 'Mahapadma' in the 'stupi' (pinnacle) of the 'vimana' type of temple dome.
It is noteworthy that the lotus is a sacred flower of the Hindus associated with their gods and
goddesses, whereas it does not seem to have any special significance in Islamic culture, and
the Saracenic architecture of Samarkhan, Persia, Bagdad and Egypt do not contain the lotus
canopy over the dome. Even the Humayun's tomb, widely believed to be the prototype of the
Taj, does not contain the lotus canopy.
In this regard, it is necessary to clarify another point. There are many Hindu religious symbols
seen in the Taj Mahal, which are often attributed to the religious tolerance of Shah Jahan, under
whom the Hindu craftsmen enjoyed considerable freedom. But the Persian manuscript (Section
7) lists the names of Ustad Isa and Ismail Khan Rumi as the chief architect and the dome expert
respectively. There is some ambiguity about the nativity of Ustad Isa (as to whether he was a
citizen of Agra or of Shiraz), but the dome expert, as the name suggests, was from Rum which
means the area around Bagdad and Mesopotamia. Is it plausible that the dome expert from the
heartland of Islam, built the dome according to the Shilpa Shastra with a lotus canopy?
(Incidently, what was this dome expert doing in the Taj Mahal? He was drawing a stately salary
of Rs. 500/- per month, and if Aurangzeb's letter (Section 3) is to be believed, he did not even
carry out the badly needed repairs to any of the five domes of the marble edifice!)
(iii) Arrangement of Domes: In architecture, even minor details normally embody certain
meaning, and it would be more so in the case of gigantic domes which form the most important
aspect of such buildings. Do the arrangements of numerous domes in the Taj Complex have
any special significance?
A well-known authority on Indian architecture E. B. Havell (pp.22-23) points out: "... the
arrangement of the roofing of the mausoleum itself consists of five domes... this structural
arrangement is not Saracenic, but essentially Hindu. It is known in Hindu architecture as the
pancharatna, the shrine of the five jewels, or the five-headed lingam of Siva... A typical example
of it is found in one of the small shrines of Chandi Sewa at Prambanam in Java, which has an
arrangement of domes strikingly similar to that of the Taj." (According to Sir Stanford Raffles,
the Chandi Sewa temple was completed in 1098 AD.)
In front of the marble edifice, at the other end of the courtyard is the main Gateway which
contains 22 mini-domes arranged on top of two parallel walls--one facing the Taj Mahal and the
other facing the outer southern gate. (According to the legend, it represents the 22 years it took

to build the Taj Mahal. The legend has its origin in the records of Tavernier, which is already
examined in an earlier section, and is found baseless.)
It is noteworthy that the two rows of mini-domes are separated by more than 100 ft. (The floor
area of the main Gateway is 140 ft x 110 ft.) And that the number derives its significance from
the Ekadasa Rudra (Eleven forms of Siva?).
The central edifice is flanked with two identical buildings, each having three huge domes. Could
it be that they derive their significance from the Trinity of the Hindus? There seems to be no
special significance attached to the number of domes in Saracenic architecture. In India there
are mediaeval mosques which can be classified as having one, three, five, ten, eleven or even
fifteen domes. However, the triple domed version seems to be a distinct Indian contribution to
Saracenic architecture as such buildings are scarcely seen outside India.
(iv) The Direction of the Mosque: Normally mosques are built facing the Holy Mecca, the
direction in which the faithful is commanded to turn while he prays. But the mosque inside the
Taj Complex is facing the cardinal West instead of the Holy City. Marvin Mills10 of New York
states: "... by the ninth century, they (Muslims) were able to calculate the direction of Mecca
within two degrees from any city... the mosque that is part of the Taj complex faces due West
whereas Mecca from Agra is 14 degrees 55 minutes south of West."
Therefore, the fact that the Taj Mahal contains the bulbous dome, in itself is not sufficient to
attribute its authorship to Shah Jahan. On the other hand, the fact that the domes having lotus
canopy needed repairs in 1662 AD, the arrangement of the dome in the marble edifice, the main
gateway and the adjacent buildings and also the direction of the mosque give rise to speculation
that the bulbous dome was part of temple architecture. The temples of Muktagiri and Sonagarh
further substantiates this conjecture, indicating the possibility of the bulbous dome existing in
India before the Mogul invasion in the 16th century.
10 The Minarets
In the mediaeval architecture of Persia and Bagdad, the minaret had a functional utility--to give
call for the prayer to the faithful--in a mosque. Several of the mediaeval mosques in Gujarat do
contain such minarets. But in the northern Gangetic plain, during the first four centuries of
Pathan architecture, the minaret was not part of the building, with the sole exception of the
mosque of Ajmer. (The mosque of Ajmer was one of the two earliest buildings built by the
invading Afghans, and subsequently its minarets fell off due to the faulty construction.) Says
Fergusson (pp.219-20): "...minarets...so far as I know, were not attached to mosques during the
so-called Pathan period. The call to prayer was made from the roof; and except the first rude
attempt at Ajmer, I do not know an instance of a minaret built solely for such a purpose, though
they were, as we know, universal in Egypt and elsewhere long before this time, and were

considered nearly indispensable in the buildings of the Mughals very shortly afterwards."
However, the style and the purpose of the minarets of the Taj Mahal appear to be quite different
from those of the Saracenic architecture of Persia or Bagdad for two reasons:
(i) The marble edifice, which is a mausoleum, has four minarets at its corners, whereas the
adjacent mosque for which a minaret would have been of functional utility does not have any.
(ii) In pure Saracenic architecture, the minaret normally rises from the shoulder of the edifice to
well-above the dome. In the case of the Taj Mahal, they stand separated from the edifice and
are shorter than the domes.
Therefore, the purpose of the minarets is not functional but decorative, and the inspiration
behind them is not Saracenic.
In fact, the "era of minarets" seems to have begun with Shah Jahan himself. Among the
buildings of his predecessors, only one--the southern gateway to Sikandara (Akbar's tomb) in
Agra--contains four marble minarets. But there is good reason to believe that those are
subsequent additions (probably by Shah Jahan himself) and not part of original design. Apart
from the contrast of the marble minarets standing on top of red-stone gateway, to quote Satish
Grover1 "the location of the minarets over the parapets flanking the main entrance, is to say the
least unusual and a clear case of fortuitous addition rather than comprehensive design. These
minarets were certainly built either as experiments before erecting those at the Taj or
immediately thereafter--more probably the latter."
Therefore, it is reasonable to speculate that the minarets of the Taj Mahal were not inspired by
the Saracenic architecture; but on the other hand, it is from the Taj Mahal that the subsequent
Mogul architecture adopted the concept of decorative minarets.
11. Hindu Symbolism
In addition to the lotus canopy over the dome, there are many other symbolic and sculptural
details in the Taj Mahal which are quite appropriate in a Siva temple.14 Some of them are
quoted below:
(i) Recess above the entrance: In the southern entrance to the outer precincts of the Taj
Complex (i.e., the Taj Gunj gate facing the main gateway), above the door arch, there is a small
arched recess. It is customary in Hindu Forts (for example, the Nagardhan Fort, Nagpur) to
place an idol of Lord Ganesa in a similar recess above the main entrance. Could it be that the
recess above the Taj entrance also contained a similar idol, which was subsequently removed
by the iconoclastic invaders?

(ii) The Rajput Welcome Signs: The walls of the main gateway and the "kitchen" in the great
courtyard are marked with typical Rajput welcome signs, such as the "gulab-dani" (rose-water
cans) and "ilaichi-dani" (cardamon pots). The Rajput palaces at Deeg (Bharatpur) and Jaipur
also contain similar welcome signs.
(iii) Ganesa Torana: On the main gateway, the entire border at waist-height is decorated with
what is called the "Ganesa Torana" (the elephant trunk and the crown can be clearly identified).
It is noteworthy that animate decorations are taboo in Islam.
(iv) Other sculptural details: Upon the marble walls of the central edifice, there are sculptural
details of flowers in the shape of OM and bell flowers which is of great significance in the
worship of Lord Shiva.
(v) The pinnacle: On top of the central dome of the Taj Mahal, there is a copper pinnacle which
measures a height of 32' 5 ½". On the eastern red-stone courtyard, in front of the community
hall, there is a figure of the pinnacle inlaid in black marble which measures a length of only 30'
6".
There is reason to believe that the copper pinnacle is not the original one. The Shahjahannama
of Muhammad Salah Kumbo mentions that the pinnacle was pure gold15. But by 1873-74 it was
already of copper and when it was taken down for regilding, the words "Joseph Taylor" were
found engraved on the copper16. Captain Taylor was the British official who carried out the
repairs to the Taj Mahal in 1810 AD. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the original gold
pinnacle was removed by either Joseph Taylor or his predecessors. The discrepancy between
the lengths of the pinnacle and its figure in the courtyard supports this conclusion. However,
because of the similarity between the copper pinnacle and its figure in the courtyard, it can be
assumed that the original shape remains unaltered.
The end of the pinnacle branches into a trident, its central tongue extending farther than that of
the other two. On closer observation, the central tongue appears to be in the shape of a
"Kalasha" (water pot) topped with two bent mango leaves and a coconut. This is a sacred Hindu
motif. Could it be that the trident pinnacle was symbolic of the deity Lord Shiva worshipped
inside?
The symbols listed above are directly Hindu and some of them--the animate decorations such
as the cobra twins and Ganesha--"torana" are toboo in Islam. It is likely that these details, not
being very obvious, are only those that have survived the alterations in the building.
An alternate explanation attributes the Hindu symbolism to the benevolent religious tolerance of
Shah Jahan, under whom the Hindu craftsmen enjoyed complete freedom to express their talent
in their own traditional style. However, regarding his religious tolerance, his own court journal
Badshahnama has an altogether different commentary to make: "It has been brought to the

notice of His Majesty that during the late region many idol temples had begun, but remained
unfinished at Benaras, the great stronghold of infidelity. The infidels were now desirous of
completing them. His Majesty, the defender of the faith, gave orders that at Benaras and
throughout all his dominions at every place, all temples should be cast down. It was now
reported from the province of Allahabad that 76 temples had been destroyed in the district of
Benaras."17
12. General Layout And Plan
(i) Numerous rooms in the edifice: It has been discussed in an earlier section that there are two
floors below the real grave containing numerous rooms. Obviously, these rooms did not have
any utility in a mausoleum, and their presence is not explicable unless it is accepted to be an
ancient edifice built for an altogether different purpose. They do not appear to have been living
rooms, but were they meant for storing provisions and other materials of a vast temple
complex?
(ii) The Nagar Khanas: Midway between the main gateway and the marble edifice, on either side
of the courtyard, there are two identical buildings known as the "Nagar-khanas" (Drum Houses).
Is it plausible that Shah Jahan, who was very "scrupulous...in the matters of bereavement and
religious sanctity" (Section 2) built these drum houses? Music is taboo in Islam--there is a
mosque nearby. And a mausoleum is certainly not a place for festivity!
On the other hand, drums are important accompaniments in the worship of Lord Shiva.
(iii) The Gow-Shala: within the precincts of the Taj Mahal, to the east of the Main Gateway, at
the extreme end of the courtyard, there is a cow-shed known as the "Gow-Shala". What could
have been the purpose of a cow-shed in a mausoleum? Or was it part of the temple complex?
It is possible that it was not part of the original plan--as it disturbs the symmetry of the complex--
but because of its Sanskrit name, the "Gow-Shala" appears to have been introduced by the
Hindu rulers, who were using the edifice as a palace or temple.
To Sum Up: The arrangement of the domes, the lotus canopy, the trident pinnacle, the
numerous rooms in the building, the direction of the mosque and its triple domes, the "Gow-
shala", the "Nagar-khanas," and the surviving Hindu symbolism indicate that it was originally
built as a temple complex. The purpose of the minarets is not functional but decorative, and the
inspiration behind them does not appear to be Saracenic. The graves and the Koranic
inscriptions upon the marble wall, of course, should be attributed to Shah Jahan.
The whole argument about the Taj Mahal being a Mogul construction hinges solely upon the

assumption about the origin of the bulbous dome, which certainly is debatable. Havell had
emphatically asserted (pp.1-38) that the prototype of bulbous dome existed in the Buddhist
stupa and the carvings of Ajanta several centuries before the Mogul invasion. He did not
question the claim of Shah Jahan building the Taj Mahal, but asserted that from purely
architectural considerations, the inspiration behind the edifice was neither Arab, nor Persian, nor
European but Indian--"more Indian than St. Paul's cathedral and Westminster Abbey are
English". (p. 13)
III--SUM TOTAL
The discussion on the historical evidence indicates that the Taj Mahal was already ancient at
the time of Shah Jahan. And the discussion upon the architecture leads to the conclusion that
the general layout of the Taj Complex resembles a Shiva temple. The whole thesis of Shah
Jahan himself building the edifice rests upon the premise that the bulbous dome originated in
Samarkhand and migrated to India after the advent of Babur.
The discussion cannot be complete unless we examine two other questions: What is the
plausibility of Shah Jahan constructing the edifice, and how did the legend come to be?
There is universal agreement about the architectural splendour and grandeur of the Taj Mahal. It
was conceived by an inspired mind which knew the meaning of beauty, and it signifies the
culmination of a mature style in architecture. It is a testimony to the peace and prosperity of its
period.
The Moguls were rich in wealth and taste and seem to have had the leisure to undertake a
project of this kind. But what about its style? Does it appear to be in the tradition of the style
developed and perfected by the successive rulers of Mogul dynasty? Listen to James
Fergusson (pp. 307-308): "It would be difficult to point out in the whole history of architecture
any change so sudden as that which took place between the style of Akbar and that of his
grandson Shah Jahan--nor any contrast so great as that between the manly vigour and
exuberant originality of the first, as compared with the extreme but almost effeminate elegance
of the second. Certainly when the same people, following the same religion, built temples and
palaces in the same locality, nothing of the sort ever occurred in any country whose history is
known to us."
It should be remembered that Fergusson was the pioneer in the field of Indian archeaology and
was the first--and considered the most authoritative--historian to propound that the bulbous
dome originated in Samarkhand. But at the same time he found that the difference between the
styles of Akbar and Shah Jahan so unique, that it was the only one of its kind in the human
history. Having said this, he does not discuss the possibility of some of those buildings
belonging to an altogether different era, but a few pages later (p. 316) makes a brief but startling
remark about the Taj Mahal, "When used as a Baradhari, or pleasure palace, it must always

have been the coolest and loveliest of garden retreats, and now that it is sacred to the dead it is
the most graceful and the most impressive of the sepulchres of the world."
That is, the version of the Badshahnama as quoted at the beginning of this essay--that Shah
Jahan had acquired a palace for the burial of his queen--was known to Fergusson during the
middle of the 19th century. (The above statement occurs repeatedly in his books published in
1855, 1867 and 1876.) He also found its style too uniquely different to reconcile with that of
Shah Jahan's immediate predecessors. And yet, the doyen of Indian archaeology glossed over
the issue of its antiquity and attributed it to Shah Jahan! Why then did Fergusson not question
the claim--if at all there was any single cogent claim at the time--and thereby perpetuate the
legend of Shah Jahan himself building the Taj Mahal?
The legend had originated at the time of Shah Jahan himself--as both Tavernier and Manrique
testify, though their versions do not match with each other--and drew powerful support from the
writings of Fergusson save the above quoted sentence. The above sentence not only appears in
all the three major publications of Fergusson (1867 and 1876), but also was quoted in the 9th
edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica (1875)--where it remained until the 11th edition in 1910--and
also in "Murray's Handbook (for travellers) to India and Ceylon" (1891). In 1896, Syad
Muhammad Latif19 wrote that the building "was originally a palace of Raja Man Singh but now it
was the property of his grandson Raja Jai Singh. His Majesty gave the Raja a lofty edifice from
the Khalsa estate in exchange of this building; and the spot was used for the mausoleum of the
deceased empress."
Meanwhile the legend also grew, as can be made out from the numerous writings of the period
though the details pertaining to the construction of the edifice, such as the identity of the
architect, expenditure, duration of construction, etc., did not go beyond vague conjectures. In
1905, Moin-ud-din Ahmed20 quoted from Badshahnama (Vol. II, pp. 325-6) that the gold railing
around the tomb "was made under the supervision of Bebadal Khan, Master of king's kitchen".
But the identity of the architect of the edifice remained unsolved. The 22 basement rooms were
detected in 1900 AD, and Moin-ud-din Ahmed discussed them in his book (pp. 35-36) and
stated that, "The real object of building them remains a mystery."
In fact, by the turn of the century, the legend had grown so powerful that it made all the
evidences to the contrary appear irrelevant. Even though the discovery of the sealed
underground chambers was a powerful reason to re-examine the legend carefully, the 11th
edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica (1910) chose to omit the above statement of Fergusson
from its columns--apparently because of its incongruity with the powerful legend. It mentioned
the name of Ustad Isa as the Chief architect. By 1913, E. B. Havell, while emphatically asserting
that the architecture of the edifice is Hindu, and not Saracenic, does not at all discuss the
possibility of Shah Jahan acquiring the edifice. By 1931, the letter of Aurangzeb discussing the
serious defects in the Taj Mahal was published ("Marakka-i-Akbarabad" by Said Ahmed, 1931),
which was translated by M. S. Vats of Archaeological Survey of India in 1945. But the legend
survived the publication.

To revert back to Fergusson, why did he not question the legend, though he had very good
reason to do so? Obviously, he was labouring under the burden of his own assumption that the
bulbous dome was a resultant contribution of Mogul invasion upon India during the 16th century.
In this respect, his own uncertainty about the antiquity of the temples of Sonagarh and Muktagiri
[Section 9 (i)] is also quite significant. Fergusson himself recorded (p. 286) this uncertainty and
inconclusiveness, while discussing the basis of his assumption:
"It is probable that very considerable light will yet be throne upon the origin of the style which the
Moguls introduced into India, from an examination of the buildings erected at Samakhand by
Timur, a hundred years before Babar's time (A.D. 1393-1404). Now that the city is in the hands
of Russians, it is accessible to Europeans. Its buildings have been drawn and photographed, but
not yet described so as to be available for scientific purposes..."
Therefore, it can be said with certainty that the legend of Shah Jahan building the Taj Mahal
rests purely upon the erroneous assumption about the origin of the bulbous dome. (In fairness,
Shah Jahan himself never claimed that he built the Taj Mahal.) And that the architecture of the
Taj Mahal, to put it in the words of Havell, "more Indian than St. Paul's Cathedral and
Westminster Abbey are English."
What then is the true age of the Taj Mahal?
Though it was put to use as a palace, its architecture is not that of a residential mansion, but of
a temple. Obviously, it was converted into a palace, and Raja Man Singh was not the one to
effect the conversion. It is not unreasonable to speculate that the edifice acquired his name due
to his pre-eminent position in the Mogul Court and his fairly long occupation of the building. The
fact that the edifice required elaborate repairs in 1652 AD, also indicates that it belonged to a
period earlier to Raja Man Singh. The radio-carbon dating--though not conclusive about the
date--further reinforces the possibility of the Taj Mahal being a couple of centuries older than
Shah Jahan. However, a conclusive dating can be done only by several radio-carbon tests of
different samples from the edifice. And it is almost certain that the sealed underground
chambers would reveal enough evidence about the original purpose and the true age of the
edifice. The historical antecedents of the building can be traced only by considerable diligent
study of the documents pertaining to several centuries prior to Shah Jahan.
However, if radio-carbon test result quoted above can be treated as a pointer, it raises certain
important questions regarding Indian archaeology.
i) Was the bulbous dome an exclusive innovation of Indian architecture, and migrated to
Samakhand through the architects taken captive by Timurlung?
ii) If the architecture style could produce so fine a piece as the Taj Mahal in the 14th century,

how long ago did the style originate? Is it true, as Havell has asserted, that the bulbous dome
had its origin in the Buddhist stupas and the carvings of Ajanta (which was at least a thousand
years before the initial Afgan invasion)? If so, it brings us face to face with the other
assumptions of Fergusson that the single pointed arch and the arcuate style of constructing the
arches and domes--the Taj Mahal answer to both these characteristics--have arrived at India
only during the 13th century AD after the initial Afgan invasion.
Thus, the question of antiquity of the Taj Mahal has powerful bearing upon the study of Indian
archaeology. It raises certain pertinent questions about the origin, development, influence and
classification of one of the important streams of mediaeval architecture. And since an
architectural style carries with it the stamp of the contemporary epoch, the above questions
have bearing upon the study of Indian history as well. Therefore, it calls for a thorough re-
examination of the Mogul architecture--particularly that of Shah Jahan, which Fergusson found it
so difficult to reconcile with the style of that period.
(The authors wish to acknowledge their debt to Shri V. S. Godbole for his notes on the subject)
References
1. Abdul Hamid Lahori, "Badshahnama", Vol. 1, Royal Asiatic society, Bengal, 1867, pp. 402-
403.
2. Rajasthan State Archives, Bikaner.
3. Peter Mundy, "Travels in Asia and Europe", Vol. II, Edited by R. C. Temple, Hakluyt Society,
1907-36, pp. 208-213.
4. J. B. Tavernier, "Travels in India", Translated by V. Ball, Macmillan & Co., London, 1889,
Book I, pp. 46, 110-111.
5. P. N. Oak, "The Taj Mahal is a Temple Palace", 1966, pp.20-26.
6. "Adaab-a-Alamgir", National Archives, New Delhi, p. 82.
7. M. S. Vats, "Repairs to the Taj Mahal", An Archaeological Survey of India bulletin, 1945.
8. "Keene's Handbook for Visitors to Agra and Its Neighborhood", Re-written by E. A. Duncan,
Thacker's Handbook of Hindustan, pp. 170-4.
9. E. B. Havell, "Indian Architecture", S. Chand & Co.(Pvt) Ltd., 1913, pp. 1-38.
10. "Travels of Fray Sebastion Manrique", Vol. II, Translated by St. Pau Lt. Col. Luard and
Father Hasken, Hakluyt Society, 1927, pp. 171-2.
11. Marvin H Mills, "Archaeometry in the Service of Historical Analysis to Re-examine the Origin
of Moslem Building", Itihas Patrika Vol. 4, No. 1, March 1984, pp. 12-13.
12. James Fergusson, "History of Indian and Eastern Architecture", 2nd Edition, Munshiram
Manoharlal, New Delhi, 1972, pp. 62-66, 196-221, 283-320.
13. Elliot and Dowson, "History of India", Vol. III, 2nd Edition, Sushil Gupta (India) Ltd., 1953, p.
448.
14. Satish Grover, "The Architecture of India", Vikas Publishing House, Pvt., 1981, pp. 190-193.

15. Hemant Gokhale, "The Taj Mahal--A Tomb or Shiva temple?", Itihas Patrika, Vol. 2, No. 3,
Sept. 1982, pp. 99-113.
16. Reference Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of London, 1843, Vol. VII, p. 58.
17. Ram Nath, "The Immortal Taj", Taraporewala, Bombay, 1972, p. 81.
18. Elliot and Dowson, "History of India", Vol. VII, 2nd Edition, Sushil Gupta (India) Ltd., 1953, p.
36.
19. Syad Mohammad Latif, "Agra--Historical & Descriptive", 1896, p. 105.
20. Moin-ud-din-Ahmed, "History of the Taj", 1903, pp. 35-36, 46-47.
21. V. S. Godbole, "The Taj Mahal--Simple Analysis of Great Deception", Itihas Patrika, Vol 2,
No. 1, March, 1982, pp. 16-32.
[Available at: http://www.stephen-knapp.com]
[ Home ]
[Back to the Taj Mahal page]

The Letter of Aurangzeb

This is supposed to be a copy of the original letter from Aurangzeb himself written in 1652,
complaining of the extensive repairs that are in need of being done on the Taj Mahal. He says
that several rooms on the second storey, the secret rooms and tops of the seven storey ceilings
have all absorbed water through seepage and are so old that they were all leaking, and the
dome had developed a crack on the northern side. This was in spite of the fact that the rumor is
that the Taj was finished being built in 1653. The logic of this is that Mumtaz was supposed to
have died around 1631, and it is said that it took 22 years to build the Taj. However, in the letter
herein Aurangzeb ordered immediate repairs at his expense while recommending to the
emperor that more elaborate repairs such as the roof be opened up and redone with mortar,
bricks and stone.
Aurangzeb's letter is recorded in at least three chronicles titled 'Aadaab-e-alamgiri ',

'Yaadgaarnama 'and the ' Muraaqqa-I-Akbarabadi ' (edited by Said Ahmad, Agra, 1931, page
43, footnotes 2).
In any case, if the Taj was a new building, there would no doub not be any need for such
extensive repairs.
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/letter_of_aurangzeb.htm (1 of 2)10/7/2006 9:41:53 AM

[Home] [Back to the Taj Mahal page] [ Back ] [ Next ]
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/letter_of_aurangzeb.htm (2 of 2)10/7/2006 9:41:53 AM

AN ARCHITECT LOOKS AT THE TAJ MAHAL LEGEND

by
Professor Marvin H. Mills
Pratt Institute, New York
In their book TAJ MAHAL-THE ILLUMINED TOMB, Wayne Edison Begley and Ziyaud-Din
Ahmad Desai have put together a very commendable body of data and information derived from
contemporary sources and augmented with numerous photo illustrations, chroniclers'
descriptions, imperial directives plus letters, plans, elevations and diagrams. They have
performed a valuable service to the community of scholars and laymen concerned with the
circumstances surrounding the origin and development of the Taj Mahal.
But these positive contributions exist within a framework of analysis and interpretation that
distorts a potential source of enlightenment into support for fantasy and misinformation that has
plagued scholarship in this field for hundreds of years, thus obscuring the true origin of the Taj
Mahal complex. The two basic procedural errors that they make is to assume that the dated
inscriptions are accurate and that court chroniclers are behaving like objective historians.
As an architect, my principal argument with the authors is their facile acceptance of the compact
time frame that they uncritically accept for the coming into being of the Taj from conception to its
first Urs (anniversary) of the death of Mumtaz and the completion of the main building.
Construction processes that had to consume substantial blocks of time are condensed into a
few months. They feel justified in relying on what evidence is available, but fail to consider the
objective needs of construction. They regret the loss of what, they say, must have been millions
of Mughal state records and documents produced each year on all aspects of the Taj's
construction. They do not consider that the lack of drawings, specifications and records of
payment may be due to their not being generated at the time. Nor do they consider Shahjahan's
potential for deception as to when and by whom it was built. Yet they point out Shahjahan's
careful monitoring of the contents of court history:
"Shajahan himself was probably responsible for this twisting of historical truth. The truth would
have shown him to be inconsistent and this could not be tolerated. For this reason also, the
histories contain no statements of any kind that are critical of the Emperor or his policies, and
even military defeats are rationalized so that no blame could be attached to him. ... effusive
praise of the Emperor is carried to such extremes that he seems more a divinity than a mortal
man." (p. xxvi)
With the court chroniclers' histories carefully edited, and with the great scarcity of documents we
are fortunate to have four surviving farmans or directives issued by Shahjahan to Raja Jai Singh
of Amber-the very same local ruler from whom the Emperor acquired the Taj property. On the
basis of these farmans, the court chroniclers and a visiting European traveler, we learn that: (i)
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/an_architect_looks_at_the_taj_mahal_legend.htm (1 of 6)10/7/2006 9:42:13 AM

Mumtaz died and was buried temporarily at Burhanpur on June 17, 1631; (ii) her body was
exhumed and taken to Agra on December 11, 1631; (iii) she was reburied somewhere on the
Taj grounds on January 8, 1632; and (iv) European traveler Peter Mundy witnessed
Shahjahan's return to Agra with his cavalcade on June 11, 1632.
The first farman was issued on September 20, 1632 in which the Emperor urges Raja Jai Singh
to hasten the shipment of marble for the facing of the interior walls of the mausoleum, i.e., the
Taj main building. Naturally a building had to be there to receive the finish. How much time was
needed to put that basic building in place?
Every successful new building construction follows what we call in modern-day construction a
"critical path". There is a normal sequence of steps requiring a minimum time before other
processes follow. Since Mumtaz died unexpectedly and relatively young (having survived
thirteen previous child-births), we can assume that Shahjahan was unprepared for her sudden
demise. He had to conceive, in the midst of his trauma, of a world class tomb dedicated to her,
select an architect (whose identity is still debated), work out a design program with the architect,
and have the architect prepare designs, engineer the structure and mechanical systems, detail
the drawings, organize the contractors and thousands of workers, and prepare a complex
construction schedule. Mysteriously, no documents relating to this elaborate procedure, other
than the four farmans have survived.
We cannot assume that the Taj complex was built additively with the buildings and landscaping
built as needed. It was designed as a unified whole. Begley and Desai make this clear by their
analysis of the grid system that was employed by the designer to unite the complex horizontally
and vertically to into a three-dimensional whole. If one did not "know" that it was a solemn burial
grounds, one would believe that it was designed as a palace with a delightful air of fantasy and
secular delights of waterways and flowering plants. Could it be that this is Raja Jai Singh's
palace, never destroyed, converted by decree and some minimum face-lifting to a Mughal tomb?
Assuming that Shahjahan was galvanized into prompt action to initiate the project on behalf of
his deceased beloved, we can safely assume that he needed one year minimum between
conception and ground-breaking. Since Mumtaz died in June 1631, that would take us to June
1632. But construction is said to have begun in January 1632.
Excavation must have presented a formidable task. First, the demolition of Raja Jai Singh's
palace would have had to occur. We know that the property had a palace on it from the
chronicles of Mirza Qazini and Abd al-Hamid Lahori. Lahori writes:
"As there was a tract of land (zamini) of great eminence and pleasantness towards the south of
that large city, on which before there was this mansion (manzil) of Raja Man Singh, and which
now belongs to his grandson Raja Jai Singh, it was selected for the burial place (madfan) of that
tenant of paradise.[Mumtaz]" (p. 43)
Measures would have to be taken during excavation of this main building and the other buildings
to the north to retain the Jumna River from inundating the excavation. The next steps would

have been to sink the massive foundation piers, put in the footings, retaining the walls and the
plinth or podium to support the Taj and its two accompanying buildings to the east and west plus
the foundations for the corner towers, the well house, the underground rooms, and assuming
the complex was done at one time, all the supports for the remainder of the buildings throughout
the complex. To be conservative in our estimate, we need at least another year of construction
which takes us up to January 1634.
But here is the problem. On the anniversary of the death of Mumtaz, each year Shahjahan
would stage the Urs celebration at the Taj. The first Urs occurred on June 22, 1632. Though
construction had allegedly begun only six months earlier, the great plinth of red sandstone over
brick, 374 yards long, 140 yards wide, and 14 yards high was already in place! Even Begley and
Desai are somewhat amazed.
Where was all the construction debris, the piles of materials, the marble, the brick scaffolding,
the temporary housing for thousands of workers, the numerous animals needed to haul
materials? If "heaven was surpassed by the magnificence of the rituals", as one chronicler puts
it, then nothing should have been visible to mar the exquisite panorama that the occasion called
for.
But by June 1632, it was not physically possible that construction could have progressed to
completion of excavation, construction of all the footings and foundations, completion of the
immense platform and clearing of all the debris and eyesores in preparation for the first Urs.
Begley and Desai have little use for the testimony of the European travelers to the court of
Shahjahan. But they consider Peter Mundy, an agent of the British East India Company, to be
the most important source on the Taj because he was there shortly before the first Urs at the
new grave site, and one year later at the second Urs.
It was Mundy who said that he saw the installation of the enameled gold railing surrounding
Mumtaz's cenotaph at the time of the second Urs on May 26, 1633. But there is no way that
construction could have moved ahead so vigorously from January 1632 to May 1633 as to be
ready to receive the railing. After all, the railing could not have stood forth in the open air. It
means that the Taj building had to be already there. It must have been immensely valuable
since the cost of the Taj complex was reported to be fifty lakhs, while the cost of the gold railing
was six lakhs of rupees. The gold railing was removed by Shahjahan on February 6, 1643 when
it was replaced by the inlaid white marble screen one sees now.
An alternate interpretation of events regarding the railing is that Shahjahan revealed the gold
railing of Raja Jai Singh at the first or second Urs. In 1643 he appropriated it for himself and put
in its place the very fine marble screen with its inlaid semi-precious stones, a screen that was
not nearly as valuable as the gold railing.
If Shahjahan's construction and interior adornment of the Taj are in question, what rework of the
Taj can we attribute to him? The inscriptions were undoubtedly among the few rework tasks that
he was obliged to do. He may also have removed any obvious references to Hinduism in the

form of symbolic decor that existed.
The book's plate illustrations show that the inscriptions are almost always in a discrete
rectangular frame which renders them capable of being modified or added to without damaging
the adjascent material. In my judgement the black script on the white marble background seems
inappropriate esthetically in the midst of the soft beige marble that surrounds it. By adding the
inscriptions Shahjahan probably sought to establish the credibility of its having been his creation
as a sacred mausoleum instead of the Hindu palace that time will undoubtedly prove that it was.
Based on the latest inscriptions dated 1638-39, which appear on the tomb, the authors estimate
a construction period of six years. Six years in my judgement is simply not enough time. As
reasonable approximation of the total time required to build the Taj complex, we can consider
Tavernier's estimate of twenty-two years. Although he first arrived in Agra in 1640, he probably
witnessed some rework or repair. The time frame of twenty-two years may have been passed
on to him by local people as part of the collective memory from some previous century when the
Taj was actually built.
The issue of repairs is taken up by the authors in their translation of the original letter of
Aurangazeb to his father dated December 9, 1652. He reports serious leaks on the north side,
the four arched portals, the four small domes, the four northern vestibules, subchambers of the
plinth, plus leaks from the previous rainy season. The question the authors do not raise is:
Would the Taj, being at most only thirteen years old, already have shown symptoms of decay?
Wouldn't it be more reasonable to believe that by 1652 it was already hundreds of years old and
was showing normal wear and tear.
Who built the Taj? The authors say it was Ahmad Ustad Lahori, chief architect for Shahjahan.
They base this belief mainly on the assertion by Luft Allah, the son of Lahori, in a collection of
verses, that Shahjahan commanded Lahori to build both the Taj and the Red Fort at Delhi. As
evidence this is quite weak.
The court historians are unfailing in their praise for the Emperor's personal participation in his
massive architectuaral projects and they are never lacking in glorifying his sterling character.
But the European travelers have other things to say about his personality and his inability to
focus on anything for long except his lust for women. Nor is the object of his supposed great
love either tender or compassionate. It seems that both "lovers" were cruel, self-centred and
vicious. To believe that out of this relationship, with the support of Shahjahan's alleged great
architectural skills, came what many consider to be the most beautiful building complex in the
world, is sheer romantic nonsense.
While Begley and Desai are sceptical of the Taj Mahal's being a consequence of romantic
devotion, they yield not an inch in asserting its Mughal origin. They support this traditional view
by overlooking some key problems:
1. Consider the identical character of the two buildings on either side of the Taj main building. If
they had different functions-one a mosque, the other a guest residence-then, they should have

been designed differently to reflect their individual functions.
2. Why does the perimeter wall of the complex have a Medieval, pre-artillery, defense character
when artillery (cannons) was already in use in the Mughal invasions of India? [Why does a
mausoleum need a protective wall in the first place? For a palace it is understadable.]
3. Why are there some twenty rooms below the terrace level on the north side of the Taj facing
the Jumna River? Why does a mausoleum need these rooms? A palace could put them to good
use. The authors do not even mention their existence.
4. What is in the sealed-up rooms on the south side of the long corridor opposite the twenty
contiguous rooms? Who filled in the doorway with masonry? Why are scholars not allowed to
enter and study whatever objects or decor are within?
5. Why does the "mosque" face due west instead of facing Meccah? Certainly, by the
seventeenth century there was no problem in orienting a building precisely!
6. Why has the Archaeological Survey of India blocked any dating of the Taj by means of
Carbon-14 or thermo-luminiscnece? Any controversy over which century the Taj was built could
easily be resolved. [Radiocarbon dating of a piece of wood surreptiously taken from one of the
doors gave 13th century as a possible date. But more data is needed.]
If Shajahan did not build the Taj for the love of Mumtaz, then why did he want it? His love for
Mumtaz was evidently a convenient subterfuge. He actually wanted the existing palace for
himself. He appropriated it from Raja Jai Singh by making him an offer he could not refuse, the
gift of other properties in exchange. He also acquired whatever was precious within the building
including the immensely valuable gold railing.
By converting the complex into a sacred Moslem mausoleum he insured that the Hindus would
never want it back. Shahjahan converted the residential quarters to the west of the main building
to a mosque simply by modifying the interior of the west wall to create a mihrab niche. He added
Islamic inscriptions around many doorways and entries to give the impression that the Taj had
always been Islamic. Sure enough, the scholars have been silent or deceived ever since.
Yet, we must thank Begley and Desai for having assembled so much useful data and translated
contemporary writings and inscriptions. Where they failed is in accepting an apocryphal legend
of the Taj for an absolute fact. Their interpretations and analyses have been forced into the mold
of their bias. It would be well to take advantage of their work by scholars and laymen interested
in deepening their knowledge of the Taj Mahal to read the book while keeping an open mind as
to when and by whom it was built.
Added note:
A leading Indian architect, former professor of architecture at Mysore University adds:

There are fundamental problems with the current theory of Islamic Architecture in India of which

the following may be noted.
(1) Unlike in the case of Hindu architecture, where there are literally hundreds of works on Vastu
in several Indian languages, there seem to be almost no texts or manuals on Islamic
architecture. It is difficult to see how a great school of architecture lasting 600 years could
flourish without any technical literature.
(2) Hindu architectural practices and traditions are maintained by thousands of mason families,
especially in South India. These are known as Vishwakarmas or Vishwa Brahmanas. They are
greatly in demand all over the world. No such Muslim families are known.
(3) There are no standards of units and measurements for Islamic architecture in India. It is
inconceivable that great works of architecture could come up without them. This is an objective
requirement.
TAJ MAHAL-The Illumined Tomb, an anthology of seventeenth century Mughal and European
documentary sources, by W.E. Begley and Z.A. Desai: Published by the University of
Washington Press, Seattle and London, 1989 (The Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture).
The reviewer Marvin Mills is a leading New York architect and professor of architecture at the
Pratt Institute.
[Home]
[Back to the Taj Mahal page]

The Badshahnama
The Badshahnama
Here is a copy of a page of the Badshahnama, the history of Shah Jahan, the so-called builder
of the Taj Mahal. This is from the Government of India's National Archives, and available from
the instituional libraries dealing with the medieval history of India.
This is supposed to have been written by the emperor's chronicler, the Mullah Abdul Hamid
Lahori. It describes the site of the Taj Mahal as being full of majestic and lush gardens just south
of the city (Agra). It goes on to say that the palace of Raja Mansingh, which was owned by his
grandson Raja Jaisingh, was selected as the place for the burial of the queen Mumtaz. This
means, of course, that Shah Jahan never built the Taj Mahal but only acquired it from the
previous owner, who was Jaisingh.
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/badshahnama.htm (1 of 2)10/7/2006 9:42:30 AM

The Badshahnama
[Home] [Back to the Taj Mahal page] [ Back ] [ Next ]
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/badshahnama.htm (2 of 2)10/7/2006 9:42:30 AM

Taj Mahal Photo One
Taj Mahal Photo #1

[Below is] An aerial view of the Taj Mahal alias Tejo Mahalaya, ancient Hindu temple complex in
Agra. For the last 300 years the world has been fooled to believe that this stupendous edifice
was built by the 5th generation Mogul emperor Shahjahan to commemorate one of his dead
wives--Mumtaz. The two flanking buildings although identical, only the one in the rear is known
as a mosque.
The Taj Mahal has seven stories. Five of them lie sealed and barred concealing rich evidence.
The marble building in the centre is flanked by two symmetrical ones. The one in the foreground
is the eastern one. The one in the background is being represented as a mosque because it is
to the west. They should not have been identical if only one was to be a mosque. In the
courtyard at the foot of the eastern building is inlaid a full scale replica of the trident pinnacle
[found at the top of the dome]. The tiny tower at the left near the western building, encloses a
huge octagonal multi-storied well.
[All photos available at: http:// www.stephen-knapp.com]
[ Home ] [Back to the Taj Mahal page] [ Back ] [ Next ]
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_one.htm10/7/2006 9:43:01 AM
Taj Mahal Photo Two
Taj Mahal Photo # 2

This is the massive octagonal well with palatial apartments along its seven stories. A royal
staircase descends right down to the water level indicated by the tiny white patch showing the
sun's reflection.
This was the traditional treasury well of the Hindu temple palace. Treasure chests used to be
stacked in the lower stories. Accountants, cashiers and treasurers sat in the upper stories.
Cheques called handies used to be issued from here. On being besieged, if the building had to
be surrendered to the enemy, the treasure used to be pushed into the water for salvage later
after recapture. For real research, water should be pumped out of this well to reveal the
evidence that lies at the bottom. This well is inside a tower near the so-called mosque to the
west of the marble Taj. Had the Taj been a mausoleum this octagonal multistoried well would
have been superfluous.
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_two.htm10/7/2006 9:43:31 AM
Taj Mahal Photo Three
Taj Mahal Photo # 3

A frontal view of the Taj Mahal alias Tejo Mahalaya in Agra. It is octagonal because the Hindus
believe in 10 directions. The pinnacle pointing to the heaven and the foundation to the nether
world, plus the eight surface directions make the 10 directions. Divinity and royalty are believed
to hold sway in all those 10 directions. Hence in Hindu tradition, buildings connected with royalty
and divinity must have some octagonal features or the buildings themselves should be
octagonal. The two flanking cupolas (two others to the rear are not seen in this photo) are also
identical.
The towers at the four plinth corners served as watch towers during the day, and to hold lights at
night. Hindu wedding altars and Satyanarayan worship altars invariably have such towers at
corners. [Many other Hindu temples, such as those at Khajurao, also can be found to have four
towers or temples, one at each corner of the temple foundation.]
The lotus flower cap on the head of the dome is a Hindu feature. Muslim domes are bald. This
marble edifice has four stories. Inside the dome is an 83 ft. high hall. The Taj has a double
dome. The dome one sees from inside ends like an inverted pan on the terrace. The dome seen
from outside is a cover on the inner dome. Therefore, in between them is an 83 ft. hall. This may
be considered as one storey. Underneath may be seen the first storey arches and the ground
floor rooms. In the basement, visitors are shown one room. All these constitute the four storeys
in the marble edifice. Below the marble structure are two stories in red stone reaching down to
the river level. The 7th storey must be below the river level because every ancient Hindu historic
building did have a basement. Thus, the Taj is a seven-storied structure.
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_three.htm (1 of 2)10/7/2006 9:44:04 AM

Taj Mahal Photo Three
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_three.htm (2 of 2)10/7/2006 9:44:04 AM

Taj Mahal Photo Four
Taj Mahal Photo # 4

The dome of the Taj Mahal bearing a trident pinnacle made of a non-rusting eight-metal Hindu
alloy. The pinnacle served as a lightning deflector too.
This pinnacle has been blindly assumed by many to be an Islamic crescent and star, or a
lightning conductor installed by the British. This is a measure of the careless manner in which
Indian history has been studied till now. Visually identifiable things like this pinnacle too have
been misinterpreted with impunity. The flower top of the dome, below the pinnacle, is an
unmistakable Hindu sign. A full scale figure of this pinnacle is inlaid in the eastern courtyard.
[ Home ] [Back to Taj Mahal page] [ Back ] [ Next ]
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_four.htm10/7/2006 9:44:28 AM
Taj Mahal Photo Five
Taj Mahal Photo # 5

A close up of the upper portion of the pinnacle of the Taj Mahal, photographed from the parapet
beneath the dome. The Hindu horizontal crescent and the coconut top together look like a
trident from the garden level. Islamic crescents are always oblique. Moreover they are almost
always complete circles leaving a little opening for a star. This Hindu pinnacle had all these
centuries been misinterpreted as an Islamic crescent and star or a lightning conductor installed
by the British. The word "Allah" etched here by Shahjahan is absent in the courtyard replica.
The coconut, the bent mango leaves under it and the supporting Kalash (water pot) are
exclusive Hindu motifs.
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_five.htm10/7/2006 9:44:52 AM
Taj Mahal Photo Six
Taj Mahal Photo # 6

The full scale figure of the pinnacle on the dome has been inlaid on the red stone courtyard of
the Taj Mahal. One may see it to the east at the foot of the riverside arch of the flanking building
wrongly dubbed as Jamiat Khana (community hall) by Muslim usurpers. Such floor sketches in
courtyards are a common Hindu trait. In Fatehpur Sikri it is the backgammon board which is
sketched on a central courtyard. The coconut top and the bent mango leaves underneath,
resting on a kalash (i.e. a water pot) is a sacred Hindu motif. Hindu shrines in the Himalayan
foothills have identical pinnacles [especially noticed at Kedarnath, a prominent Shiva temple].
The eastern location of the sketch is also typically Hindu. The length measures almost 32 ft.
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_six.htm10/7/2006 9:45:17 AM
Taj Mahal Photo Seven
Taj Mahal Photo # 7

The apex of the lofty entrance arch on all four sides of the Taj Mahal bears this red lotus and
white trident--indicating that the building originated as a Hindu temple. The Koranic lettering
forming the middle strip was grafted after Shahjahan seized the building from Jaipur state's
Hindu ruler.
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_seven.htm10/7/2006 9:45:46 AM
Taj Mahal Photo Eight
Taj Mahal Photo # 8

This is a riverside view of the Taj Mahal. The four storied marble structure above has under it
these two stories reaching down to the river level. The 22 rooms shown in other photos are
behind that line of arches seen in the middle. Each arch is flanked by Hindu lotus discs in white
marble. Just above the ground level is the plinth. In the left corner of the plinth is a doorway
indicating inside the plinth are many rooms sealed by Shahjahan. One could step out to the river
bank from the door at the left. The 7th storey is surmised to be under the plinth below the ground
because every ancient Hindu mansion had a basement. Excavation to reach the basement
chamber should start under this door.
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_eight.htm10/7/2006 9:46:07 AM
Taj Mahal Photo Nine
Taj Mahal Photo # 9

Most people content to see Mumtaz's grave inside the Taj fail to go to the rear riverside. This is
the riverside view. From here one may notice that the four-storied marble structure on top has
below it two more stories in red stone. Note the window aperture in the arch at the left. That
indicates that there are rooms inside. Inside the row of arches in the upper part of the wall are
22 rooms. In addition to the four stories in marble, this one shows red stone arches in the 5th
storey. The 6th storey lies in the plinth in the lower portion of the photo. In another photo a
doorway would be seen in the left corner of the plinth, indicating the presence of apartments
inside, from where one could emerge on the river for a bath.
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_nine.htm10/7/2006 9:46:28 AM
Taj Mahal Photo Ten
Taj Mahal Photo # 10

These corridors at the approach of the Taj Mahal are typically Hindu. They may be seen in any
ancient Hindu capital. Note the two octagonal tower cupolas at the right and left top. Only
Hindus have special names for the eight directions and celestial guards assigned to each. Any
octagonal feature in historic buildings should convince the visitor of their Hindu origin. Guards,
palanquin bearers and other attendants resided in hundreds of rooms along numerous such
corridors when the Taj Mahal was a Hindu temple palace. Thus the Taj was more magnificent
and majestic before it was reduced to a sombre Islamic cemetery.
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_ten.htm10/7/2006 9:46:56 AM
Taj Mahal Photo Eleven

This Naqqar Khana alias Music House in the Taj Mahal garden is an incongruity if the Taj Mahal
were an Islamic tomb. Close by on the right is the building which Muslims claim to be a mosque.
The proximity of a mosque to the Music House is incongruous with Muslim tradition. In India,
Muslims have a tradition of pelting stones on Hindu music processions passing over a mosque.
Moreover a mausoleum needs silence. A dead person's repose is never to be disturbed. Who
would then provide a band house for a dead Mumtaz? Contrarily Hindu temples and palaces
have a music house because morning and evening Hindu chores begin to the sweet strains of
sacred music.
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_eleven.htm10/7/2006 9:47:18 AM
Taj Mahal Photo Twelve
Such are the rooms on the 1st floor of the marble structure of the Taj Mahal. The two staircases
leading to this upper floor are kept locked and barred since Shahjahan's time. The floor and the
marble walls of such upper floor rooms can be seen in the picture to have been stripped of its
marble panels. Shahjahan used that uprooted marble from the upper floor for constructing
graves and engraving the Koran because he did not know wherefrom to procure marble
matching the splendour of the rest of the Taj Mahal. He was also so stingy as not to want to
spend much even on converting a robbed Hindu temple into an Islamic mausoleum.
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_twelve.htm10/7/2006 9:47:40 AM
Taj Mahal Photo Thirteen

Such are the magnificent marble-paved, shining, cool, white bright rooms of the Taj Mahal
temple palace's marble ground floor. Even the lower third portion of the walls is covered with
magnificent marble mosaic. The doorway at the left looks suspiciously closed with a stone slab.
One can perambulate through these rooms around the central octagonal sanctorum, now
occupied by Mumtaz's fake grave. The aperture, seen through of the central door, enabled
perambulating devotees to keep their eyes fixed on the Shiva Linga in the central chamber.
Hindu Shiva Lingas are consecrated in two chambers, one above the other. Therefore,
Shahjahan had to raise two graves in the name of Mumtaz--one in the marble basement and the
other on the ground floor to desecrate and hide both the Shiva emblems from public view. [The
famous Shiva temple in Ujjain also has an underground chamber for one of its Shiva-lingams.]
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_thirteen.htm10/7/2006 9:48:11 AM
Taj Mahal Photo Fourteen

This is the Dhatura flower essential for Hindu Shiva worship. The flower is depicted in the shape
of the sacred, esoteric Hindu incantation 'OM.' Embossed designs of this blooming 'OM' are
drawn over the exterior of the octagonal central sanctorum of Shiva where now a fake grave in
Mumtaz's has been planted. While perambulating around the central chamber one may see
such 'OM' designs.
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_fourteen.htm10/7/2006 9:48:32 AM
Taj Mahal Photo Fifteen

This staircase and another symmetrical one at the other end lead down to the storey beneath
the marble platform. Visitors may go to the back of the marble plinth at the eastern or western
end and descend down the staircase because it is open to the sky. But at the foot the
archaeology department has set up an iron door which it keeps locked. Yet one may peep inside
from the iron gate in the upper part of the door. Shahjahan had sealed even these two
staircases. It was the British who opened them. But from Shahjahan's time the stories below
and above the marble ground floor have been barred to visitors. We are still following Mogul
dictates though long free from Mogul rule.
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_fifteen.htm10/7/2006 9:48:54 AM
Taj Mahal Photo Sixteen

On the inner flank of the 22 locked rooms (in the secret storey in red stone below the marble
platform) is this corridor about 12 ft. broad and 300 ft. long. Note the scallop design at the base
of the plinth supporting the arches. This is the Hindu decoration which enables one to identify
even a bare plinth.
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_sixteen.htm10/7/2006 9:49:12 AM
Taj Mahal Photo Seventeen

One of the 22 rooms in the secret storey underneath the marble plinth of the Taj Mahal. Many
such features of the Taj remain unknown to the public so long as they see it only as a tomb. If
the public knew how much it is missing in the Taj Mahal it will insist that the government unseal
its many stories. Two doorways at either end of this corridor in the right side wall leading to inner
apartments have been sealed by Shahjahan. If those doorways are opened, important evidence
concealed inside by Shahjahan may come to light.
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_seventeen.htm10/7/2006 9:49:27 AM
Taj Mahal Photo Eighteen

A corner of one of the 22 rooms in the secret storey immediately below the marble platform of
the Taj Mahal. Note the strips of Hindu paint on the wall. The ventilator at the left, meant for air
and light from the riverside, has been crudely walled up by Shahjahan. He did not bother even
to plaster them. Had Shahjahan built the Taj as a mausoleum what was the purpose of the 22
rooms? And why are they kept locked and hidden from the public?
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_eighteen.htm10/7/2006 9:49:58 AM
Taj Mahal Photo Nineteen

One of the 22 locked rooms in the secret storey beneath the marble platform of the Taj Mahal.
Strips of ancient Hindu paint are seen on the wall flanking the doorway. The niches above had
paintings of Hindu idols, obviously rubbed off by Muslim desecraters. The rooms may be seen
door within door in a row. If the public knew that the Taj Mahal is a structure hiding hundreds of
rooms, they would insist on seeing the whole of it. At present they only peep into the grave
chamber and walk away.
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_nineteen.htm10/7/2006 9:50:29 AM
Taj Mahal Photo Twenty

This esoteric Hindu design is painted on the ceiling of some of the 22 locked rooms in the secret
storey below the marble platform of the Taj Mahal in Agra. Had Shahjahan built the Taj Mahal
he would not have kept such elaborately painted rooms sealed and barred to the public. Even
now one can enter these rooms only if one can influence the archaeology department to remove
the locks.
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_twenty.htm10/7/2006 9:50:43 AM
Taj Mahal Photo Twenty-one

A huge ventilator of one of the 22 rooms in a secret storey of the Taj, is seen here crudely
sealed with unplastered bricks by Shahjahan. History has been so perverted and inverted that
alien Muslims like Shahjahan who spoiled, damaged, desecrated and destroyed historic Hindu
buildings, are being falsely paraded as great builders.
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_twentyone.htm10/7/2006 9:51:29 AM
Taj Mahal Photo Twenty-two

One of the 22 riverside rooms in a secret storey of the Taj Mahal, unknown to the public.
Shahjahan, far from building the shining marble Taj, wantonly disfigured it. Here he has crudely
walled up a doorway. Such imperial Mogul vandalism lies hidden from the public. This room is in
the red stone storey immediately below the marble platform. Indian history has been turned
topsy turvy in lauding destroyers as great builders.
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_twentytwo.htm10/7/2006 9:52:00 AM
Taj Mahal Photo Twenty-three

Many such doorways of chambers in secret stories underneath the Taj Mahal have been sealed
with brick and lime. Concealed inside could be valuable evidence such as Sanskrit inscriptions,
Hindu idols, the original Hindu model of the Taj, the desecrated Shiva Linga, Hindu scriptures
and temple equipment. Besides such sealed chambers there are many which are kept locked by
the Government. The Public must raise its voice to have these opened or it should institute legal
proceedings. Shree P. N. Sharma of Green Park, New Delhi who peeped through an aperture in
these chambers in 1934 A.D. saw a pillared hall with images carved on the pillars.
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_twentythree.htm10/7/2006 9:52:22 AM
Taj Mahal Photo Twenty-four

Burharpur is a very ancient historic city on the Central Railway between Khandwa and Bhusawal
junctions. Burhanpur and the nearby Asirgarh (fort) used to provide hospitality to Hindu royals
proceeding north or south on pilgrimage, weddings or military expeditions. Barhanpur has many
magnificent mansions which are currently being described as mosques and tombs of alien
Islamic invaders. This building is one such ancient Hindu royal palace captured by the Moghuls.
Mumtaz died here during her 14th delivery around 1630 A.D. while she and Shahjahan were
camping here. She is said to be buried in a Hindu pavilion in front of this palace.
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_twentyfour.htm10/7/2006 9:52:45 AM
Taj Mahal Photo Twenty-five

Mumtaz is supposed to be buried in this garden pavilion of the ancient Hindu palace (Ahu
Mahal) 600 miles from Agra, in Burhanpur. Another version says that Mumtaz's corpse was kept
here exposed to sun, rain, and wild beasts for six months. The date of her death, the date of her
removal from Burhanpur to Agra, and the date of her assumed burial in the Taj Mahal are all
unknown because the entire Taj Mahal-Mumtaz legend is a concoction from the beginning to
end. [Mumtaz was only one of several hundred wives and women that Shahjahan kept in his
harem.]
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_photo_twentyfive.htm10/7/2006 9:53:07 AM

Was The Taj Mahal A Vedic Temple

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Was The Taj Mahal A Vedic Temple

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Was the Taj Mahal A Vedic Temple

Was the Taj Mahal a Vedic Temple?

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/was_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_temple.htm (1 of 4)10/7/2006 9:41:04 AM

ADDITIONAL ONLINE ARTICLES

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/was_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_temple.htm (2 of 4)10/7/2006 9:41:04 AM

Taj Mahal Photo #1 Aerial view of the Taj Mahal

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/was_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_temple.htm (3 of 4)10/7/2006 9:41:04 AM

Taj Mahal Photo #14 The OM in the flowers on the walls

Now for the Next Section:

[This is available at: http:www.stephen-knapp.com]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/was_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_temple.htm (4 of 4)10/7/2006 9:41:04 AM

The Question of the Taj Mahal

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (1 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (2 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (3 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (4 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (5 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

i) dated 9 Rajab, 1041 Hijra (Jan 21, 1632)

ii) dated 4 Rabi-ul-Awwal, 1043 Al Hijra (Sept. 9, 1632)

iii) dated 7 Saffer, 1047 Al Hijra (June 21, 1637)

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (6 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (7 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (8 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (9 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (10 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

Taj Mahal - Details of Monthly Salaries

1. Ustad Isa (Agra/Shiraz) Chief Architect Rs. 1,000

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (11 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

8. Age of the Taj Mahal

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (12 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

the date of Mumtaz's burial more than a casual reference?

9. The Arch And The Dome

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (13 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (14 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (15 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (16 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

11. Hindu Symbolism

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (17 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (18 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

12. General Layout And Plan

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (19 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (20 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (21 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

What then is the true age of the Taj Mahal?

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (22 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (23 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

[Available at: http://www.stephen-knapp.com]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/question_of_the_taj_mahal.htm (24 of 24)10/7/2006 9:41:43 AM

The Letter of Aurangzeb

Aurangzeb's letter is recorded in at least three chronicles titled 'Aadaab-e-alamgiri ',

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/letter_of_aurangzeb.htm (1 of 2)10/7/2006 9:41:53 AM

[Home] [Back to the Taj Mahal page] [ Back ] [ Next ]

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/letter_of_aurangzeb.htm (2 of 2)10/7/2006 9:41:53 AM

AN ARCHITECT LOOKS AT THE TAJ MAHAL LEGEND

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/an_architect_looks_at_the_taj_mahal_legend.htm (1 of 6)10/7/2006 9:42:13 AM

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/an_architect_looks_at_the_taj_mahal_legend.htm (2 of 6)10/7/2006 9:42:13 AM

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/an_architect_looks_at_the_taj_mahal_legend.htm (3 of 6)10/7/2006 9:42:13 AM

form of symbolic decor that existed.

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/an_architect_looks_at_the_taj_mahal_legend.htm (4 of 6)10/7/2006 9:42:13 AM

been designed differently to reflect their individual functions.

A leading Indian architect, former professor of architecture at Mysore University adds:

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/an_architect_looks_at_the_taj_mahal_legend.htm (5 of 6)10/7/2006 9:42:13 AM

the following may be noted.