________________
146
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[JULY, 1915
believe it was introduced from India by the Mogul rulers of Persia. P. Coste in Monuments Modernes de la Perse states (p. 59 and pl. 71) that it was introduced during the 16th century and calls the dome at Sultânieh the "Arab" form! (p. 46.)
A Gosset in Les Cupoles d'Orient et d'Occident describes the feature without comment, while A. Choisy in his Histoire de l'Architecture, Paris, 1889, follows Coste in stating that it only became the rule in Persia towards the end of the 16th century, but I have shown that it occurs much earlier. He, like Texier, suggests an Indian origin, viz that it was an imitation of certain bulbous topes to be seen there. He apparently had in mind structures such as those at Ajanta, shown in figures 16 and 17.
Now as Tîmûr was in India shortly before the building of the Bîbî Khânûm and the Gûr Amir, we must consider the possibility of this Indian origin. In the first place these topes are solid structures and not examples of roofing, and the few which are bulbous such as those shown, are quite small and not the conspicuous and striking buildings likely to be noticed even by a conqueror in his meteoric flight through the country. But could he have seen any double domes with slightly swelling outline? No! for not one of the domed buildings which were standing in the North-West of India in the time of Timûr, of which remains have come down to us, have this feature. I have compiled a list of these buildings from Carr Stephen's Archaeology of Delhi, and Fanshawe's Delhi, Past and Present, and find that there are seventeen of them. They comprise the group of buildings classed by Fergusson as Early, Middle, and Late Pathân. Amongst them are the tombs of Shams-ud-din Altamsh, Rukn-ud-din Firoz Shah, Ghiâsud-din Tughlak Shah, the Jama Masjid of Firâzâbâd, the Kalan Masjid and the buildings attributed to 'Khân Jâhân. I give as a typical example the tomb of Firoz Shah, built A. D. 1389. (Plate III, E.) All the domes found in these buildings are pointed in shape but low in elevation, and built in horizontal courses. Carr Stephen speaking of them remarks that" domes, the stones of which are held together by the wonderful adhesive qualities of the lime used in those days, without any keystone, have been before remarked on and are another characteristic of the Mohammedan Indian buildings of the 14th century."37
These domes have not a single feature in common with the Gûr Amîr and Bibi Khânûm, yet as they are all of one type they are conclusive evidence as to the style of the period and completely refute the theory that the double dome had an Indian origin.
Regarding the theory of the Indian origin of the double dome, Saladin's apparently follows Choisy, and in addition suggests that it has also certain mechanical advantages viz: that it tends to the stability of the dome by constituting additional abutment.39 A more extraordinary statement it is difficult to conceive, since it is obvious that it must act outwardly in the same direction as the thrust of the upper part of tho dome itself.
Figure 18 shows a section of the dome of the Gâr Amir. The dotted line produced from C shows the extent of the projecting part. Now the centre of gravity of the A B -about projecting part is roughly at B, and this part therefore will act with leverage
A C
37 Archaeology of Delhi, p. 154.
38 Op. cit., p. 360.
39 Professor Phené Spiers in Architecture East and West, p. 20, also makes a similar statement, but only as a surmise.
