Introduction

1With the introduction of gunpowder and firearms into warfare in India profound changes took place in military architecture in the Muslim kingdoms of the Deccan between the 15th and 18th centuries. In this study we will try to show the nature of these modifications and, thus, define the defence principles adopted during this period. Our analysis is based on observations made at some of the most significant sites of the Deccan, namely Basava Kalyana, Bidar, Bijapur, Gulbarga and Mudugal (in the northern part of Karnataka), Daulatabad, Gandikota and Golkonda (in Andhra Pradesh), Naldurga, Parenda and Solapur (in the southern part of Maharashtra) (fig. 1), The task is not an easy one.1

Problems of Methodology

2We are aware of our limitations. In order to compare and classify these various strongholds, detailed monographs are needed. Unfortunately, only two sites have been the subject of serious studies: Bijapur (fig. 3) analysed by H. Cousens2 and Bidar (fig. 5), by G. Yazdani.3 These books are descriptive studies made by remarkable epigraphists and archaeologists, abundantly illustrated with magnificent photographs and detailed plans showing enclosures and monuments, but they lack details on defence devices and do not give the plans of the various works. Naldurga, Solapur and Gulbarga (fig. 2, a, b & c) are only mentioned in Gazetteers.4 The forts of Parenda (fig. 2, d) and Basava Kalyana or Kalyani (fig. 7) have been briefly described by G. Yazdani in two articles.5 S.K. Joshi, in his book on the forts of Karnataka, has devoted a chapter to Bijapur and another one to Basava Kalyana,6 where he gives the description of the main gates with plans. The fort of Mudugal (fig. 9) has been the subject of a brief study by C.S. Patel,7 the stronghold of Daulatabad (fig. 8), the topic of a short description by S. Piggott8 and the fort of Gandikota (fig. 10) has been summarily described by N.S. Ramachandra Murthy.9 Finally, must be mentioned the book by S. Toy, an expert in military architecture, on the strongholds of India which presents Bidar, Bijapur, Daulatabad and Golkonda (fig. 4), with beautiful plans and photographs, showing also the main gates of the enclosures.10

3All these studies, even the last one, are inadequate from the point of view of military architecture, because, apart from the large gates, they give little information on the curtain walls, towers, parapets and practically nothing on the cavaliers, box machicolations, etc. The essentials remain to be done.

Different Types of Defensive Works

4Here are considered large fortified places with very long enclosures (more than 10 km at Bijapur, 7 km at Golkonda, 4 and 4,8 km for the two enclosures of Bidar, about 3 km, at Gulbarga, Naldurga, Daulatabad and Mudugal), but also smaller ones such as Parenda (1 300 m), Solapur (1 000 m) and Basava Kalyana (660 m) (figs. 2-9).

5The defence conditions are not the same in these different sites.

6In large towns such as Bidar and Bijapur, the extensive fortifications offer a very long front to the enemy, forcing them to separate and disperse along the ramparts and to make huge works to besiege the town.

7In forts of smaller dimensions such as Basava Kalyana and Parenda, the garrisons, enclosed in a limited area, equipped with close-set protective works, represented a compact strength which could not be easily surprised, but which could be overcome by numbers. However, the defences did not vary much from one place to the other.

Chronology

8Our task will be to find their characteristics, taking into account the considerable modifications they have undergone through the centuries. It is not an easy job since the constructions we see today are the final stage of their evolution, after successive renovations, particularly at the parapet level. It is often difficult to distinguish old edifices dating from a period prior to firearms from those built when gunpowder was introduced into warfare. It is therefore necessary, whenever it is possible, to resort to epigraphy.

Epigraphy’s Contribution

9Most of the inscriptions that have been collected are dated from the middle of the 16th to the middle of the 17th century. They concern mainly gates and towers or burj,11 giving information on the period of their construction or, more frequently, on the point in time of their renovation or reconstruction (see epigraphic references in Appendix).

10On the enclosures of Bijapur, the capital of a kingdom since 1490, a certain number of epigraphs are available. Those concerning the most ancient fortification, i.e. the citadel, date from 1514 to 1544: they show mainly that the southern gate was renovated several times; the other ones, of a later period (after 1565), found on the outer fortifications, mention the year when a particular work was built or renovated.

11It is the same for Bidar whose fort would have been rebuilt at the end of the 15th century and the city enclosure, in the middle of the 16th century: the inscriptions date from 1503 to 1850.

12On the defence works of Golkonda, the seat of the Qutb-Shahi government since 1512, inscriptions mention mainly the reconstructions made in the 17th century.

13At Gulbarga, the capital of the Bahmani kingdom from 1347 to 1429, the information given by epigraphy concerns the period from 1557 to 1673 and shows particularly the role of the Bijapuris.

14At Naldurga, epigraphs point out that the fort built by the Bahmanis was reconstructed in the middle of the 16th century by the Sultans of Bijapur.

15Regarding Basava Kalyana, rebuilt under the Bahmanis at the end of the 15th century, inscriptions also mention the important works realized during the Bijapuri occupation between 1553 et 1646.

16At Mudugal, renovated at the end of the 16th century, Persian epigraphs show that three large towers were built between 1574 and 1588; moreover, a number of Kannada inscriptions, give the names of different military works. At Daulatabad and Gandikota, unfortunately, no epigraphs are found on the fortifications.

17Thus, the particulars given by epigraphy are fragmentary, but they are reliable points of reference for identifying the fortified works which will be now considered.

Defence Principles

181. From the old system of defence, military engineers kept some elements, not without modifying them according to the evolution of firearms.

1. They retain the principle of protection by natural obstacles, by selecting river front sites (Naldurga, Gandikota), rocky outcrop sites (Golkonda, Daulatabad), hill slope sites (Bidar, Mudugal), lake bank sites (Solapur), basin sites (Basava Kalyana), which were always provided with wide and deep ditches dug up by the builders.

2. They also did not abandon the principle of protection by massive masonry constructions. They knew that the great thickness of the walls was strong enough to resist the new engines of warfare and therefore they reinforced their curtain walls and towers, made of a bank of earth packed with rubble, revetted with stone blocks. Such masonry-faced walls, heavily banked behind with earth to lend support and provide firing platforms for guns, would offset the effect of artillery by absorbing the impact of the cannonballs and make sap difficult.

3. Finally, they stood by the principle of the high command, i.e. a defence from the top, from the battlements to command the surroundings and prevent the assailants from venturing too near the walls.

192. Without renouncing this passive fortification, they innovated considerably in this field by adopting a system where defence prevailed over attack.

1. First, above curtain walls and towers, parapets were adapted for defence by musketry and cannons with higher and thicker merlons, built in stone or brickwork and systematically pierced by holes which provided covering and flanking fire. Continuous chemins-de-ronde or wall walks along the top of the ramparts were widened for allowing the fast movement of men and equipment to any quarter under attack.

2. Box machicolations or small turrets projecting from the parapet of walls, towers and gates, were built on brackets, leaving gaps through which various missiles could be cast upon an enemy beneath, thus reducing the dead ground.

3. In order to gain a commanding position on the surrounding works, cavaliers or gun platforms were raised on towers or curtain walls or sometimes within the enclosures. On these tall pedestals, very heavy pieces of artillery were mounted.

4. To protect all these works, a fausse-braye or lower enclosure was constructed all around the main one, with parapets pierced by loopholes commanding the approaches.

5. Regarding the gateways, which were always a major weak spot in the defences, they developed into one of the strongest part of the fortification. It consisted of the following: a barbican or outwork projecting from the main entrance having usually the form of two semicircular walls, a stout gate flanked by two powerful cylindrical towers, having the upper parts terminated with battlements and machicolations and leading to inner open courtyards enclosed by thick walls. These massive structures were at the command of the defenders; on entry the enemy had to pass though the barbican, turn at the gate, cross the courtyards, all the way under guards fire from the recesses and the battlements.

20Thanks to these improvements, strongholds could resist artillery.

Fortification Components

Ditches

21We start with the ditches which were widened and provided with covered ways in order to protect the glacis towards the open country.

22These works are long excavations made in the ground by digging which are from 25 to 40 m wide, and from 5 to 10 m deep. They are dry in places where water cannot be brought and wet in zones where water is available or can be brought from a lake or a pond. At Bidar, the double ditch to the north of the fort, called Paniya Khandaq, “water ditch”,12 is connected to a tank inside the enclosure (photo 1); at Solapur (figure 1 b) and Gulbarga (fig. 1 c and photo 2); there is a lake beside a portion of the walls. At Naldurga, built on a high ridge, to the north and east, the fort is protected by the double meander of the river Boranadi fig. 1 a and photo 3); to the south and west, the ditch is excavated in the rock (fig. 1 a and photo 4); at Gandikota, the stronghold stands at the extremity of a plateau projecting into the large curve made by the Penner river (photo 5). At Basava Kalyana, situated at the lowest part of a circular depression, from 3 to 5 km in radius, the ditch, from 10 to 12 m deep, collects all the runoff; from the bottom seven flights of steps lead to the covered way. In all the fortifications, the sides of the ditch (escarp and counterscarp) are faced with stone masonry.

Pl. I. Ditches (A)

Plate II. Ditches (B)

23At Daulatabad, the entrance to the citadel, scarped to a vertical rock-cut face about 40 m high, is defended by an impressive square-section water-filled ditch at the bottom dug 15 m into solid rock (photo 6).

24The most amazing work is the triple moat excavated on the southern and western sides of the Bidar fort (photos 7, 8 & 9). It consists of a triple channel with almost vertical partition walls hewn of solid rock (laterite), 9 m deep; the width between the partition walls, from the glacis (outside) to the enclosure (inside), is 19 m, 10.50 m and 10.50 m respectively; these high walls, 1.6 m thick at their base and 1 m at the top, in the southern part, and 4.5 m at least at the northwest extremity (photos 79 & 80), cannot be crossed easily. Moreover, subterranean passages lead from the gates of the fort to the ditch, allowing the defenders to dislodge the assailants who succeeded in entering the trenches or miners. Nowhere in India, we can find such formidable excavations.

25Yazdani13 thinks that it was the work of Hindu masons who were adept in carving scarps out of solid rocks. It is noteworthy that the digging of such ditches is recommended by the Arthaśāstra14 and that the dimensions of the partition walls given (14, 12, 10 daṇḍa, i.e. 25, 21 and 18 m) do not differ much from the actual dimensions of the Bidar triple moat!). This would mean that the particulars given by the Arthaśāstra are not conventional.15

26The triple ditch of Bidar is not unique. K. Rötzer informs me that the second (earthen) enclosure of the Warangal fortification is lined, in the lower parts, with a ditch filled with water and, in the upper parts, with a triple dry ditch, about 2 m high, excavated in the granitic sand and intended to impede the approach of elephants; he also says that, in Chanderi, in Madhya Pradesh, around the fort, there is a triple ditch, made of small masonry walls, not visible today because they are buried under bushes.

27In any case, these ditches, together with outworks, constituted a serious obstacle and rendered regular approaches difficult.

Raonī or Fausses-Brayes

28In the Hindu system of fortification, we do not find double enclosures, i.e. two lines of fortification separated by an open area, the outer one, being lower than the main rampart, used as a protective enclosure and kept clear so as to remove any cover for attackers crossing it to the next line of defence, as seen in the European Medieval castles. Taking into consideration the technological level of the siege engines used in India at that time, it is very likely that one line of fortification was considered strong enough by the Hindus to withstand any attack.

29In the Deccan kingdoms, when the use of gunpowder and firearms became widespread, a kind of fausse-braye or a low rampart was built forward, immediately over the scarp of the ditch, parallel and below the main rampart and forming an outer enclosure, called raonī in Hindustani16 (fig. 11 and photos 10-18).

30This enclosure, crowned with a parapet and large apertures for firing guns, had the advantage of offering cover for musketry (bandūq) in front of and below the batteries placed on the high wall of the main enclosure, and also of defending the base of the curtain walls and towers through the fire of small arms. The distance between the two lines of defence is usually very narrow: about 10 metres at Gulbarga (photo 12), from 2 to 3 m at Gandikota (photo 18).

31In rocky sites, such as Bidar, Naldurga or Gandikota, where the enclosure edges a steep slope (gully or precipice), there was no need of it but, on a Hat ground or in a depression, an additional protection was necessary. At Bidar, to the north-west of the fort, at the foot of the spur where the royal zone stands, there is an elongated depression which was barred by a double enclosure (photo 1). At Naldurga, the raonī is found only in the northern part of the enclosure bordering the meander of the river and on its west side. At Gandikota, where more than three fourth of the enclosure is protected by a practically vertical gorge (at least 200 m deep), it is found only on a small portion of the rampart (photo 18). Elsewhere, in the plains, at Solapur (photo 14), Basava Kalyana, Parenda (fig. 11 and photo 11), Mudugal (fig. 7 & photos 15-17) it surrounds the forts on all sides. At Daulatabad, the second enclosure only is provided with this low wall (photo 10). In very large fortifications such as Bijapur and Golkonda, which are protected by enormous works, it was not considered necessary.

Curtain Walls

32The main feature of the rampart, as in the old Hindu fortification, is still a solid masonry construction, with earth and rubble filling, wedge-shaped stone blocks being dressed on the outer surface and often on the inner one also, but the jointing system differs: in Hindu structures stones are laid without any mortar, in Muslim constructions mortar is abundantly used to bind together the units of masonry. Moreover, the walls are of a larger size. In Bijapur, they are very thick in places, from 9 to 10 m; they are also very high, about 10 m. In the town of Bidar, their thickness varies from 5 to 15 m and their height from the bottom of the ditch to the top of the parapet is 12 or 13 m; in Golkonda, the outer curtain wall varies in thickness from 5 to 10 m. Such massive structures were intended to resist entry by battery or scaling.

Pl. III. Raonῑ or fausses-brayes (A)

Pl IV. Raonῑ orfausses-brayes (B)

Flanking Towers

33Towers remain the strong spots of the fortification, and their role becomes more a more important, as they are reinforced to take the weight and recoil of the cannon.

34The main modifications which took place concern their plan and their dimensions.

Plans

35The rectangular plan of the Hindus is progressively abandoned in the Deccan (but not in the southern peninsula, as will be seen in the next chapter). We still find quadrangular towers with curtain walls made of rectilinear segments cut by successive recesses in old fortifications which have not been fully renovated such as Bala Hisar at Golkonda, but they are rare in new constructions. Some of them may be observed, particularly at the Carnatic Darwazah in Bidar (it will be seen infra that some isolated towers playing the role of citadels are also rectangular in plan (photos 31, 32, 66 & 67). In all the sites considered here, most of the towers are either polygonal or semicircular.

36The reason is that it was found that rectangular towers flanking curtain walls were not large enough, that they were vulnerable to shots and mining; consequently they were replaced by new constructions having the capacity for withstanding missiles fired from cannon and having a semicircular shape (photos 25-29, 38, 40-44).

37An anomaly, however, is found at the fort of Gandikota, where the rampart, built probably in the middle of the 17th century by Muslims, is flanked by towers having a rectangular plan (photo 30). How to explain this deviation from the common Muslim type? A patient investigation on the site shows that, instead of demolishing the old towers, military engineers, for reasons unknown to us, strengthened the ancient quadrangular structures with thicker stone revetments laid with lime mortar, while renovating completely the parapets.

38The polygonal plan has been adopted at Bidar, in the town enclosure (in towers flanking gates such as Talghat, Dulhan, Mangalpet Darwazahs, towers stretching along the curtain walls) as well as on the fort enclosure (photo 19). It is also seen at Solapur particularly in the faussebraye (photo 20), in the gate of the main enclosure; at Parenda, in the fausse-braye and also at Daulatabad, on the fausse-braye of the second enclosure (photo 21) and on the third enclosure. It is found in some works in the fortifications of Bijapur and Golkonda (photo 22) and finally, to a lesser extent at Basava Kalyana and Naldurga (photos 23 & 24)). Apart from these places, all the towers are semicircular in shape.

39It seems that the polygonal plan is not a variant of the circular plan, but rather an intermediate form, between the straight walls of the Hindu system and the curved walls of the Muslims. As many of these works are dated by inscriptions, we note that, except at a few gates, most of the latest works are semicircular.

40Thus, at Bijapur, several towers are polygonal in the old citadel, but all the enormous burj in the large town enclosure are semicircular. However, there is no uniformity. At Bidar, for example, most of the towers of the town enclosure, built in Aurangzeb’s time, are still polygonal in shape. Beyond the Tungabhadra, towards the south of the peninsula, the question does not arise since polygonal structures are rarely seen in the forts of this zone.

Pl. V. Polygonal towers

Pl VI. Semicircular or circular towers

Pl. VII. Rectangular and (poly)lobed towers

Pl. VIII. Diameter of the towers

Pl IX. Salient of the towers

41Finally, there are two magnificent structures built on the polylobed plan. The first, called Nau Burj, is found at Golkonda on the Naya Qil’ah17 (photo 33); the other one on the western part of the enclosure of Naldurga, overlooking the Borinadi ravine (photo 34). Both have a corrugated face with nine lobes. This design provides greater length of parapet for defence and greater facilities of fire in all directions from the battlements.

42As the Naya Qil’ah enclosure was built in 1624, it would seem that the polylobed plan was the final outcome of research carried out in order to improve the defensive value of the towers. However, this design was not adopted in other sites since it is not found anywhere else in the South of the peninsula.

Dimensions

43Another change was in the size of the works. Ancient towers were not large and could accommodate only a limited number of defenders; they were also not high enough, since they were built at the level of the curtain walls, to efficiently fire projectiles on the besiegers:

• the diameter of the new towers and also the thickness of their revetments are increased in order to better resist artillery projectiles and prevent a breach by sap;

• their salient or outward projecting part is more prominent in order to provide a better flanking fire to the adjacent curtains;

• their height is raised to have a better command of the surrounding works.

44a. In all the sites, the towers are of relatively great size, whether they are polygonal or semicircular in shape, and, in the spots considered strategically sensitive, they are enormous masonry constructions of earth packed with rubble revetted with huge dressed stone blocks with a slightly tapering profile (photos 35-39).

45At Parenda, the tower flanking the third gate is 10.70 m in diameter and, at Gulbarga, on the western side of the fort, to the north of the great mosque, there is a tower 33 m in diameter (!) (photo 49).

46b. They conspicuously extend from beyond the curtain walls (photos 19, 40-44); some of them have the shape of almost polygonal prisms, as found at Bidar (photo 19), or of cylinders at Bijapur (photo 51); other ones have the form of a horseshoe, as at Solapur (photo 44).

47c. And their most striking feature is that they tend to rise much above the curtain walls (photos 45-49). In some places, such as Solapur, their height has been heightened by a few metres, as shown in the different types of masonry used which are still quite visible (photos 45 & 46). We can clearly see that the large tower of Gulbarga (photo 49), mentioned supra, was originally of the same height as the adjacent curtain walls, and that it was raised twice later on; it is today accessible through a flight of steps crossing a vaulted room. There are also very high works in this fort, particularly on the northern side which appear to have been renovated at a later period, but which cannot be dated precisely.18

48At Basava Kalyana, the towers of the second enclosure situated on a rocky outcrop dominate the whole fortification. Inscriptions mention works and renovations at that place,19 but we are not in a position to identify them. At Parenda, all the towers of the rampart exceed in height the battlement of the curtain walls by 3 or 4 m; they are reached on both sides by staircases (photos 47 & 48).

49At the fort of Bidar (fig. 5 and photo 50), the flanking towers are all built on breathtakingly high precipices overlooking the surroundings and are situated at different levels according to the contour lines; thus, the impressive Petla Burj is 25 m higher than the Kalyani Burj crowning the rampart at the next angle.

50The most famous towers are found at Bijapur and at Golkonda, all dated by inscriptions. On the south-east wall of the first town (fig. 3), the Firangi Burj, built in 1576 (by a Portuguese?) rises about 9 m above the curtain walls. Unlike the other ones, this tower is hollow, lined with guardrooms and, in front of each embrasure, there are masonry blocs for cannons. To the west is the Sherza Burj, a large circular platform built in 1658; to the south is the Landa Qassab, another colossal work built in 1609 and periodically renovated until 1662 (Aurangzeb’s artillery, during the siege of 1686, was unable to break it).20 To the east are found the same impressive works, such as Ali Burj (photo 51), some of them provided with vaulted guardrooms.

51At Golkonda (fig. 4), the Musa Burj, semicircular in shape, consists of three storeys built of solid blocks of granite firmly cemented together and sometimes bound with iron clamps; the height of the lowest storey from the bottom of the moat is about 18 m; this structure was rebuilt in 1666, in order to resist mining.21

52At Daulatabad, on the second enclosure, to the south of Delhi Darwazah, one tower has been raised three times above the parapet of the curtain walls and, in its upper outer face, it has been strengthened by vertical buttresses (photo 52); another one, with box machicolations has been heightened twice. On the first enclosure, to the north-west, are several towers, solid up to the the level of the curtain walls, with an upper part, made of a semicircular wall with rectangular holes for cannons, enclosing two guardrooms, obviously of a later period (1st half of the 17th century?). Finally, at Mudugal, there are massive constructions rising 4 m above the curtain walls (i.e. about 10 m from the fausse-braye), about 8 m wide and projecting 4 m, accessible on the inner side by two staircases (forming an inverted trapezium in elevation): these powerful elaborated towers (photos 53 & 54) were built at the end of the 16th century.

53It thus appears that the adoption of the principle of the high command has been a gradual process, that, at the beginning, only existing works were raised, and that, at a later period, high massive structures of the type we have mentioned have been systematically constructed. According to inscriptions it is in the course of the 17th century that this process reached its final stage.

Pl X. Height of the towers: raised works (A)

Pl. XI. Height of the towers: raised works (B

Cavaliers

On Towers

54Above most of the towers, cavaliers or top platforms used as supports for cannons, generally circular in shape, sometimes rectangular, square or polygonal, are raised, providing the maximum of flanking fire. They are equipped with a large circular block of stone in the middle of which is a socket for receiving the pivot of the gun. As mentioned in chapter 6, infra, in most of the sites visited by us the cannons are still there, some on their pivot.

55The greatest cavaliers are found on the towers of the main enclosures.

56At Daulatabad, they are seen on the towers of the second and third ramparts (photos 55 & 56). At Parenda, to the south east of the fort, a cavalier is 2 m higher than the tower on which it is erected; further on, just before the south-west angle of the tort, the high gun platform which occupies almost all the top of the tower is 9 m in diameter; the recoil wall is 1.5 m thick and the channelled ring 1.10m deep; to the north, the tower flanking the third gate is 10.70 m in diameter, with a stone platform with a diameter of 5 m. Finally, at Gulbarga, the raised structure of the large tower (photo 49) which is provided with a recoil wall 2.80 m thick, is 14.80 m in diameter!

57On the towers of the fausse-braye, from where gunners were firing light cannons, cavaliers are smaller (5 m in diameter with a recoil wall, 1.70 m high, at Basava Kalyana). At Gulbarga (photo 57), on some of these towers, a quadrangular platform has been built, also used in its lower part as a guardroom; at Basava Kalyana (photo 58), we find a circular work, with a parapet provided with large embrasures, still mounted with a small cannon; at Solapur (photo 59), there is a low and thin platform on the top of a horseshoe-shaped tower; finally at Golkonda (photo 60), to the west of Fateh Darwazah, is a small square platform. All these structures are provided with a low recoil wall.

On Curtain Walls and within the Ramparts

58In some places cavaliers were also raised on the curtain walls, behind the battlements. In rocky sites, such as the the citadels of Mudugal (photo 61) and Daulatabad (photo 62). They are found on the top of hills.

59- At Bidar, to the south-west of the fort, between Carnatic Darwazah and Petla Burj (fig. 6), over 400 m, eight of them, from 6 to 7 m in diameter, are found on the chemin-de-ronde; they are also seen at Bijapur, mounted with jinjal or light cannons.22

60To these works military engineers added, behind the main lines of fortification, independent massive towers. At Bidar, three of these structures are still mounted with their cannons.23

61- The first one is situated to the north-east, on the large ridge, considered to be the Purana Qil’ah (ancient fort), a spot of considerable strategic importance. It is called by the name of the cannon mounted on the top, Fath Laskar, and is dated 1580 (photo 63), it is an hexagonal work, built of huge blocks of latente consisting of two storeys: the lower one edged with a parapet is 5.50 m high and 12 m in diameter; the upper one, 2 m high and 10 m in-diameter, is provided with a recoil wall 1.8 m high.

Pl XII. Cavaliers on towers

Pl. XIII. Independent cavaliers

62The two other ones, situated to the south-west, also a sensitive spot of the fort, behind the cavaliers, on the chemin-de-ronde just mentioned, are two-storeyed huge masonry works.

• The Lal Burj or the ^«Red Tower^», so called on account of the (red) latente of which it is built (photo 64), is polygonal in shape, 6 m high, 16.50 m in diameter (the stone platform, 7.5 m in diameter, is mounted with a long-range cannon bearing the date 1596).

• The Kala Burj or the ^«Black Tower^», so styled on account of the (dark) trap masonry of which it has been built (photo 65), is still larger, since it is 10 m high and 20 m in diameter; its top is mounted with a similar gun bearing the date 1569.

63As obviously those three towers existed before the cannons (all dated) were installed at their summit, it can be inferred from this that these Burj were built a short time before the cannons were made, i.e. in the second half of the 16th century.

Isolated Inner Towers: Citadels

64At several sites, high and solid isolated inner towers are found commanding at the same time the defence lines and the surroundings, but independent of the enclosures; in short they are a kind of donjons or keeps. They differ from the isolated cavaliers in volume and height.

65These enormous stone masses, circular or rectangular in shape, with platforms mounted with guns, accessible through one or two Rights of steps, became the pivots of the new defensive system.

66- Of quadrangular shape there are four at Solapur crowned with merlons and crenels (photo 66) which are 6 to 7 m higher than the parapet of the rampart.24

67- But the most remarkable example of this type is found at Gulbarga, to the north-east of the fort; it is known as Bala Hisar, ^«High Fort^» or ^«Citadel^» (photo 67). It is a formidable work, 54 m long, 32 m wide and 19 m high, made of two parts placed side by side, i.e. the tower itself and a bulky structure in which are two staircases leading to the top. The whole is reinforced with semicylindrical buttresses; at the summit, there is a large flooring with three gun platforms, each, 10 m in diameter, forming, with their recoil walls, 2 m thick, a kind of cannon pit, facing northeast, east and south-west (photo 68) (the guns are still on site).

68The other ones, circular in plan, are found at Naldurga and Bijapur.

69- A Naldurga, in the centre of the curve of the river in which stands the northern side of the fort, there is an enormous masonry cylinder, 27 m high, 20 m in diameter at the top, accessible through a monumental staircase of 77 steps, which was built in 1558 by Ali Adil Shah (photo 71). The revetment is composed of regular rectangular blocks and, towards the top, above a thin moulding, ornamental merlons are introduced into the revetment.25 On the summit, there are two circular platforms mounted with two large cannons; from there, a narrow and short staircase leads to a rectangular guardroom provided with a large opening looking onto the surroundings where a watch could be posted.

Pl. XIV. Independent towers

70- At Bijapur, in the north-western part of the enclosure, there is another impressive structure known as the Haidar Burj (also called Upri (the ^«Lofty^»), built in 1583, according to an inscription (photo 69). In plan it is oval or nearly circular and rises to a height of about 24 m. A narrow staircase ascends round the southern and eastern side to the top where two platforms with their recoil wall are found. Lying dismounted are two iron guns, the larger one being the famous Lambcharri, or the ^«Far Flier^», facing east.26

71- Finally, at Bidar, in the middle of the town there is a cylindrical tower, known as the Chaubara (photo 70). It has a circular base, 54 m in circumference and 23 m in height. This structure overlooking the whole plateau and the surrounding low land, built around the middle of the 15th century, was used more as a watchtower than a defensive work.27

72Thus, except the last one, these towers were regarded as citadels (hence the name of Bālā Ḥiṣār given to one of them).

73From these observations we can infer that military engineers considered that, within the main enclosure, a stronger edifice with higher and thicker walls than in the other works, was needed so that it could hold out independently in case the outer defences fell to the attackers and, therefore, be used by the besiegers as the last refuge.

Gateways

74The gateways, skilfully designed, are powerful. They are usually defended by a barbican, i.e. an outwork which takes the form of two walls that extend out, forcing the assailants to enter a narrow bent or semicircular corridor where they are under fire from both sides. They are strengthened by towers of great dimensions, having their sides strongly battered, with crenellated parapets defending the full length of the passage. They consist of one or a succession of entrances and open courts defended by a row of guardrooms on either side. An assailant rushing through such a passage would be under attack on all sides from the battlements of the towers and those of the walls. Several of these gates, at Daulatabad, Bijapur, Golkonda, Bidar28 and Basava Kalyana29 have been described, with detailed drawings and photographs by scholars.

75a. At Daulatabad30 (fig. 12 and photo 72) the entrance to the second enclosure is by way of a strong horn work consisting of a succession of gateways and courtyards. From the barbican a lofty vaulted leads to the first courtyard defended by a row of guardrooms on either side; through the next gateway, protected by strong towers, one enters a second courtyard which has to be crossed diagonally, exposed to attack from all sides, to reach the last gateway.

76b. At Golkonda (fig. 4),31 the Bala Hisar is shielded by a powerful outwork, horseshoeshaped, defended from within from a platform raised to the height of its battlement, accessible through two flights of steps; the gateway is closed by a two-leaved door and is provided with a strong guardroom on either side (fig. 13, a).

• On the main enclosure, Moti Darwazah, to the north-east, is equipped with a semicircular crenellated barbican, approachable through a staircase.

• Fateh Darwazah (fig. 13, a and photo 73), to the east, is entered through a sinuous barbican composed of two wings jutting out from the walls, with crenellated parapets and box machicolations, and an open courtyard with recesses for the guards on either side; the two-leaved doors of teak are still existing at both entrances.

• Banjari Darwazah (fig. 13, a), to the north-west, is also protected by a semicircular barbican and two large towers; the inner and outer doors are connected by a covered passage, provided on either side by chambers covered by cupolas.

77c. At Bijapur32 the southern gate of the citadel (fig. 13, b) has been periodically repaired or remodelled between 1514 and 1542. It consists of a barbican, rectangular in shape, provided with guardrooms; the main entrance, flanked by two huge towers, leads to a semicircular inner courtyard, lined up, in the face of the curved wall, with many recesses.

78Regarding the town gateways (some of them have been rebuilt at a later period), they are also ingeniously built.

• Allahpur Darwazah (fig. 13, b), to the east of the town, rebuilt in 1677, forms a hexagonal courtyard which opens out onto the ditch, forcing the attackers to reach the gate at a right angle before entering the courtyard where they are exposed to the defenders firing.

• Bahmani Darwazah (fig. 13, b), to the north, though of a different shape, is based on the same principle. It consists of a narrow passageway, flanked by two large circular towers (27 m in diameter and 18 m high), defended by a straight wall, parallel to the ditch which forms a kind of barbican compelling the enemy to reach the gate diagonally, in the same manner as in the previous gate.

• Shahpur Darwazah (fig. 14, a), built in 1570 and renovated in 1636, defended by a ditch, 25 m wide, crossed by a drawbridge, is flanked by two large polygonal towers, from 20 to 25 m in diameter. The entrance, provided with a two-leaved door, leads to an inner courtyard, irregular in shape, fortified all round, ending in a constricted passage towards the last opening, lined with guardrooms (the iron spikes are still attached to the teak door).

• A semicircular barbican with recesses, today almost destroyed, defends Fateh Darwazah (fig. 14, a), built in 1576, flanked with two towers crowned with a powerful battlement and provided with guardrooms (the door leaves are missing).

• The most complex and probably the strongest of the gates in Bijapur is Makka Darwazah, which has been remodelled several times between 1576 and 1655 (fig. 14, a). It consists of a narrow passageway, flanked by two semicircular towers, provided with guardrooms on both sides, leading, at right angle, to two rectangular inner courtyards having recesses on all sides. It is clear that this strongly fortified gate was a particularly formidable structure.

79These gates, all different in shape, were impregnable with the siege engines of the time. During the blockade of the town in 1685-1686, Aurangzeb never tried to take them by force and had to wait patiently until the garrison surrendered to enter the town.

80d. At Bidar, the town gateways33 (fig. 5) have all been remodelled, either in Aurangzeb’s time or at a later period. However, they were built according to the same principles as in the two other metropolises.

81- Fateh Darwazah (fig. 14, b), is defended by a ditch and a barbican jutting out in front of the two towers flanking the sinuous passage of the gate commanded by box machicolations; the heavy two-leaved door studded with spikes still exists.

82- Thalghat Darwazah (fig. 14, b), to the north-east, has a different design. As it stands high above the plain, it is accessible through a long steep curved ramp with walls on either side (today missing), rising up to an open courtyard, irregular in shape, flanked by two towers; the entrance, defended by a row of machicolations in its upper part and recesses on either side, is so placed as to involve a right-angled turn in the passage to the inner gate with its heavy two-leaved door.

83In the fort, obstacles on the access roads have been multiplied by military engineers.

84- The main entrance, to the south (fig. 5), is from the town through three distinct gateways in succession. The first one (photo 74), built in 1683, was defended by a ditch (today filled up); the outer face of the vaulted passage is covered with a box machicolation, its door is fitted with spikes and knobs; it leads to an open courtyard with recesses all round. The second gate, of larger dimensions, called Sharza Darwazah, was built in 1503; it is topped by a construction, known as naqqār khāna (music gallery), consisting of three chambers, the middle one crowned by a dome. From there a long passage with fortified walls on either side crosses the triple ditch up to the third gate, known as Gumbad Darwazah (photo 76): it is a massive structure, built in 1429, flanked by two towers, consisting of an octagonal room, with guardrooms on either side, surmounted by a hemispherical dome; its entrance is still fitted with doors plated and bossed with iron. All these three gates show signs of repair and alteration in their masonry.

85The other gates,34 except Delhi Darwazah, are all built on the edge of the high steep face of the mass of the plateau. They show considerable technical skill. They consist in outworks separated by tortuous passages along the contour variations of the rocky surface, called parkoṭa in the Deccan.35 They are not easy to describe because they stand in rugged and tortured landscapes and no plan is at our disposal, except for Mandu Darwazah.36 (They are here depicted according to the manner we have observed them, i.e. from within to without).

86- Mandu Darwazah (fig. 14, b), at the edge of the plateau, has an open-roofed subterranean guardroom, intercepting a steep tunnel which forms a complete loop from the lower entry to the ramp rising up to the barbican; the upper gate is provided with recesses on either side; on the platform of the massively built tower, standing by the side of this gate, is the famous large gun, made of cast-bronze (1542-1580).

87- Kalmadgi Darwazah (photos 77-78) is situated on a rocky outcrop, about 10 m below the curtain walls, at the foot of a tower; the passageway is through a tunnel cut into the rock, about 40 m long which runs into an S-shaped court, defended by lofty and massive towers; on either side of this courtyard, flights of steps lead to another defence line opening onto the rocky ditch. This gate is so skilfully designed that, at all levels, the assailants are exposed to attack from the defenders.

88- Within what is considered the old fort (Purānā Qil’ah), there is an anonymous gate also built on uneven rocky surface; from the first arched opening there is a steep passage hewn through the rock which, after a distance of about 40 m, passes under three massive arches, then, continues with abrupt turns for about 100 m when a second gateway is reached, leading to an almost circular courtyard, defended, towards the ditch, by a double arcade arranged in two storeys, pierced by loopholes; at the end, to the south-east of this structure, an arched gateway opens on to the ditch. At this site, again, can be noticed the series of formidable barriers put up in order to obstruct access to the entrance and stop an advancing enemy.

89- Towards the west, Kalyani Darwazah (fig. 6 and photo 79) is defended by the massive Petla Burj which commands all the works of this part of the enclosure. To the north of this tower, there is a rectangular opening through the rampart leading to a narrow and steep passageway, at the foot of the curtain walls, protected by an outer wall, fitted with merlons and box machicolations and connected with the main enclosure. After a distance of about 30 m there is a staircase running to a second opening, followed by a vaulted gate, from which, after several steps, a last entrance is reached facing north-west, and opening on to the ditch; this latente trench, 4 m wide, crowned with a second fortified wall, can be crossed through a tunnel. Thus, the plan of the gate is such that an enemy had to pass through the triple ditch, exposed to attack from the guards on the top of the two low walls, then proceed along the curtain walls under fire from the defenders to reach the upper entrance.

90- Finally, Carnatic Darwazah (fig. 6 and photo 80), to the south-west, opens onto the surrounding countryside through a series of entrances leading to the bottom of the ditch. The first vaulted gate runs through a staircase to a smaller one which opens onto a courtyard cut into two by a rocky partition. This court is lined up by a gallery crowned by battlements, which, in its southern part, leads to another vaulted gate, provided with recesses, followed by an open space running to the ditch. This long passageway is protected by the high enclosure built on the the edge of the plateau which commands the surroundings and keeps the enemy at a distance.

91All these edifices, built on rugged ground, show the expert skill of the military engineers of the time and are marvels of reasoned architecture.

92e. Parenda and Basava Kalyana are not fortified towns but medium-sized forts. From outside, they remind us of the European Medieval castles.37 However, their access is conceived according to the same defence principles as the other strongholds.

93- S.K. Joshi has described and drawn the plans of the gates of Basava Kalyana (fig. 15)38 The entrance (a modem structure since it was built in 1783) is a rectangular barbican situated outside the ditch and provided with gates designed at right angle. The ditch is crossed obliquely towards the first opening. It is a narrow gate (photo 81) flanked by two cylindrical towers projecting from the first enclosure, opening onto a court also flanked by two powerful towers. At its extremity, to the south-west, there is a second gate, running to an enclosed space, polygonal in shape. At the end of it is a staircase leading to a rectangular courtyard lined with guardrooms. From this place one has to follow a sinuous passageway leading to a fourth courtyard flanked by high circular towers and, through a flight of steps, reach the citadel surrounded by the second enclosure punctuated by nine lofty towers topped by cavaliers with their guns still on site.

PI. XV. Gateways (A)

Pl. XVI. Gateways (B)

Pl XVII. Gateways (C)

94- At Parenda also the access to the fort is barred by several gates and courts in succession (photos 83-84), designed in such a way that they cannot be enfiladed. At both places the same defence system is found to stop attackers: to reach the first gate closed by heavy doors plated with iron spikes, they had to proceed diagonally exposed from attack from all sides; if they succeeded in entering, they had to cross all the inner courtyards in succession under fire from the guardrooms and from the battlements. Given the limitations of artillery, they were practically impregnable.39

Posterns

95At Solapur (photo 85), Gulbarga (photos 86 & 87) and Daulatabad (photo 88), are seen posterns, or small entrances cut open in the main enclosure at the foot of the curtain walls, permitting passage to the fausse-braye, so that, in case the attackers should seize this low wall, the defenders would be able to run away and enter the main fortification. These low arch-shaped openings could, when needed, rapidly be filled up.

96Posterns opening directly onto the ditch are found at Daulatabad on the first enclosure where they are covered with pointed arches (photo 89) and at Bijapur;40 at Mudugal they are seen on the fausse-braye, usually on one side of a tower where they form a rectangular opening (photo 90) protected by a small semicircular barbican or outer bailey provided with merlons (photo 91), which could be used efficiently as sally ports for sorties towards the counterscarp, or as a route of escape; anyway, in case the assailants had entered the ditch, the projecting low wall of the barbican represented a strong defence work (this type of postern with a barbican is not seen in any other sites of the Deccan).

Two-Leaved Doors

97Two-leaved doors are still found at several places. They are very large structures (from 3.5 m to 4.8 m wide and up to 7.5 m high. They consist of heavy timber panels (usually in teak) fixed through pivots turning in cylindrical holes at the upper and lower extremities. When closed, the doors were secured by heavy timber bars drawn out from a socket in one jamb, passed behind the door and fitted into a corresponding socket in the other jamb. On these leaves, sharp-pointed pieces of metal are arranged in tiers across its outer face as a defence against elephants.

98At Golkonda, in Fateh and Makka Darwazahs, the two-leaved door is plated with iron and covered with iron studs and sharp spikes (photos 92 & 93). In other sites such as Solapur, at the first gate (photo 94), Bidar, in Mangalpet and Gumbad Darwazahs (photos 95 & 96), it is plated with iron and studded with knobs arranged in horizontal tiers and, at Bijapur, in the Shahpur gate, it is strengthened at frequent intervals by battens and covered with iron plating and studded with rows of thin iron spikes (at Aurangabad, the door ot Makka Darwazah is covered with horseshoes!) (photo 97).

Pl XVIII. Posterns (A)

Pl. XIX. Posterns (B)

Pl XX. Doors

99In places where doors are missing, the exact location of their leaves is easy to recognize since the sockets cut into blocks of stone on either side of the gate, carved to carry the two leaves of the door, can still be seen.

Parapets

100With the arrival of the Muslims in the Deccan, parapets were considerably improved, offering better protection to the defenders.

101At the top of the wall, behind the battlements, the chemin-de-ronde is a continuous large gangway providing a means of communication behind the enclosure, usually accessible by staircases. It is at least from 3 to 4 m wide to provide, if necessary, an area for the cannons.

102Along this passageway, the walls are surmounted by battlements or parapets having a regular alternation of merlons and crenels. They are different from the elementary Hindu system of crenellation in which merlons are at the level for a man and do not protect him fully (at Warangal, they are 1.70 m high only, 70 cm wide and 45 cm thick). Military engineers made them higher and thicker (we measured some of them at each site).

103Regarding crenels, in some sites such as Bijapur or Gulbarga, they have the shape of rectangular notches, free from obstruction; in other ones, these openings are partly filled in and the infilling pierced by loopholes with sills descending from inside to outside (in Bidar), or by a series of small rectangular holes one on top of the other (in Golkonda), or by large rectangular openings (in Bijapur citadel and Parenda).

104Merlons are pointed; they are built of random rubble or stone blocks (photos 98 & 99), they are, at least 2 m high, 2 m wide and 1 m thick. The highest are found at Basava Kalyana and Parenda (2.75 m); the widest at Parenda (3.20 m!), the thickest at Gulbarga (1.95 m for Bala Hisar). They are systematically pierced by loopholes for the discharge of missiles or musketry.

105We have the plans of some of them measured by S. Toy at Bidar and Bijapur (fig. 16).41 In Bijapur the merlons are pierced by a single loophole on the inner face which in its passage outwards breaks into two branches, one going straight through the merlon and the other descending far down on the outer face; in Bidar, they are slightly different: often there are two tiers of loopholes, one going straight through with two divergent firing axes and the other, lower down, descending to an opening far down the wall face. This means that from the merlons horizontal firing as well as plunging fire were possible, thus permitting to batter or pound repeatedly the attackers.

106Below the merlons, the lower parts of the parapets are provided with various openings, which are not made on the same pattern.

107Mention has been made of those made in the infilling of the crenels (as found in Bidar); now, large rectangular holes intended for cannons are found below merlons at Bidar (photo 100), on the polylobed towers of Golkonda and Naldurga; on the western side of Bidar fort, these openings are very large rectangular holes, window-shaped; at Mudugal they are round-arched rectangular apertures (photo 101).

Pl. XXI. Parapets (A)

Pl XXII. Parapets (B)

Pl. XXIII. Parapets (C)

Pl XXIV. Parapets (D)

108But these large openings for cannon are relatively rare in the forts of the southern Deccan of the 15th and 16th centuries. On the other hand, they are found in great numbers in the strongholds of northern Deccan of a later period such as Ahmadnagar (photos 102) and in Maratha fortifications.42 They are also seen on the square towers of Gandikota (photos 103 & 104).

109At Daulatabad such holes, but of smaller dimensions, are seen on some of the battlements of the second enclosure; on the large towers erected to the north and north-east of the first enclosure which are obviously posterior to the other ones, we find, below each merlon, a square hole and a large oblique loophole pointing downwards intended for musket fire (photo 105).

110At Mudugal are found perhaps the most sophisticated types of apertures. On the high towers of the main enclosure, merlons are pierced by several holes arranged in two tiers; in the upper one are two or three holes going straight through the parapet and, in the lower one, holes with sills descending rapidly from inside to outside, sometimes alternating with round-arched rectangular apertures (photos 106, 107 & 108); on the fausse-braye, similar openings are seen on the merlons, except that, in the lower parts, sometimes, circular holes with a vertical sighting slit above the opening are found instead of the holes pointing downards which are then found in the embrasures between the merlons (photo 109). These various devices combine with elaborate box machicolations, as will be seen infra.

111At some sites such as Solapur, Basava Kalyana, Daulatabad, Mudugal, we find parapets adapted to European artillery, probably dating from the Maratha period (second half of the 18th century). These are massive rectangular structures, having on the outer face a straight (photos 110, 111, 113) or rounded (photo 112) sloping profile, internally splayed to allow the gun to be swung through a greater arc, thus increasing its field of fire.

112It is difficult to classify all the types of apertures found in the different sites, because our survey is incomplete. The main thing to note is that when gunpowder and firearms became widespread, battlements were modified in such a way that defenders could fire upon attackers through openings of different forms and sizes while obtaining protection from the returned enemy fire behind the merlons.

113To this should be added a new element: box machicolations.

Box Machicolations

114To ensure the vertical flanking of these high walls and towers, a particular device was adopted in the kingdoms of the Deccan. It is a small overhanging turret, jutting out from the crests of curtain walls, towers or gates, provided with machicolations (openings in the floor). We know that this contrivance was meant to throw down missiles onto the enemy below and also for hindering the operations of sappers at the base.

115It is strange to note that, in this part of India, only this device has been adopted in most of the fortifications and not the long and narrow projecting gallery on corbels with such openings (machicolation), as found in the castles of Medieval Europe. As far as 1 know, the only example of machicolation (projecting gallery) in the Deccan, is found at Bhongir, about 50 km to the east of Haidarabad, built out from the parapet and towers of the old fortress renovated by the Muslims.43

116These box machicolations are found, alternating with the merlons, on the arched gates and their flanking towers, also on the curtain walls and adjacent towers of the main enclosures at spots considered sensitive; but it is mostly on the battlements of the raonī or fausses-brayes that they have been systematically built at regular intervals in places such as Basava Kalyana, Parenda, Solapur, and Mudugal (where from outside they look as if they are trimmed with lace).

Their Shapes

117As all the defensive works have undergone considerable modifications, there are variations in the shape of box machicolations corresponding to outside influences; however, at each site, they follow broadly the same pattern.

118- At Golkonda, Bidar and Bijapur, they look like projecting merlons supported by corbelled arches; the inner part consists of a rectangular room intended to protect the defender above the corbels with rectangular or square gaps for plunging fire.

119The corbels or brackets of stone are usually produced by three extending successive courses of masonry and their number varies from place to place, without any uniformity at each site: at Golkonda (photo 114), they are three in number with S-curved projections decorated with moldings; at Bidar (photo 115), they are three, with fiat moldings and at Bijapur, two only. Above the arched gates, they are more numerous: at Bidar, on the Carnatic Darwazah, they are four in number supporting a large turret; at Talghat Darwazah and Mangalpet Darwazah (photo 116) they are eight; at both places, they look like short machicolated galleries.

120- At Naldurga (photo 117), these structures are at the level of the chemin-de-ronde and are more simple: they are ordinary rectangular turrets, supported by two corbels.

121- At Basava Kalyana (photo 118), they are constructions on three corbels with sloping roof, almost square in plan.

122- At Parenda, they take the shape of elongated merlons on three corbels with curved moldings (photos 119 & 120), above the second and third gates and also on the eastern rampart, they are larger, with two and three arched openings and wide gaps pierced in the floor (photo 121).

123- At Daulatabad, the rare turrets found on the towers of the second enclosure have the shape of those seen at Parenda and Basava Kalyana (photos 122 & 123).

124- At Gulbarga, on a postern, there is a structure, having the shape of a large merlon, suported by four rough-hewn corbels (photos 124 & 125).

125- At Solapur, different types of boxes are found on the fausse-braye, some, merlon-shaped (photo 129), others taking the form of rectangular turrets (photo 128), and also crude constructions, polygonal in shape, with a rounded top, and supported by brackets made of successive courses of stone blocks (photos 126 & 127).

Pl. XXV. Box machicolations (A)

PL XXVI. Box machicolations (B)

PL XXVII. Box machicolations (C)

Pl. XXVIII. Box machicolations (D)

126- At Gandikota, two types of turrets are found: on the quadrangular towers they are merlon-shaped with a rounded top and are supported by brackets (photo 130); on the curtain walls of a later period, they are large structures, semi-elliptical in shape, 3.25 m high and 2.20 m wide, supported by 4 corbels, leaving 3 gaps on the floor for plunging fire (photos 131 & 132).

127- At Mudugal, on the large towers of the main enclosure, these boxes look like projecting merlons supported by two corbels, but, instead of multiple opening in the floor, as in other forts, they are provided with a single hole descending rapidly far down on the outer face of the wall (photos 106 & 107). On the fausse-braye, we see the same turrets between merlons on some towers, but usually we find, on the towers and curtain walls, overhanging rectangular turrets, jutting out from the merlons supported by two or three corbels produced by three extending successive courses of masonry and also provided with the same type of holes pointing downwards (photos 133 & 134). This elaborate defence system obviously increased the fire power of the battlements.

128However, in some sites, there are isolated constructions, having a similar function, but of a very peculiar design

Stone hoods

129We have to mention, first, strange protuberances, open at the bottom overlooking the ditch built at Bijapur, on the western side of the enclosure of the citadel (photo 135), obviously for defence of the man firing through it.

130Then, on the forts of Bijapur, Gulbarga and Daulatabad, there are small works projecting from the merlons, their inner part is a rectangular (firing) room; their outer part is supported by two stone brackets arranged in a triangle, forming a gap through which projectiles or liquids could be thrown onto the base of the walls. We measured one of them at Gulbarga: the rectangular opening on the inner face is 1.45 m high, 2.1 m wide and 1.6 m thick; the triangular projecting part is 60 cm (photo 137). As they look like hoods, S. Toy refers to them as stone hoods.44 We mentioned supra, at Solapur, similar constructions supported by brackets (photos 126 & 127).

131It is significant to note on which parts of the fortifications they are found:

• at Bijapur, they are noticed on the eastern part of the citadel, not only on curtain walls but also on towers;

• at Gulbarga, they are the only structures projecting from the curtain walls and, on the south and west sides of the main enclosure, they are found, at 8 or 9 merlons intervals, still in a good condition; they are also seen on the fausse-braye;

• at Daulatabad (photo 138), these turrets are seen on the first enclosure (or Ambarkot) only, at 5 or 6 merlons intervals;

• at Solapur, they are noticed on the fausse-braye only.

132Elsewhere, they are exceptionally seen: we found one above a gate at Basava Kalyana and another one on a wall of the citadel of Golkonda.

Pl. XXIX. Box machicolations (E): stone hoods

133At the first three sites, apparently, this type of defence work was built all along the curtain walls.

Development of machicolation in India

134Obviously, these works appear to have been the prototypes of the box machicolations projected out on corbels that we have described. This raises the problem of the origins of machicolation in India. It seems that these structures were built at a period prior to the use of gunpowder, at a time when boiling pitch, stones, darts and other missiles were thrown down on the enemy below. Very likely,

• the curtain walls of the first enclosure of Daulatabad (not the towers dating from a later period) were raised as soon as it became the metropolis of an empire in 1327;

• the Gulbarga main enclosure was built when it became the capital of the Bahmani kingdom in 1347;

• as for Bijapur citadel, it was constructed, according to inscriptions, between the end of the 15th and the first quarter of the 16th century.

135This means that stone hoods were built when firearms were not yet widespread in the Deccan.

136Now, regarding the true box machicolations, it would be interesting to see whether any evolution can be perceived in the different types of works and give us a clue to date the enclosures. Unfortunately, it is not possible because new patterns might have been adopted while renovating much older constructions.

137In North India, box machicolations are rarely seen on fortifications but, in the Deccan, they have been profusely built on most of the strongholds and played a great role in the defensive systems. We wonder in which part of the world they might have originated. Could it be the Middle East?

Evolution of the Crusades and of Islamic Military Architecture in the Middle East

138We know that in this region a clear line of continuity can be followed from the Greco-Roman and Byzantine military architecture to the Muslim period and that the defensive system underwent its fullest development in the 12th-13th century.45

139Regarding flanking towers, rounded structures, already found in Central Asia at the beginning of the Christian era46 and in Roman military architecture,47 were built during this period in several sites along with quadrangular work. These semicircular or circular towers, particularly those of the Mamluks in the last third of the 13th century,48 could have been used as models by the Indian engineers.

140Another main development in the Muslim fortifications was the spread of the bent entrance, already known to the Byzantines in the 6th century, based on a door built in the flank of a tower whose access to the inner courtyard is opened in the rear of the tower.49 May be, there is a link between this type of entrance which became a defensive feature of the Islamic military architecture (used largely in the citadels of Cairo, Aleppo, Damascus) and the intricate gateways of the Deccan forts.

141Finally, for vertical flanking, the spread of box machicolations, borrowed from Greco-Roman and Byzantine constructions, is observed in most of the sites in Frankish Syria and in Islamic fortifications. This concern for complete shooting is a permanent feature of the Islamic military architecture.50 Probably this device was imported to South India by Arab and Turkish engineers (at the same time as various methods of gun-casting, as will be seen infra). On the other hand, stone hoods seem to have originated locally.

A Vast Field of Research

142This brief presentation of the different elements of fortification in the Deccan kingdoms gives evidence of the excellence of the military technology, of the devices developed with consumate skill by engineers to improve the flanking of the various works, which show an amazing knowledge in the art of war, considering the level of the siege engines of the period.

143But our survey has only touched on the subject. At Bidar, to restrict ourselves to this example, we have given an outline of this plateau, gashed by a dissymetrical depression, cut in two by a rocky spur towards the north; we have mentioned that this lower part, the most difficult to defend, was provided with a double enclosure, joining at both extremities, the curtain walls of the main rampart, situated above an escarpment through a series of rocky projections, crowned with sophisticated battlements; we have finally described these fantastic gates in succession tumbling down off the steep slope, passing on rocky outcrops lined with one or two walls and running, through tunnels, into the ditch, simple or triple, excavated deeply in the rock and almost impassable.

144This extraordinary achievement-perhaps the most beautiful example of defence in Indiadeserves more than a superficial observation. Certainly the studies by G. Yazdani are remarkable from the viewpoint of architecture and epigraphy, his plan of the town, invaluable, but the most complex and the most instructive military works have not been analysed; they are today buried under pricky shrub and cannot be investigated properly. Other sites fitted with original defence devices also call for careful attention. They should be the subjects of systematic investigations by the Archaeological Survey of India or the State Departments of Archaeology. These institutions should send teams of surveyors and draftsmen to these sites, as we did for Senji Fort in the Tamil country.51

145But the monographs we expect from these observations should not be mere architectural descriptions such as those of G. Yazdani or H. Cousens; they should establish the typology of the works considering the different elements of the fortification and taking into account the evolution of military technology, particularly the development of artillery. It would then be possible to define properly the different systems of fortification in India.

Conclusion

146In conclusion, it would be gratifying to examine the problem of fortification in the southern Deccan on a larger plane and put it back in the context of a comprehensive study of South Indian History. How to explain this extraordinary blossoming of fortifications in this part of India?

147The great advances made in military architecture are not due to the whims of fate. There are several reasons for this evolution.

Architectural Revolution in the Beginning of the 16th Century

148First, in the Deccan kingdoms, since the Bahmanis (middle of the 14th century), it seems that peoples’attitudes have changed, that they became aware of the importance of community works, with enlightened princes, concerned with a certain monumental order (as shown by the various studies carried out on civil and religious architecture and hydraulic works52), and having also, greater economic and military preoccupations. To this should be added the active participation of the great and rich notables in financing and supervising the works.

149A man such as Mahmud Gawan, in the second half of the 15th century, in charge of so many architectural projects, had a new notion of the State which did not disappear with him, since in Bijapur after the army of Ali Adil Shah I returned from Vijayanagara loaded with booty, the nobles, at the king’s request, agreed to take part in building the town enclosure (about 10 km), to divide the work up among themselves and to share the expenses.53 There again, the monarch, to implement his design, could rely on a talented engineer, Kishwar Khan. Moreover, among the Deccan kingdoms, Bijapur appears to have been the most active in this respect, since according to inscriptions it played a capital role in the renovation of the forts of Gulbarga, Basava Kalyana, Naldurga and Mudugal.

150The second reason is that these princes never remained isolated, but always managed to have close and regular relations with the Muslims of the Near East who had reached a high level in military technology.

151It is true that Arabs, after having assimilated and improved Roman and Byzantine techniques, were also aware of the practises used in Europe, following the contacts they had with the Crusaders. As for the Ottoman Turks, in the middle of the 15th century, they had become expert in the manufacture of firing engines (they used them during the siege of Constantinople).54

152It is known that, throughout their history, the Muslims of South India many of whom had come from the Near East,55 called on scholars, men of letters and artists from Iraq, Iran and Turkey.56 What is not as known is the fact that they recruited also a great number of technicians to modernize their states. Thus Arab and Turk engineers experts in cast-bronze artillery came to teach their art to the Deccanis.

153G. Yazdani57 points out that, in inscriptions from the 16th and 17th centuries, it is specifically mentioned that the persons in charge of artillery were generally Turks. The famous gigantic gun of Bijapur, Malik-i-Maidan, was cast at Ahmadnagar in 1549 by a Muhammad, son of Hasan Rumi (i.e. Turk).58 At the fort of Qandhar, in 1590, the man responsible for the maintenance of towers was a gunner named Aqa Rumi.59 Finally, at Golkonda, the four guns with inscriptions, manufactured between 1666 and 1679, are all attributed to a certain Muhammad Ali Arab (two are wrought-iron cannons and two cast-bronze cannons, among which is the artistically decorated Azhdaha Paikar).60 It is thus clearly demonstrated that these migrations of technicians from the Near East have greatly contributed to the spreading of firearms in the Deccan. As a result significant advances were made in the development of armament. From the middle of the 16th century onwards, because of the ever-growing importance of artillery, defence systems were modified.

154The chief concern of military engineers was to secure the best possible combination of fields of fire for their own forces, while hampering the enemy’s deployment of his guns.

155In the sites where fortresses existed, they did not destroy them but tried to adapt them to the new war conditions, particularly at the battlement level. This process lasted for a long period, as will be shown in the following chapter. At Mudugal and Golkonda, new structures were added to the parapets of the citadel; in the southern part of the peninsula, in Tamilnadu, at Senji (Gingee), on the second enclosure built before firearms were in use, the Nayakas modified the shape of the towers which became semicircular, and the Bijapuris transformed two of them in powerful platforms. But, at other sites in the Deccan, they built fortifications entirely based on these new principles.

Principle of the High Command

156The last question which could be asked is why Indian military engineers continued building such high enclosures which remind us of European Medieval fortifications and never considered, with the progress of artillery, lowering the curtain walls and the towers to reduce the surface exposed to missiles and to minimize their impact, as it was done in Europe, where the defence works consisted mainly of trenches and low extended parapets.

157In the Deccan kingdoms, if the rulers continued to build high towers and even to raise ancient structures, it is probably because they thought that their masonry-faced walls, heavily banked behind with earth, could withstand artillery. European engineers at the end of the 18th century were aware of the fact that it was difficult to make breaches in these works strengthened with a wide mound of earth. Regarding the mud used in the ramparts, the British general Lake61 says that “battering guns” are not efficient “for such is the nature of these earthen revetments that the shots bury and lodge themselves in the mud without bringing it down” and, as regards the stone of the enclosures, he specifies that “shots are apt to be reflected from [the towers], owing to their circular form and the hardness of the material of which they are built”.

158This system, based on the accumulation and the great size of the obstacles opposed to assailants, was not an innovation in this country since in Ancient India it was already considered the best protection, as seen in chapter 1.