South Asian Archaeology 2007

Proceedings of the 19th Meeting of the European Association of South Asian Archaeology

in Ravenna, Italy, July 2007

Volume II

Historic Periods

Edited by

Pierfrancesco Callieri Luca Colliva

BAR International Series 2133 2010

Published by Archaeopress Publishers of British Archaeological Reports Gordon House 276 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7ED England bar@archaeopress.com www.archaeopress.com BAR S2133 South Asian Archaeology 2007, Volume II: Historic Periods’ Proceedings of the 19th Meeting of the European Association of South Asian Archaeology in Ravenna, Italy, July 2007 Volume II: © Archaeopress and the individual authors 2010 ISBN 978 1 4073 0674 2 Cover image: Sculpture from Butkara I (Swat, Pakistan), inv. no. B 6000 (Drawing F. Martore, courtesy IsIAO). Printed in England by CMP (UK) Ltd All BAR titles are available from: Hadrian Books Ltd 122 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7BP England bar@hadrianbooks.co.uk The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com

327

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

Robert Simpkins

Following the death of Shihabu’d-din Mahmud Shah in AD 1518, the Bahmani Empire of the Deccan fragmented into five independent polities. One of these was based at Golconda, capital of the Telingana province, and governed by Sultan-Quli Qutb’ul-Mulk. Sultan-Quli, as an independent ruler, became the first of a dynasty of eight rulers to control a large part of the central and eastern Deccan. After his son Ibrahim adopted the title Qutb Shah in AD 1550, they became known as the Qutb Shahi Dynasty (Sherwani 1971). In this paper, the polity over which the dynasty maintained control until its end in AD 1687 will be referred to as the Golconda Kingdom. Research on the Golconda Kingdom has been based on historical, epigraphic, and archaeological/architectural sources, including periodic efforts to synthesize all data to that point (Siddiqui 1956; Sherwani 1971; Nayeem 2006). These works, although laudable, reveal several shortcomings in the existing research. Among them are: 1) a lack of attention to the stylistic evolution of architecture, resulting in errors in the dating of some structures; 2) neglect of minor and ruined structures that can be associated with Kingdom on basis of stylistic criteria, creating a biased corpus and misrepresentative patterns of geographic distribution; 3) neglect of structures outside the capital, and a general lack of exploration for such structures. The situation with respect to the Bahmani Empire and its successors differs significantly from the attitude toward earlier kingdoms in the Deccan, in which detailed records and surveys are made of sites, ruins, and inscriptions. This difference in perception is not simply chronological, because far more interest has been generated in the monuments of the Mughal Empire, throughout their geographic distribution. It is most likely a reflection of a modern bias against the Deccan Sultanates, which are seen both as less legitimate subjects of archaeological research than earlier periods, and not as interesting as larger, or perhaps more famous kingdoms, both to the north and south. My own research since 2003 has attempted to rectify some of these biases, and emphasize the place of the surviving, standing architecture of the Golconda Kingdom in creating or testing hypotheses about the evolution of the kingdom. Proper use of this category of data required three efforts: 1) creation of a single, authoritative list of reported structures from a combination of historical sources and epigraphic and archaeological reports; 2) evaluation of the sources from new, empirical observation of the sites themselves; and 3) exploration of additional, ‘high probability’ sites or areas to determine the presence or absence of additional,

previously unreported structures. The outcome of these efforts has been the production of a single updated, verified data-base of surviving structures associated with the kingdom linked to an archive of digital photos, GPS locations and, where possible, high-resolution satellite imagery. Roads and Routes Of particular interest within the data set of the Golconda Kingdom I developed during my research are structures that occur along the major roads in use during the kingdom’s existence. Of course, all structures in use during a given period are linked to each other in some way; these connections are often assumed, and are only the subject of archaeological investigation inconsistently - most commonly, among those polities where the roads are highly developed, such as the Roman Empire, the ‘Silk Road’ under the Han and Tang Dynasties, and in India, among the Mughals. In all these examples, the empire behind the roads may be described as ‘highly integrated’ in Carla Sinopoli’s terminology (Sinopoli 1994). The bias in existing research toward the study of roads only among ‘highly integrated’ empires leads to a neglect of other kinds of polities, and other forms of integration among sites and territories. In the context of South Asian archaeology, a monumental effort to correct this bias was initiated by Jean Deloche (1993), but is still not standard. Understanding the road network of a polity is important not only because it reveals the individual places of significance within that polity’s territory, but also the specific paths by which those places were connected. Knowing the paths is significant, because places located along paths between major nodes on a network are likely to contain evidence of the traffic they supported, such as by providing goods and services, as well as the economic consequences that come from fortuitous location. A newly developed road between major locations will reflect this, for example, in the form of buildings that date to the period in which the road came under increased or new use. In this paper, a road is defined as any path between two sites of cultural activity. A route is a specific path between sites favoured during one or more periods over other possible roads. A road network is the total system of roads and routes within a polity, or even over a larger region, that defines the extent of human movement and interaction. The subject of roads in the Golconda Kingdom has been addressed in other recent historical syntheses (Sherwani 1971; Deloche 1993), although these accounts are primarily based upon contemporary historical accounts,

Robert Simpkins

328

particularly those of European travellers like Jean-Baptiste Tavernier. Such accounts are presumed to focus on the primary, or trunk roads in use during the Qutb Shahi Dynasty, which in the context of this paper would be considered the routes favoured at the time. There are problems with the use of these accounts, including: 1) the acceptance of the source as authoritative; 2) the assumption that the route the author used is a standard one; 3) the tendency of modern historians to use multiple accounts from different periods to build up a single image of the kingdom throughout its history, or to use an account from one period as a proxy for other periods during which evidence is lacking. This is especially significant with the use of the European accounts, in which the majority of them date to the later decades of the dynasty, during the rule of Abdullah (AD 1626-72) and Abul Hasan Qutb Shah (AD 1672-87). The consequence is to homogenize the kingdom, rather than see it as an evolving, adapting socio-economic system. It is unlikely that over the one hundred and sixty-nine years of the kingdom’s existence the same routes were in use, supported or patronized in the same way. These problems can be rectified in part through a more critical examination of and organization of existing evidence, but this does not resolve the bias in data caused by the neglect of minor and ruined structures, and the lack of archaeological survey work for structures of this period outside the capital alluded to previously. Only by examining the evidence along the roads themselves and the changes in that evidence throughout the kingdom’s duration, does a clearer picture emerge of the kingdom’s history, and its changing pattern of integration as reflected in its road network. Evidence of Standing Architecture along Golconda Kingdom Roads The evidence of standing architecture along Golconda Kingdom roads can be discussed according to three categories: A) typology, B) chronology, and C) geography. Each of these is discussed in detail below.

A - Typology

Prior to more extensive exploration of the Golconda Kingdom’s road network in 2006 and 2007, my early expectations for the types of architectural remains I might encounter were based upon a combination of previous historical and archaeological writings (principally Bilgrami 1927; Yusuf 1953; Sherwani 1974; Shorey 1984; Desai 1989), and personal observations from a brief visit to Andhra Pradesh made in 2003. From this, I expected evidence from the kingdom’s rulers along their roads to take three major forms: 1) caravanserai; 2) mosques; and 3) kos minar, each of which are explained below. Caravanserai associated with the kingdom had already been reported from several locations around the capital. A large structure in the village of Sheikhpet, north of Golconda Fort, had been described in previous literature

as a serai (Reddy-Pringle 2003), as had another structure in the village of Hayatnagar, on the eastern border of modern Hyderabad (Reddy 2003). These two structures are quite different, with one (Sheikhpet) having a long row of rooms in a block with two levels, and the other (Hayatnagar) having a rectangular enclosure or quadrangle around a central plaza. This immediately suggested at least two major designs or types - referred to here as block and quadrangle - to compare to other structures found in explorations. A third example known within Hyderabad is the enclosure associated with the mosque of Miyan Mishk, located on the northern end of the Purana Pul, the bridge built by Ibrahim Qutb Shah in AD 1578 across the Musi River. This enclosure is somewhat irregular in shape, but is attested as a serai from historical sources and contains rooms facing the central area, although it is smaller than the other examples (Sherwani 1971). Historical accounts by European travellers refer to serai, but do not generally describe them in sufficient detail to be certain of the diversity of architectural designs that they might have. Mosques in the ‘Qutb Shahi’ style are the most common and easily identifiable form of architecture associated with the kingdom, and are abundant within the capital. Although there are mosques associated with the serai at Sheikhpet and Hayatnagar, there are additional mosques in other locations not associated with other extant architecture, but likely to indicate former stopping points on roads, or even vanished villages. Based on my 2003 visit, I was aware of at least three along the National Highway 9 between Hyderabad and Vijayawada past Hayatnagar, and expected more along this, and potentially other roads. Also unclear was the precise dating of the mosques. Kos minar are a category of architecture with a clear association with roads, since their primary function is to serve as road markers. Kos minar are well-known in Northern India, dating to the time of the Mughal Empire, but their existence in the Deccan is not widely recognized (Deloche 1993). According to Deloche, based on historical accounts and personal observations, kos minar in the Deccan are only found on the route between Hyderabad and Masulipatnam, the port in the delta region of Andhra Pradesh (Deloche 1986, 1993). Deloche was of the opinion that these road markers must date to the 18th century and time of Mughal occupation, since they are mentioned in the accounts of Europeans in the region at that time, but not in the 17th century AD, widely-known accounts of Jean-Baptiste Tavernier (Ball 1995) and Jean de Thevenot (Sen 1949). They are clearly referred to in the account of Dutch VOC employee Daniel Havart, who visited the region multiple times during the reign of the final Qutb Shahi ruler, Abul Hasan, and as such they must date to no later than the 1670s; defining a more precise date or period for their construction is one of the goals of this project. Havart reports that as one travels to the kingdom from the port city of Machilipatnam, they first appear on each side of the road after the village of Oepul, and then are found at regular intervals for the rest of the journey to Hyderabad (Havart 1693).

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

329

It is possible that other categories of structures exist, but in the absence of inscriptions or diagnostic stylistic elements, their attribution to a specific period may be difficult. Although space does not permit a detailed discussion of the results of my explorations in various locations within Andhra Pradesh, in general, I verified the continued presence of several known structures, and identified several additional structures associated with the kingdom on the basis of stylistic criteria, as well as a large number of other structures of potential interest but either of unclear date or possessing diagnostic elements clearly pre-dating or post-dating the kingdom. 1 - Caravanserai Structures similar to those found at Sheikhpet and Hayatnagar were found in several locations. Although their precise function as a serai cannot be established with certainty, reasoning by way of analogy, at least two other structures can be compared to the ‘block’ type of serai, and three others can be compared to the ‘quadrangle’ type. The block type was also found with a mosque just outside the northern part of the enclosure for the royal necropolis area. It is on land owned by the Department of Archaeology and Museums, Government of Andhra Pradesh, and thus is known to local archaeologists, but is not listed in publications, and is not obvious to visitors of the tombs due to obstructions. Here it will be referred to as the ‘Qutb Shahi tombs serai’. A very similar serai, also with an attached but larger mosque, was found in a remote portion of Nalgonda district south of Suriapet. This location has no nearby settlements, and is located along unpaved paths. It may be the location referred to by Thevenot as Sarchel-Quipentche, identified by Sherwani as Sirkipeta (Sherwani 1971: 581). The village of Sirikipeta is listed on US Army Corps of Engineers 1954 maps in a location consistent with Thevenot and Ball’s description, but in the present day, no village can be found at this location. There is only a large mosque in the Qutb Shahi style, adjacent to which is a block type caravanserai. It will be referred to here as the ‘Sirikipeta serai’. The quadrangle type serai has analogous structures found within Hyderabad itself in the Karwan area, enclosing the Kulthumpura mosque, and in the Old City area at Dar Ush shifa. The former, although within the city itself, is in a suburb of Hyderabad on the road one used to pass between the fort area and the old city, and where merchants are known to have stayed while doing business in the city. The latter, according to historical tradition, was built as a hospital during the time Hyderabad was first erected under the reign of Muhammad-Quli, but reportedly functioned as a serai as well (Sherwani 1971). In addition, far to the south at the fortress of Gandikota in Cuddapah District, a substantial and well-preserved quadrangle enclosed another mosque in the Qutb Shahi style. The mosque is mentioned in some publications (Michell & Zebrowski 2000), but the enclosure is not.

2 - Mosques Over one hundred Qutb Shahi-style mosques were identified in the course of my research, at least half of which do not appear in other records examined of Qutb Shahi architecture. Approximately three-quarters of these were within the Greater Hyderabad area (the extent of modern Hyderabad city and its suburbs), but in the era of the Golconda Kingdom, some of these were beyond the strongly nucleated areas of settlement, and may reflect formerly outlying villages, or stopping points on roads leading outside of the city. Nevertheless, once one gets beyond this core area, Qutb Shahi style mosques are rare in the territory of the Golconda Kingdom. In terms of those located in places that might imply an ‘official’ route, one only finds such a sequence of structures along the road leading east from the city to Machilipatnam. They occur with some regularity along the current National Highway 9, such as at the aforementioned Hayatnagar, and subsequently at Toofranpet, Almaspet, and Choutappal. After this point, on the modern highway, nothing is found from the Golconda Kingdom for some distance, which is consistent with the European itineraries. The road in that era appears to have turned south, toward Panagal and Nalgonda, before turning east again, eventually reconnecting with the modern highway near the village of Goojaluru (Thevenot’s Gougelou, identified by Sherwani as Gurglur). Panagal does contain a Qutb Shahi mosque, and another occurs east of it just before the Musi River at Amangala, consistent with Thevenot and Havart’s route. Not far across the river is the aforementioned mosque at Sirikipeta. Although a small number of other early mosques are known as one continues toward the delta, none are unambiguously in the Qutb Shahi style, and some may be just before or just after the Golconda Kingdom’s era. In addition, inscriptions suggest at least a few more structures were once extant, but have not survived, such as at Guduru and Machilipatnam itself (Desai 1989). In the Machilipatnam and delta region, the effects of severe monsoons have generally impacted early examples of standing architecture, including a major one in AD 1800 (Arasaratnam & Ray 1994), which may have destroyed or increased the damage to Golconda Kingdom monuments in this area. 3 - Kos minar Consistent with the account of Daniel Havart, kos minar beyond the Greater Hyderabad area are only found along the Hyderabad-Machilipatnam road (modern NH9). No evidence of kos minar was found beyond the point of this road noted by Deloche in his 1986 study (Deloche 1986), which is consistent with Havart’s contemporary account. The only specific kos minar observed in my explorations on this road were already noted by Deloche in 1986. I did locate one pair of kos minar not in Deloche’s report, however, found within Hyderabad itself. This pair is in the Gudi Malkapur neighbourhood, in the midst of a modern shanty town and not far from the later temple of Jham Singh; this is likely to be the same pair noted by Sherwani as being in the Kulthumpura area (Sherwani 1971: 445). This location is surprising, and may have

Robert Simpkins

330

implications for dating the kos minar, which are not mentioned in any indigenous sources to my knowledge.

B - Chronology

None of the structures discussed from my explorations can be dated by inscription - none were identified, although more detailed examination of the sites and interviewing of local populations is still required. Some, such as the quadrangle at Gandikota, can be roughly dated by inference from historical accounts of activity at the site - Tavernier visited the fort in AD 1652, and shortly after its conquest by Abdullah’s Mir Jumla Muhammad Said, associated with the expansion into the Karnatic region in this period (Ball 1995; Sherwani 1971). Most, however, can only be dated by comparison with other structures whose dates are known from inscriptions or unambiguous historical reference. Although a more detailed statistical analysis of diagnostic stylistic elements is planned as part of this project, at this writing it has not yet been completed. In general, however, comparison with other structures suggest that the mosques at Toofranpet, Almaspet, Choutappal, Sirikipeta, are likely to date to the 17th century in general, and are best compared to other structures dated to the period between the 1630s and 1650s. This is significant, because this is the period in the reign of Abdullah Qutb Shah after his coming of age (his mother, Hayat Bakshi Begum, ruled on his behalf from AD 1626 to AD 1632, after the early death of her husband, Muhammad Qutb Shah), and during which time the kingdom was wealthy but subject to a ‘deed of submission’ under the Mughal Empire signed in AD 1636. Further conflict after AD 1656 caused Abdullah to retreat to Golconda Fort, which had been largely unused after the construction of the new capital of Hyderabad in AD 1591. It is worth noting, however, that there is little clear evidence of the Qutb Shahi style during the reign of Muhammad Qutb Shah, beyond the unfinished Mecca Masjid and his own tomb. Features found on a structure from the 1630s might, therefore reflect a style that developed in the 1620s, for which no known examples survive. In this context, the assertion of Havart that the mosque at Almaspet was built by Muhammad Qutb Shah is significant (Havart 1693). The presence of the kos minar along the same road as these mosques might suggest that they are contemporary. There is nothing in their style that demonstrates a clear connection to these mosques, however, other than the fact that tall minarets on Qutb Shahi mosques, which are much the same as the kos minar themselves, are not found on any dated mosque in this region before the reign of Muhammad-Quli Qutb Shah (AD 1580-1611). In fact, one such mosque found at Mirpet, dated to AD 1610, as well as a few other, undated examples, has simple minarets of this sort, without the projecting arcaded galleries found on most other Qutb Shahi-style mosques (Michell & Zebrowski 2000). On those kos minar where

the plaster decoration survives, the only clue as to style is in the presence of a single row of simple petals along the bottom of the minaret dome. Many mosques contain a double-row of petals below the minaret domes, but the domes over the tombs of the early rulers of the dynasty, Sultan-Quli, Ibrahim, and Muhammad-Quli have a similar single row of petals. We can at least hypothesize, then, that the likely earliest date for the kos minar is the reign of Muhammad-Quli, although another date cannot be eliminated.

C - Geography If we return again to the significance of the pair of kos minar in the Gudi Malkapur neighbourhood of Hyderabad, we can ask why they would have been placed along this particular road. From their location, this road appears to lead, heading southeast, to the Purana Pul bridge built by Ibrahim Qutb Shah in AD 1578, and used subsequently to cross the Musi River to the new capital of Hyderabad after AD 1591. Heading northwest, it appears to lead to the Qutb Shahi tombs complex or just north of it, in the eventual direction of Bidar, the later capital of the Bahmanis and their successors there, the Barid Shahis. This is significant because most later accounts assume that the main 17th century AD route through this part of the city passed through the Karwan suburb, along which numerous Qutb Shahi-style buildings can be seen today, including the Toli Masjid, dated by inscription to AD 1671, and a smaller nearby mosque dated to AD 1633. These two dates fall within the reign of Abdullah. In contrast, the road on which the kos minar are found contains no such monuments from this ruler’s reign. The only Qutb Shahi-style building that might be associated with this road in the vicinity of the kos minar is a small, dilapidated mosque in the earlier style consistent with the reign of Ibrahim or possibly the early reign of Muhammad-Quli (i.e., between AD 1550 and 1590). If the kos minar are associated with the reign of Abdullah, as Sherwani (1971: 445) suggests, it seems strange that there would be no other structures on this road from his reign, particularly as this is the road that would appear to lead into the capital from the west. It is equally strange that the Karwan road, roughly parallel and just to the south, which links Hyderabad to Golconda Fort, would have mosques dating to Abdullah’s reign, but not the kos minar. This discrepancy, combined with the features of the petals on the kos minar that imply an earlier date, suggest that the kos minar themselves may pre-date Abdullah’s reign. Because the road on which they are found does not appear to be linked to the fort, but rather passes north of it, and just north of the area of the royal tombs as well, it seems unlikely that the markers are in any way connected to the fort’s period of use. This means they are most likely from the period in between the fort’s two main eras of use, i.e. between AD 1591 and AD 1656. If they are additionally not associated with Abdullah’s reign, this further reduces the range to the period between AD 1591 and AD 1626, or during the reigns of Muhammad-Quli and Muhammad.

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

331

Of all the structures discussed, only one falls outside this main east-west route through the capital - the quadrangle and mosque within Gandikota Fort, clearly associated with a specific and dated historical event. The remaining structures, however display stylistic variation, even when - in the case of mosques and serai - their function is the same. Only the kos minar are identical, strongly implying that they were all conceived and constructed in a short time span under a single plan. The other structures are more likely to have accumulated over time. But collectively, they demonstrate a strong interest in the patronage of this primary route through the kingdom, and a consistency in the use of that route over time. Conclusions Although the rulers and other elites of the Golconda Kingdom were responsible for a variety of structures found within their territory, evidence for those found along roads in a pattern that suggests a route are rare. The locations of many sites and their known historical significance suggests that traffic must have passed along the roads between there and the capital or other important centres, but the evidence in the form of standing architecture - so abundant in the capital - is not found. Although some structures in the style of the capital may have been lost to time, and some may continue to exist unidentified, the overall pattern suggests that such structures were simply not built. In this respect, the account of Thomas Bowrey, who visited the Golconda Kingdom in the 1670s, is enlightening:

One thinge more I must needs Mention for the honour and Praise all travelers ought to give it, (beinge what is it’s desert) I meane the Kingdome in General, through out which great care is taken both for the Safety wee Enjoy, and for relieve all travailers may have, which is first it is blessed with good and cleane Roades, and Upon Every common of aove 4 or 5 miles in length, there is built a Small house or two where, if the travailer is thirsty, a thinge frequent in these warme climates, he may have milke or Congy, which is water boyled very well with Some rice in it, at the King’s charge, and the people demand nothinge for it, but if any man will give them a penny or two, they have the wit to receive it very thankfully. Moreover, att Every 12 miles End a house or two, (accordinge as the Roade is frequented) are built and kept in repaire (att the King’s charges) for the conveniency of lodgings, for any comers or goes, the first come first Served, without any respect of Persons, which are fine conveniences for them, more Especially for that the Idolatrous people who inhabit most of the Countrey Villadges dare not admit of any of another Cast to enter their doors (Temple 1967: 117).

This account suggests that the Golconda rulers, or at least one of them, took a strong interest in providing for travellers along their roads. We cannot be sure if this description is true of all the routes in use at this time, but regardless, the evidence known today in terms of architecture in the style of the capital does not match this description. This means that a variety of structures were built which either have not been identified, or - and

probably more likely - do not survive because they were not built to survive, having been built in the vernacular style, such as with wood and mud brick as is common still today. Returning to the significance of the structures which do survive today, then, we cannot interpret them in a simple presence/absence way. Their presence does not simply indicate an ‘imperial’ presence, and their absence does not simply indicate a lack of an ‘imperial’ presence. Rather, their presence seems to imply something different, and perhaps of a more symbolic nature. Choosing to build deliberately in the ‘imperial’ style may have served the function of a political statement, serving multiple audiences (Bawa 2002). For residents of the capital itself, it was a further expression of the wealth and style of the city, reaching out into the distant countryside. For the residents of the outlying areas it was a reminder of the imperial presence and their connection to it. For long-distance traders, such as Europeans beginning in the reign of Muhammad-Quli, and increasing dramatically in the decades to come, it was both an introduction to the style to be found at the capital, an indication that they were on the right path, and an expression of power. In this sense, it is worth noting a journey undertaken by Abdullah in AD 1639. With what amounted to a travelling city of royalty, advisors, soldiers, and servants, Abdullah devoted two months to the round trip journey from Hyderabad to the port city of Machilipatnam and back. H. K. Sherwani, in describing the trip, interpreted its significance as follows:

The journey to Masulipatnam […] served the double purpose of showing the might of Haiderabad to the restive population of the east coast and exhibiting the magnificence and viability of the State to European factors (Sherwani 1971: 504)

Although such tours might be effective on a grand scale, they were also ephemeral. Monuments, however, were lasting, and made a similar statement to the population in each place in a more permanent way. What is significant for the Golconda Kingdom, then, is the desire to mark this route, and doing so, distinguish it from all others in their kingdom, perhaps as a kind of ‘royal road’. This also suggests that in terms of the two-part typology used by Sinopoli (1994, 1995), there is room for additional categories beyond ‘weakly integrated’ and ‘highly integrated’ empires. In this case, the Golconda Kingdom seems to show features in its road network not seen in its contemporary, neighbouring Deccan Sultanates, but found in its northern neighbour, the Mughal Empire. The symbolic, imperial elements of the road network are less widespread, however, and primarily concentrated in the capital and along its main road, the route from Hyderabad to its port city of Machilipatnam. Acknowledgements I wish to acknowledge the support of the George Franklin Dales Foundation and the College of Social Sciences

Robert Simpkins

332

Research Fund at San Jose State University in conducting my research, and a University of Wisconsin-Madison Vilas Travel Grant enabling me to present this research in Ravenna. I would additionally like to thank the Department of Languages and Cultures of Asia at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Departments of Anthropology at UW-Madison, San Jose State University and DeAnza College, Potti Sreeramulu Telugu University, Garuda Tourism in Hyderabad, the management of the Athithi Inn in Hyderabad, and the American Institute for Indian Studies, as well as numerous individuals including my advisor, Joe Elder, and V. Narayana Rao, Preeti Chopra, Phil Wagoner, Richard Eaton, John Fritz, George Michell, Jean Deloche, Gijs Kruijtzer, Ian Wendt, Helen Philon, Jonathan Mark Kenoyer, Heather Miller, V. K. Bawa, M. A. Qaiyum, Ranga Reddy, Srinivas Rao, Adrian Simpkins, Tina Fordham, and Jennifer Simpkins, as well as the European Association for South Asian Archaeologists. Special thanks to Gijs Kruijtzer for translation assistance with the account of Daniel Havart. Bibliographic References Arasaratnam, S. & Ray, A. (1994) Masulipatnam and

Cambay: a history of two port-towns 1500-1800. New Delhi.

Ball, V. (1995) Jean Baptiste Tavernier, Travels in India, translated from the original French edition of 1676 with a biographical sketch of the author, notes, appendices, &c. New Delhi (first ed. 1925).

Bawa, V.K. (2002) ‘The Politics of Architecture in Qutb Shahi Hyderabad: A Preliminary Analysis’ in M.A. Nayeem; A. Ray & K.S. Mathew (eds), Studies in the History of the Deccan, Medieval and Modern: Professor A.R. Kulkarni Felicitation Volume, 329-41. Delhi.

Bilgrami, S. (1992) Landmarks of the Deccan: A Comprehensive Guide to the Archaeological Remains of the City and Suburbs of Hyderabad. New Delhi (first ed. 1927).

Deloche, J. (1986) ‘Bornes Milliaires de l’Andhra Prades’, Bulletin de l’École française d’Extrême-Orient, 75: 37-42.

Deloche, J. (1993) Transport and Communications in India Prior to Steam Locomotion, Vol. 1: Land Transport. New Delhi.

Desai, Z. (1989) A Topographical List of Arabic, Persian and Urdu Inscriptions of South India. New Delhi.

Havart, D. (1693) Op- en ondergang van Cormandel. .ook Op- en ondergang der Koningen, die zedert weynige jaren, in Golconda, de hoofd-stad van Cormandel geregeerd hebben (3 parts in 1 vol.). Amsterdam.

Michell, G. & Zebrowski, M. (2000) The New Cambridge History of India 1:7 – Architecture and Art of the Deccan Sultanates. Cambridge.

Nayeem, M.A. (2006) The Heritage of the Qutb Shahis of Golconda and Hyderabad. Hyderabad.

Reddy, P.A. (2003) ‘Sarai Hayat Ma Saheba’, INTAC Heritage Awards Annual 2003: 15-18.

Reddy-Pringle, U. (2003) ‘Sheikpet Sarai – Golconda’, INTAC Heritage Awards Annual 2003: 25-28.

Sen, S., ed. (1949) Indian Travels of Thevenot and Careri. New Delhi.

Sherwani, H.K. (1971) History of the Qutb Shahi Dynasty. New Delhi.

Shorey, S.P. (1984) In Search of Monuments: An Atlas of Hyderabad’s Protected Monuments. Hyderabad.

Siddiqui, A.M. (1956) History of Golconda. Hyderabad.

Sinopoli, C. (1994) ‘The Archaeology of Empires’, Annual Review of Anthropology, 23: 159-80.

Sinopoli, C. (1995) ‘The Archaeology of Empires: A View from South Asia’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 299/300: 3-11.

Temple, R., ed. (1967) A Geographical Account of Countries Round the Bay of Bengal 1669 to 1679 by Thomas Bowrey. Nendeln-Lichtenstein.

Yusuf, S. (1953) Antiquarian Remains in Hyderabad State. Hyderabad.

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

333

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

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

Robert Simpkins

334

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

conquests in the Karnatic region (Photo R. Simpkins).

Fig. 4 - Sirikipeta serai, in Nalgonda District south of Suriapet. This mosque (the minaret for which can be seen in the background) and serai were

found while looking for the place name ‘Sirikipeta’, hypothesized by Sherwani to be equivalent to the village of ‘Sarchel-quipentche’ identified by Thevenot on his route through the Kingdom (Photo R. Simpkins).

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

335

Fig. 5 - Qutb Shahi Tombs serai, north of the main royal tombs in Hyderabad. This is a ‘block type’ serai, similar to the Sirikipeta serai and Sheikhpet

serai, although the latter is a more complex structure (Photo R. Simpkins).

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

K. Rajender Reddy (Raju) (Photo R. Simpkins).

Robert Simpkins

336

Fig. 7 - Map of selected major sites during the period of Golconda Kingdom. The route connecting Hyderabad with Bidar to the west and Machilipatnam to the east is shown approximately. The territorial boundary shown is that of modern Andhra Pradesh, the borders of which are quite

similar to the territory controlled by the Qutb Shahis in the final decades of the dynasty (Drawing R. Simpkins).

Addendum and Errata: "Road Networks and Trade Routes in the Golconda Kingdom (AD 1518-1687)" By Robert Simpkins Published in: South Asian Archaeology 2007 Proceedings of the 19th Meeting of the European Association of South Asian Archaeology in Ravenna, Italy, July 2007 Volume II: Historic Periods Edited by Pierfrancesco Callieri & Luca Colliva BAR International Series 2133 2010 Pages 327-336. My article for this volume was written nearly three years ago, and unfortunately contains a much earlier version of my thinking on these topics, as well as a few small but regrettable errors. For those interested in this research, I ask you to keep in mind the following corrections: The repeated reference to (Sherwani 1971) for his work The History of the Qutb Shahi Dynasty is incorrect. The publication date is 1974. The spelling for the name of the village of Gunjalooru is incorrectly listed as 'Goojaluru' on page 329. In this article, I state as unlikely the possibility that the milestones on the highway east of Golconda were built earlier than the reign of Muhammad-Quli Qutb Shah (1580-1611) and were not associated with Golconda fort - a position that contradicts the argument I advanced in my recent article "The Mysterious Milestones of Andhra Pradesh" from the Jan-June issue of the Journal of Deccan Studies. This contradiction stems from the fact that the JDS article was written nearly two years later, when upon further reflection and analysis I concluded that an association between the milestones and the time for the fort was occupied (pre-1591) made more sense. See that article for the full argument, but note that the JDS article reflects my current thinking on that subject. Any other errors not noted here are of course entirely my own and regretted, and will be amended in future publications. Robert Alan Simpkins