Version classiqueVersion mobile

Studies on fortification in India

 | 
Jean Deloche

IV. Survival of the Hindu System of Fortification in South India (15th-18th century)*

Texte intégral

Introduction

  • * Revised version (with additions) of a part of my article entitled: ‘Etudes sur les fortifications (...)

1We have seen, in chapter II, that, in South India, until the end of the 14th century, fortifications consisted of tall, massive and compact earthen walls covered with stone facing, composed of huge blocks laid without mortar, strengthened, at regular intervals, by solid quadrangular towers, crowned by battlements, provided with strong gateways trebled with open courtyards between, and surrounded with wide and deep ditches. These features of the Hindu military constructions corresponded to a period when gunpowder and firearms were not in use.

2We have also seen, in chapter III, that, with the advent of the Muslims into the Deccan, a vigorous style of military architecture grew up and the use of guns in the 16th century brought about further improvements in the art of defence and that, in most of the strongholds built in the Deccan kingdoms, more effective defence works, for example circular or semicircular towers, huge gates defended by barbicans, machicolations, fausse-brayes or outer walls, were constructed.

3It is significant, however, that in many places in South India, old walls and gates remained and were not modified according to the new principles of defence. Military engineers still followed the ancient tradition and built curtain walls made of segments forming salient angles flanked by square or rectangular towers and, even at the end of the 18th century, on the tip of the peninsula, the ramparts of large fortified towns had retained the most distinctive features of the old Hindu system of fortification (see the map of the fortified sites in chapter II, fig. 1, p. 50).

Adaptation of the Old Structures to the New System of Fortification

4The full implementation of the new principles was not possible in the case of old strongholds, because it was out of the question to destroy the already built enormous earthen works or to demolish their stone revetments. Muslim and Hindu engineers had to adapt the existing works to the new war conditions by altering them.

5They did not touch much the walls of the curtain walls and towers; but they modified the upper parts of the walls each time there was an innovation in firearms. Thus, at Warangal, except in the inner part of the gateways, the ancient battlements were replaced on all the walls by powerful merlons, more than 3 m high, the quadrangular towers were topped by square cavaliers on which pieces of artillery were mounted.

6We have selected three sites where the old defence system was altered according to the new principles.

  • 1 A short notice on the fort is found in C.F. Brackenbury, District Gazetteer Cuddapah, pp. 235-237, (...)

7a. Siddhavattam,1 located about 16 km to the east of Kadapa (Cuddapah district, Andhra Pradesh), on the left bank of the Penner river, was held in considerable sanctity and is even now referred as Dakṣiṇa Kāśi (Benares of the South). Its antiquity is attested by numerous inscriptions; one of them dated 1233 mentions the construction of the western gopura of the temple of Siddhesvara. We know that, during the days of the Vijayanagara empire, it was in the hands of princes of the Math family, that it was taken by Mir Jumlah in the middle of the 17th century, that it passed under the control of the Mayana nawabs, before being captured by Haidar Ali in 1779; then it was taken by the Nizam in 1792 and finally by the East India Company in 1800.

8Regarding the fort, it is said that it was built (with a ditch supplied with water from the Penner) by Abdul Alam Khan, nawab of Kadapa, about 1755. But the observation of its structure shows that it is much older.

Fig. 1. Siddhavattam (outline plan by J. Deloche)

9It is a parallelogram-shaped enclosure (fig. 1), punctuated with quadrangular towers (photo 7), except at the angles where they are semicircular; on its southern face, there is a lower outer wall or fausse-braye with semicircular towers at its extremities.

10In many places of the main enclosure the revetments of the walls are made of regular stones laid without any mortar; what is amazing is to find merlons made of one stone piece, 90 cm to 1 m high, 45 to 57 cm thick and 70 cm to 1 m wide, standing on a continuous parapet, 90 cm to 1 m high (photos 32-33); in other sections of the curtain walls and also on the fausse-braye lime mortar is abundantly used for the joints and the merlons are brick constructions; the two large gateways, to the west and east, are rectangular openings consisting of two raised platforms with beautifully decorated pillars, separated by a central passageway (photos 28-31). Within the enclosure there are 7 huge circular cavaliers, about 10 m in diameter, in the corners and in the middle of the west and east faces.

11Obviously, the fort has been renovated several times. Originally, it must have been a structure similar to that of the Hindu fort of Warangal with walls and merlons made of dressed stone blocks, but with a higher battlement (1.80 to 2 m) which perhaps could be dated from the 14th century. The mandapa-gateways were built in the days of Vijayanagara as shown by the style of the pillared halls. With the rise of firearms the corner towers were rounded, battlements were provided with loopholes of different types, particularly large rectangular openings for artillery below the merlons, and the fausse-braye constructed, an innovation which can be attributed to the Muslims in the second half of the 17th century. Finally, the cavaliers intended to withstand guns raised behind the enclosure are probably the work of Haidar Ali at the end of the 18th century.

12b. Lying, as Raichur, in the heart of the Krisna-Tungabhadra Doāb, Mudugal (Raichur district, Karnataka), which was a provincial capital in the 12th century, was, after the establishment of the Vijayanagara empire, constantly shifted around from state to state, following the rivalries between this monarchy and the Muslim Deccan kingdoms (Bahmanis, Adil Shahis) and, in 1565, ended up being definitively occupied by the Bijapuris, followed by the Mughals.

  • 2 A short description of the fort is found in G. Yazdani, ‘Note on the Survey of the Mudgal Fort’, A (...)

13Its old fortification (see plan in chapter III, fig. 9, p. 83), was preserved, but it underwent important modifications from its successive rulers, throughout this period, as shown by inscriptions found on site.2 Oval in shape, the stronghold, surrounded by a wide ditch (50 m in some places) encircles a low rocky hill, used as citadel. It consists of a rampart and a fausse braye.

14The main enclosure, partly dilapidated, was built according to the old system of fortification with quadrangular towers; the curtain walls remained the same, but the towers were modified twice at a later period, the first time, some of them were rounded; the second time, the others were replaced by powerful semicircular structures built specially for artillery, as seen in chapter III.

15The fausse-braye, very likely, was constructed during this second period, as it is equipped with the same devices: cavaliers on the towers and massive parapets along the walls, systematically lined with box machicolations (photos 37 & 38).

16On the main enclosure, most of the quadrangular towers and parts of the curtain walls are today completely dilapidated: it means obviously that these works were not restored by the military engineers of a later period who were satisfied with the construction of huge artillery towers at strategic points and the erection of a powerful fausse-braye. All the defence system was thus renovated according to new principles.

17But vestiges of the old Hindu fortification are still found in the layout of the two gates and in the decorative motifs carved on stone blocks.

18It is to be noted that the gateways (Kati and Fateh Darwazahs) are composed of open courtyards separated by decorated pillared mandapas (they were strengthened by two large semicircular towers later) (photo 37).

  • 3 Particularly Fate Jangu buruju, Ali buruju; several inscriptions from 1591 to 1610 mention the rol (...)
  • 4 Gods: Basavana diḍḍi, Basavana niṭu, Basavana kottaḷa (tower), Hanumanti kottaḷa·, princes: Komara (...)

19These structures were built with the passing years by the rulers of the place. Thanks to epigraphic documents, we know that most of them were built by Muslim rulers,3 but also that many other works must have been built (or given a name) by Hindu kings since some gateways and towers are dedicated to Hindu gods (Basava, Hanuman, Vinayaka) or local rajas.4 Moreover, Hindu motifs are seen on many structures on the gate pillars (figurations of royal personalities, lions) and on the door leaves with spikes (representations of gods and animals of the Kati Darwazah, built by Vengalappa Nayaka in 1560; box machicolations, near the same gate, are decorated with representations of Hanuman (photo 38).

  • 5 Op. cit., pp. 202-203, 200.

20Thus, inscriptions and carved stones show that the old fortification of Mudugal was renovated several times by engineers who took into account the advance made in military technology, particularly artillery and that these achievements were due not only to the Muslims of the Deccan but also to the Hindus (the large semicircular tower called after Hanuman (Hanumanti kottaḷa), was built in 15545). We wonder why these improvements were not adopted in the capitals of the empire of Vijayanagara, presented infra.

  • 6 A good description of the fort is found in H.A. Stuart, North Arcot Manual, vol. II, pp. 417-423; (...)

21c. The finest and the best preserved specimen of military architecture in the southern part of the peninsula, which takes fully into account the technological improvements in the art of war, is the fort of Vellore (North Arcot district, Tamilnadu), on the Palar river, to the west of Chennai.6 Its features are so different from those of the other forts in the Tamil country that it was thought that the stronghold was built by foreigners, particularly Italian engineers in the service of the Vijayanagara kings, but it appears that the technology used is typically Indian.

22A local tradition attributes its construction to a Bommi Reddi at the end of the 13th century, which is not possible considering the technological level of the works. Obviously, the fort that we see today cannot be prior to the 16th century (at least the outer wall). Built by the kings of Vijayanagara, it became the headquarters of the rajas of Vellore and Chandragiri; occupied by the Bijapuris in the middle of the 17th century, it was taken by the Marathas in 1677, then by the Mughals, before becoming a garrison town of the British in 1768.

23The fort is traced on an irregular four-sided figure, consisting of the main enclosure, broken at irregular intervals by semicircular towers and rectangular projections; below this wall there is a lower outer enclosure or fausse-braye, also punctuated with semicircular towers (fig. 2). It is surrounded by a broad wet ditch supplied with water by a subterranean drain connecting it with a large bathing tank, receiving all the drainage of the hills (photo 3).

24It is a sophisticated construction The main enclosure is a thick revetted earthen rampart with a chemin-de-ronde 9 m wide, and protruding towers, 10-13 m in diameter; the walls are revetted with massive granite stone admirably cut and fitted together without mortar; the battlements were replaced by a brick parapet with large embrasures, evidently by European engineers (photo 23). We may assume that it was an ancient construction which was renovated at a later period.

Fig. 2. Vellore in the second half of the 19th century (after a plan by W.J. Wilson, op.cit., vol. V, Maps).

25The fausse-braye, built forward 9 m away, is still topped by rounded merlons, with graceful box machicolations along curtain walls and towers (photo 39 & 40), provided with large holes for firing guns.

26The counterscarp is made of stones laid with lime mortar. The main gate was remodelled at the end of the 18th century by the British.

  • 7 With the progress of artillery in the second half of the 17th century, this stronghold situated in (...)

27Particularly interesting are the decorative elements of the fausse-braye; the corbels of the box machicolations and the three-lobed holes at the base of merlons (photo 36) look like the works of the same type found on the north-east wall of Chandragiri (photos 35, 41). In any case, this low enclosure does no differ in principle and form from the fausse-braye of Mudugal. This example shows that, in Vellore, after firearms became widespread, Indian engineers adopted techniques used in the construction of most of the Deccan forts.7

The Old System of Fortification

28The precepts accepted in the Muslim kingdoms were not copied slavishly in the southern peninsula, where the methods in use were such that the people remained attached to the ancient forms, particularly to quadrangular works.

  • 8 Though a lot of researches have been carried out recently on the old Hindu metropolis and several (...)

29a. At Vijayanagara (Bellary district, Karnataka), on the right bank of the Tungabhadra, established at the beginning of the 14th century, the capital of a powerful Hindu empire-looted by the Muslims in the middle of the 16th century (1565)-military engineers did not modify the old system of fortification (fig. 3).8

30Save a few isolated edifices within the town, nowhere on the ramparts are found traces of the improvements adopted by the Muslims in the Deccan: semicircular towers, box machicolations, cavaliers, barbicans. Walls and towers are all along the stronghold built according to the old Hindu method.

31Between the Tungabhadra river and Kamalapura, the enclosure forms a kind of pocket, getting wider towards the south; it is an embankment about from 5 to 7 m high, generally revetted on the outer face only, made of large blocks, jointed without mortar (photos 17-19), and describing in flat ground, a straight line punctuated at some places by square or rectangular towers. In rocky areas, this wall links different heaps of boulders. Within this enclosure the palace zone is surrounded by rectilinear walls, without flankers, consisting of two stone faces with rubble infill, 7 m high.

Fig. 3. Vijayanagara (after a plan by J.M. Fritz, in Vijayanagara Progress of Research 1984-1987, p. 124).

Fig. 4. Penukonda (after a plan by S.N. Mitra and the 1/50 000 Survey map).

32The gateways, sometimes surmounted by a dome or various works, are either simple rectangular openings in the plan of the curtain walls (fig. 6 a & b and photo 24), or large structures composed of open courtyards (fig. 6 c & d). There is no remain of parapets and one wonders whether they ever existed.

33The reason for these deficiencies could be the fact that sophisticated defensive elements were not needed: since the city was protected on the northern side-the only dangerous one-by the formidable obstacle of the Tungabhadra river, there was a balance between defence and residence and it was not necessary to have battlements on the walls; regarding the gateways, being simple openings, they were intended more for the control of traffic, of human and animal movements, processions, than for defensive purposes.

34b. The same archaism is found in the first enclosure of the fort of Penukonda (Anantapur district, Andhra Pradesh), protecting the royal centre.

  • 9 J Welsh (Military Reminiscences, vol. II, pp. 56-61) visited the place in 1816 and left a good des (...)

35A provincial capital under the Hoysalas at the beginning of the 14th century, the town was a part of the Vijayanagara empire from 1350 onwards; after the battle of Rakkasi-Tangadi (Talikota) and the plundering of the metropolis in 1565, this town became the new capital until the end of the century before being taken by the Bijapuris in 1653.9

36It is a hill fort (giridurga) whose summit rises to 938 m. This inselberg, linked to the cult of Narasimha, well provided with water springs and reservoirs, is surrounded with 7 enclosures (they are not shown in the 1/50 000 map), all of them being influenced by the Muslim pattern: circular or semicircular works, with mortar in the joints, battlements with pointed merlons on the curtain walls and on towers.

37At the foot of the hill, the royal zone, in which are still found a palace (Gagan Mahal) and temples of the 15th century (fig. 4) is surrounded by an enclosure, 7 m high, similar in every respect to that of Vijayanagara: it is an earthen embankment revetted with large stones on the outer surface only with a slightly tapering profile, without any remains of crenellation; towers, built every 50 or 60 m, except one or two which have been rounded, are all quadrangular, but do not project much from the curtain walls (photos 2, 4-6, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16 & 20; the gateways have inner courtyards enclosed by thick walls (fig. 7, b); the northern one is flanked by two semicircular towers (photo 27).

38The original structure was not modified, except to the north where, on a rectangular base, an octagonal brick tower was raised (Rāmaburuju) (photo 11) overlooking the surrounding plain. Obviously when firearms became widespread, almost all the defence was transferred to the sides and the top of the inselberg. The old enclosure in the plain was not modified probably for the same reasons as those of the destroyed great metropolis, as seen supra.

  • 10 H.A. Stuart (North Arcot Manual, vol. II, Madras, 1894, pp. 323-326) gives a brief notice on this (...)

39c. Chandragiri (Chittur district, Andhra Pradesh) is mentioned in inscriptions only from the beginning of the 15th century (1403). It was an important regional settlement, when it replaced Penukonda as the capital at the end of the 16th century (1585 or 1592). Captured by the sultan of Golkonda in 1646, it was ruled later by the nawab of Arcot since the middle of the 18th century, before being taken by Haidar Ali en 1782.10

40As the previous site, it is a hill fort overlooking a flat land where a lower fort was erected. It was selected because of the presence of religious cults and water resources. On the hill sides, there are 5 enclosures built on huge boulders up to the summit. At the foot of this rocky mass is another wall, quadrilateral in shape, which can be considered the first enclosure, lined with a ditch, encircling the royal zone, also surrounded by a wall regarded as the second enclosure (photo 1).

Fig. 5. Chandragiri (after a plan by N.S.Ramachandra Murthy, op.cit., fig. 14).

41The development of the defence system in this stronghold is apparently not different from that of Penukonda. The works on the hill were renovated according to the strides made in artillery: the old walls were flanked with semicircular towers, provided with box machicolations and the gateways were strengthened by round towers.

Fig. 6. Vijayanagara gates: plans and elevations (after drawings by S.K. Joshi, op.cit., figs. 64, 59, 60 & 61).

Fig. 7. Chandragiri and Penukonda gates: plans (after drawings by N.S. Ramachandra Murthy, op.cit., figs. 15 & 17).

Pl. 1. Ditches

Pl. 1. Ditches

1. Chandragiri, excavated in the rock.

2. Penukonda, lake.

3. Vellore, supplied with water by a tank.

Pl. II. Enclosures (A)

Pl. II. Enclosures (A)

4. Penukonda, slight tapering profile on the outer face.

5. Penukonda, massive masonry construction.

6. Penukonda, quadrangular towers.

7. Siddhavattam, curtain walls and towers.

8. Chandragiri, salient towers.

9. Chandragiri, id.

Pl. III. Enclosures (B)

Pl. III. Enclosures (B)

10. Penukonda, a massive quadrangular tower.

11. Penukonda, Ramaburuju, an octagonal brick tower.

12. Chandragiri, tiers of steps.

13. Penukonda, a postern

14. Chandragiri, a postern

Pl. IV. Masonry work : stone blocks and rubble filling

Pl. IV. Masonry work : stone blocks and rubble filling

15. Penukonda, rectangular blocks.

16. Penukonda, id.

17. Vijayanagara, blocks separated by rubble filling.

18. Vijayanagara, wedge-shaped blocks.

19. Vijayanagara, a dressed outer surface.

Pl. V. Masonry work: revetments without mortar

Pl. V. Masonry work: revetments without mortar

20. Penukonda, huge stone blocks.

21. Chandragiri, id.

22. Siddhavattam, blocks covered with telugu inscriptions.

23. Vellore, well finished joints (brick parapet & loopholes of a later period).

Pl. VI. Gates (A)

Pl. VI. Gates (A)

24. Vijayanagara, a passageway between two rows of pillars.

25. Chandragiri, a passageway between walls making a zigzag course.

26. Chandragiri, a doorway covered by lintels and beams.

27. Penukonda, a similar doorway (the towers are of a later period).

Pl. VII. Gates (B) Siddhavattam

Pl. VII. Gates (B) Siddhavattam

28. West gate, a passageway flanked by a platform with pillars.

29. Id., decorated pillars.

30. East gate, from without.

31. Id., from within.

Pl. VIII. Battlements, old and new

Pl. VIII. Battlements, old and new

32. Siddhavattam, merlons made of one stone piece.

33. Siddhavattam, id.

34. Chandragiri, three-lobed gun loops.

35. Chandragiri, id., Detail.

36. Vellore, similar opening.

Pl. IX. Box machicolations with Hindu ornamentation

Pl. IX. Box machicolations with Hindu ornamentation

37. Mudugal, fausse-braye, east side.

38. Mudugal, detail, representation of Hanuman.

39. Vellore, from within.

40. Vellore, from without.

41. Chandragiri, from within.

42. Chandragiri, corbels shaped like the capitals of Hindu pillars.

42On the other hand, on flat land, the enclosures were modified only partially. The fortified trapezium of the royal zone with its gates and quadrangular towers (photos 8 & 9) was not touched, but, on the outer fortifications where the gateways were preserved (fig. 7, a, photos 25 & 26), the towers, except a few to the west and east, were rounded (one of them is octagonal in shape). To the north-east particularly, there is a sort of triangle (fig. 5) made of different kinds of walls. On the inner side, the old works, made of rectilinear segments cut by successive recesses and lines cremaillere (consisting of alternating short and long faces at right angles to one another), was laid double with a connecting wall lined with a flight of steps (photo 12) climbing the hill with large semicircular towers provided with gun loops (photo 35) and posterns (photo 14). This is probably the last innovation carried out to the fortification (at Senji (Gingee), in the Tamil country, we find that the same modification to the layout was made by Sivaji to the north-west of Rajagiri, at the end of the 17th century).

43The presence, on the curtain walls and towers, of box machicolations (photos 41 & 42) should be noted. These turrets built between merlons are supported by corbels having the same shape as the capitals of the mandapa pillars of the Vijayanagara period (photo 42), i.e. an inverted lotus flower (potikai in Tamil). To the south and to the west, on the walls without battlement, turrets of the same type are found, having the shape of a temple gopura. All this means that the technical improvements in use in the Muslim Deccan kingdoms were partly adopted in this part of the fort by the Hindu sovereigns.

Faithfulness to the ancient traditions in the furthest end of the peninsula

44In the Tamil country, the complex defence system adopted in Vellore mentioned supra is an exception, almost an anomaly; in other strongholds these technical improvements were not adopted because engineers remained faithful to the old fortification.

45Four significant examples of fortified town have been selected here: Tiruchchirappalli, Tanjavur, Madurai and Palaiyamkottai.

46In Tanjavur, a great part of the defence works still remains but, in the three other towns, the enclosures are now obliterated. Fortunately, we have at our disposal the plans of the fortifications made by European engineers during the Anglo-French wars in the second half of the 18th century.

  • 11 It has been described in detail by Father Bouchet in a letter dated 19 April 1719 in Lettres édifi (...)

47a. The largest was the fort of Tiruchchirappalli11 which lies about 700 m south of the Kaveri river. At the beginning, in order to protect the arsenal and the palace, only the squarish zone stretching out around the famous rock was fortified. Then, the population having increased, a second area to the south of the first one was provided with defensive military works; as a the stronghold was divided in two parts called respectively northern fort and southern fort. Apparently, the greatest part of these works was carried out by Visvanatha Nayaka (1559-63).

Fig. 8. Tiruchchirappalli, in the middle of the 18th century: northern part of the fort (after a plan by R. Orme, op.cit., vol. III); section through the rampart (after a plan dated 1755, ms., in Service historique de l'armée de terre, No. 5 D 46, Vincennes).

48A capital of kingdom in 1611, Tiruchchirappalli was supplanted by Madurai in Tirumala Nayaka’s time, some decades later, but it remained the favourite residence of the sovereigns. At the beginning of the 18th century, this city, with a population of 30 000, was reputed to be impregnable.

49It consisted of a double enclosure, parallelogram in shape, near 6 km in circumference, broken by 60 towers at equal distances (80 or 100 paces), surrounded with a ditch cut in the rock, 9 m wide and 4 m deep, capable of being filled from the Kaveri river.

50The outward wall or fausse-braye, built of large stones, 1.5 m long, was about 5.5 m high and 1.5 m thick, without parapet or ramp.

51At a distance of 7 m was the rampart, 9 m high and 9 m thick, topped by a parapet from 2 to 2.5 m high, provided with loopholes; the chemin-de-ronde was directly accessible through continuous tiers of steps extended all around the wall (fig. 8, photo 43). In 1719, it was bristling with 130 large cannons.

52Out of the 60 towers flanking the curtain walls of the main enclosure, 42 were rectangular, 14 semicircular, and 4 pentagonal in shape rebuilt by the British; on the fausse-braye, 34 were square and 20 semicircular. The four gateways (fig. 8) were all provided with inner courtyards, forcing the assailants to enter narrow bent corridors; they were not flanked by huge round towers such as those found in the Deccan forts; with their projecting quadrangular works, they were looking like the Hindu gateways of Warangal; moreover, the tiers of steps, making a kind of immense amphitheatre within the fortification, did not differ from those of the same Hindu capital mentioned supra, p. 70. This fort does not exist anymore: between 1866 and 1876 its walls were deliberately pulled down and its ditch filled in.

  • 12 Father Bouchet in his letter dated 1719 (op. cit., vol. XIII, p. 136) mentions the main characteri (...)

53b. As the previous one, the fortress of Tanjavur12 had a double wall, but, according to 18th century observers, “it was no so well built, the ditches were not deep enough and it was difficult to fill them with water”.

54It consists of the larger and smaller fort. The first one protected the town, the second, the temple and the rajas’palace. The walls of the larger one have been for the most part knocked down and the ditch filled up, but those of the smaller one are in good preservation.

55It was a chief town of the Cholas; then, after a long decline, Tanjavur regained its greatness under the Nayakas who, according to traditions, would have built the fortifications. The construction of the smaller fort is attributed to Sevappa Nayaka (1549-1572), and that of the larger one to Vijayan Raghava Nayaka who died in 1673.

56A capital of the Maratha dynasty at the beginning of the 18th century, the place was attacked several times during the Anglo-French wars and certain works were remodelled, before being definitely occupied by the British.

57Though it is a relatively recent fortification, it is surprising to notice that both forts were entirely built according to the old principles (fig. 9). The larger one, ovoid in shape, is broken by 61 rectangular towers, and, at the four cardinal points, by gateways with inner courtyards as in the fort of Tiruchchirappalli; the fausse-braye is also fully punctuated with rectangular towers, though generally engineers considered them more vulnerable than the round ones.

58The smaller one, lying to the south-west of the town, square in shape, had the same characteristics; it was periodically attacked by the French and English and had to undergo modifications which can still be seen: pentagonal bastions were erected at the corners of the larger fort, and some towers were rounded on the fausse-braye.

Fig. 9. Tanjavur, in the middle of the 18th century (after a plan by R. Orme, op.cit., vol. III).

Fig. 10. Madurai in 1757 (after a plan published by W. Francis, op. cit., vol. I, f.p. 264).

Fig. 11. Palaiyamkottai, in the middle of the 18th century (after a plan by R. Orme, op.cit., vol. III).

Pl. X. Old engravings

Pl. X. Old engravings

43. Tiruchchirappalli, around 1750 (Bibliothèque nationale, Cartes et plans, Ge DD 2987 (6985)

44. Madurai, around 1830 (J. Welsh, op.cit., vol. I, p. 21).

45. Palaiyamkottai, around 1830 (J. Welsh, op.cit., vol. I, p. 46).

  • 13 A brief description of the fort is found in a letter by Father Bouchet dated 1719, op.cit., vol. X (...)

59c. The fort of Madurai13 was also built according to the same principles by Visvanatha Nayaka (1559). After demolishing the old walls and ditches surrounding the temple, he built a double enclosure, quadrilateral in shape, broken by 72 towers, protecting the royal palace and the great temple (fig. 10 and photo 44).

60In the rampart, punctuated, every 90 or 100 m, with square towers, the stonewalls, 6.6 m high, were topped by a loop-holed parapet of red brick with large embrasures for cannon, 1.8 m high and, at the four points of the compass, the gateways were provided with inner courtyards.

61At a distance of 9 m, the fausse-braye, about 10 m thick, rose only 1.5 m above the platform, but 3.5 m from the bottom of the ditch which was wide and deep with steep escarp and counterscarp. Outside, in 1763, there was a large glacis.

62Twice in 1757 the British made an endeavour to carry the fortress but failed. In 1757, the famous Yusuf Khan entirely repaired its east face. Nothing now remains of the old fort because in 1842 the walls were demolished and the ditches filled in.

  • 14 R. Orme (op.cit., vol. III), gives a plan of the fort: Palam-cotah near Tinivelly, in J. Welsh op. (...)

63d. Last example: the fort of Palaiyamkottai,14 to the east of Tirunelveli.

64Regarding the origin of the fort nothing is known. According to certain traditions, it was built by a lieutenant of the famous Vishvanatha Nayaka of Madurai; another tradition attributes it to Yusuf Khan. In any case, in the 18th century, it was the strongest place south of Madurai.

65It consisted of a double enclosure, forming a kind of trapezium, 859 m by 758 m, without ditch nor glacis. The main rampart, punctuated with rectangular towers except at the angles where they were round, was 4.5 m high and 4.5 m thick. The fausse-braye, 2.7 m high only, was according to Orme’s plan (fig. 11) and Welsh’s drawing (photo 45), broken by low semicircular towers; the four gates were protruding rectangular works provided with inner courtyards. Again, it is found that this fortification did not differ from the previous ones.

  • 15 In Karnataka, the famous fortress of Srirangapattana, lying on an island of the Kaveri river, was (...)

66This observation, thus, shows that military engineers in the South of the peninsula were aware of the advantages of parapets adapted to the progress of artillery on the ramparts and of a lower outer fortification (fausse-braye) at the edge of the ditch, but that they could not abandon traditional forms and techniques. This is what struck Father Bouchet in 1719 when, after seeing the double wall of Madurai, he wrote: the town “is fortifed ‘à l’antique’ with several square towers.”15

Secondary Forts

67The same faithfulness to the ancient defence principles is found in many secondary forts in the Tamil country, as shown in the plans drawn by the French and English military engineers in the second half of the 18th century.

  • 16 The plan of the fort is found in R. Orme, op. cit., vol. III, Thiagur, see also W. Francis, Madras (...)
  • 17 The plan of the fort is found at the Bibliothèque nationale, Paris, Cartes et plans, Ge D 3365, As (...)
  • 18 Plan at the Bibliothèque nationale, Paris, same document: plan du fort et du bourg d'Alemparvé and(...)

68These small forts, usually consisting of a single enclosure surrounded by a ditch, were provided with flanking towers and gates of the same traditional type as the ones described above, except at the hill of Tyagadurgam (Kalakkurichchi taluk),16 fortified at an unknown period, at Arcot (Walajapet taluk),17 on the banks of the Palar river, at Alamparai (Madurantakam taluk),18 on the seashore, built in the 18th century and all broken by round towers.

  • 19 Plan in the Service historique de la Marine, Vincennes, Recueil 59, 24 Indes No. 12, Vandavachi, a (...)
  • 20 Plan at the Bibliothèque nationale, Paris, Cartes et plans, Ge F, carte 13145, fort de Valdaur, an (...)
  • 21 Plans at the Bibliothèque nationale, Paris, Cartes et plans, Ge F, carte 13140, Chetopeut ou Cheto (...)
  • 22 Plan at the Service historique de l'armée de terre, Vincennes, Fichier No. 27, Cartes No. 5 D, 10,(...)
  • 23 Plans at the Bibliothèque nationale, Paris, Cartes et plans, GE D 3365, Asie, Presqu'île de l'Inde (...)
  • 24 Plans at the Service historique de la Marine, Vincennes, Recueil 59, 24 Indes, No. 12, Schenglepet (...)

69In the fort of Vandavashi (taluk of the same name),19 there were only 3 rectangular towers and 12 semicircular towers, but the gateway was built according to the old system. At Valudavur (Villupuram taluk),20 the gateway was built on the same model and, out of 14 towers, 2 were quadrangular; at the south-west angle, one tower was converted by Dupleix into a pentagonal bastion. At Settupattu (Polur taluk),21 the enclosure was pierced by a large gateway with inner courtyards and all the towers were rectangular, except at the angles where they were rounded and strengthened by cavaliers (fig. 12, a). The same design for towers was found at Kalikkurichchi (taluk of the same name).22 At Karunguli (Madurantakam taluk),23 there was the same type of gate and, out of the 16 flanking towers, 12 were rectangular (fig. 12, c). Finally, at Chengalpattu (taluk of the same name),24 where there were two separate enclosures, the outer wall was strongly modified, especially in its southern part, and provided with a fausse-braye and a large round tower; the inner one was also remodelled, but half of its towers remain rectangular; however, in both of them, gateways were built according to the old principles with inner courtyards (fig. 12, b).

Fig. 12. Three secondary fortresses in the Tamil country in the middle of the 18th century (after plans by R. Orme, op.cit., vol. III).

70Such was the strength of the tradition in the southern extremity of the peninsula that, until the end of the 18th century, military engineers were still using devices which did not correspond to the attack and defence engines of the time

71Though round or semicircular towers were considered far more efficient than the rectangular or square ones, that gateways flanked by powerful round towers with barbicans were regarded as more defensible than old entrances, still quadrangular works remained the basis of the military architecture adopted by the Hindus of Southern India.

Conclusion

  • 25 In fact, to the south of the basaltic zone of the Maratha plateau, the stones in general used for (...)

72We are not in a position to explain this phenomenon. This commitment to quadrangular forms could be due to the nature of the stone and the modes of quarrying,25 but, very likely, the true reasons are to be found elsewhere, particularly in the mind of people rather than in the physical aspect of things.

73South Indian fortification engineers kept to a set of old practices or fixed habits because they were convinced, even after firearms were widespread, that the huge squared blocs of granite they were using for the enclosures were not vulnerable to shots and mining during siege operations, that square towers with their thick masonry face were as resistant to artillery as the round ones and offered good protection to troops. In other words, they believed in a system of defence relying mainly on opposing static physical obstacles to the attack.

Annexes

List of Figures

Fig. 1. Siddhavattam (outline plan by J. Deloche).

Fig. 2. Vellore in the second half of the 19th century (after a plan by W.J. Wilson, op.cit., vol. V, Maps).

Fig. 3. Vijayanagara (after a plan by J.M. Fritz, in Vijayanagara Progress of Research 1984-1987, p. 124).

Fig. 4. Penukonda (after a plan by S.N. Mitra and the 1/50 000 Survey map).

Fig. 5. Chandragiri (after a plan by N.S. Ramachandra Murthy, op.cit., fig. 14).

Fig. 6..Vijayanagara gates: plans and elevations (after drawings by S.K. Joshi, op.cit., figs. 64, 59, 60 & 61).

Fig. 7. Chandragiri and Penukonda gates: plans (after drawings by N.S. Ramachandra Murthy, op.cit., figs. 15 & 17.

Fig. 8. Tiruchchirappalli, in the middle of the 18th century: northern part ot the tort (after a plan by R. Orme, op.cit., vol. III); section through the rampart (after a plan dated 1755, ms., in Service historique de l'armée de terre, No. 5 D 46, Vincennes).

Fig. 9. Tanjavur, in the middle of the 18th century (after a plan by R. Orme, op.cit., vol. III).

Fig. 10. Madurai in 1757 (after a plan published by W. Francis, op.cit., vol. I, f.p. 264).

Fig. 11. Palaiyamkottai, in the middle of the 18th century (after a plan by R. Orme, op.cit., vol. III).

Fig. 12. Three secondary fortresses in the Tamil country in the middle of the 18th century (after plans by R. Orme, op.cit., vol. III).

List of Plates

Pl. 1. Ditches

1. Chandragiri, excavated in the rock.

2. Penukonda, lake.

3. Vellore, supplied with water by a tank.

Pl. II. Enclosures (A)

4. Penukonda, slight tapering profile on the outer face.

5. Penukonda, massive masonry construction.

6. Penukonda, quadrangular towers.

7. Siddhavattam, curtain walls and towers.

8. Chandragiri, salient towers.

9. Chandragiri, id.

Pl. III. Enclosures (B)

10. Penukonda, a massive quadrangular tower.

11. Penukonda, Ramaburuju, an octogonal brick tower.

12. Chandragiri, tiers of steps.

13. Penukonda, a postern.

14. Chandragiri, a postern.

Pl. IV. Masonry work: stone blocks and nibble filling

15. Penukonda, rectangular blocks.

16. Penukonda, id.

17. Vijayanagara, blocks separated by rubble filling.

18. Vijayanagara, wedge-shaped blocks.

19. Vijayanagara, a dressed outer surface.

Pl. V. Masonry work: revetments without mortar

20. Penukonda, huge stone blocks.

21. Chandragiri, id.

22. Siddhavattam, blocks covered with telugu inscriptions.

23. Vellore, well finished joints (brick parapet & loopholes of a later period).

Pl. VI. Gates (A)

24. Vijayanagara, a passageway between two rows of pillars.

25. Chandragiri, a passageway between walls making a zigzag course.

26. Chandragiri, a doorway covered by lintels and beams.

27. Penukonda, a similar doorway (the towers are of a later period).

Pl. VII. Gates (B) Siddhavattam

28. West gate, a passageway flanked by a platform with pillars.

29. Id., decorated pillars.

30. East gate, from without.

31. Id., from within.

Pl. VIII. Battlements, old and new

32. Siddhavattam, merlons made of one stone piece.

33. Siddhavattam, id.

34. Chandragiri, three-lobed gun loops.

35. Chandragiri, id., detail.

36. Vellore, similar opening.

Pl. IX. Box machicolations with Hindu ornamentation

37. Mudugal, fausse-braye, east side.

38. Mudugal, detail, representation of Hanuman.

39. Vellore, from within.

40. Vellore, from without.

41. Chandragiri, from within.

42. Chandragiri, corbels shaped like the capitals of Hindu pillars.

Pl. X. Old engravings

43. Tiruchchirappalli, around 1750 (Bibliothèque nationale, Cartes et plans, Ge DD 2987 (6985).

44. Madurai, around 1830 (J. Welsh, op.cit., vol. I, p. 21).

45. Palaiyamkottai, around 1830 (J. Welsh, op.cit., vol. I, p. 46).

Notes

1 A short notice on the fort is found in C.F. Brackenbury, District Gazetteer Cuddapah, pp. 235-237, and in Bh. Sivasankaranarayana, Andhra Pradesh Gazetteers, Cuddapah, pp. 803-805.

2 A short description of the fort is found in G. Yazdani, ‘Note on the Survey of the Mudgal Fort’, Annual Report of the Archaeological Department of his Exalted Highness the Nizam's Dominions, 1935-36, p. 227, pls. IX and X; a good study, particularly of the inscriptions, is found in C.S. Patil, ‘Mudugal Fort and its Bearing on Defence System at Vijayanagara, in D.V. Devaraj & C.S. Patil, Vijayanagara Progress of Research 1988-1991, pp. 197-209, photos 81-1 10.

3 Particularly Fate Jangu buruju, Ali buruju; several inscriptions from 1591 to 1610 mention the role of Malika Muruda in the construction of gateways (aguse), posterns (diḍḍi), towers (buruju = burj) and merlons (niṭu) (op. cit., pp. 201, 205).

4 Gods: Basavana diḍḍi, Basavana niṭu, Basavana kottaḷa (tower), Hanumanti kottaḷa·, princes: Komarara buruju, Rama buruju (op.cit., pp. 200, 204, 207).

5 Op. cit., pp. 202-203, 200.

6 A good description of the fort is found in H.A. Stuart, North Arcot Manual, vol. II, pp. 417-423; in M. Maindron, Dans l’Inde du Sud, Le Coromandel, pp. 232-246; excellent plan of the fort in W.J. Wilson, History of the Madras Army, vol. V, Maps.

7 With the progress of artillery in the second half of the 17th century, this stronghold situated in the plains was not protected in the direction of the neighbouring hills where the enemy could put his cannons. The Marathas therefore fortified these two elevations, which they respectively named Sajjaraogarh and Gajjaraogarh and the last qil’ahdār of Vellore fortified the third one to which he gave the name of Murtizgarh. These strongholds were connected by walls with the pettah or village lying at the foot of the hills, and with the Palar river. Very little remains of these works since they have been dismantled (see in R. Orme, History of the Military Transactions of the British Nation in Indostan, vol. III, View of the Forts on the Hills of Veloor, as seen from the pettah).

8 Though a lot of researches have been carried out recently on the old Hindu metropolis and several books have been published, particularly the remarquable Vijayanagara Research Centre Series, published by the Directorate of Archaeology & Museum at Mysore, its fortifications unfortunately have not been the subject of serious studies, except the gateways of the enclosure. However, see J.M. Fritz, ‘The plan of Vijayanagara and Silpasastras’, in D.V. Devaraj & C.S. Patil, Vijayanagara Progress of Research 1984-1987, pp. 122-135; M.S. Nagaraja Rao & C.S. Patil, ‘Epigraphical References to City Gates and Watch Towers of Vijayanagara’, in Vijayanagara Progress of Research 1983-1984, pp. 96-100 and pls. XXXVIII-XLIV; C.S. Patil, ‘Further Epigraphical References to City Gates and Watch Towers of Vijayanagara’, in Vijayanagara Progress of Research 1984-1987, pp. 191-194, figs. 11-13 and photos 65-130; J.M. Fritz, G. Michell & M.S. Nagaraja Rao, The Royal Centre at Vijayanagara, a Preliminary Report, Walls, Gateways, Roads and Waterworks, pp. 38-55.

9 J Welsh (Military Reminiscences, vol. II, pp. 56-61) visited the place in 1816 and left a good description of the fort with a plan f.p. 56 (Hill, Fort and Pettah of Pennacondah); see also Archaeological Survey of India, Annual Reports 1911-12, pp. 181-182, 1921-22, p. 30, 1925-26, pp. 43-44; the most detailed study is by N.S. Ramachandra Murthy, Forts of Andhra Pradesh (from the earliest limes up to 16th century A.D.), pp. 251-261, figs. 16-17; on the history of the fort and its monuments, see R. Vasantha, Penugonda Fort, A Defence Capital of Vijayanagar Empire, History, Art and Culture, pp. 1-145, 50 pls.

10 H.A. Stuart (North Arcot Manual, vol. II, Madras, 1894, pp. 323-326) gives a brief notice on this taluk headquarter; its fortifications have been studied by N.S. Ramachandra Murthy, op.cit., pp. 237-247, figs. 14-15.

11 It has been described in detail by Father Bouchet in a letter dated 19 April 1719 in Lettres édifiantes et curieuses, ed. 1810-11, vol. XIII, pp. 131-135, and colonel Lawrence in Mémoires du colonel Lawrence, contenant l'histoire de la guerre dans l'Inde entre les Anglois et les François sur la côte du Coromandel depuis 1750 jusqu'en 1761, vol. I, pp. 34-39; also by L. Langlès in Monuments anciens et modernes de l'Hindoustan, vol. II, pp. 21-24, vol. I, f.p. 101, plan de Tritchinapali en 1688; at the Bibliothèque nationale, Paris, Cartes et plans Ge DD 2987 (6985), there is a fine Vue de Tiru-shira-Palli; also see F.R.B. Hemingway, Madras District Gazetteers, Trichinopoly, pp. 326-341. R. Orme (op. cit., vol. III), gives a general plan of the town and a plan of the Attempt of the French Troops to take Tritchinapoly by escalade, November 28 1753; we have also consulted in the French archives, particularly in the Service historique de l'armée de terre (Pavillon des armes), No. 5 D 46, Vincennes, the plan de la ville de Trichinapalli (1755), with a section through the rampart, and, at the Bibliothèque nationale, Paris, Cartes et plans, Ge G 5013, the plan de la ville de Trisirapally.

12 Father Bouchet in his letter dated 1719 (op. cit., vol. XIII, p. 136) mentions the main characteristics of the fort; his remarks have been copied by L. Langlès (op.cit., vol. 11, p. 14); we have consulted two plans of the fort at the Bibliothèque nationale, Paris: plan de la ville de Tanjaor et de ses attaques par les Français sous les ordres de M. le comte de Lally, 1758 (Cartes et plans, Ge C 2950) and plan de Tanjaor et de ses attaques en 1758 (Estampes Vd 25 fol. Topographie de l'Asie, Inde). R. Orme (in op.cit., vol. III) gives an excellent plan of the town, Tanjore reduced from an exact survey, see also F.R.B. Hemingway, Madras District Gazetteers. Tanjore, pp. 265-275.

13 A brief description of the fort is found in a letter by Father Bouchet dated 1719, op.cit., vol. XIII, pp. 127-13; see L. Langlès, op.cit., vol. I, pp. 1-10, f.p. 98, Plan de Madoureh en 1688 and, above all, R. Orme, op. cit., vol. II, pp. 210-211, 221-22; we have consulted at the Bibliothèque nationale, Paris, Cartes et plans, Ge D 2710, a plan des attaques de la ville de Maduré par le chevalier Marchand, 1764 (the same plan is also found at the Service historique de la marine, Vincennes, Recueil 59, 24 Indes, No. 56); this plan has been reproduced by S.C. Hill in Yusuf Khan the Rebel Commandant; in J. Welsh, op.cit., vol. I, p. 21, there is a fine view of Madura; see also W. Francis, Madras District Gazetteers, Madurai, vol. I, pp. 64-67, 265-277, plan of Madura in 1757. In Orme’s plan are found rounded towers on the fausse-braye, whereas in the drawing by Welsh rectangular works strongly battered are shown.

14 R. Orme (op.cit., vol. III), gives a plan of the fort: Palam-cotah near Tinivelly, in J. Welsh op.cit., vol. I, p. 46, there is a view of Pallacottah, see also H.R. Pate, Madras District Gazetteers, Tinnevelly, pp. 478-481, plan and town of Palamcottah with its environs in 1855.

15 In Karnataka, the famous fortress of Srirangapattana, lying on an island of the Kaveri river, was built in the middle of the 15th century; it was designed according to the same principles with curtain walls cut by successive recesses, square or rectangular towers, a deep ditch excavated in the rock. Protected on its northern and western sides by the Kaveri, it had an exceptional strategic position. Tipu Sultan, at the end of the 18th century, considerably strengthened its defences, rebuilt parapets, constructed forward a lower enclosure to the north and west, excavated a second ditch, built several cavaliers and, at the south-east angle, a huge circular tower. It is astonishing to notice that quadrangular works were not abandoned (see A. Beatson, A View of the Origin and Conduct of the War with Tippoo Sultaun, pp. 169-175, plans f.pp. 144 & 169; major Dirom, A Narrative of the Campaign in India which terminated the War with Tippoo Sultan in 1792, 1793, pp. 130-131, 186-188, 195; Annual Report of the Mysore Archaeological Department for the Year 1935, p. 565, plan, plate XXIV 2, f.p. 68; C. Hayavadana Rao, Mysore Gazetteer, vol. V, pp. 806-828).
Similar remarks can be made about the curtain walls, gateways and towers of the strongholds of Chitradurga, Bharmagiri and Aymangala, also in Karnataka. In Chitradurga, from the second enclosure to the hill, most of the towers are rectangular and the gates are simple entrances; in Aymangala the towers are trapezoidal in plan (see L. Barry & C.S. Patil, Chitradurga: Spatial Patterns of a Nayaka Period Successor State in South India, Asian Perspectives, vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 267-286; plan of Chitradurga Fort by Colin Mackenzie dated June 1800, reproduced p. 277, outline plans of Bharmagiri and Aimangala, p. 280; L. Barry, Chitradurga in Early 1800, Archaeological Interpretations of Colonial Drawings, in K.M. Surcsh, C.T.M. Kotraiah, S.Y Somashekkar, Pañcatantra (Recent Researches in Indian Archaeology), vol. II, pp. 334-361.

16 The plan of the fort is found in R. Orme, op. cit., vol. III, Thiagur, see also W. Francis, Madras District Gazetteers, South Arcot, pp. 340-343.

17 The plan of the fort is found at the Bibliothèque nationale, Paris, Cartes et plans, Ge D 3365, Asie, Presqu'île de l'Inde en deça du Gange, Province de Carnate, plan du fort et d'une partie de la ville d'Arcate; and in R. Orme, op.cit., vol. III, Arcot Fort.

18 Plan at the Bibliothèque nationale, Paris, same document: plan du fort et du bourg d'Alemparvé and Topographie des environs d'Alemparvé.

19 Plan in the Service historique de la Marine, Vincennes, Recueil 59, 24 Indes No. 12, Vandavachi, and in R. Orme, op.cit., vol. III, Vandiwash; see also H.A. Stuart, North Arcot District Manual, pp. 443-444.

20 Plan at the Bibliothèque nationale, Paris, Cartes et plans, Ge F, carte 13145, fort de Valdaur, and in R. Orme, op.cit., vol. III, Valdore; see also W. Francis, Madras District Gazetteers, South Arcot, Madras, 1906, p. 387.

21 Plans at the Bibliothèque nationale, Paris, Cartes et plans, Ge F, carte 13140, Chetopeut ou Chetoupet, Ge D 3365, ShetouPet, and in R. Orme, op.cit., vol. III, Chittapet.

22 Plan at the Service historique de l'armée de terre, Vincennes, Fichier No. 27, Cartes No. 5 D, 10, Calicourchy.

23 Plans at the Bibliothèque nationale, Paris, Cartes et plans, GE D 3365, Asie, Presqu'île de l'Inde en deça du Gange, Carangouli; at the Service historique de la Marine, Vincennes, Recueil 59, 24 Indes, No. 12, Carangouli, and in R. Orme, op.cit., vol. III, Carangol; see also C.S. Crole, Chingelput Manual, Madras, 1879, pp. 130-131.

24 Plans at the Service historique de la Marine, Vincennes, Recueil 59, 24 Indes, No. 12, Schenglepet, and in R. Orme, op. cit., vol. I, pp. 264-265, vol. III, Chinglapet; also C.S. Croie, Chingelput Manual, pp. 82-85.

25 In fact, to the south of the basaltic zone of the Maratha plateau, the stones in general used for building are granito-gneissic. In the olden days the quarrying was by fire or wedges. By lighting a fire on the convex surface of the gneiss and extinguishing it suddenly, the heated portion of the rock was detached and the laminae were easily removed and cut into straight blocks such as columns, door-posts, steps; the second method consisted in making several square perforations with a hammer in the rock in a line and in the direction it was to be split; this done, the workmen put wedges in the holes and stroke on them with force until the granite broke (C.D. Maclean, Glossary of the Madras Presidency, p. 24). These quadrangular blocks were ideal for straight walls and square or rectangular works.

Notes de fin

* Revised version (with additions) of a part of my article entitled: ‘Etudes sur les fortifications de l’Inde. III. La fortification hindoue dans le Sud de l'Inde (VIe-XVIIIe siècle)’, Bulletin de l'Ecole française d'Extrême-Orient 88, 2001, pp. 98-134.

Table des illustrations

Légende Fig. 1. Siddhavattam (outline plan by J. Deloche)
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 88k
Légende Fig. 2. Vellore in the second half of the 19th century (after a plan by W.J. Wilson, op.cit., vol. V, Maps).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 455k
Légende Fig. 3. Vijayanagara (after a plan by J.M. Fritz, in Vijayanagara Progress of Research 1984-1987, p. 124).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 584k
Légende Fig. 4. Penukonda (after a plan by S.N. Mitra and the 1/50 000 Survey map).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 323k
Légende Fig. 5. Chandragiri (after a plan by N.S.Ramachandra Murthy, op.cit., fig. 14).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 196k
Légende Fig. 6. Vijayanagara gates: plans and elevations (after drawings by S.K. Joshi, op.cit., figs. 64, 59, 60 & 61).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 331k
Légende Fig. 7. Chandragiri and Penukonda gates: plans (after drawings by N.S. Ramachandra Murthy, op.cit., figs. 15 & 17).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 235k
Titre Pl. 1. Ditches
Légende 1. Chandragiri, excavated in the rock.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 232k
Légende 2. Penukonda, lake.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 227k
Légende 3. Vellore, supplied with water by a tank.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 199k
Titre Pl. II. Enclosures (A)
Légende 4. Penukonda, slight tapering profile on the outer face.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 188k
Légende 5. Penukonda, massive masonry construction.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-12.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 167k
Légende 6. Penukonda, quadrangular towers.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-13.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 131k
Légende 7. Siddhavattam, curtain walls and towers.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-14.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 177k
Légende 8. Chandragiri, salient towers.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-15.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 202k
Légende 9. Chandragiri, id.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-16.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 151k
Titre Pl. III. Enclosures (B)
Légende 10. Penukonda, a massive quadrangular tower.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-17.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 167k
Légende 11. Penukonda, Ramaburuju, an octagonal brick tower.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-18.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 164k
Légende 12. Chandragiri, tiers of steps.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-19.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 170k
Légende 13. Penukonda, a postern
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-20.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 150k
Légende 14. Chandragiri, a postern
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-21.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 243k
Titre Pl. IV. Masonry work : stone blocks and rubble filling
Légende 15. Penukonda, rectangular blocks.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-22.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 159k
Légende 16. Penukonda, id.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-23.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 157k
Légende 17. Vijayanagara, blocks separated by rubble filling.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-24.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 209k
Légende 18. Vijayanagara, wedge-shaped blocks.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-25.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 171k
Légende 19. Vijayanagara, a dressed outer surface.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-26.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 221k
Titre Pl. V. Masonry work: revetments without mortar
Légende 20. Penukonda, huge stone blocks.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-27.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 256k
Légende 21. Chandragiri, id.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-28.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 248k
Légende 22. Siddhavattam, blocks covered with telugu inscriptions.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-29.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 252k
Légende 23. Vellore, well finished joints (brick parapet & loopholes of a later period).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-30.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 243k
Titre Pl. VI. Gates (A)
Légende 24. Vijayanagara, a passageway between two rows of pillars.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-31.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 216k
Légende 25. Chandragiri, a passageway between walls making a zigzag course.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-32.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 128k
Légende 26. Chandragiri, a doorway covered by lintels and beams.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-33.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 144k
Légende 27. Penukonda, a similar doorway (the towers are of a later period).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-34.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 216k
Titre Pl. VII. Gates (B) Siddhavattam
Légende 28. West gate, a passageway flanked by a platform with pillars.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-35.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 179k
Légende 29. Id., decorated pillars.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-36.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 222k
Légende 30. East gate, from without.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-37.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 198k
Légende 31. Id., from within.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-38.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 204k
Titre Pl. VIII. Battlements, old and new
Légende 32. Siddhavattam, merlons made of one stone piece.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-39.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 207k
Légende 33. Siddhavattam, id.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-40.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 201k
Légende 34. Chandragiri, three-lobed gun loops.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-41.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 170k
Légende 35. Chandragiri, id., Detail.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-42.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 146k
Légende 36. Vellore, similar opening.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-43.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 166k
Titre Pl. IX. Box machicolations with Hindu ornamentation
Légende 37. Mudugal, fausse-braye, east side.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-44.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 204k
Légende 38. Mudugal, detail, representation of Hanuman.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-45.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 148k
Légende 39. Vellore, from within.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-46.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 212k
Légende 40. Vellore, from without.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-47.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 179k
Légende 41. Chandragiri, from within.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-48.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 181k
Légende 42. Chandragiri, corbels shaped like the capitals of Hindu pillars.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-49.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 148k
Légende Fig. 8. Tiruchchirappalli, in the middle of the 18th century: northern part of the fort (after a plan by R. Orme, op.cit., vol. III); section through the rampart (after a plan dated 1755, ms., in Service historique de l'armée de terre, No. 5 D 46, Vincennes).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-50.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 256k
Légende Fig. 9. Tanjavur, in the middle of the 18th century (after a plan by R. Orme, op.cit., vol. III).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-51.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 614k
Légende Fig. 10. Madurai in 1757 (after a plan published by W. Francis, op. cit., vol. I, f.p. 264).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-52.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 270k
Légende Fig. 11. Palaiyamkottai, in the middle of the 18th century (after a plan by R. Orme, op.cit., vol. III).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-53.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 259k
Titre Pl. X. Old engravings
Légende 43. Tiruchchirappalli, around 1750 (Bibliothèque nationale, Cartes et plans, Ge DD 2987 (6985)
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-54.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 272k
Légende 44. Madurai, around 1830 (J. Welsh, op.cit., vol. I, p. 21).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-55.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 218k
Légende 45. Palaiyamkottai, around 1830 (J. Welsh, op.cit., vol. I, p. 46).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-56.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 236k
Légende Fig. 12. Three secondary fortresses in the Tamil country in the middle of the 18th century (after plans by R. Orme, op.cit., vol. III).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ifp/docannexe/image/4023/img-57.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 713k

© Institut Français de Pondichéry, 2007

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540

Cette publication numérique est issue d’un traitement automatique par reconnaissance optique de caractères.

Acheter

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search