The Cambridge History of India, Vol. III: Turks and Afghans v3.c30.s1.16.5

v3.c30.s1.16.5

Their difficulties began when the customs of Islam or other considerations necessitated the introduction of alien and incongruous elements—a contingency which inevitably happened over their tombs and mosques. To the Muslim a tomb was indissolubly associated with the idea of dome and arch construction, but in Gujarāt the old trabeate system was much too deeply rooted in the soil to make way for the arcuate, and hence the builders generally insisted on following their own principles of design, modified by little more than the use of structural domes in place of the older corbelled roofs. Were it not for these domes and the increased spaciousness which they facilitated the tomb, for example, of Mahmūd Begarha at Sarkhej, of Sayyid ‘Usmān in Ahmadābād (1460), or of Bībī Achut Kūkī (1472) would show relatively little trace of Islamic influence. On the other hand, there are a few tombs in which greater size and dignity were achieved by adopting the arch and vault. Such are the tombs of Shāh ‘Ālam and of Mubārak Sayyid at Mahmūdābād; but even in these cases it is manifest that the architects were still working under the spell of their ancient tradition and still thinking more in terms of trabeate than of arcuate construction, with the result that their creations never attained the same sublimity and grandeur as the great tombs of Northern India and the Deccan.