I wonder who built it for Aibek? They had not come with artisans etc from their lands, in any case the town on Aibak and his associated army from Gazani -- does not seem to possess the craftsmanship to make such a structure in the given period. Was local labour used make the Minar?

This is a significant observation @SS...itnaa hi damm thhaa to jahan se aaye thhe wahan banaate!!

Thank you Vivek, I believe it is important to wonder and continually question. That is the saar of Upanishad's and that is the way to knowledge eventually.

@Satyakam Sudershan: They used local labour. They came with a fighting army and the only engineers they brought with them were capable of throwing boat bridges across the river for the army to cross. That is why the Quwwat al-Islam mosque is columns an beams a Hindu style of construction known as trebeate style of construction whereas the muslims used the arcaded style of architecture i.e. using arches to span the wall openings. Even the shallow dome at the entrances of the mosque is not a true dome but a corbelled dome, again Hindu stone masons trying to copy a form called dome.

@Viveck Atheya: Damm tau tha aur jabhi aa ke jumm bhi gaye. 1199 se le ke 1857 tak. Hamara damm kahan gaya tha? Ya ki tha hi nahi?

The whole complex is built after demolition of temples. The defaced sculptures keen be seen even today. The faces of gods and goddess are mutilated.

Yes, Pulin, I thought as much. But if the local engineers could not put together a dome, how could they put together a far complicated minar? Meanwhile, I believe the arch and dome questions are being reopened again. I might be just that inferior domes in the early period were inferior by "design" -- i.e. inferior not because they were done by those who did not know, but inferior because they were done quickly.

>> 1199 se le ke 1857 ta Not really, the Maratha's controlled Delhi by 1700s. However that said on different topic. Banane ka dum, or lootne ka dum alag alag cheeze hain -- agar banane ka dum tha, to Gazani mein 1199 se pehle bhee dikhna chahiye? Hai na? So the "dum" here is probably architectural prowess.

The domes were probably slapped on quickly to "claim" the prior structures on which the domes were being built.

Excellent

The domes over the colonnades of the inner quadrangle of Qutub are truly in the Hindu order . . . the shikhars on top of them were in all probability demolished. if you see the cross section of a shikhar of any Hindu temple you will find that it has one larger spire and a shallow corbelled dome that forms the inner ceiling of the sanctum. In case of the Qutub once the original spires were demolished the inner shallow dome was exposed and its outer surface plastered to finish it, which is why it gives an unfinished look. There is much more to the story of Qutub than meets the eye !

@Satyakam Suershan: Piling stone on top of stone is easy and Hindu stone masons were used to it in constructing shikhars or temples and many massive forts e.g. Kumbhalgarh etc. But erecting a true arch is difficult if you do not know the basic principle of true arch. And what is dome? It is arch rotated thru 360 degrees. Rotate a corbelled arch and you get a corbelled dome which is not a true dome. rotate a true arch and you get a true dome. If we meet someday, I can explain it to you personally.

Pulin, I have been doing some personal reading on arches are domes. These techniques have been widely available since roman times, with many of the specimen actually even predating Romans. I do not think that the method is esoteric of difficult. It may be that India saw preponderance on one style -- however a number of claims of domes in India in pre Islamic period are made (of course they are currently rubbished, but I am not sure how much that is valid) One of the major issues was that Indians did not use Chuna (limestone) before the islmaic times. This was one of the major points raised to question the antiquity of the Hindu temples that were used in the erstwhile disputed structure at Ram Janmbhoomi -- however ASI was able to demonstrate, with impeccable evidence that the use of lime based cements was indeed common even in 7th CE. Given that the knowledge of Arc building is old, and India already had documented use of lime based cement -- a key ingredient in locking the keystones of arches in places -- along with Numerous very complicated archs, carved of stone and of domes of various types --- I find myself unable to believe that building a dome, especially as crude as those in the Qutub complex, would be difficult. They are really crude, as you have no doubt witnessed first hand. The India Heritage hub puts forth the picture that these were inner domed ceilings of temples, plastered over. Doesn't that seem far more possible? Especially given the basic nature of the domes?

Some body should do a x-ray analysis of one of the domes I say -- I continue to be appalled at how many of the open questions of Indian history can be conclusively addressed by scientific techniques (the activities of ASI in Janmbhoomi complex are a great example) -- yet for want of trying even are never researched.

Lime is a very ancient building material and there are evidences of its use in the Ajanta Frescoes (apporx 2000 years old). A number of techniques of preparing various types of plasters or leps have been prescribed in Hindu treatises on architecture . . . I think Indian architecture in the Pre Islamic era was more to do with the preference for certain construction techniques and materials . . . longevity may be one of the reason for the particular choice.