Emanuela

 Bocancea  
ARCH  2040  (Imperial  Cities)  

 
Fritz,  John  M.  1986.  “Vijayanagara:  Authority  and  Meaning  of  a  South  Indian  
Imperial  Capital.”  American  Anthropologist,  New  Series,  88:  44-­55.  
 
“The   meaning   of   the   imperial   capital   can   be   understood   as   a   necessary   component   of   the  
system   that   constitutes   the   authority   of   its   rulers.     Urban   form   relates   rulers’   behavior   to  
principles  of  order  and  to  the  forces  that  create  this  order.”  (Fritz  1986,  44)  
 
  As   indicated   by   the   abstract’s   opening   lines,   John   Fritz   sets   out   to   discuss  

architecture,   urban   morphology,   and   other   material   aspects   of   Vijayanagara   (the  

largest   and   best   preserved   capital   of   the   most   important   Hindu   empire   of   south  

India)   with   a   view   to   demonstrating   how   these   elements   embodied   the   king’s  

authority   as   ruler.     In   particular,   the   argument   is   structured   around   the   various  

activities/roles  of  the  king  which  are   apparently  expressed  by  aspects  of  the  city’s  

plan  and  material  culture.  

  Fritz   starts   with   a   brief   historical   and   topographic   introduction   to   the   site,   as  

well   as   a   short   overview   of   scholarly   work   on   medieval   kingship   in   south   India  

(specifically   highlighting   the   nature   of   this   kingship   and   the   roles/activities   of  

kings).     He   then   launches   into   his   argument,   focusing   on   the   urban   core   of  

Vijayanagara,  and  especially  its  so-­‐called  royal  center.    Fritz  discusses  how  elements  

of  architecture,  sculpture  (iconography),  and  spatial  organization  embody  the  king  

as   warrior,   hunter,   possessor   and   distributor   of   wealth,   promoter   of   prosperity,  

adjudicator  of  disputes,  and  maintainer  of  cosmic  order.      

  Although   the   proposed   argument   and   theoretical   angle   are   interesting   and  

certainly  worth  exploring  within  the  context  of  Vijayanagara,  Fritz  has  a  tendency  to  

state   rather   than   make   his   arguments,   leaving   the   reader   somewhat   unconvinced  

and   skeptical.     This   is   combined   with   the   fact   that   he   rarely   cites   any   sources  

  1  
 Emanuela  Bocancea  
ARCH  2040  (Imperial  Cities)  

 
whatsoever,  making  it  very  difficult  (if  not  impossible)  for  the  reader  to  investigate  

his   claims   further.     Finally,   despite   making   wonderful   promises   to   discuss   such  

things   as   the   structure   of   the   urban   plan,   the   organization   of   movement,   and   the  

mythological  associations  of  the  city  as  integral  elements  in  his  argument,  he  ends  

up  relying  far  too  heavily  on  mere  descriptions  of  iconography  located  in  the  urban  

core  to  literally  illustrate  his  claims.        

To   demonstrate   my   criticisms   with   a   typical   example:   Without   any  

references   whatsoever,   Fritz   states   that   athletic   displays   probably   conveyed   royal  

power,  then  goes  on  to  list  and  describe  athletic  imagery  in  the  urban  centre,  after  

which  he  sums  up  by  stating  that  “[s]uch  contests  communicated  the  strength,  skill,  

and  combativeness  of  those  who  served  the  king”  (Fritz  1986,  47).    This  may  very  

well   be   a   legitimate   and   insightful   observation,   but   Fritz   is   not   successful   in  

demonstrating  to  the  reader  how  and  why  this  is  the  case.        

This   article   touches   on   a   number   of   interesting   ideas   with   respect   to  

exploring  ‘imperial  capitals’  and  how  they  legitimate  and  embody  state  authority  in  

a   very   physical,   archaeologically   identifiable   way.     If   Fritz   were   to   re-­‐write   this  

article   and   present   a   more   balanced   focus   of   the   material   elements   that   he   claims  

embody   the   ruler’s   authority   in   Vijayanagara   (without   relying   so   heavily   on   just  

iconography),  and  if  he  were  to  properly  explain  the  how  and  why  of  his  arguments  

and   include   more   citations,   his   approach   would   potentially   yield   an   interesting   case  

study   in   how   authority   is   physically   constructed   and   maintained   in   an   imperial  

capital.  

   

  2