Thanks to Ratnesh Mathur for sourcing this 'extraordinary' image. This picture disproves the new narrative that Taj existed as a Hindu structure much earlier. It either means that this image was based on hearsay and is an inaccurate representation or if an earlier building existed then it must have a smaller and insignificant structure. The reason for my nagging doubt towards the established theory in history is essentially because there are absolutely no references to this monumental structure in either of the autobiographies of Shah Jahan or Jahangir! And this is no small building to be ignored then or now. But this image by Alain Manesson Mallet drawn during a time when none of the 'history-making or remaking' pressures existed...is an extremely important document in the story of Taj Mahal in my opinion.

But Taj did exist at 1683. Therefore the sketch must be of earlier than 1660 if I m not wrong.

The construction of Taj started around 1632. The dating is mixed up of this map.

The drawing could be from earlier date, but printed in 1683.. remember that travel was pretty slow then and could have taken a few decades to reach Paris

Uh oh ...Barry Lawrence Ruderman is just trying to sensationalize the context, to sell his maps. Pls see page 98 of Alain Mallet's book, adjacent to this view by Alain Mallet ( who didnt visit Agra or India, ever). The source described by Mallet is " Page 66 of Tavernier's Voyages des Indes". (see - http://archive.org/stream/descriptiondelun02mall#page/98/mode/2up ). Now Tavernier's fanciful descriptions of Agra are actually part of the problem, not the solution to the debate on the original structure on the Taj Mahal plot of land. Tavernier is the source of the rumour on the 2nd Taj - "Black Taj Mahal" too . Also, note Tavernier's travel dates on this website - Mumtaz Mahal died on June 17, 1630. Tavernier was in Isfahan, Iran that time. And while Taj construction began sometime in 1631, Tavernier first visited India & Agra only in 1640 ( see - http://thefrenchblue.com/timeline2.htm ) . The main dome may not have been ready by then but Tavernier actually visits Agra several times in subsequent years (chasing diamonds) , and would've seen the completed structure. So why did Alain Mallet choose to ignore the Taj in his publication of 1683, six years after Tavernier's publication ? ....Did he have doubts on Tavernier's descriptions ? Did he cross reference to earlier Agra descriptions eg. Robert Coverte's "Voyages & Travels, a True and almost incredible journey" of 1612 describing his meeting with William Hawkins at Agra / Thomas Coyat's letters describing his meetings with Thomas Roe in Jehangir's court at Agra ? ..... We may never know why. But one things for sure - Tavernier is not a reliable source on the subject. (see - http://www.stephen-knapp.com/taj_mahal_time_to_tell_the_truth.htm ) . He primarily came hunting for diamonds to India. Chances are , he met & befriended another french crook, who settled in Agra, Austin de Bordeaux. Now Austin de Bordeaux , one of the main architects of the Taj Mahal (other two - Ustad Ahmad, a Persian engineer & Geronimo Veroneo, the Italian) and the Peacock Throne (which Nadir Shah later took away, along with the Kohinoor) is better known for having introduced pietra-dura techniques in Agra & Delhi. But he is also the same person who'd conned the Medicis at Florence, by using fake diamonds/precious stones & settled in Shah Jahan's courts, to escape from Europe.

Beautiful account Ratnesh

Ratnesh, you continue to amaze all.

Nothing amazing, Arindam. I collect maps, prints of India. Have most of the antiquarian stuff (eg. this $30 Agra Mallet print) commercially available, here in my library. Some bit coincidence. Was just reading an old travelogue ( Both Hemispheres by Rev. Eugene Vetromile, 1880) last week which had this interesting information about Austin de Bordeaux, in its Agra/Delhi travels section.A little bit of related internet search & any fool can look amazing on web scribbles/commentary...

I agree with Arindam!...

good collection