VOL. XV. (2) RUDE STONE MONUMENTS OF INDIA 127 
Nothing in the way of building stone is obtainable there, 
except the substance known as Kankar, a coarse, nodular, 
calcareous limestone, which cannot be quarried in large 
blocks, and is suitable only for the very rudest masonry. 
It is true that in the hills which overhang this alluvial 
tract, there are splendid quarries of white or red sandstone, 
which in later times supplied the materials for the magni- 
ficent Moghul palaces at Agra, Delhi, and Fatehpur-Sikri ; 
while from Rajputana came the fine marbles used in the 
celebrated Taj Mahal and other highly ornamented build- 
ings. But in early times these quarries were doubtless 
inaccessible, and the art of brick-making, if known, was not 
largely prosecuted. 
In the hilly districts further south, on the other hand, 
the supply of stone in detached boulders was inexhaustible, 
and it is hence easy to understand how the Dravidians 
of the South, or whoever were the original builders of 
these monuments, used the material which lay ready for 
use long before the Aryans of the North came to erect 
buildings in stone. 
In the case of the stone circles, Fergusson manfully 
faced a special difficulty of another kind. One of the most 
distinctive types of Buddhist art is found in the elaborately 
sculptured rails with which they surrounded their Stupas 
or reliquary mounds. Such is the rail surrounding the 
Stupa at Sanchi (Plate IV. fig. 1), which Fergusson thinks 
may be dated about the first century of our era. To main- 
tain his theory of the late origin of stone monuments 
generally, he was forced to adopt the position that the 
rude stone circle was derived from the elaborately carved 
Buddhist rail, and was therefore of a later date. To most 
authorities since his time it has appeared simpler and 
more in accordance with the usual law of evolution to 
suppose that the Buddhist rail was gradually developed 
from the rude stone circle of the tumulus. 
