176 On the Huins of Buddha Gay a. pj 0< 2 



ones are held together in their position by their mutual pressure, by 

 the adhesion of the cement interposed between their surfaces ; and by 

 the resistance of the keystone. Such a structure in an Indian build- 

 ing more than two thousand years old, struck me as a remarkable proof 

 of the Hindus having had a knowledge of the principle of the arch at 

 a very early period, though the credit of it has been denied them by 

 all our Anglo-Indian antiquaries. Fergusson, in his Hand Book of 

 Architecture, concedes to the Jains a knowledge of the horizontal 

 or projecting arch, but adverting to the radiating or true arch, 

 says, (Yol. I. p. 78) " In the first place no tope shows internally 

 the smallest trace of a chamber so constructed (i. e. with a true 

 dome) — nor do any of the adjacent buildings incline to such a 

 mode of construction which must have ere now been detected had it 

 ever existed," Elsewhere he observes (p. 254) " The Indian archi- 

 tects have fallen into the other extreme, refusing to use the arch 

 under any circumstances, and preferring the smallest dimensions and 

 the most crowded interiors, rather than adopt what they considered 

 so destructive an expedient." Adverting to the Kotub, he says, 

 "all the openings possess pointed arches which the Hindus never 

 used" p. 418). Again, "the Hindus however up to this time (i.e. 

 of the Pathans) had never built arches, nor indeed did they for 

 centuries afterwards" (p. 424). These remarks do not, it is true, 

 directly mean that the Indians had no knowledge of the arch, but 

 they imply it. Elphinstone is more positive. In his remarks on 

 Hindu bridges, he says, " Nor does it appear that the early Hindus 

 knew the arch, or could construct vaults or domes, otherwise than by 

 layers of stone, projecting beyond those beneath, as in the Treasury 

 of Atreus in Mycenae." (Hist, of India, p. 163.) Depending on 

 the testimony of these distinguished antiquarians one may very 

 reasonably assign to the Buddha Graya temple a much later age than 

 it claims, but the fact of its having been visited by Fa Hian and 

 subsequently by Hiouen Thsang long before* the advent of the Maho- 

 medans in this country, inevitably leads to the inference of its having 

 existed at a pre-mahomedan era, while the position the arches occupy, 

 is so natural and integral that-it leaves no room for the hypothesis that 

 they were subsequent additions. I brought the fact to the notice 

 of Capt. Mead, who had kindly undertaken to shew the ruins to me, 

 and he readily acknowledged that the builders of the temple, whoever 



