Ancient Javanese Remains. 
29 
1862 .] 
of incorrect observation in a man of distinguished sagacity and gen¬ 
eral accuracy. I certainly know that it is a mistake to say all , lor 
not one arch or vault properly so-called could I discover in the tem¬ 
ples we visited. All were formed on the same corbelling principle 
that I have already spoken of, and I suspect that there are none 
otherwise formed. The nearest approach to such a construction that 
I saw was in the very curious two-storied building of which Ra ffles (PI. 
29) gives an indifferent plate, but which I will not take up your time 
in describing. In some of the apertures of this, there is a sort of 
sham key-stone found, but it is only a sham, for it really rests on cor¬ 
belled projections (See Figs. 10, and 11.) Exactly the same approach 
to the arch is to be seen in the arcades about the Kootub, as if the 
builders had heard an arch described, or had seen one, but could not 
remember how to imitate it. This may be seen very plainly in Mr. 
Beato’s well-known photographs of the Delhi remains. 
In conclusion, it may be asked, what is the object of this paper ? as, 
with the exception of the temple at Mundot, most of the particulars 
must have been given by previous English writers. Well, here is an 
object. 
In a paper which the greatest living authority on Buddhist, and 
on all ancient Indian architecture, Mr. Fergusson, was kind enough 
to attach to my description of the temples at Pagan on the Irawadi, he 
pointed out that that account opened a new chapter in our knowledge 
of Buddhist architecture. In India Buddhist remains take either 
the form of the Tope, of the Chaitya Hall (as he calls it) or basilica, 
or of the Vihara or monastery. But purely image temples were 
not known, unless you went so far north as Cashmere and the Salt 
Range of the Punjab ; and the Buddhist character of these was doubt¬ 
ed from the very fact of their being such mere temples. The Pagan 
buildings were such, and there could be no question about their 
Buddhism. Now, here in Java we have exactly similar temples, and 
I believe those which I have described, except perhaps the ruined piles 
of Loro Jongran, as certainly and unmistakeably Buddhist. But 
not only so. The general characters also of those temples, in Java 
and in Burma, have a close resemblance as well as the detail of 
their ornaments. The ornaments of both are of Indian origin; the 
form and style of both are as near as could be # in the difference of 
* With certain remarkable exceptions. 
