Page:History of Indian and Eastern Architecture Vol 2.djvu/235

 CHAP. II. GHAZNI 193 interesting and valuable pieces of information we could receive. These ruins, however, have not been as yet either examined or described ; l and even the tomb of the Great Mahmud is unknown to us except by name, 2 notwithstanding the celebrity it acquired from the removal of its gates to India at the termination of our disastrous campaigns in that country. The gates are of Deodar pine, 3 and the carved ornaments on them are so similar to those found at Cairo, on the mosque of 368. Ornaments from the Tomb of Mahmud at Ghaznl. Ibn Tulun and other buildings of that age, as not only to prove that they are of the same date, but also to show how similar were the modes of decoration at these two extremities of the Moslim empire at the time of their execution. At the same time there is nothing in their style of orna- mentation that at all resembles anything found in any Hindu temple, either of their age or at any other time. There is, in fact, no reason for doubting that these gates were made for 1 It is very much to be regretted that not a single officer accompanied our armies, when they passed and repassed through Ghazni, able or willing to appre- ciate the interest of these ruins ; and it is to be hoped, if an opportunity should again occur, that their importance to the history of art in the East will not be overlooked. 2 The sketch of the tomb published by Mr. Vigne in his ' Travels in Afghan- istan,' gives too confined a portion of it VOL. II. to enable us to judge either of its foim or detail. The gate in front is probably modern, and the foiled arches in the background appear to be the only parts that belong to the nth century. 3 The tradition that these gates were of sandal-wood, and brought from Som- nath, is entirely disproved by the fact of their being of the local pine-wood, as well as by the style of decoration, which has no resemblance to Hindu work. X