Page:Report of a Tour Through the Bengal Provinces of Patna, Gaya, Mongir and Bhagalpur; The Santal Parganas, Manbhum, Singhbhum and Birbhum; Bankura, Raniganj, Bardwan and Hughli in 1872-73.djvu/143

Rh as at Buddha Gaya, springing at a height of five feet above the floor of the sanctum. The half span of the vault appears to have been one foot, or at least 9 inches, less on each side than the half width of the sanctum, so that the vault could not have been of a larger span than perhaps 6½ feet. What came over this I had no means of ascertaining with certainty; but, judging from the irregular, loose, and confused position of the bricks above, it appears to me that it was surmounted by the usual hollow tower roof.

The bricks in the lower or confused portion were 14 inches long by 11¾ inches wide, and 3 inches thick, while the bricks in the even layers above, down to a depth of 8 feet below General Cunningham's lower chamber, or 11 feet above the floor of the temple below, were 12 inches long by 9 inches wide, and 2½ inches thick.

It appears, therefore, that there once existed here a small temple facing north; that in course of time this temple fell to ruin and became a low mound above 12 or 13 feet high; and that, subsequently, on this mound a stûpa was built; this stûpa was opened by General Cunningham.

There is nothing to shew the age of the stûpa beyond the small model stûpa found by General Cunningham in the relic chamber. Judging from this, it is not probable that the stûpa is so old as the first century before or after Christ; but the existence of the mutilated red-stone statue, with its inscribed characters, shews that there was some sort of religious building here as early as the beginning of the Christian era.

As it is clear that the stûpa was built on the ruins of the temple below, and as the stûpa is clearly not of the period about the beginning of the Christian era, the temple on whose ruins it stands must be considered of the same age as the inscribed red-stone statue, viz., of the first century before or after Christ.

This is a most important position. I am satisfied in my own mind of the correctness of this conclusion, but I wish it to undergo rigid scrutiny, as on it depends very important deductions.

Having no doubt myself that the temple was certainly as old as the statue which, according to General Cunningham, dates to the first century before or after Christ, it follows—

(1) That the true arch was known and used in India at that time.

(2) That although the principle of the true arch was known, it was, so far as we as yet positively know, built