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/96

72 orders of King Ṣasângka, occupies the exact centre, as it should do, of the reduced square. The square thus formed did not, it is true, occupy the centre of the tower, but this was a circumstance that could only have been perceived by making careful measurements, and not being obvious, was not likely to attract notice or suspicion.

But to the chamber so reduced the broad original entrance was obviously inappropriate; it had to be reduced also, and it has accordingly been reduced in nearly the same proportionate extent; so that at first sight there should be nothing to excite suspicion and consequent minute enquiry.

But the tall opening thus reduced in width would wear a very suspicious look; accordingly, we find the opening broken up into compartments, and thus lessening the apparent height.

Internally, however, the now narrowed chamber would have been quite out of keeping with the great height to which the apex of the pyramidal roof rose internally, and a lining of the requisite thickness could not, for obvious reasons, be applied to the interior of the pyramidal roof; hence the expedient of the vault, which effectually cut off the suspicious tallness of the roof internally.

Here then we have all the conditions added that were necessary to carry out the minister’s intention of deceiving his king; and I conclude, therefore, that the additions enumerated were made by the minister of Ṣasângka about A. D. 600.

No other supposition that occurs to me can adequately explain the reason of these changes; they clearly do not add either to the strength or to the grandeur of the temple.

I have abstained from assigning the original building of the temple to any age, for reasons already given; but I do not hesitate to ascribe the vaulting, &c., to the period of King Ṣasângka, about A. D. 600. This assignment will fall in with either of the possible dates of the building of the temple, viz., the first century A. D. as General Cunningham has it, or A. D. 500 according to the Amara Devâ inscription. The occurrence of vaulted arches with radiating voussoirs is no objection, for, as will subsequently be seen, the Indians knew the use of it long before this period.

Regarding the subsequent additions there is no question, and as General Cunningham has already written about them, I refer to his account.