DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.614#0063
27
might be utterly impracticable to collect the entire
materials of any one building; but this is not neces-
sary, seeing that the age of a building can be com-
monly determined by observing merely a fragment of its
ruins. In the case, however, of ancient Hindu remains,
so little has been done in their investigation, especially
in comparing one with another, that the question of
their antiquity cannot be at once decided. From an
ignorance of primitive types, mistakes of five hundred
or a thousand years or upwards may be easily made.
In judging, therefore, of the age of the relics found in
Benares, we have, in reality, very little to guide us.
If there be anything in the argument based on the-
simplicity of a style, or on its ornamentation, as bearing
on its greater or less antiquity, then we can predicate
of the buildings which formerly stood in this part of
Benares various stages of antiquity. Some of the
capitals, pillars, bases, architraves, and mouldings are
most severely simple in their type, while others are
crowded with ornamentation; and both species are very
different from the styles in modern use. The first
species is, doubtless, the forerunner of the second, but
at what interval, it is at present impossible to aflirm.
There is no question that a large proportion of the
ancient remains in Benares are of Buddhist origin,
but of various epochs; and, in some cases, those on the
same site are of different ages. For instance, the Bud-
dhist monastery and temples, of which traces are found
at Bakariya, Kund, differ in their styles of architecture.
Of the two small temples, parts of which, though
possibly altered and transposed, are still standing, the
might be utterly impracticable to collect the entire
materials of any one building; but this is not neces-
sary, seeing that the age of a building can be com-
monly determined by observing merely a fragment of its
ruins. In the case, however, of ancient Hindu remains,
so little has been done in their investigation, especially
in comparing one with another, that the question of
their antiquity cannot be at once decided. From an
ignorance of primitive types, mistakes of five hundred
or a thousand years or upwards may be easily made.
In judging, therefore, of the age of the relics found in
Benares, we have, in reality, very little to guide us.
If there be anything in the argument based on the-
simplicity of a style, or on its ornamentation, as bearing
on its greater or less antiquity, then we can predicate
of the buildings which formerly stood in this part of
Benares various stages of antiquity. Some of the
capitals, pillars, bases, architraves, and mouldings are
most severely simple in their type, while others are
crowded with ornamentation; and both species are very
different from the styles in modern use. The first
species is, doubtless, the forerunner of the second, but
at what interval, it is at present impossible to aflirm.
There is no question that a large proportion of the
ancient remains in Benares are of Buddhist origin,
but of various epochs; and, in some cases, those on the
same site are of different ages. For instance, the Bud-
dhist monastery and temples, of which traces are found
at Bakariya, Kund, differ in their styles of architecture.
Of the two small temples, parts of which, though
possibly altered and transposed, are still standing, the