Manasara Series (I. A Dictionary of Hindu Architecture; II. Indian Architecture according to Manasara-Shilpashastra; III. Manasara on Architecture and Sculpture: Sanskrit Text; IV. Architecture of Manasara: Translation; V. Architecture of Manasara: Illustrations; VI. Hindu Architecture in India and Abroad; VII. An Encyclopaedia of Hindu Architecture) v6.c41.s25.50

v6.c41.s25.50

Sir John he Sarnath by foreign d the idea 'missed,' ık of anyitory.³ He excavation rther than rtion of a ned to be of Asoka's ce, at the ns,' some his polish) e building have been ; at Perseten rows taliputra,' only eight sumption be found, with the umnation umnation not identical, perhaps, with that of the Persian throne-room, but still,’ holds Dr. Spooner, ‘one which is essentially Persepolitan, and never found in any other country of antiquity.’ So far as the capitals are concerned, of which there appears to be striking similarity, as has been pointed out by all authorities, Spooner admits that ‘no capitals had been recovered in Patna to help us in comparing the two buildings, nor had any pedestals been met with.’ Spooner acknowledges the importance of the existence of capitals when he says, ‘It may be true that, so far as Indian architecture is concerned, the only substantial point showing Persian influence is the capital.’ He further admits that ‘it may be true that no architectural plan in India, nor any type of building, as a whole, has hitherto been known which one could say was based directly on a Persian model’; yet, undeterred even by this consideration, Dr. Spooner goes on to build his castle of assumption and declares that a ‘careful study of the stratification suggested that pedestals had, *in all probability*, existed, and the *indicated* dimensions and proportions justified the thought that these pedestals must have been themselves of Persepolitan type, round in plan, some 3 feet high, and inferentially, bell-shaped, though as regards this latter point,’ he is forced to admit that ‘no evidence exists.’¹