History of Indian and Eastern Architecture v2.c33.s17.19

v2.c33.s17.19

Whether this is exactly so or not, no one probably who is familiar with Buddhist art in its latest age on the western side of India will probably doubt that it was from these parts that the builders of Boro-Budur migrated. The character of the sculptures, and the details of the ornamentation in Cave 26 at Ajantâ, and 17 at Nâsik, and more especially in the later caves at Kanheri in Salsette, at Kondivtê, Mâgâthânâ, and other places in that neighbourhood, are so nearly identical with what is found in the Javan monument, that the identity of the workmanship is unmistakable. It is true we have no monument in that part of India to which we can point that at all resembles Boro-Budur in design, but then it must be borne in mind that there is not a single structural Buddhist building now existing within the limits of the cave region of Western India. It seems absurd, however, to suppose that so vast a community confined themselves to caves, and caves only. They must have had structural buildings of some sort in their towns and elsewhere, but scarcely a fragment of any such now exists, and we are forced to go to Gandhâra, in the extreme north-west, for our nearest examples. As already pointed out, there are many points of similarity between Jamâlgarhi, and more especially between Takht-î-Bahai and Boro-Budur; and if any architect, who was accustomed to such work, would carefully draw and restore these northern monasteries, many more might become apparent.¹ We know enough even now to render this morally certain, though hardly sufficient to prove it in the face of much that may be brought forward by those who care to doubt it. Meanwhile, my impression is, that if we knew as much of these Gandhâra monasteries as we know of Boro-Budur, we could tell the interval of time that separated them, probably within half a century at least.