The Antiquities of Orissa v2.c18.30

v2.c18.30

How the temple fell cannot now be positively affirmed, but that the destruction was caused either by a sinking of the foundation or by a smart shock of earthquake, there can be no doubt. Exception might be taken to the earthquake theory as no effect of a seismic commotion is now visible on the porch; but the effect of an earthquake on a slender tower upwards of 200 feet high would be very different from what it would be on a squat four-sided room with stone walls from 10 to 20 feet thick, and the tower might well suffer when the room escapes without a crack. It is difficult, however, to conceive that the memory of so severe a seismic catastrophe could be entirely forgotten. No slight quake could knock down so solid a structure of stone as the temple unquestionably was and a quake sufficiently vigorous for the purpose must have been very extensively felt and for certain remembered. But tradition is entirely silent in this respect and I am disposed, therefore, to lay greater stress on the faulty character of the foundation. The ground is everywhere in this locality sandy, and, though it is to be presumed that the architect had taken some precaution against the fault of the soil by carrying his foundation below the level of the upper sandy layer, it is very likely that he failed to reach the solid earth below, and, building on sand rendered the chance of the foundation sinking possible and that chance overtook his work in time. It is certain that the pillars which supported the masonry ceiling of the porch did fall by the sinking of the ground on which they had been built. Situated in the middle of a square room with stone walls 10 to 20 feet they could not break but by sinking and they brought down the ceiling along with them. No force to knock them dowm could be applied latterally which would leave the side walls uninjured; and the walls are uninjured. It is obvious that in falling the pillars did not knock against the walls and we can attribute their fall only to the sinking of their bases. No other theory can suffice to explain the occurrence. If so what has unquestionably happened in the porch may be fairly assumed to have occurred in the temple. Mr. Fergusson is of this opinion. He says, ‘From an examination of the ruins themselves, I am inclined to think that the failure of the marshy foundation that supported so enormous a mass was by far the most probable cause. Had the place been subject to earthquakes, the tottering fragment of the tower that still remains could scarcely have stood for two centuries and lightning could scarcely have shattered so enormous a pyramidal mass and was much more likely to have been attracted by the iron-roofed porch than by the tower which probably had no iron in its composition, while the appearance of the ruin is exactly that which would result from a subsidence of the foundation’⁸. That [151] the temple did not suffer from hostile attack may be assumed as certain, for stone walls of the thickness under notice could not be knocked down by any artillery which an enemy could bring to bear against them two to three hundred years ago. Artillery of the time did not break down the brick temple at Buddha Gayā⁹. Nor can we assume anything like blasting with gunpowder, as the quantity of powder which would have sufficed to knock down the temple would have also told seriously on the four walls of the porch. Mere undermining would have been a dangerous game for the miners; it would have besides required a long time and left a huge tumulus of earth and sand in the neighbourhood. Adverting to the destruction and desecration of the temple, Mr. Stirling gives a story, the main element of which, a loadstone, is obviously fictitious, but the story is worthy of note. It runs thus: