A History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon, from the Earliest Times to the Present Day c8.18

c8.18

All writers on Indian architecture have assumed that the domical *stūpa* must be a development of the earthen sepulchral tumulus, the form of a tomb being naturally utilized for a structure frequently intended to conserve bodily relics. But this assumption fails to explain the facts. The natural shape assumed by an earthen tumulus is that of a cone or pyramid, and as a matter of fact the earthen tumuli in the Champāran District and the Egyptian stone pyramids are conical, whereas a *stūpa* is invariably domical. Moreover, many *stūpas*, including some of the most famous, had nothing to do with bodily relics, being simply enduring monuments marking sacred spots. The current assumption implies both that *stūpas* intended for the reception of relics preceded those designed merely as memorials commemorating religious events, and that the form of a sepulchral monument was transferred to a building which had nothing to do with sepulture. Neither of these propositions is entitled to acceptance without proof, and no proof is forthcoming.²