[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Architecture and art](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art) › [A History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon, from the Earliest Times to the Present Day](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911) › c8.18 # A History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon, from the Earliest Times to the Present Day c8.18 A History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon, from the Earliest Times to the Present Day c8.18 - **Language:** English ### [c8.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.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 - [Previous: c8.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c8.17) - [Next: c8.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c8.19) - [Up: c8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c8) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c8.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.art.smith-1911.c8.18) · Pramāṇa