pable of being subjected to a lateral strain, the mode of using bricks edge to edge is not only not weaker than the form of arch we now use, but is positively stronger, as giving fewer joints between the voussoirs; and where the cementing material is mud, which does not set hard, but remains always compressible, the advantage of having as few joints as possible of the compressible material between the voussoirs is obvious.
In the sanctum thus covered by the vault, the pedestal of the statue extends right across, and is even partially embedded on both sides within the walls. Apart from the very unusual nature of this arrangement, the fact of the Singhâsan being embedded at the ends in the side walls is a very strong circumstance in favour of the supposition that the sanctum was originally larger, within which the throne stood, detached at the ends from the walls.
The all but universal custom in temple-building appears to have been to make the sanctum square and to place it in the centre of the great tower. There are indeed instances, few and far between, where this rule is departed from, notably in the very interesting instance of the great temple at Pathâri in Central India, and also at Gyâraspur; but these temples are of stone. In brick temples I have not come upon a single instance where this rule has been departed from, with the single exception of the temple at Konch; and there the very exception has served most emphatically to confirm the rule. As I have proved almost to demonstration that the apparent anomaly is due to subsequent alteration, let us now apply this law to the great Buddha Gaya temple. Here the sanctum is an oblong 20 feet in length. By increasing the width on either side, the immediate consequence is that the side walls, which now are thicker than the back, become at once reduced in thickness, and are made equal to the back wall. Further than this, the Singhâsan now no longer runs anomalously right across the sanctum, but occupies, as it should, a detached position abutting against the back wall. It is clear, therefore, that the thickening of the side walls and the consequent narrowing of the sanctum is due to alterations and additions carried out since the building of the temple. This is the opinion arrived at by General Cunningham, although one of his reasons for so thinking—viz., that there is no recorded instance of the use of the true arch by Hindus at a very early period—is no longer tenable, as will be seen further on. The conclusion he
