On their own confession, they are hardly
justified in accepting the Samvat and Salivahana eras as their guiding
lights, the real initial points of both being beyond the power of the
European Orientalists to verify; yet all the same, the respective dates
"of 57 B.C. and 78 A.D." are accepted implicitly, and fanciful ages
thereupon ascribed to archeological remains.
3. The greatest authorities upon Indian archeology and architecture--
General Cunningham and Mr. Fergusson--represent in their conclusions the
two opposite poles. The province of archeology is to provide
trustworthy canons of criticism, and not, it should seem, to perplex or
puzzle. The Western critic is invited to point to one single relic of
the past in India, whether written record or inscribed or uninscribed
monument, the age of which is not disputed. No sooner has one
archeologist determined a date--say the first century--than another
tries to pull it forward to the 10th or perhaps the 14th century of the
Christian era. While General Cunningham ascribes the construction of
the present Buddha Gaya temple to the 1st century after Christ--the
opinion of Mr.
Pages:
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476