Is difficult to
believe that a style of architecture which differs so much from all
Indian examples, and which has so much in common with those of Greece,
could have been indebted to chance alone for this striking resemblance.
One great similarity between the Kashmirian architecture and that of
the various Greek orders is its stereotyped style, which, during the
long flourishing period of several centuries, remained unchanged. In
this respect it is so widely different from the ever-varying forms
and plastic vagaries of the Hindu architecture that it is impossible
to conceive their evolution from a common origin.
I feel convinced myself that several of the Kashmirian forms, and many
of the details, were borrowed from the temples of the Kabulian Greeks,
while the arrangements of the interior and the relative proportions
of the different parts were of Hindu origin. Such, in fact, must
necessarily have been the case with imitations by Indian workmen,
which would naturally have been engrafted upon the indigenous
architecture. The general arrangements would still remain Indian,
while many of the details, and even some of the larger forms, might
be of foreign origin.
As a whole, I think that the Kashmirian architecture, with its
noble fluted pillars, its vast colonnades, its lofty pediments,
and its elegant trefoiled arches, is fully entitled to be classed
as a distinct style.
