since the 13th century. It was once re-erected during the time of Jahangir in 1605, albeit crowned by a globe surmounted by a cone, and was later sketched by the Jesuit missionary, Joseph Tiefenthaler, in the mid-18th century. General Kyd pulled the pillar down in 1798. In 1838, Captain Edward Smith "of the Engineers" set up the pillar once again, this time with a new lion capital of his own design. Cunningham criticized this effort at restoration as "a signal failure" as he thought the statue was "small and recumbent". He summed up the design with the following remark, Ashokan pillar, in situ An alternate theory proposed by Krishnaswamy and Ghosh in 1935 states that the Allahabad pillar was never moved. They dismissed the theory that Muslim Sultans, anyone from the Mughal empire, Hindu kings before the arrival of Islam, or any private individual may have moved the pillar from Kaushambi to the current location. Their arguments are based on the dates of the numerous inscriptions on the pillar, the lack of textual evidence in any historical texts, or of a reason for anyone to move the pillar from Kaushambi to Allahabad, since there is no evidence that these were significant cities. They also dismiss the possibility that a private individual may have moved it because the pillar is too big and heavy, and required a very large amount of resources to move it. Ashoka may have installed it at Prayag because the confluence of Ganges and Yamuna rivers was already a major pilgrimage site during his time, thus a location that gave more access and visibility to his edicts. The Ashokan inscription is merely a copy of the Kausambi inscription, state Krishnaswamy and Ghosh. The surface damage and the addition of numerous new inscriptions happened while the pillar stood in Allahabad. Pre-Ashokan, Prayāga bull-pillar A third theory was proposed in 1979 by John Irwin, who concurred with Krishnaswamy and Ghosh that the Allahabad pillar was never moved and was always at the confluence of the rivers Ganges and Yamuna. He further stated that the pillar's origins were undoubtedly pre-Ashokan based on all the evidence at the site, the major and minor inscriptions as well as textual evidence, taken together. According to Irwin, an analysis of the minor inscriptions and ancient scribblings on the pillar first observed by Cunningham, also noted by Krishnaswamy and Ghosh, reveals that these included years