Re: India archaeological measurments [was: Re: temple/pyramid plans]


Chris wrote:
Hi Tom,

Thanks, I was posting from Google Groups and was not aware I was
"top-posting". I just hit reply at the bottom and assumed it was the
right button. Hopefully this reply appears in the right spot...?

Nope, still top-posted, as Uwe noted and corrected.

In Google Groups, you have to click on 'Show Options' (to the right of
the prior poster's name). This gives you another menu of choices. You
want to choose the 'Reply' (first choice on the left). This gives
access to the entire prior post, and you can fit your comments in where
they make most sense. If you are making a general comment, make it
below the prior post.

If you are only replying to part of the prior post, please delete the
part(s) you are not replying to, and mark the deletion somehow. I use
<snip>; others use [...]; while some use ... (which is easiest for you,
but can be overlooked by a reader).

The purpose for cutting extraneous parts is that posts can become
achingly, mind-numbingly long if you do not. The purpose for marking
your <snip> is that if you do not, you might find yourself accused of
trying to avoid an issue. If your <snip> is there, it is clear that you
were consciously not addressing that part.

Does anyone have an interest in sites in India? They don't have to be
sacred. But I am genuinely interested in understanding more about the
sizes and units of measurements that were prominent in India. Stella
Kamrisch does not go into that level of detail. And while the two
resources I referenced have excellent plans for many important sites,
they do not go into the level of detail I am curious about.

Are you interested in Mohenjodaro and Harappa, and culturally
associated? Or more recent sites?

I have found quite a bit of pretty good information on both of these
early sites on-line. I don't know the reference you mention; does she
talk much about the Indus Valley civilization?

Does anyone on this list have an interest in finding out more
information about the relative sizes of important cultural sites in
India? I have tried searching JStor but have yet to really turn up
anything helpful. I'll keep digging, however.

I don't have such an interest, other than as curiosity. As Ewe
mentioned, it can be very hard to define the spacial extent of ancient
sites, and equally difficult to know what the sizes meant to the
cultures that built them.

I do have another reason to be upset with you now, though. You have
access to JStor, and I don't. ***! :-)

As to the raison d'etre for all this: I am doing a cross-cultural study
on mytho-geographical centers.

Could you say something more about mytho-geographical and
mytho-cultural centers? For instance, would you call the entire site of
the city of Teotihuacan a 'm-g' or an 'm-c' center? Or just the area
around the great pyramids and the Street of the Dead?

I doubt that there is one such
mytho-cultural center to India so I thought I would be able to
generalize by studying many such sites. In doing so, I was drawn to the
similar axial plans between India, Egypt and the Judeo-Christian
tradition. There is a wealth of information on the sizes of the latter
two but I am not so sure on the former.

When you say 'sizes' do you primarily mean areal extent? Or do you
mostly mean 'relative measurements of key features'?

Hopefully, this helps you understand why I am posting;

Yup.

limits the
topic;

Yup.

is not inappropriately top-posted;

It is, but you now have the info to deal with it yourself.

and sufficiently restates my
original query so that the author's-name-that-cannot be-mentioned is
removed.

Your original query now makes sense to me. Whose name do you want to
remove?

<snip>

.