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

Hi Tom,

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

Mohenjodaro and Harappa interest me but I find the dearth of quality
English resources frustrating. So I am interested in, for example,
Vitthala Temple, Vijayanagara.

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?

She is the classic reference on the Hindu temple.

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.

True, but I wasn't limiting myself to such sites. Any place of great
cultural significance can still be an excellent source for learning
preferred building patterns (e.g. Vitthala--its borders are pretty
clearly marked). However, I cannot find any more beyond the basic
plans.

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

Feel free to contact me off list if you need something and I'll see
what my access entitles me to.

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?

That is an interesting question. In my opinion, the entire area of
Teotihuacan is a loose mytho-geographical center, in the same way that
Vatican City is a mytho-geographical center for Catholics (Jerusalem,
naturally, would be another). But what is the center of the Vatican
itself (i.e. St. Peter's specifically)? Many would argue it is the
Baldachin below which lies the altar. So in Teotihuacan, is there a
corresonding center? I am not sure but feel that the altar before
Quetzacoatal pyramid is worth investigating.

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

Ideally, aerial extent of boundary markings. But given the scarcity of
such data, relative measurements is still interesting.

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

Tompkins, whose name I should have been more careful with when posting
here. Ah, scholars. What a crotchedy bunch.

Cheers.

ps-can i conclude i have snipped and not top-posted this time? let me
know as, really, the location of my question appears to have bugged
people inordinately--regardless of the content or my tone of voice.

.

Loading