Text and/or other creative content from this version of Dome was copied or moved into History of South Asian and Mughal domes with this edit on 23:44, March 9, 2015. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily page views
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of South Asian domes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Highpeaks35: You have been warned by several people about changing "South Asia" here there and everywhere to "Indian subcontinent." Your excuse that "South Asia" includes Afghanistan and therefore pages that do not include something specific to Afghanistan cannot correctly be called " ... South Asia" is an incorrect one. There is no such commonly accepted distinction. You were informed by admin @ RegentsPark: on your user talk page that "South Asia" is the correct usage. This means that not only should you not be changing "South Asia" to "Indian subcontinent" henceforth, but also that you should be undoing your previous errors when given the opportunity. It is inexcusable that you have blithely made several recent edits without undoing the damage have already done. It is not my job to clean up after you. Also, the preposition "in" typically does not go with (sub) continent. Remember "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent ..." Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler, I do not know any wiki policy which states "Indian subcontinent" is invalid. Nor is there a policy which states a non-disputed content should be reversed back. You are making stuff up as you see fit. Regardless, most of the references in this article uses "India". South Asia here is more WP:OR, honestly, it should be changed to "India" (since most references uses "India"). ( Highpeaks35 ( talk) 20:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC))
My Lord, sorry to bother you. Can you assist with this? You are much more knowledge about sourcing than me. What I can see: the sources clearly point to " History of domes in India"; and below is my reasons "History of South Asian domes", which was the name I originally changed here does not meet Wikipedia policies.
As mentioned, per my statements above: " History of domes in India" meets most, if not all, Wikipedia policy and criteria. As such, can you look into this and the sources? Move to RFC to end this? Also, if you don't have time or have any reservations, can you point to someone who has expertise in RFC and sources? ( Highpeaks35 ( talk) 23:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC))
Hammy0007 ( talk) 11:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Buddhist rains of CumbatOtia..-After more heavy rain during the even* ing and night the weather cleared sufficiently to permit of a move up the main valley. While our camp was sent on to Blr-kSf I proceeded from the village of Gumtai to cross the wide belt of Hooded rice fields between which the Swat river flows in several interlacing beds. In order to visit the ruins reported at the small hamlet of Gumbatuna. As the name, the 1 domes had led me to expect, I found there a group of ruined Buddhist Stupas nestling in a picturesque nook of the hillside which rises on the river’s left hank close above the northern¬ most of its branches. On an artificially widened small plateau, some SO feet above the alluvial flat, there rises a large but much injured Stupa (Fig. 3), By its side stands a massive square base badly broken which may have carried a Yilium, while the remains of two small Stupas could be traced to the north and south-east of the large oue. The main StGpa of which PL 2 shows a aketch plan and section has the usual three bases, the lowest measuring 52 feet square, and a dome 34 feet in diameter. The total height when intact must have exceeded 45 feet. This Stupa, like also, the rest of the structures had been burrowed into, probably more than once. It had been cut all through from the east and a shaft 8 feet wide sunk down the centre from the top. In spite of the ravages of time and the hand of man, layers of hard cement-like pla ter still survived in places on the surface of the dome and drum.
page 10 The New Swat Archaeological Museum: Construction activities in Swat district (2011-2013) Khyber-Pakthunkhwa, PakistanThe area around Barikot contains many Buddhist sanctuaries, whose remains, even if heavily looted, still dominates a unique archaeological landscape. The great sanctuary of Gumbat, the only double domed Gandharan monument in existence was in danger of collapsing.
page 27 Hammy0007 ( talk) 11:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Buddhist ruins of Gumbatona..-After more heavy rain during the evening and night the weather cleared sufficiently to permit of a move up the main valley. While our camp was sent on to Barikot I proceeded from the village of Gurutai to cross the wide belt of flooded rice fields between which the Swat river flows in several interlacing beds. In order to visit the ruins reported at the small hamlet of Gumbatuna. As the name, the domes had led me to expect, I found there a group of ruined Buddhist Stupas nestling in a picturesque nook of the hillside which rises on the river’s left hank close above the northern¬ most of its branches. On an artificially widened small plateau, some 8O feet above the alluvial flat, there rises a large but much injured Stupa (Fig. 3), By its side stands a massive square base badly broken which may have carried a Vihara, while the remains of two small Stupas could be traced to the north and south-east of the large oue. The main Stupa of which PL 2 shows a sketch plan and section has the usual three bases, the lowest measuring 52 feet square, and a dome 34 feet in diameter. The total height when intact must have exceeded 45 feet. This Stupa, like also, the rest of the structures had been burrowed into, probably more than once. It had been cut all through from the east and a shaft 8 feet wide sunk down the centre from the top. In spite of the ravages of time and the hand of man, layers of hard cement-like plaster still survived in places on the surface of the dome and drum.
@ Hammy0007: So, it is a stupa. And on page 19, Aurel Stein says,
... I left the road in a southerly direction in order to visit and survey the fairly preserved ruin of a Stupa or Buddhist relic tower in the small secluded glen of Top-dara. The frontispiece shows this monument of Buddhist devotion, erected like all other Stupas of this region to enshrine under the solid mass of its masonry some reputed relic of the Enlightened One. The protection that the massive dome and its bases were intended to afford to the bone fragment or other relic of the Buddha had failed, as at almost all Stupas of the Frontier, to save the sacred deposit from spoliation; for greedy hands, probably long ago, had cut through the south-eastern side of the Stupa and tunnelled right down the centre to discover and abstract what small articles of precious metal, gems or the like, might have been placed as a votive deposit with the relic. (see page 19, here, emphasis mine)
In other words, these so-called "domes," (note Stein's quotes, which you have turned into italics) or stupas, are solid masses of masonry which have been tunneled right down their centers. Obviously, these are not hollow upper hemispheres. See the lead sentence of Dome, "A dome (from Latin: domus) is an architectural element that resembles the hollow upper half of a sphere." How do you square this? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Frowler, please dont impose your Islamic BS on every article, i have already cited multiple sources that domes were present in Indian subcontinent/ South Asia before Islamic intrusion, Gumbatona vihara is the very example, i have also cited other examples of kafirkot, amaravathi, and even an archaeological survey of india report on dome at Kausambi palace, if you again try to remove these cited references, i will now take matters to the admins, you have vandalised Kurta article according to your will, please dont repeat your agenda here.
Hammy0007 (
talk)
02:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I request that I be allowed to edit in peace, and not have text removed which has been sourced to:
{{
citation}}
: |first1=
has generic name (
help)I have begun again, starting with Encyclopedia Britannica article on "Dome," and will add material from Stuart Tappin's " Structural development of masonry domes in India which has already figured prominently in this article.
It is important to emphasize that this article is really about true domes (i.e. masonry hemispheres whose design principles have evolved from the arch), not mounds, or stupas, or rock cut vaults, which, wondrous though they may be, are less advanced technologically. Indeed, Mohenjo-daro had a "stupa." It is a sad commentary on Wikipedia that such sources are being held at ransom by misinterpretations of Aurel Stein's description of solid masonry stupas and viharas in his 1929 travelogue, or references to pictures and youtube videos. Pinging @ RegentsPark:, @ Johnbod:, and also @ Kautilya3: who is knowledgeable about sourcing. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Edit warring note 1: Hammy0007, has reverted all my edits with edit summary, "Sorry bro, im removing your sources simply because the assumption of your sources that domes didn't exist before the muslims, is simply not true, that assumption directly contradicts the evidences" Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
A useful reference, hot off the press is: Ray, Aniruddha (2019), The Sultanate of Delhi (1206-1526): Polity, Economy, Society and Culture, Taylor & Francis, pp. 385–6, ISBN 978-1-00-000729-9
The technology of building palaces and big houses had come to India along with the establishment of the Sultanate at Delhi whose example could be seen in the arches and domes. This foreign feature is connected within the evolution of the construction of houses. 'The construction of making a true arch was not unknown in ancient India but its use was very limited. The ancient Indian architects used stones in making arches when the arch had a definite measurement If such measurement was not there they would use earth and wood to make the arch. Much space could be kept in a high arch made with big stone. But a true arch, dome and a tapering bow like roof could only be made with brick. It was not known in the pre-Sultanate period that brick was necessary to make such structures. The consolidation of brick with lime and rubble had come to India with the Muslims. Its use could not be found earlier."
Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
In South Asia, construction was almost entirely post and lintel, or trabeate, until the arrival of Muslims from Central Asia in the 12th century.[2] Architectural know-how for building true arches and domes, and bricklaying techniques for switching from rectangular bases to spherical domes came to South Asia from Central Asia.[2] More sophisticated considerations employed in building double domes or placing a domed building within a particular landscape came from Central Asia and Persia.[2]
i think that this article in this way will become contradictory, evidence and the info below the article clearly states that domes, arches and vaulting was known to the indians in pre islamic periods, but senior members are using their seniority and pushing some sources which will push late dating for indian architecture element of arch, vault and domes
This biased activity of some senior members will only push some agenda and confirmation bias, it will not help in gaining any info on indian architecture history itself.
i have edited and added info on this article to make it much more informative, but the activity of some senior members has always been destructive and negative and restrictive which is anything constructive for the indian history, probably for persian or central history but centrally not indian or south asian history. This is nothing but anti-indian chauvinism. Hammy0007 ( talk) 16:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Hammy0007, Johnbod, RegentsPark, Anupam, and Kautilya3:, this article as it stands now seems to be a subsection of Indo-Islamic architecture. Let me know what is your thoughts on changing the title to History of Indo-Islamic domes. The article is about Medieval and Early modern domes influenced by Indo-Islamic architecture, notable of Delhi Sultanate, Mughal Empire, and Deccan sultanates; and these domes are part and parcel of Indo-Islamic architecture. History of Indo-Islamic domes meets WP:RS. Being modern geopolitics, i.e. "South Asia", or originally "South Asian domes", is WP:OR. The vast majority of WP:RS supports these domes as being part of Indo-Islamic architecture, as such, History of Indo-Islamic domes is most appropriate. ( Highpeaks35 ( talk) 01:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC))
Quote
|
---|
|
As for Buddhist architecture, I'm still trying to figure out.The stupas are clearly solid masonry domes, and not true domes, which are hollow upper hemispheres, whose architectural principle has evolved from an arch. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Quote
|
---|
|
I hope this helps. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Of all the structural Phases, the last one is particularly noteworthy. A vast net-work of underground chambers and the superstructure in the three blocks and the galleries were found to be built on the principle of true arch. The arches showed different varieties, the four centred pointed arch for spanning narrow passages and segmental arch for wider areas.The last structural Phase, wherein no N.B.P. Ware was recorded, can be dated to circa first-second century A.D.The underground chambers existed in all the three blocks. The plan of the base-ment closely followed that of the main hall and the adjoining rooms. The arched roof of the underground chamber was found to be 2.59 m. high. The arch of the passage was of the four-centred pointed type (pl. LXXX B).In the eastern block there were three underground chambers, access to the two western ones being provided through the eastern gallery. The collapsed arch of the extreme eastern chamber was found to be very well preserved.In the western block too, there was evidence for two underground chambers with access from the western gallery. Although the roof of the chamber was found almost completely destroyed, the arches on the passages were well-preserved (pl. LXXXI B).The superstructure in the central and eastern blocks was found to be collapsed. From a study of the remnants, it can be inferred that they formed part of a dome that adorned the building. The entire superstructure in the different blocks and galleries collapsed on a layer of ash, about 5 cm. in thickness, indicating that the palace was destroyed by an extensive conflagration.
. NDIAN ARCHAEOLOGY 1961-62-A REVIEW Hammy0007 ( talk) 03:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
reinstating preislamic topic, i will not let some members have a free buffet on this topic and do as they wish here. I have moved contradictory sources which is negating the very historic evidence provided below so if they want their content they can have it in the section below. I request other senior members to intervene and solve this deadlock. I will not have some members dictate their Islamic or persian, central asian hitory dictate this Indian history topic here, although i myself am a muslim. A lot of times these sources have been used to massacre indian history topics else where as well, while archaeological and historic sources are pretty evident. Hammy0007 ( talk) 01:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Highpeaks35: It looks like your new article History of domes in India is a fork of this one, with large amounts of unattributed copied text, and a questionable need for such a fork to exist. WP:SPINOUT does not appear necessary at this point. ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 03:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually many of what early domes there are in SA tend not be in the modern Republic of India. The meaning of a "true arch" is generally agreed, but I don't think there is an equivalent clear definition of a "true dome", which is partly why we are getting into heavy mud here. Johnbod ( talk) 15:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I see. Thanks. Your wood lantern roof for achieving hemispherical structure seems like a continuous version of the "corbelled stone layers" in the definition I quote above, at least in the presence of external horizontal compression, for example in underground domes, or domes of inner sanctums in above ground construction. I don't know if the ones in NWFP are of this corbeled variety, as they seem to be made with stone. ... Anyway, I think I've reached the limit of my allowance for talk page OR, for my entry level of knowledge. :) Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Dome was copied or moved into History of South Asian and Mughal domes with this edit on 23:44, March 9, 2015. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily page views
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of South Asian domes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Highpeaks35: You have been warned by several people about changing "South Asia" here there and everywhere to "Indian subcontinent." Your excuse that "South Asia" includes Afghanistan and therefore pages that do not include something specific to Afghanistan cannot correctly be called " ... South Asia" is an incorrect one. There is no such commonly accepted distinction. You were informed by admin @ RegentsPark: on your user talk page that "South Asia" is the correct usage. This means that not only should you not be changing "South Asia" to "Indian subcontinent" henceforth, but also that you should be undoing your previous errors when given the opportunity. It is inexcusable that you have blithely made several recent edits without undoing the damage have already done. It is not my job to clean up after you. Also, the preposition "in" typically does not go with (sub) continent. Remember "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent ..." Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler, I do not know any wiki policy which states "Indian subcontinent" is invalid. Nor is there a policy which states a non-disputed content should be reversed back. You are making stuff up as you see fit. Regardless, most of the references in this article uses "India". South Asia here is more WP:OR, honestly, it should be changed to "India" (since most references uses "India"). ( Highpeaks35 ( talk) 20:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC))
My Lord, sorry to bother you. Can you assist with this? You are much more knowledge about sourcing than me. What I can see: the sources clearly point to " History of domes in India"; and below is my reasons "History of South Asian domes", which was the name I originally changed here does not meet Wikipedia policies.
As mentioned, per my statements above: " History of domes in India" meets most, if not all, Wikipedia policy and criteria. As such, can you look into this and the sources? Move to RFC to end this? Also, if you don't have time or have any reservations, can you point to someone who has expertise in RFC and sources? ( Highpeaks35 ( talk) 23:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC))
Hammy0007 ( talk) 11:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Buddhist rains of CumbatOtia..-After more heavy rain during the even* ing and night the weather cleared sufficiently to permit of a move up the main valley. While our camp was sent on to Blr-kSf I proceeded from the village of Gumtai to cross the wide belt of Hooded rice fields between which the Swat river flows in several interlacing beds. In order to visit the ruins reported at the small hamlet of Gumbatuna. As the name, the 1 domes had led me to expect, I found there a group of ruined Buddhist Stupas nestling in a picturesque nook of the hillside which rises on the river’s left hank close above the northern¬ most of its branches. On an artificially widened small plateau, some SO feet above the alluvial flat, there rises a large but much injured Stupa (Fig. 3), By its side stands a massive square base badly broken which may have carried a Yilium, while the remains of two small Stupas could be traced to the north and south-east of the large oue. The main StGpa of which PL 2 shows a aketch plan and section has the usual three bases, the lowest measuring 52 feet square, and a dome 34 feet in diameter. The total height when intact must have exceeded 45 feet. This Stupa, like also, the rest of the structures had been burrowed into, probably more than once. It had been cut all through from the east and a shaft 8 feet wide sunk down the centre from the top. In spite of the ravages of time and the hand of man, layers of hard cement-like pla ter still survived in places on the surface of the dome and drum.
page 10 The New Swat Archaeological Museum: Construction activities in Swat district (2011-2013) Khyber-Pakthunkhwa, PakistanThe area around Barikot contains many Buddhist sanctuaries, whose remains, even if heavily looted, still dominates a unique archaeological landscape. The great sanctuary of Gumbat, the only double domed Gandharan monument in existence was in danger of collapsing.
page 27 Hammy0007 ( talk) 11:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Buddhist ruins of Gumbatona..-After more heavy rain during the evening and night the weather cleared sufficiently to permit of a move up the main valley. While our camp was sent on to Barikot I proceeded from the village of Gurutai to cross the wide belt of flooded rice fields between which the Swat river flows in several interlacing beds. In order to visit the ruins reported at the small hamlet of Gumbatuna. As the name, the domes had led me to expect, I found there a group of ruined Buddhist Stupas nestling in a picturesque nook of the hillside which rises on the river’s left hank close above the northern¬ most of its branches. On an artificially widened small plateau, some 8O feet above the alluvial flat, there rises a large but much injured Stupa (Fig. 3), By its side stands a massive square base badly broken which may have carried a Vihara, while the remains of two small Stupas could be traced to the north and south-east of the large oue. The main Stupa of which PL 2 shows a sketch plan and section has the usual three bases, the lowest measuring 52 feet square, and a dome 34 feet in diameter. The total height when intact must have exceeded 45 feet. This Stupa, like also, the rest of the structures had been burrowed into, probably more than once. It had been cut all through from the east and a shaft 8 feet wide sunk down the centre from the top. In spite of the ravages of time and the hand of man, layers of hard cement-like plaster still survived in places on the surface of the dome and drum.
@ Hammy0007: So, it is a stupa. And on page 19, Aurel Stein says,
... I left the road in a southerly direction in order to visit and survey the fairly preserved ruin of a Stupa or Buddhist relic tower in the small secluded glen of Top-dara. The frontispiece shows this monument of Buddhist devotion, erected like all other Stupas of this region to enshrine under the solid mass of its masonry some reputed relic of the Enlightened One. The protection that the massive dome and its bases were intended to afford to the bone fragment or other relic of the Buddha had failed, as at almost all Stupas of the Frontier, to save the sacred deposit from spoliation; for greedy hands, probably long ago, had cut through the south-eastern side of the Stupa and tunnelled right down the centre to discover and abstract what small articles of precious metal, gems or the like, might have been placed as a votive deposit with the relic. (see page 19, here, emphasis mine)
In other words, these so-called "domes," (note Stein's quotes, which you have turned into italics) or stupas, are solid masses of masonry which have been tunneled right down their centers. Obviously, these are not hollow upper hemispheres. See the lead sentence of Dome, "A dome (from Latin: domus) is an architectural element that resembles the hollow upper half of a sphere." How do you square this? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Frowler, please dont impose your Islamic BS on every article, i have already cited multiple sources that domes were present in Indian subcontinent/ South Asia before Islamic intrusion, Gumbatona vihara is the very example, i have also cited other examples of kafirkot, amaravathi, and even an archaeological survey of india report on dome at Kausambi palace, if you again try to remove these cited references, i will now take matters to the admins, you have vandalised Kurta article according to your will, please dont repeat your agenda here.
Hammy0007 (
talk)
02:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I request that I be allowed to edit in peace, and not have text removed which has been sourced to:
{{
citation}}
: |first1=
has generic name (
help)I have begun again, starting with Encyclopedia Britannica article on "Dome," and will add material from Stuart Tappin's " Structural development of masonry domes in India which has already figured prominently in this article.
It is important to emphasize that this article is really about true domes (i.e. masonry hemispheres whose design principles have evolved from the arch), not mounds, or stupas, or rock cut vaults, which, wondrous though they may be, are less advanced technologically. Indeed, Mohenjo-daro had a "stupa." It is a sad commentary on Wikipedia that such sources are being held at ransom by misinterpretations of Aurel Stein's description of solid masonry stupas and viharas in his 1929 travelogue, or references to pictures and youtube videos. Pinging @ RegentsPark:, @ Johnbod:, and also @ Kautilya3: who is knowledgeable about sourcing. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Edit warring note 1: Hammy0007, has reverted all my edits with edit summary, "Sorry bro, im removing your sources simply because the assumption of your sources that domes didn't exist before the muslims, is simply not true, that assumption directly contradicts the evidences" Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
A useful reference, hot off the press is: Ray, Aniruddha (2019), The Sultanate of Delhi (1206-1526): Polity, Economy, Society and Culture, Taylor & Francis, pp. 385–6, ISBN 978-1-00-000729-9
The technology of building palaces and big houses had come to India along with the establishment of the Sultanate at Delhi whose example could be seen in the arches and domes. This foreign feature is connected within the evolution of the construction of houses. 'The construction of making a true arch was not unknown in ancient India but its use was very limited. The ancient Indian architects used stones in making arches when the arch had a definite measurement If such measurement was not there they would use earth and wood to make the arch. Much space could be kept in a high arch made with big stone. But a true arch, dome and a tapering bow like roof could only be made with brick. It was not known in the pre-Sultanate period that brick was necessary to make such structures. The consolidation of brick with lime and rubble had come to India with the Muslims. Its use could not be found earlier."
Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
In South Asia, construction was almost entirely post and lintel, or trabeate, until the arrival of Muslims from Central Asia in the 12th century.[2] Architectural know-how for building true arches and domes, and bricklaying techniques for switching from rectangular bases to spherical domes came to South Asia from Central Asia.[2] More sophisticated considerations employed in building double domes or placing a domed building within a particular landscape came from Central Asia and Persia.[2]
i think that this article in this way will become contradictory, evidence and the info below the article clearly states that domes, arches and vaulting was known to the indians in pre islamic periods, but senior members are using their seniority and pushing some sources which will push late dating for indian architecture element of arch, vault and domes
This biased activity of some senior members will only push some agenda and confirmation bias, it will not help in gaining any info on indian architecture history itself.
i have edited and added info on this article to make it much more informative, but the activity of some senior members has always been destructive and negative and restrictive which is anything constructive for the indian history, probably for persian or central history but centrally not indian or south asian history. This is nothing but anti-indian chauvinism. Hammy0007 ( talk) 16:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Hammy0007, Johnbod, RegentsPark, Anupam, and Kautilya3:, this article as it stands now seems to be a subsection of Indo-Islamic architecture. Let me know what is your thoughts on changing the title to History of Indo-Islamic domes. The article is about Medieval and Early modern domes influenced by Indo-Islamic architecture, notable of Delhi Sultanate, Mughal Empire, and Deccan sultanates; and these domes are part and parcel of Indo-Islamic architecture. History of Indo-Islamic domes meets WP:RS. Being modern geopolitics, i.e. "South Asia", or originally "South Asian domes", is WP:OR. The vast majority of WP:RS supports these domes as being part of Indo-Islamic architecture, as such, History of Indo-Islamic domes is most appropriate. ( Highpeaks35 ( talk) 01:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC))
Quote
|
---|
|
As for Buddhist architecture, I'm still trying to figure out.The stupas are clearly solid masonry domes, and not true domes, which are hollow upper hemispheres, whose architectural principle has evolved from an arch. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Quote
|
---|
|
I hope this helps. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Of all the structural Phases, the last one is particularly noteworthy. A vast net-work of underground chambers and the superstructure in the three blocks and the galleries were found to be built on the principle of true arch. The arches showed different varieties, the four centred pointed arch for spanning narrow passages and segmental arch for wider areas.The last structural Phase, wherein no N.B.P. Ware was recorded, can be dated to circa first-second century A.D.The underground chambers existed in all the three blocks. The plan of the base-ment closely followed that of the main hall and the adjoining rooms. The arched roof of the underground chamber was found to be 2.59 m. high. The arch of the passage was of the four-centred pointed type (pl. LXXX B).In the eastern block there were three underground chambers, access to the two western ones being provided through the eastern gallery. The collapsed arch of the extreme eastern chamber was found to be very well preserved.In the western block too, there was evidence for two underground chambers with access from the western gallery. Although the roof of the chamber was found almost completely destroyed, the arches on the passages were well-preserved (pl. LXXXI B).The superstructure in the central and eastern blocks was found to be collapsed. From a study of the remnants, it can be inferred that they formed part of a dome that adorned the building. The entire superstructure in the different blocks and galleries collapsed on a layer of ash, about 5 cm. in thickness, indicating that the palace was destroyed by an extensive conflagration.
. NDIAN ARCHAEOLOGY 1961-62-A REVIEW Hammy0007 ( talk) 03:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
reinstating preislamic topic, i will not let some members have a free buffet on this topic and do as they wish here. I have moved contradictory sources which is negating the very historic evidence provided below so if they want their content they can have it in the section below. I request other senior members to intervene and solve this deadlock. I will not have some members dictate their Islamic or persian, central asian hitory dictate this Indian history topic here, although i myself am a muslim. A lot of times these sources have been used to massacre indian history topics else where as well, while archaeological and historic sources are pretty evident. Hammy0007 ( talk) 01:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Highpeaks35: It looks like your new article History of domes in India is a fork of this one, with large amounts of unattributed copied text, and a questionable need for such a fork to exist. WP:SPINOUT does not appear necessary at this point. ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 03:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually many of what early domes there are in SA tend not be in the modern Republic of India. The meaning of a "true arch" is generally agreed, but I don't think there is an equivalent clear definition of a "true dome", which is partly why we are getting into heavy mud here. Johnbod ( talk) 15:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I see. Thanks. Your wood lantern roof for achieving hemispherical structure seems like a continuous version of the "corbelled stone layers" in the definition I quote above, at least in the presence of external horizontal compression, for example in underground domes, or domes of inner sanctums in above ground construction. I don't know if the ones in NWFP are of this corbeled variety, as they seem to be made with stone. ... Anyway, I think I've reached the limit of my allowance for talk page OR, for my entry level of knowledge. :) Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)