I have a query wrt the construction of temples during the Pandya/Chola period. As a person who has designed and fabricated comples shapes i can tell you it is very difficult to do this with any references like engineering drawings, scale models which are 30-50% of the size of the product we require. This minimises errors that would occur otherwise during full size working model construction/fabrication. How did the architects in those days build complex shapes,intricate carvings, buildings with undergrounds,etc? Obviously there was no paper (in Southern India) during the Chola/Pandya period so where did they have drawings? Using what material did they make their scale models? What were their units of measurement? At maximum these carvers,architects could be 3rd generation architects or carvers as such complex shapes or buildings are not available. Can anyone please answer these questions? There are many engineers in this group for whom this info could prove useful.
dear Mr SPS; Thanks for the reply. I was hoping somebody would answer that question. "European castles with conical tops copied us" now, that would stir up quite a controversy. I would like to know what were their methods, how did they keep recording measurements, drawings , scale models,etc? What were the materials used for these rough models? We still use clay for this process although its more chemicals and less clay, did they use something similar? Hope somebody can shed light on such issues which could still be useful in this day and age. Did u people know that inspite of being beaten by India in a lot of fields the Europeans especially the english keep saying that "India does not have an engineering culture like the Eurpeans (UK,France,Germany,etc)" I have attended some engineering conferences in which the English keep stressing this point. This despite the fact that India is making sure all the European engineering companies will be closed with the next decade or so.
a lot of similarities between the buildings across continents are just the builder's common sense.
There is a photo in the photos section which shows striking similarities between the internal support system in the big temple( 1000ad) and a Red pyramid of egypt ( 2000 bc). so we just cant claim indians copied from egyptians. pyramidal structures have been found all over the word. a variation of the pyramid is the sabha like the gold roof at chidambaram.
all these are parabolic reflectors or their variations. just like what we use for solar cookers or dish antennas. must be some sort of energy focussing building. pyramidal structures have been found in egypt, sudan( a trivia: sudan has the maximum pyramids in the world), central and south america, china and now recently in bosnia. even our tanjore big temple is a pyramidal structure. I always feel it was a builder's challenge to build a hollow pyramid. the feeling comes to any one who has seen the internal of the big temple tower.
You are right about similarity between buildings across continents being builders common sense. I have found that when a number of people are faced with similar problems individually then most of them end up getting the same solution even though they have never seen each other. This has happened quite a lot to my knowledge. Builders across continents need not have copied, pyramidal structures were probably the best load bearing structures. Their mass is minimal at the highest point therefore having least resistance to wind. This makes a lot of sense. Builders of that time had only stone,wood as building materials so their solutions to the problems would be similar. Thats a nice theory.
pyramidal structures were probably the best load bearing structures. > Their mass is minimal at the highest point therefore having least resistance > to wind.
Hi Rahul I always thought a pyramid was the toughest to build, especially if it is hollow. for example the top stone(s) of the big temple has nothing beneath it for atleast 20feet on either side. and it is 217 feet above ground. and it has stood for a thousand years.
could you please explain in lay man terms the architectural ( or structural or materiel)advantage of building a pyramidal structure for the ancients. venketesh
> > Hi Rahul > > a lot of similarities between the buildings across continents are just > the builder's common sense. > > There is a photo in the photos section which shows striking > similarities between the internal support system in the big temple( > 1000ad) and a Red pyramid of egypt ( 2000 bc). > so we just cant claim indians copied from egyptians. > pyramidal structures have been found all over the word. > a variation of the pyramid is the sabha like the gold roof at > chidambaram. > > all these are parabolic reflectors or their variations. just like what > we use for solar cookers or dish antennas. must be some sort of energy > focussing building. > pyramidal structures have been found in egypt, sudan( a trivia: sudan > has the maximum pyramids in the world), central and south america, > china and now recently in bosnia. > even our tanjore big temple is a pyramidal structure. > I always feel it was a builder's challenge to build a hollow pyramid. > the feeling comes to any one who has seen the internal of the big > temple tower. > regards > venketesh > > > > > > > > -- > Creative Director > Kalki Technologies > Mobile:0091-9345213804 > www.kalkitechnologies.co.in >
Hello Mr Venketesh; I am not an architect but as an engineer i can give some theories. Any architects or the knowledgeable folk in this group are free to correct any descrepancies. When you consider the sheer variety of materials available today (metals,concrete,alloys,plastics,carbon fiber,etc) the builders of that era were severely limited. It is a proven fact that it is the material that plays a significant role in the design of a building or a product. Stone was a major material in that era so designs were limited because of that. If a load is applied on the top surface of a solid block it distributes itself pyramidically like the ripples created in still water if a stone is dropped. So the best way to counter a load applied on top of a building (because of the wind velocity up there) would be to make a pyramid as it has lesser area exposed to wind forces and greater area nearer to ground. This enables it to withstand high wind velocities in the deserts of Egypt. A pyramid also ensures minimum usage of materials when compared to rectangular block buildings. This is vital especially if the stone is being bought from 1000kms away. In case of hollow pyramids the principle is still the same but the thickness of the walls have to be greater as they have a hollow space between them. I think the thickness of the wall increases as we go down a pyramid (i cant support this but people who have seen insides of pyramids can do this). I dont think building a hollow pyramid is tougher than building a tougher one. Once the builder gets the thickness correct then it a matter of whipping the slaves to get the job done. A dome or an archway is also a good loadbearer. That is why most mosques,tombs (Tajmahal)have semicircular shapes on top of their entrances instead of regular straight lines. The weight of their domes is better supported by archways rather than rectangular shapes. We all know an egg shell is very fragile. Now roll a carboard on an egg closing the sides of the egg exposing only the top and bottom (the larger dome and the smaller dome). This "rolled in cardboard egg" is far more tougher than your normal egg. I dont know if you guys can picture this but i learnt this from the magazine Tinkle. This lesson still helps when i design my products. This is the same principle used 1000years ago. I have given the above theories based on my little experience, if anyone can explain better and have corrections please do so.
> In case of hollow pyramids the principle is still the same but the thickness > of the walls have to be greater as they have a hollow space between them. I > think the thickness of the wall increases as we go down a pyramid
thats precisely what they have done in big temple but instead one thick wall at the bottom they have 2 walls that fuse at some heightthe inter space has been used for the fresco paintings and natya sculptures.
+++ it a matter of whipping the slaves to get the job done.
dont you say that. SPS has a theory that the builders of the big temple paid the men very well.
I for one beleive prisoners of war and slaves must have been used for the rough work even in Big temple. The economy of the immidiete area would have been disrupted but for that. however there are others who beleive it was not possible.
Mr Venketesh; I also believe that workers must have been harshly treated during construction. Also i have heard that for building the Tajmahal Shahjahan had to impose high taxes on his subjects. Even though the Taj looks incredible, many families would have sweated blood for building this tomb. For all its beauty its still a tomb.