|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
S-DUV
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 63
Location: Rosario - Argentina
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1878
Location: San Francisco
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:40 am Post subject: |
    |
|
Nice !
I too was asked to prepare a map of the monastery. My effort was a bit simpler, accomplished with two ball-point pens. Eight hours total.
The tricky part was deducing a correct drawing from limited information. It looks like we both arrived at similar overall proportions, for one thing !
My full-size original. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1878
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Arriving at a correctly proportioned plan of the monastery compound proved difficult, in the absence of any reliable dimensions or a true aerial photo. The only satellite image I could find was of such low resolution that I was able only to get an impression of the overall rectangle, which appeared to approximate a 1.5 : 1 area. I had been given one hard dimension, that of the inner wall surrounding the main temple and its ancillary structures. This number was something like 150 x 630 (feet ?), which turned out to be at odds with all other indicators, so I had to discard it. In the end, I was strongly influenced by the second (rear quarter) view below, which seems to me to indicate that the length of the walled compound does not exceed the width by more than twenty-five or thirty percent, at most.
I arrived at the details of my image by closely studying the two photographs below (found on the Web), and comparing them to the existing visitor's pamphlet map shown. I was able to improve upon the existing drawing -- which is clearly distorted in proportion, but contains much information that appears to be substantiated by the photos -- in several ways: The pair of small temples in front of the main structure are hexagonal, not octagonal, in form; the roofs of the tertiary temples (16 thru 21 on the existing map) are simple gables, not the more complex roofs found in the secondary compound and along the approach; the y-shaped path at the left of the compound seems not to be drawn correctly. I also eliminated some of the unidentified forms found on that drawing, in the service of simplification.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1878
Location: San Francisco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
