--- Gilbert Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I was intrigued by a respondent's astute observation of a temple wall > incorporated in church wall in Old Goa. Certainly this is some valid > observation (on the ground) and may be even better than a written > documented observation of Goa's history. > > However as I analyze this observation, the issue that intrigues me is > why would the architect and builder retain a wall? And more importantly > the foundation under the wall of an old building as part of the new > building? The old foundation will have to bear the weight of the new > (larger) structure and roof. > > If you were building a house for yourself, (as I did) would you want a > wall of an old house (of uncertain building materials) maintained and be > a small component of the new house? And run the risk of collapse of the > entire structure at later date due to the unknown foundation? Or would > it be a lot easier for all involved and a lot safer to just build the > new structure in-toto? > > Is the astute observation a fact or a mind's eye? Regards, Gilbert
When you are in a hurry to build a church or a mosque, and there are no bricks or stones available, you typically use those from the temple that you destroyed. I know of several mosques in North India, that used stones from other temples. In some strange cases, the stones were brought from several hundred miles away. But from what I read, it was a standard practice. -Tariq __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ########################################################################## # Send submissions for Goanet to [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # PLEASE remember to stay on-topic (related to Goa), and avoid top-posts # # More details on Goanet at http://joingoanet.shorturl.com/ # # Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others # ##########################################################################
