Talk:Kamakhya Temple

message: The report by Banerji is available on the web.  Please read it before contesting the claims, as done here.
Banerji mentions constructions and structures between the 8th and the 17th century.  The Koch kingdom broke up by the end of the 16th century, and Kamakhya was under the control of the Ahoms/Mughals in the 17th century.  The report mentions 3 successive constructions.  The first is attributed to the 8th century.  The second is to the Koch, and the third to the Ahoms.  He writes, "the lower part of the sanctum is in good preservation and was used by the Ahom builders".
Chaipau (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahom builders 

message: Here are the references that you are looking for.
* Even if Banerji, not being a historian, made some errors in naming periods (he did not), he did specify dates.  He write: "...it is certain that in the pit at the back of the main shrine of the temple of Kamakhya, we can see the remains of at least three different periods of construction ranging in date from eighth to the seventeenth century." (p101)  Since Chilarai (dies 1571) and Naranarayan (died 1586) belonged to the 16th century, the inference is clear---there were 17th century reconstructions which cannot be attributed to Chilarai/Naranarayan.  By 17th century the Ahoms had taken over the region summarily (Gadadhar Singha won the Battle of Itakhuli in 1682). In the quote above Banerji is talking only about the "pit" at the back of the main shrine, which still exposes the adhisthana (here) and the vimana portion, not the entire temple.  The plinth is below ground level in the rest of the temple.
* Banerji has not talked about the natyamandapa, that was built by Rajeswar Singha. (Sarma, P (1983) "A Study of Temple Architecture under Ahoms" in Journal of the Assam Research Society, p39)  The natyamandapa is the western most building with the sloping roof of the Ranghar type.  
* A discussion on do-cala roof of the Ahoms is given in Sarma 1983.  In it, Sarma states that the do-cala type roof (here) that mimicked a thatched roof as found in Assam, developed during Rudra Singha's reign.  The Ranghar-type roof, that mimiced an inverted boat, developed after Siva Singha, probably under Rajeswar Singha or Parmatta Singha.
Chaipau (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I answered your query (2) above.  If you are trying to shoot down the Banerji reference, it will not work.  Sarma 1983 has confirmed Ahom construction as late as the 18th century.  Chaipau (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

text: I have used Kakati's work profusely in my edits in this very article, beginning in 2006 (diff).  His work is standard and accepted as the first systematic study of the issue (look at Shin's paper).  But Kakati has not explicitly denied Ahom construction, has he?  And his work is mostly based on textual evidence (Chilarai's inscription, for instance).  So it is not at all surprising that he should ignore the evidence from Banerji.  Kakati has not explored the fact that the temple was 8th- 9th-century either, and that the Varman dynasty/Huien Tsang ignored the workship at Nilachal hills.  So, even though Kakati's work is standard, it is not complete.  Chaipau (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahom builders -- continued 

message: it seems you have some issues with acknowledging that the Natamandira was built by the Ahoms.  At first you objected to that—and now that it is cited you are objecting to the picture itself.  You are now tagging as a means to show there is a dispute where these is none.  This is WP:DE, please desist.  Chaipau (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not an idol of Kamakhya.  It is clearly embedded in a wall made of plaster of some kind. Chaipau (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

text: It is very hard to read PhD thesis cited by you. is it reliable ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReliableAssam (talk • contribs) 13:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  is the authority on the subject reliable?  P C Sarma is an authority on temple architecture in Assam. Chaipau (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

text: That image is specific to kamarupa statue or idol. ReliableAssam (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  you are not making sense.  If you are unable to state your objections properly, you are wasting people's time.  Chaipau (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, Your claim is inappropriate. Ahom might build the Natamandira but You are misusing Natamandira to tag Ahom with the statue or idol.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReliableAssam (talk • contribs) 20:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natamandira 

message: You have flagged the section as requiring additional citations .  Could you please specify where these citations are required. 
This section is pretty heavily cited, but could possibly be improved further.
Chaipau (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m not seeing citations for "The temple consists of four chambers: garbhagriha and three mandapas locally called calanta, pancharatna and natamandira aligned from east to west.” "The garbhaghrihas of the other temples in the Kamakhya complex follow the same structure—a yoni-shaped stone, filled with water and below ground level.” "It leads into the garbhagriha via descending steps.” "The pancharatna to the west of calanta is large and rectangular with a flat roof and five smaller shikharas of the same style as the main shikhara. The middle shikhara is slightly bigger than the other four in typical pancharatna style.” etc. It seems to be rather lightly cited, the bare minimum generally is that everything has an inline citation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description - flagged