Amdavadno Sudhino Analysis
Book named Amdavadno itihash: A.D.1850 sudhino was written during Indian enlightenment by Gujarat vernacular Society i.e. Sudharavad movement. If we look at author, Maganlal Vakhatchand Sheth was neither an architect nor a historian but a college student and an aspiring historian of Gujarat Vidyasabha who won the award of Alexander and Kavi Dalpatram. Book is written by author as an observer who is local resident and has acknowledged cultural history apart from architecture. His book falls in epistemological category of historicism.
Other book “on the Muhammadan Architecture Of Bharoch, Cambay, Dholka, Chmpanair, and Mahmudabad in Gujarat,1896” by James Burgess which talks about general historical critics and writes history in objective manner …show more content…
It is written by qualified historians and photographers who are observer of place with scholarly background of same discourse. Their aim was to decipher architecture of Ahmedabad for British.
There was similarity like both books were written with guidance from Britisher. So book has some biased inclination which is political aspect.
If I were to quote some example how nature of writing is different from each other then I would firstly in “Amdavadno itihash: A.D.1850 sudhino” Jami mosque is described through how Juma is conducted which changes whole sensorial experience of place while in “on the Muhammadan Architecture Of Bharoch, Cambay, Dholka, Chmpanair, and Mahmudabad in Gujarat,1896” Jami mosque is described …show more content…
(From what time king rules started?); Sultan Ahmed (King Ahmed); Hakikat (Mythological story); Hal Ni vyavastha (Present situation) and so on. In book Amdavadno itihash: A.D.1850 sudhino author describes decade from 1850-60 where he writes very contemporarily. Other books compiles of Things made in Ahmedabad; How British came to power; architectural history of places. So, one can see how one books tries to narrate in form of story which is his own perception, listening from elite people and observations of his place while other is very structured, objective and factual way of writing. One talks about place from within while other talks about from very particular way of looking at place in architectural discourse. Hence when one book is very colloquial other is very
Other book “on the Muhammadan Architecture Of Bharoch, Cambay, Dholka, Chmpanair, and Mahmudabad in Gujarat,1896” by James Burgess which talks about general historical critics and writes history in objective manner …show more content…
It is written by qualified historians and photographers who are observer of place with scholarly background of same discourse. Their aim was to decipher architecture of Ahmedabad for British.
There was similarity like both books were written with guidance from Britisher. So book has some biased inclination which is political aspect.
If I were to quote some example how nature of writing is different from each other then I would firstly in “Amdavadno itihash: A.D.1850 sudhino” Jami mosque is described through how Juma is conducted which changes whole sensorial experience of place while in “on the Muhammadan Architecture Of Bharoch, Cambay, Dholka, Chmpanair, and Mahmudabad in Gujarat,1896” Jami mosque is described …show more content…
(From what time king rules started?); Sultan Ahmed (King Ahmed); Hakikat (Mythological story); Hal Ni vyavastha (Present situation) and so on. In book Amdavadno itihash: A.D.1850 sudhino author describes decade from 1850-60 where he writes very contemporarily. Other books compiles of Things made in Ahmedabad; How British came to power; architectural history of places. So, one can see how one books tries to narrate in form of story which is his own perception, listening from elite people and observations of his place while other is very structured, objective and factual way of writing. One talks about place from within while other talks about from very particular way of looking at place in architectural discourse. Hence when one book is very colloquial other is very