Talk:Dendera zodiac

Inconsistency

If the pronaos was added under the Emperor Tiberius (reigned 14-37), and the relief forms an integral part of the pronaos, then it is impossible for the relief to have been created in "50 BC." What perhaps was intended was that the star patterns approximately match those of "50 BC," but it is of course impossible to astronomically date with such precision a representation which is itself imprecise.

Also, as far as I can tell, Cauville et al. have fudged their data, and the alignment they claim did not actually take place at the time they claim. RandomCritic (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Joint or saw mark?

Is the apparent joint that passes through the middle of the carving due to limitations on the size of the stone blocks originally used, or was it sawed through to make it easier to transport to Paris? 70.15.114.2 (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, but it would be interesting to know. Another odd thing about this joint, besides being badly refitted at the breasts of the goddesses (?) wearing that heaven, is that a few of the figures cut apart are still half figures, one part at either side of the joint and the part at the other side missing. Something went amiss when the blocks were removed from Dendera, maybe. Maybe a few of the figures were seriously damaged at some stone block movement. Said: Rursus ☻ 20:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Pole star

Seems like the French image from Louvre has a pole star somewhere farther at the back of that jackal on the plough of Taweret. If that jackal back is Ursa Minor, then it's consistent with epsilon or zeta Ursae Minoris being pole stars, topical in the hundreds around 0 AD. Said: Rursus ☻ 20:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Something along this line, reported from published work, would illuminate the bald assertion "...50 BC, since it shows the stars and planets in the positions they would have been seen at that date." --Wetman (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The current sources aren't modern enough. The source explaining Champollion's dating, which is plausible, also reports another analysis claiming that the positioning of the constellations are just "wishful thinking", which is greatly exaggerated. Most zodiacal constellations are placed reasonably well, excepting Cancer (constellation), most other unknown constellations coincide with real star patterns, f.ex. the back of the north pole jackal coinciding with Ursa Minor, that Taweret figure reasonably coinciding with stars in Draco and probably Cepheus. It might be that the Dendera Zodiac is academic hotstuff that not many academics dare touching, but hopefully that is not the case, and we might find better sources out there. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 16:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Taurus and Libra

Surely the zodiac disc depicts all 12 zodiacal signs? Why are these two called out explicitly in the introduction? Timbojones (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC).

Multiple zodiacs? also sources

The first line of the 'History' section currently reads: During the Napoleonic campaign in Egypt, Vivant Denon drew the circular zodiac, the more widely known one, and the rectangular zodiacs. As I recall there was only one rectangular zodiac found at Dendera, but there were also a couple at Esneh. Could these have been conflated by the original author of this article?

The article could use more current sources. I'll point out Jed Z. Buchwald's nice article on the 19th century debate on the zodiac which is available online http://eands.caltech.edu/articles/LXVI4/buchwald.html Maybe someone could use it to spruce up the Wikipedia article a bit. 173.66.1.39 (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Big errors !!!

Hello to all,

I am amazed to see that the last correction of certain parts of this article, was deleted!

I am a English speaker but i learnt the French language and i can assert that a big part of this article on the Zodiac of Denderah is as well fanciful as full of errors.

I thought that the writing of articles of Wikipedia offered a guarantee of seriousness and searches to avoid spreading the big errors.

I invite you to make translate the page in French about the Dendera Zodiac to notice where are your errors.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiaque_de_Denderah

That if the Musée du Louvre had not evaluated the French page dedicated to the Zodiac of Denderah on Wikiépedia, this page would have no presentation which it has at the moment.

Would the French speakers be more serious than the English speakers?

As long as this page would not have been corrected, it is certain that the English speakers will have this sad reputation regarding Egyptology...

Friendly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.26.38.21 (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

no traduction possible !? (sorry for my english)

Salutations. Pourquoi la page anglophone est-elle la seule à ne pouvoir être traduite sur le Wikipédia francophone ? Amicalement --LOGOS & ALOGOS (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@LOGOS & ALOGOS: you ask ". Why is the English page the only one that can not be translated? Is there anything to hide from the English-speaking world?" You don't mention translation software here, but that seems to be your question. I've asked here. Doug Weller talk 12:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@LOGOS & ALOGOS: Please provide proper context for questions. If you want to use the "Content Translation" tool at the bottom of Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures to translate from the French Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia then Wikipedia:Content translation tool says: "The English Wikipedia community has restricted article creation by the WMF's semi-automatic content translation tool to extended confirmed users." PrimeHunter (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: thanks for this. I'm disappointed to see that this editor has been adding original research to the related French articles (and been told that they shouldn't_. Doug Weller talk 13:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: thanks--LOGOS & ALOGOS (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

stolen?

The page Dendera Temple complex has this to say about the Zodiac:

In 1820 it was removed from the temple ceiling by French colonizers and replaced with a fake. There is controversy as to whether they were granted permission by Egypt's ruler, Muhammad Ali Pasha, to do so, or whether they stole it. The real one is now in the Louvre.

Shouldn't this business have some mention on the page about the Zodiac itself? Marnanel (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Lack of reliable modern sources

The article suggests that between 1865 and the early 1990s no serious astronomical research was done on the Dendera zodiac and further suggests that the work published by Cauville en Aubourg in the 1990s is the final word on the dating of the monument. Note that their dating is based on the assumption that the Dendera zodiac represents a horoscope. Earlier scholars (such as Otto Neugebauer & Richard A. Parker, Egyptian Astronomical Texts: Part III. Decans, Planets, Constellations and Zodiacs (Providence/London: Brown University Press/Lund Humphries, 1969), pp. 72-74 & passim) have argued that the planets are depicted at their points of exaltation, a planetary configuration which in fact can never occur.

I suggest adding references to earlier research on the Dendera zodiac by Heinrich Karl Brugsch, Franz Boll and the Neugebauer/Parker book for pointing out that other interpretations are also possible. AstroLynx (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

No objection. It doesn't look like this article has been worked on in a while, aside from the recent edits by User:EgyptianAstro. I don't know what to make of those edits, but participation from a more experienced Wikipedia with astronomical expertise would be welcome. A. Parrot (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi A. Parrot,

"with astronomical expertise would be welcome"

I proposed these serious astronomical elements, you can verify them with the references  :

" But since the creation of astronomical software created by astronomer Xavier Jubier, member of the IAU ( https://www.iau.org/administration/membership/individual/15159/ ) and partner of NASA (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsearch/SEsearchmap.php?Ecl=19470520), it has been shown that the solar eclipse indicated by Eric Aubourg could never be observed in Egypt. Moreover, it was not a total solar eclipse, but an annular one.(http://xjubier.free.fr/site_pages/solar_eclipses/xSE_GoogleMap3.php?Ecl=-00500307&Acc=2&Umb=1&Lmt=1&Mag=0)

Regarding the lunar eclipse, it did not take place on September 25, but on September 26 (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLEmap/-0099-0000/LE-0051-09-26T.gif) as indicated by NASA. Depending on the position of this eye, since there isn't a circular shape exactly opposite this eye, so there can't be a schematic representation of a lunar eclipse because there can't be two suns on this sandstone. It is not one representation of an eclipse, it is rather the oldest representation of the Andromeda Galaxy, also named M31.

The right ascension of this galaxy corresponds to the position of this eye if we present the Zodiac of Dendera in the right direction (https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9621728m/f370.texteImage ) determined by the French astronomer (Jean-Baptiste Biot) Jean-Baptiste Biot (1774-1862), author of the book titled "Research on several points of Egyptian astronomy applied to astronomical monuments found in Egypt" published in 1823,, by Firmin Didot editions (https://books.google.be/books?id=MfleAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false) . Based on astronomical calculations, he determined that this Egyptian artifact displays the sky of the year 716 BCE (https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9621728m/f100.item.r=716.zoom) according to the position of the star Sirius.

Eric Aubourg was published exclusively internally within the IFAO (French Institute of Oriental Archaeology). His theory was never submitted to a committee of readers, nor published in an astronomy magazine. It is therefore recommended to rely on the career of a true astronomer such as Jean-Baptiste Biot, also renowned for his mastery of physics and mathematics."

Above is my modest participation who could be modified of course but why Grachester deleted it all ?

My serious participation was judged not neutral, but I am not Xavier Jubier, I found his website on the Nasa website, where I verified the solar eclipse indicated by Eric Aubourg.

This article without my participation was already not neutral because Eric Aubourg is member of administration of IFAO as we can read on his page in French : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89ric_Aubourg

IFAO isn't a private society, it is just a department of the Minister of French Culture, its publications are internal and distributed only to the members.

Eric Aubourg never published his theory in an astronomical magazine sold in bookstore, his theory was never verified by astronomers.

Who isn't neutral ? Who not verify the elements ? Who is too lazy to read all the references and the bibliography ? Who don't respect the readers, the students, the knowledge ? Not me !

I did the job that all wikinauts must do before publish a serious article. But some of you don't want a person as me, because too much work for them.

The problem with Wikipedia is because some Wikinauts are there since years, they believe that Wikipedia became their propriety, they don't want to modify anything because they don't want to show to all they wrote a wrong article.

What a pity ! EgyptianAstro (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

About the partnership between Nasa and the software of astronomy by Xavier Jubier, below the direct link :

https://nasasearch.nasa.gov/search?query=Xavier+Jubier&affiliate=nasa&utf8=%E2%9C%93

Just use the link below (recommended by Nasa) to see that Egypt could not observe the solar ecipse of March 7 50 BCE because the solar obscuration rate was below 40% in Alexandria and less than 20 % in Dendera: :

http://xjubier.free.fr/site_pages/solar_eclipses/xSE_GoogleMap3.php?Ecl=-00500307&Acc=2&Umb=1&Lmt=1&Mag=0

Any serious astronomer will tell you that it takes at least 88% of solar obscuration for an eclipse to be observed as an annular eclipse and 100 % of solar obscuration for a total eclipse.

That's why is preferable to retain the dating by Jean-Baptiste Biot, he did astronomical calculations and he find the year ; 716 BCE; He found this dating because he made a stereographical projection cartography which used the position of the star named Sirius.

Anyone can read his book, it is very interesting to learn astronomy. EgyptianAstro (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked this editor for legal threats. Loved this bit on their talk page "I would say to the judge that after my report about my desire to remove my images, you blocked me, thus refusing to respect my copyrights which I never ceded to you, but just lent." Editing as "Alice-astro" when they added the image. Doug Weller talk 10:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)