Talk:Parthenon/Archive 2

Golden Ratio

This page states "Some of the dimensions form the golden rectangle expressing the goldefxcvmay hac contain stubjertss ], praised by Pythagoras in the previous century" yet the Golden Ratio was developed 200 years later, and not by Pythagoras, according to our own page on the Golden Ratio Some scholars deny that the Greeks had any aesthetic association with golden ratio. For example, Midhat J. Gazalé says, "It was not until Euclid, however, that the golden ratio's mathematical properties were studied. In the Elements (308 B.C.) the Greek mathematician merely regarded that number as an interesting irrational number, in connection with the middle and extreme ratios. Its occurrence in regular pentagons and decagons was duly observed, as well as in the dodecahedron (a regular polyhedron whose twelve faces are regular pentagons). It is indeed exemplary that the great Euclid, contrary to generations of mystics who followed, would soberly treat that number for what it is, without attaching to it other than its factual properties." And Keith Devlin says, "Certainly, the oft repeated assertion that the Parthenon in Athens is based on the golden ratio is not supported by actual measurements. In fact, the entire story about the Greeks and golden ratio seems to be without foundation. The one thing we know for sure is that Euclid, in his famous textbook Elements, written around 300 B.C., showed how to calculate its value."

Something is inconsistent, and since the Golden Ratio page supplies appropriate citations, I suspect it may be this page. Graldensblud 18:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Projectile type

In the 17th century A.D. the Turks used it to house ammunition, and most of the structure was destroyed when it was hit by a Venetian cannonball.

I read that it was a bullet, which is correct? Crusadeonilliteracy

It seems unlikely to me that a single bullet would have set off a powder store inside a stone building. Even more so since it's unclear how close the Venetians got; if they never overran the building, then they would have been attacking a fortified position on top of a hill. The article currently says shell; I hope whoever changed it knows the difference between canonballs and shells, and knew exactly which is was... Akb4 03:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Mortar shell is how I have seen it described. I can dig around for citations if necessary. It was fired from the hill opposite, not a great distance away. --5telios 10:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Everything I read says cannonball (e.g. Beard The Parthenon p. 77, which says that the Venetians shot over 700 cannonballs at the Acropolis). If you look at the Parthenon and the Propylaia, you'll see damage caused to the marble by the impact of cannonballs, either from the 1687 siege or the siege during the Greek war of indpendence.

I don't actually know the difference between a shell and a cannonball, I'm just going by what I've read. Wikipedia is not helping figure out the difference between the types of ordinance. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I am supporting mortar shell and I give you the words of this site: [1]which say: "In my opinion a fundamental piece of information is contained in a report in which Francesco Morosini gives an account of his feat to the Doge of Venice. Morosini explains that it would have been pointless to drop bombs onto the roof of the Temple, because they could have gone through il pavimento superiore, which ”had been put together so as to achieve the most powerful staying power,” except that ”in some places” there were ”some domes the extremities of which were composed of bricks” through which a well-placed bomb could and did go through. ... Another piece of relevant information is that the bomb that went through was fired by a batter of two mortars placed at the eastern foot of the Acropolis, which were shooting almost vertically, as mortars are intended to do. The battery of six cannons placed below the monument of Philopappos was not expected to achieve anything against the Temple with its more direct trajectory."

The discussion is about a different subject - internal lighting and also makes reference to cannonballs backing up but also casting doubt on the Mary Beard quote above. By the way I take "bomb" in the passage above to be synonymous with mortar shell - seeing as it is describing something that first lands, then explodes. I will not change the main article myself, but will continue to jump up and down and wave my hands. --5telios 13:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

5telios, can you spell out the difference between a cannonball and mortar shell? Is it basically the trajectory, that cannonballs have a flatter arc while mortars sort of go nearly straight up? Or a difference in the way they explode? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, no. I do not know enough. I make the trajectory assumption based on the quotation above. The most commonly used term in Greek for the projectile that did the damage is ovida (οβίδα). I do not know to what extent a mortar explodes on impact or not. I wil look around. Even if we sort out terminology to the extent that we know what we are describing, we then have to make sure that everyone else is using consistent terminology and that this is what struck the parthenon. --5telios 08:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Old-timey mortars were basically cannons with very short barrels that fired balls at extremely steep angles, such that they practically came straight down on the target. A cannon, on the other hand, is a direct fire weapon. That is, you point it at the target. The significance here is that the mortar shell could have gone through the roof. A cannon ball would have had to go through the walls. I don't know for sure if these mortar shells exploded (though I doubt it), but I think it doesn't really matter. You can set off gunpowder with a rubber mallet if you really want to.

Roof

What was the roof comprised of? There's no information in here about what covered the structure. Building such a huge wide-span roof in the ancient days sounds like a big marvel that isn't being discussed. -Rolypolyman 17:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Marble tiles, some of which are on display on the rock, in plain view. --5telios 10:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The marble tiles were supported by wood timbers, and there was a fire in the 3rd century AD that probably destroyed the timbers and brought down the roof. The same fire may have destroyed the statue of Athena Parthenos. After that, a roof of terra-cotta tiles was put in place over the interior rooms, leaving the colonnade open to the sky. After that there were probably further alterations with the conversions between Catholic and Byzantine Church and Islamic mosque. A source for this is Mary Beard, Parthenon, pp. 151-152. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Athena image

Statue of Athena, Vienna

Here is a PD photo of the splendid statue of Athena on the steps of the Austrian Parliament building in Vienna. It gives a fair representation of the statue of Athena that stood outside the Parthenon. (It also clearly shows Athena as a mature woman and not as a young girl.) If editors think it of interest, it can be added to this article. Adam 05:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem relevant to the Parthenon to me, but could be a good picture for the Athena article. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There are already plenty of images there. It is relevant here because it gives an idea of what the lost statue of Athena at the Parthenon looked like. Adam 06:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Varvakeion Athena

Oh. I guess I read your comment too quickly. There were several statues of Athena on the Acropolis, and one inside the Parthenon. If you mean that the statue outside the Austrian Parliament is evidence for what the statue of Athena Parthenos inside the Parthenon looked like, I see your point, and could be a good addition to the article. I'd like to find an image of a classical statue inspired by the image in the Parthenon. There's a good one in the National Museum in Athens, which I think I may have a picture of--I'll try to upload it sometime. There's no reason why we can't have many images of Athena statues in the article, of course. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess you're talking about the Varvakeion Athena :) Jastrow

The Athena Parthenos in Nashville is based on the original interior statue, but it's unclear to me exactly how accurate it is. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Athena at Athens

I don't on what this is based, but however, I think that this is the most common representation of Athena one can see in modern day Greece. However, I do not think that we should ad an Athena, unless we really know what it was like inside Parthenon. "Some" copy would be unencyclopedic in my opinion. In addition, I would not be too keen to start a "Featured article" of ancient Greece with a copy of "what could have been" outside Austrian parliament. With all due respect, it doesn't sound right. Perhaps Akhilleus' picture could be of an assistance, if sufficent background information can be verified. Otherwise, I would prefer to see them in Athena article.--Thermos 16:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Kerameikos / The Kerameikos

There is no article in front of "Kerameikos" when the word is used on its own. When it is used in combination with another word like cemetery or area, the article is used (the Kermeikos cemetery, the Kerameikos area but never the Kerameikos)

Actually, in English, it is quite common to refer to the Keremeikos. Examples abound on the web and in scholarly literature. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Citations needed

The article is a FA, but it lacks inline citations. I'd feel very bad, if Parhtenon loses its status as FA for this reason (inline citations is one of the most important criteria for FA now). I think the editors of the article should hurry, so that the FA status of the article is not jeopardized. Regard this edit as a friendly advice.--Yannismarou 15:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

When you say inline citations, do you mean that every statement of fact in the article must be linked to a specific citation, using this hideously ugly footnoting system we are now stuck with? I have sources, but it would mean rewriting the whole article. Adam 14:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Like Adam, I would like a concrete standard for how many citations are required for the article to keep FA status. However, I don't think the citations are required to be footnotes--there's also Harvard referencing. I prefer the footnote system, but if someone else wants the Harvard that's ok with me.

As far as the number of references, I don't think every single sentence needs a reference. In fact, I don't think the lead should need any, because the lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. For the rest of the article, I'd guess an average of a reference per paragraph would be appropriate, with more needed where specific scholars are named and/or quoted. But this is just a guess; I haven't done any FA assessments. An example of a well-referenced FA is at Joan of Arc, which has 77 footnotes for ~57k of text. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Not every sentence. But there must be at least one inline citation per paragraph.--Yannismarou 10:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Architectural design

I heard that the Greeks in order to make the building appear visually perfect, they did several things. The first was that instead of actually making the columns straight up and down and at right angles, they slanted them inward, inorder to appear straight up and down. Another is the building is actually slanted (either forwards or backwards) in order to keep it from appearing to be leaning over you. I also heard that the reason that the columns have a fluted shaft is because if it was just round it would appear flat, but by fluting it, it appears round. Those are just some things I have heard that the Greeks did in order to make it appear architecturaly perfect. I was just wondering if someone would be willing to do more research on that topic and add it to the page. i just feel it would be a really good addition to the site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.41.242.188 (talk • contribs) .

Pollution

I have cut the following text:

The sculptures that reside in the British Museum are in a noticably better condition to the ones that were left attached (The pediment sculpture of Cecrops that Elgin left and the remaining Caryiatids resemble melted wax after 50 years of modern pollution).

As it is unreferenced and shows a non-neutral point of view. "Melted wax" - one may as well write "runny shite". The claim needs to be referenced and should be cleansed of its point of view. I do not disagree that the in-situ sculpture seems to be ni worse condition. I do disagree with the wording here. --5telios 10:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Not make sense

"Construction began in 447 BC, and the building was substantially completed by 432, but work on the decorations continued until at least 433." Shouldn't the last number be smaller than 432? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pantaallou (talk • contribs) 14:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

"Treasury or Temple?"

This artificial issue, which is a problem only for those who come to the table with a "definition" of temple that does not include the Parthenon, is strictly a Christian issue, and not a professional art historians' or archaeologists' issue. If I'm not mistaken, the Christian "scholars" who raised it-- the article says in the "late 19th century"-- need to be identified. --Wetman 05:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The question "treasury or temple?" is silly, as the answer is "yes, both"--not just for the Parthenon, but for any Greek temple, which all served as storehouses for objects dedicated to the god. The Parthenon doesn't seem to have had a priestess or a cult associated with it, which is strange for a Greek temple. But Wetman is quite right here--if "Greek temple" is defined in a way that excludes the Parthenon, the definition is wrong. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wetman, this issue has been discussed many times here. You yourself took part in the debate. Some references are quoted in the archived talk page. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Proto-Parthenon

It's a good idea to have this section, but I don't think it should be the first section after the lead. I'd say the first sections after the lead should be a detailed description of the Parthenon's architecture (including the "refinements") and its sculptural program (metopes, pediments, frieze, statue of Athena Parthenos); then its history, including its prehistory. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Twospoonfuls 15:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Geodesy of the Parthenon

The dimensions of the base of the Parthenon given in this article are: 69.5 meters by 30.9 meters (228.0 x 101.4 ft). Other sources give slightly different figures.

This width (30.9 meters) is equal to the length of one second of the arc of the earth’s circumference. Since the mean circumference of the Earth is 40,041,470 metres, the length of one second is equal to:

$\textstyle {\frac {circumference.of.the.earth}{360x60x60}}$.

$\textstyle {\frac {40,041,470.meters}{360x60x60}}$.

= 30.896 meters

For a complete analysis see here.

This may or may not be a coincidence. Odysses (☜) 13:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it probably is a coincidence. Twospoonfuls 15:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if anyone has access to jstor and wouldn't mind helping me out could they please email me, thanks. Twospoonfuls 18:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Name

I moved the "etymology" section down and retitled it "name". The reason for moving it down is that this is a less important issue than the architectural form of the building and its sculptural decoration; at the same time, it's a complicated and inconclusive issue, and doesn't make for a great first section. In fact, I would say that the section right now is only provisional, because it seems there's quite a bit of disagreement over which room parthenon meant originally, and I haven't had time to do much more than read Hurwit on the issue.

As an aside, I deleted some stuff from the previous version of this section. First, I have never seen anyone say that there is evidence of a cult of Athena Parthenos associated with the Parthenon. A statue, yes, but no altar, no priestess, no inscriptions recording sacrifices, etc. The main cultic activity for Athena is associated with the Erechtheion, or perhaps the temple of Athena Polias next to the Erechtheion if you believe Ferrari's article in AJP (2002). If Encyclopedia Britannica is saying that there was a cult attached to the Parthenon, it's dead wrong--or at least, we have absolutely no evidence for one. Second, I cut out the bit from Bernal about the temple in Egyptian Sais. I don't consider Bernal a good source on Greek architecture, and anything he says on the subject is likely to be a tiny minority view. If another source agrees with him then this material might be worth putting in the article, but I'd rather see it in the context of a broader discussion on architectural influence, covering the predecessors of the Parthenon and the effect it had on later architecture. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting Odysses' edit which gives the LSJ definition of parthenon. The reason is that the LSJ gives only one of the possible definitions, and is therefore not as good of a source as Hurwit, Beard, et al. who point out that the word's meaning is ambiguous--it could be "of the virgin" or "of the virgins". BTW, "maiden" isn't contemporary English, it has a distinctly archaic feel. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmm... Akhilleus, searching the google book, I find a few theories about Parthenon's name; I think they should be somehow included. Anyway, I will add some edits, and then check them or copy-edit them. I'll also make some stylistic interventions.--Yannismarou 16:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, but there's an issue of how many theories we want/need to include. As far as I can see the two most common ideas are that the name comes from the Athena Parthenos or that it means that the arrephoroi wove Athena's peplos in a room of the Parthenon. However, it seems like most scholars don't strongly endorse any theory, because there's not much evidence. In any case, a full explanation of the problem would be very detailed, and probably beyond the scope of this article--our readers are probably not very interested in contemplating exactly what opisthodomos means in the context of the Parthenon, for instance. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, check my new edits, and their accuracy. Feel free to revert or re-edit anything you regard as redundant or inaccurate. I may get repetitive or I may have misunderstood some of the theories.--Yannismarou 17:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

First I was surprised by the removal of the LSJ definition of Parthenon by Akhilleus. But Yannismarou has given a perfectly reasonable explanation about the easy to reach googling information. I do realize now that this is far more attractive to the average reader. We don’t need to bore anyone with old-fashioned references. Perhaps if Akhilleus wishes to rename the article Virginarium, the reader will be even more aware of what the monument really is, and we won’t have to bother about Parthenon been in FAR. Odysses (☜) 17:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the snarky comment, Odysses, but there's a basic problem with using the LSJ to write encyclopedia articles; the LSJ is essentially a dictionary, and provides less information than scholarly articles and monographs (which are the sources that Yannismarou is getting from Google Books). Second, as I've already said above, on this particular issue the LSJ gives only one of the possible meanings of parthenon, and is therefore not as good of a source as Hurwit et al. who give both possible senses. 18:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Proto-Parthenon

If Yannismarou is going to delete the entire section on the proto-Parthenon, then common courtesy would require a word of explanation. Twospoonfuls 09:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

i did not delete it, my friend. I summarized it in "Design and Construction" and created a sub-article, because the analysis was overwhelming here. Common courtesy would require a careful reading of my edits, before you ask for a word of explanation.--Yannismarou 16:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Temporary disagreement about the removal of the gallery

I know that FAs should not have galleries, but I strongly believe that the gallery should be the last thing to remove from the article, after everything else is fixed. It remains a source of nice pictures to add throughout the article, while it is rewritten and expanded. After we have in front of our eyes a brand new article with the new pictures we want to add, then the gallery should be removed.--Yannismarou 16:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. I made that change because it was easy, but it's easy enough to put the gallery back in on a temporary basis if you like. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)