Talk:Dodona

Comments

I understand that the role of Dione ("she-Zeus") is usually underemphasized, but what's the rationale for her being the original sole occupant of the oracle? Bacchiad 06:22, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't the oldest oracle in Hellas precede the appearance of Zeus in Hellas? I think that changing Dione "the nameless consort "goddess"" --she is all three things-- to Dione "whose name is a feminine form of Zeus" is misleading, for she is a feminine form of "Zeus" only inasmuch as the name "Zeus" simply means "deity." "Dione" is the "dea" or "nameless goddess." The change gives the distinct impression that Zeus is primary at Dodona and Dione is just a feminine form of Zeus. Which isn't right, is it? Wetman 08:07, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Morphologically, "Dione" is a feminine form of "Zeus". We know that "Zeus" is primary (again, linguistically) because of the cognates Jupiter and Dyaus Pitar, Dievas, Tyr etc. Actually, it's even a feminine form of the patronymic or dimunutive in -iota-omega-nu (cf. Kronion for Zeus) "Zeus" -> "Dion" -> "Dione".

Linguistic questions aside, how do we know that Dodona was "originally an oracle of the Mother Goddess" called by Dione or any other name? I'm not saying it was always Zeus's, but how do we know who was there before? Are there perhaps votive deposits of Willendorf-type figurines? This would be good to know. Best, Bacchiad 09:58, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

According to the current version of the Britannica, "the earliest mention of Dodona is in the Iliad (xvi, 234), where its priests are called the Selloi (or Helloi) and are described as “of unwashen feet, sleeping on the ground.” The description suggests worshipers or servants of an earth goddess or of some chthonian power with whom they kept in continual contact, day and night". Also, please count in Pliny's evidence about the torches (Hist. nat. II, 228) and Cicero Div. I, 34, 76. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a panorama of the theater. There was already another photo of the theatre, but the photo I added is more clear, sharper, has a higher resolution and shows a lot more of the environment. Can we remove the old photo? I'm asking here because the added photo is my own work and I'd rather see that it's an objective decision. - Onno Zweers (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Illyrian dedications

It's obvious that dedications were brought to the oracle in that period and not found there as any either dedication Mycenaean, Thracian etc. so please stick to what the source says. This [1] edit is wrong because at that period there weren't processions, headpriests etc. The site wasn't yet used as an oracle in the context of Delphi but it was more of a shrine to mother earth and a thunder god and the only thing resembling an oracle in the context of Delphi was the sacred oak. The edit also implies that the archaeologists found that Illyrians sent dedications to the shrine, but the archaeologists found the real objects not evidence that someone had brought Illyrian objects, so please stick to what the source says to avoid such mistakes. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua again attributed to me the motive of trying to hide something while it is obvious that dedications of any civilization don't originate from the area of the Dodona itself.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

and why you are so obsessive on removing this explanation? At least the source says they were 'received' something that we have no reason to hide.Alexikoua (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not against the fact they sent pilgrims with dedications etc. The wording used is wrong because the oracle didn't receive any dedications because there wasn't a headpriest to accept these dedications. That happened only after 600 BC.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This is yet another [2] example of source falsification by ZjarriRrethues. Get a load of the OR insertion of "Paleo-Balkan". I mean, where does this come from? What's next, "Dodona was an Illyrian shrine"? Athenean (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Athenean the source refers to the Illyrians and the Thracians who were the northern Paleo-Balkan tribes while the Greeks were the southern ones. At that period there weren't any Greek tribes using Dodona while after 650 BC they started using it. Athenean please don't insist like you did in Byllis, until eventually FutureP had to intervene to stop you.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"At the period there weren't any Greek tribes using Dodona". Nice bit of OR there. Guess you've never heard of the Mycenean artifacts found there. Athenean (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Mycenean artifacts aren't related to the shrine itself of that period. Athenean the source makes a comparison of importance between Illyrians-Thracians and southern tribes regarding the importance of the shrine to each people so please don't revert blindly without even reading the source.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I did read the source. Did you read the source about the Myceneans? Athenean (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

[3] It disrupted the flow? That was the beginning of the section and you moved it for the usual wp:idontlikeit reasons.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)