Talk:Dendera zodiac: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:22, 21 June 2014

Ancient Egypt Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ancient Egypt to-do list:

Needed articles.

We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.

Cleanup.

To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?

Standardize the Chronology.

A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)

Stub sorting

Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .

Data sorting.

This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Wikipedia than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.

A fact from Dendera zodiac appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 February 2008, and was viewed approximately 5,323 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Dendera zodiac (pictured), an ancient relief on display at the Louvre, was originally a planisphere on the ceiling of a temple in Egypt?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/February.

Wikipedia

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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