Jump to content

Talk:Aineta aryballos/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto (talk · contribs) 23:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


This is right up my street – I look forward to going through it properly Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to working with you -- thanks for picking it up. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's really very little to pick you up on at the GA level, to be honest. A few real nitpicks:
  • all the Athens grave-diggers (Greek: τυμβωρύχοι, romanized: tymborychoi)[c] who dig for tombs throughout Attica : I would be inclined to include the Greek word used here in the endnote rather than in brackets in the body text
  • I see a couple of quotes which I think violate WP:LQ – which isn't a requirement for GA, but if you were to submit to FAC in the future it would be as well to get these details straightened out
  • He did so without securing the required permission from the state committee I'm slightly confused by this – wasn't it Rhousopoulos, as the seller, who needed permission to export the aryballos?
  • The obvious content question is: given that apparently everyone agrees that the aryballos was illegally exported out of Greece, has there been any notable campaign/pressure for the BM to return it? Some googling doesn't turn up anything, so I guess the answer here is no...
  • I haven't been able to find anything (I think this article cites everything I have ever found containing the word Aineta): if there had been, I would strongly expect Galanakis to mention it. The aryballos isn't very famous (it's practically unknown outside a quite niche circle of archaeological historians and early Greek epigraphers, and it's displayed as just one item in an admittedly fascinating case of many others) and, I suspect, something of a trifle compared with the much more famous ancient treasures currently in the BM's custody. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your photo of the aryballos is clearly fine; the other two historic illustrations look to be okay from a copyright perspective too.
  • Sources all look reliable.
Really, this looks like the article is clearly at the GA level, and I'm scrabbling to find anything to comment on. I'm not seeing any redflags for copyvio or sourcing issues, but I will do some spotchecks for due diligence. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, spotchecking happening. Some queries:
  • Similar vases, often with names inscribed upon them, are frequently found in women's graves at Corinth: in 1942, the archaeologist Marjorie Milne suggested that they "served some feminine purpose" the quote checks out, but what is the source for "often with names inscribed on them"? Milne calls the presence of the inscription a "unique feature" of the vase she is discussing. And, at that rate, Milne doesn't exactly support the claim that the vase she is discussing is "similar" to the Aineta one; her only mention of the Aineta vase that I can see is a footnote where she says rather equivocally that it "might at first sight offer a parallel".
On the names -- not sure (had thought it might be Wachter/Rhousopoulos, but neither checks), so removed that bit: I probably got it from somewhere, but the sure balance of probability here, given Milne, must be to axe unless a source turns up. I'd seen the picture in Milne's article and clocked it as an aryballos, but looking again at the way she describes it as a "jug" (and the fact that, frustratingly, I can't see any measurements in sight), I'm no longer sure how strong the parallel is -- the only link she draws to Aineta is on the basis of the inscription, not the vase. Currently looking around for a better source to replace it and give some sort of context to aryballoi in (women's) graves (downloading Payne's Neocorinthia as I type) -- I don't suppose you know of any others offhand? I've got a few but they mostly deal with Magna Graecia or with the EPC period, neither of which are great comparanda here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its date has since been disputed: in 1961, the archaeologist Lilian Hamilton Jeffery dated it to approximately 625 BCE on the basis of the letter-forms used in the inscription This is how Wachter presents it, but I'm not sure it's a great summary of what's in LSAG: Jeffery specifically attributes the date she gives for the vase to Payne, and I think "LHJ dated it to ..." is a somewhat misleading formulation.
Absolutely (and thank you for being more diligent than I was); changed. I've kept in that LHJ "endorsed" Payne's judgement: I think it's still meaningful that a respected figure put her weight behind that date, and that it was still considered current 30 years later. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name Menneas, which comes first in the list and is written slightly larger and more boldly than the others, seems to belong to Aineta's chief admirer Is this what W means? It's a possibly interpretation, but I read him as saying not that Menneas is necessarily the chief admirer, but that he is "of primary importance" in the commissioning/gifting of the vase, which isn't necessarily the same thing.
Specifically, W. writes "his primary importance in the affair" (emphasis mine): in context, which is all about male admirers of Aineta, I can't see affair as meaning "manufacture of the pot" as opposed to "romance". Perhaps I've been a bit confident there, and it's definitely wise to be mindful that the vase is a text (so, even if M. thought himself the chief of Aineta's admirers, that's as likely to be an assertion as a reflection of fact) -- changed somewhat, grateful for your thoughts. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such artefacts could be sold freely overseas, provided that their owners secured the judgement of a state committee of three experts that the object was "useless" to Greek museums citation says p.16, but I can't see any discussion of this law there; it looks as though pp.6-7 is the correct target?
Yes -- changed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Galanakis 2012e gives 1866; Galanakis 2012d says that the vase "appeared in the new acquisitions of the British Museum" a year after 1865, and the museum's records give its acquisition date as 1865. You seem to have got muddled somewhere here. "appeared in the new acquisitions" comes from '"University Professor - Antiquities Looter"?', which is Galanakis 2012e; I don't see Galanakis 2012d ("On Her Majesty's Service") explicitly gives any specific date for the acquisition – it mentions that the acquisition was discussed in a BM report of 1866, and mentions it in the context of "developments that took place in Greece between 1865 and 1867", but both of those would fit with a date of either 1865 or 1866.
I think I managed to invent a problem here: "Insignificant and Useless" (Galanakis 2012b) has 1865 unequivocally, and all the other mentions in Galanakis (and indeed the BM's own records) are compatible with that. I've put the date to 1865 and got rid of the now-unnecessarily complicated referencing. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no concern about copyvio/close paraphrasing, but there are a few points here to clear up Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Caeciliusinhorto: No rush, but when you do get a moment, I think these are all resolved at least as far as they need to be for GA. Would value your input on the aryballoi question. UndercoverClassicist T·C 23:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: Sorry for the delay – Real Life reared its ugly head. Afraid I don't know of any sources on comparable aryballoi offhand, but it's not necessary for GA status anyway; I'll promote it now. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you -- appreciated, and thank you also for your time with the review. I'm increasingly suspecting that nobody has really tackled the social role of these pots, at least not specifically in this time and place -- a shame, but I'll add anything if I do end up coming across it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aineta_aryballos/GA1&oldid=1195004706"