Talk:Mask of Agamemnon

Greece High‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece 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.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Rstrioux, King1384.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Achurn333.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed stub

I beefed up this article and removed the stub, as any editor can do. If anyone disagrees, just revert it.Dave 17:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's definitely not a stub. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 17:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

this is the stupidest thing ever and its not this article it when you put BCE it just does not make since it should be B.C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.37.167 (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) is perfectly acceptable when speaking archaeologically. I feel as though one as uneducated as yourself - quite apparently unable to spell or use proper grammar - is not warranted in either commenting in such a disparaging manner or claiming anything as incorrect when it comes to such a science that is generally reserved for the highly educated, as obviously the person who wrote this article originally, and myself, are.

I feel that people have changed date formats simply for their own tastes rather than sticking with the original format used, in this case BC/AD. I know that it is becoming more common to use BCE/CE, however there has to be discussion for why the date format is to be changed and consensus reached. In this case, none of the criteria were even attempted and as such the original format will be restored. Also, there is no need to call someone uneducated over their opinion of date formats. I am currently studying Classical Civilisations at Leeds University (3rd Year) and use BC/AD format since I started school. 78.148.68.86 (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be interesting to compare that mask to other grave goods from the Mycenean Period to see if and how it stand out from the rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rstrioux (talk • contribs) 22:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

making such a point of calling someone 'stupid' for no apparent reason, while boasting about your own supposed smartness, just makes you come of as a buffoon. as for the bc/bce debat: as far as i'm concerned the whole bce thing is just completely misdirected political correctness (trying to be sensitive to any non-christian by removing the 'christ' from dates. but still keeping the bc/ad date-format as 'the world wide standard', which is even *more* insulting to everybody using a different calendar) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.38.75.55 (talk) 00:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weight?

It would be nice to know its dimensions and weight, and possibly also what gold it is made of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.225.127.186 (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it would be interesting to compare the weight of the Mask of Agamemnon with the weight of the other three masks and potentially include a photograph of those three as another means of comparison. The picture could add more to the authenticity section of this article. ElizabethAcors (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hewn?

really? does anyone know anything about the actual construction? because 'hewn' doesn't really make much sense in this context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.234.117 (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Sources

I'm working on editing this article for a school assignment. It's my first time editing an article on wikipedia, so I am making liberal use of the talk page to communicate as clearly as possible with any other contributors who might stop by and take a look at what's going on. I like the fact that there are some unanswered questions floating here to direct my search, and I lol'ed a little bit at the discussion of what constitutes acceptable parameters for debate on the internet. I would just like to add my personal view that whenever we argue on the internet, everyone loses.

Some potential sources I would like to use to add more information to this article are;

This article which describes the dimensions of the mask

http://odysseus.culture.gr/h/4/eh430.jsp?obj_id=4503

This article which is a little more specific about the method of production

[...]

And one more to say where the mask is currently located. I will be starting to work out the edits I want to make to the article in my sandbox very soon, in case anyone is interested in knowing more about where I am going with my edit.

Achurn333 (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good work. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Improvements

Two short comments about the article. First, what is the most current consensus about the legitimacy of the mask? In the section about controversies it mentions that there has been some debate over whether the mask was fabricated by Schliemann, but not what current scholars think of the artifact. Does anyone know of a contemporary source that could be used to wrap up this section? Also, all but two of the sources come from the same website since it is one long article broken up into a series of pages. Granted, the Archaeological Institute of America is about as reputable as it gets, but some variety would help expand the perspective of the article. Kbaganski (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source on Controversy

"they claim, has been greatly exaggerated, and they also claim that the attackers were conducting a vendetta." Does anyone have a citation for the article which makes this claim? A few citations relating to the debate around the mask's authenticity would go a long way in informing readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keegan Sud-Tost (talk • contribs) 18:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I believe everything said is fine, but would think more different sources would make this better. Most facts are from one website, making different depictions on the mask in different explanations, with one book contributing and one from another website. I would think more from other websites or books about the mask and Agamemnon would be great to the credibility of this page. King1384 (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the date of construction?

The lead paragraph says it was made "about 1600 BC" while the infobox gives the range of "1550–1500 BC." Seems like one of these should be changed, but I don't know which. —Skoulikomirmigotripa (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed: I changed "about 1600 BC" to "about the 16th century BC". Demetrios1993 (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews of Myth, Scandal, and History (1986)

Review (full article) by Carol G. Thomas, published in The American Historical Review (October 1987):

Anger pervades almost every page of this book, edited by William M. Calder III and David A. Traill. [...] There is room, and even need, for a careful re-examination of Schliemann's life and findings. What emerges here, however, draws the reader's attention as much to the motives of Traill and Calder as to those of Schliemann. Time and again, insinuation takes the place of proof. [...] The case is not compelling. Moreover, it is ahistorical. In their relentless and ultimately unproductive pursuit of imagined textual inaccuracies, Calder and Traill show no understanding of the historical context in which the nineteenth-century archaeology developed. [...] A proper understanding of Schliemann's role in the field of archaeology demands more than innuendo and textual criticism.

Review (full article) by James T. Hooker, published in The Journal of Hellenic Studies (November 1988):

No one can, or should, condone such behaviour. No one can, or should, condone the behaviour of the present editors. Their animus against Schliemann, manifest on every page, robs their work of all objectivity and leads to the confusion of fact and surmise. [...] Now hear Traill, who is suspicious of Schliemann's conduct at Mycenae and Troy. [...] At Mycenae, Schliemann 'claims to have found' two figurines (now dated to LH Illb) in Shaft Grave I (LH I). Traill rejects the suggestions of such Shaft Grave amateurs as Karo and Mylonas in favour of his own theory: 'it seems more likely that Schliemann simply reported finding in the tomb pieces which he had in fact found elsewhere' (pp. 51-2). Schliemann may have behaved in the way alleged, but Traill provides no evidence that he did so. True to the principles of a third-rate scandal-sheet, he has said enough to create an air of suspicion. Having done so, he can proceed to utter his baseless libel that the Shaft Graves 'contain a fair number of forged duplicates and purchased items' (p. 116, a libel repeated on p. 135). If those in 'courageous pursuit of the truth' (p. 38) stoop to such methods, what distinguishes them from liars?

Demetrios1993 (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Context/Citation needed for this paragraph

The following text is poorly constructed, the "men" in question are not mentioned earlier in the article and none of this is accompanied by citations or specificity with the last claim.

"The faces of the men are not all covered with masks. That they are men and warriors is suggested by the presence of weapons in their graves. The quantities of gold and carefully worked artifacts indicate honor, wealth and status. The custom of clothing leaders in gold leaf is known elsewhere." 198.24.21.137 (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it needs improvement. Grave Circle A at Mycenae contained the bodies of eight men, nine women, and two children; nineteen in total. The quote you shared above is obviously referring to the other three men who were found without masks. By the way, for the most part, this addition is traced back to 2005 (diff). I rephrased it and added some references, but it needs more work. Demetrios1993 (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Mask of Agamemnon"?

I would like to point out that Schliemann himself never referred to this mask as the "mask of Agamemnon"! See, among others, his book Mykenae from 1878. His statement that he had seen the face of Agamemnon refers to a partially mummified skeleton with a different gold mask. 91.61.225.154 (talk) 11:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mask from younger excavations at Mycene

In view of the mask from Grave Circle B, which was found much later and not by Schliemann, this pointless debate about authenticity is superfluous and should be deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grave_Circle_B,_Mycenae 93.206.172.212 (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]