User talk:Jimmaciejewski
User talk: Jimmaciejewski
When you describe Old Babylonian astronomy as "rather primitive and crude," you're comparing it to later periods, not to its contemporaries, right? Because Babylonian—even Old Babylonian—astronomy and mathematics were very advanced compared to others of the time.
Also, I thought that the Enuma Anu Enlil and the Mul.apin were composed several centuries before the Hellenistic Period.
JFD 02:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the mathematics and astronomy was very advanced compared to others of the time. The "rather Primitive..." language is taken directly from Neugebauer -- and, I admit now that you pointed it out, when used in context of the Wiki article, may even mislead the reader. His wording, at least from what I can take from it, was intended to give a distinction between the two periods. Give me a chance to make the language better.
It is unmistakable, however, that the Enuma Anu Enlil and the Mul.apin were indeed the references for Neugebauer's article. Let me get back to you on the dates. My two year old won't let me finish this...
Part of of the problem is extracting anything from Neugebauer that a "regular" reader can find interesting enough to read. Neugebauer even admits in his article that "Noe of these texts, however, contains practical examples of astronomical computations and leaves to us the interpretation of the usually difficult context."
On page 15, The History and Practice of Ancient Astronomy (James Evans, 1998, Oxford University Press) dates the Enuma Anu Enlil to the Kassite era (1600 BCE–1200 BCE) and the Mul.apin to the reign of Assurbanipal (7th century BCE). I've seen other dates given for both of these texts, all of them several centuries before the Hellenistic period.
Is it possible that Neugebauer's dates have been superseded by subsequent research? (Take your time. Your toddler is far more worthy of your attention than ol' Wikipedia.)
JFD 04:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed possible. So, since I haven't the time to do necessary and adequate research (nor do I portend to be a Babylonian scholar), I made an attempt at adjusting what we "think" we now know. What do you think? Sufficient, at least for now, until more can be studied? Also, please check my formating of references; I'm not quite familiar with the Wiki rules regarding those yet.
Other thoughts...I feel that overall the water clock article is lacking two important sections: one that outlines the different types of water clocks (covered well by Turner); and the other that covers the common problems that any water clock maker and maintainer had with them throughout their history. Problems including, temperature, debris in the water, dissipating pressure as it emptied, and the biggest being the use of temporal hours. I want to put all of that in and have each section somewhat touching upon these issues, showing the "evolution" of the water clock. I have the material and knowledge to put this in, but my time is often competed for by my family.
One last thought, the India section...There are some great bits and pieces in there, but I think it is missing some structure. Most of the other sections have a structure to them. India seems to just have a bunch of pieces thrown in, lacking a story. Thoughts?
By the way, it's great having others finally to really contribute to this article. For the last year and a half or so, I've been the only one. Thanks!
Wikipedia doesn't have hard-and-fast rules for formatting of references, but they should be accurate with regard to identification of author, where to find the source (book, journal, etc), date of publication, location of publication, that sort of thing.
One thing you could address is the transition from outflow to inflow clepsydrae.
As for the India section, do you have access to J.F. Fleet's article "The Ancient Indian Water Clock"? A bit old, but no other reliable source deals with the topic in such detail. JFD 16:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you
[edit]Thank you for your contributions to the excellent article Water Clocks and congratulations on your excellent taste in your choice of study subject. This is an excellent example of cross-cultural human achievement.--TZubiri (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
P.S: The article has been nominated as a featured article.--TZubiri (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)