Talk:Parthenon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Architectural history.	Architecture Portal
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the assessment scale.

Parthenon is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Parthenon appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 12, 2004.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This History article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

WikiProject Echo has identified Parthenon as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Swedish language Wikipedia.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale. Top This article is on a subject of top-importance within classical antiquity.

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject History of Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ..
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Older discussion: Archive 1 (inactive discussions up to May 2006)

Contents 1 Projectile type 2 Roof 3 Athena image 4 Kerameikos / The Kerameikos 5 Citations needed 6 Architectural design 7 Pollution

[edit] Projectile type

In the 17th century A.D. the Turks used it to house ammunition, and most of the structure was destroyed when it was hit by a Venetian cannonball.

I read that it was a bullet, which is correct? Crusadeonilliteracy

It seems unlikely to me that a single bullet would have set off a powder store inside a stone building. Even more so since it's unclear how close the Venetians got; if they never overran the building, then they would have been attacking a fortified position on top of a hill. The article currently says shell; I hope whoever changed it knows the difference between canonballs and shells, and knew exactly which is was... Akb4 03:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Mortar shell is how I have seen it described. I can dig around for citations if necessary. It was fired from the hill opposite, not a great distance away. --5telios 10:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Everything I read says cannonball (e.g. Beard The Parthenon p. 77, which says that the Venetians shot over 700 cannonballs at the Acropolis). If you look at the Parthenon and the Propylaia, you'll see damage caused to the marble by the impact of cannonballs, either from the 1687 siege or the siege during the Greek war of indpendence.

I don't actually know the difference between a shell and a cannonball, I'm just going by what I've read. Wikipedia is not helping figure out the difference between the types of ordinance. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I am supporting mortar shell and I give you the words of this site: [1]which say: "In my opinion a fundamental piece of information is contained in a report in which Francesco Morosini gives an account of his feat to the Doge of Venice. Morosini explains that it would have been pointless to drop bombs onto the roof of the Temple, because they could have gone through il pavimento superiore, which ”had been put together so as to achieve the most powerful staying power,” except that ”in some places” there were ”some domes the extremities of which were composed of bricks” through which a well-placed bomb could and did go through. ... Another piece of relevant information is that the bomb that went through was fired by a batter of two mortars placed at the eastern foot of the Acropolis, which were shooting almost vertically, as mortars are intended to do. The battery of six cannons placed below the monument of Philopappos was not expected to achieve anything against the Temple with its more direct trajectory."

The discussion is about a different subject - internal lighting and also makes reference to cannonballs backing up but also casting doubt on the Mary Beard quote above. By the way I take "bomb" in the passage above to be synonymous with mortar shell - seeing as it is describing something that first lands, then explodes. I will not change the main article myself, but will continue to jump up and down and wave my hands. --5telios 13:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

5telios, can you spell out the difference between a cannonball and mortar shell? Is it basically the trajectory, that cannonballs have a flatter arc while mortars sort of go nearly straight up? Or a difference in the way they explode? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, no. I do not know enough. I make the trajectory assumption based on the quotation above. The most commonly used term in Greek for the projectile that did the damage is ovida (οβίδα). I do not know to what extent a mortar explodes on impact or not. I wil look around. Even if we sort out terminology to the extent that we know what we are describing, we then have to make sure that everyone else is using consistent terminology and that this is what struck the parthenon. --5telios 08:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Old-timey mortars were basically cannons with very short barrels that fired balls at extremely steep angles, such that they practically came straight down on the target. A cannon, on the other hand, is a direct fire weapon. That is, you point it at the target. The significance here is that the mortar shell could have gone through the roof. A cannon ball would have had to go through the walls. I don't know for sure if these mortar shells exploded (though I doubt it), but I think it doesn't really matter. You can set off gunpowder with a rubber mallet if you really want to.

[edit] Roof

What was the roof comprised of? There's no information in here about what covered the structure. Building such a huge wide-span roof in the ancient days sounds like a big marvel that isn't being discussed. -Rolypolyman 17:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Marble tiles, some of which are on display on the rock, in plain view. --5telios 10:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The marble tiles were supported by wood timbers, and there was a fire in the 3rd century AD that probably destroyed the timbers and brought down the roof. The same fire may have destroyed the statue of Athena Parthenos. After that, a roof of terra-cotta tiles was put in place over the interior rooms, leaving the colonnade open to the sky. After that there were probably further alterations with the conversions between Catholic and Byzantine Church and Islamic mosque. A source for this is Mary Beard, Parthenon, pp. 151-152. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Athena image

Here is a PD photo of the splendid statue of Athena on the steps of the Austrian Parliament building in Vienna. It gives a fair representation of the statue of Athena that stood outside the Parthenon. (It also clearly shows Athena as a mature woman and not as a young girl.) If editors think it of interest, it can be added to this article. Adam 05:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem relevant to the Parthenon to me, but could be a good picture for the Athena article. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There are already plenty of images there. It is relevant here because it gives an idea of what the lost statue of Athena at the Parthenon looked like. Adam 06:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I guess I read your comment too quickly. There were several statues of Athena on the Acropolis, and one inside the Parthenon. If you mean that the statue outside the Austrian Parliament is evidence for what the statue of Athena Parthenos inside the Parthenon looked like, I see your point, and could be a good addition to the article. I'd like to find an image of a classical statue inspired by the image in the Parthenon. There's a good one in the National Museum in Athens, which I think I may have a picture of--I'll try to upload it sometime. There's no reason why we can't have many images of Athena statues in the article, of course. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess you're talking about the Varvakeion Athena :) Jastrow

The Athena Parthenos in Nashville is based on the original interior statue, but it's unclear to me exactly how accurate it is. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't on what this is based, but however, I think that this is the most common representation of Athena one can see in modern day Greece. However, I do not think that we should ad an Athena, unless we really know what it was like inside Parthenon. "Some" copy would be unencyclopedic in my opinion. In addition, I would not be too keen to start a "Featured article" of ancient Greece with a copy of "what could have been" outside Austrian parliament. With all due respect, it doesn't sound right. Perhaps Akhilleus' picture could be of an assistance, if sufficent background information can be verified. Otherwise, I would prefer to see them in Athena article.--Thermos 16:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kerameikos / The Kerameikos

There is no article in front of "Kerameikos" when the word is used on its own. When it is used in combination with another word like cemetery or area, the article is used (the Kermeikos cemetery, the Kerameikos area but never the Kerameikos)

Actually, in English, it is quite common to refer to the Keremeikos. Examples abound on the web and in scholarly literature. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations needed

The article is a FA, but it lacks inline citations. I'd feel very bad, if Parhtenon loses its status as FA for this reason (inline citations is one of the most important criteria for FA now). I think the editors of the article should hurry, so that the FA status of the article is not jeopardized. Regard this edit as a friendly advice.--Yannismarou 15:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

When you say inline citations, do you mean that every statement of fact in the article must be linked to a specific citation, using this hideously ugly footnoting system we are now stuck with?^[1] I have sources, but it would mean rewriting the whole article. Adam 14:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

1. ^ Like this - see how it distorts the line spacing?

Like Adam, I would like a concrete standard for how many citations are required for the article to keep FA status. However, I don't think the citations are required to be footnotes--there's also Harvard referencing. I prefer the footnote system, but if someone else wants the Harvard that's ok with me.

As far as the number of references, I don't think every single sentence needs a reference. In fact, I don't think the lead should need any, because the lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. For the rest of the article, I'd guess an average of a reference per paragraph would be appropriate, with more needed where specific scholars are named and/or quoted. But this is just a guess; I haven't done any FA assessments. An example of a well-referenced FA is at Joan of Arc, which has 77 footnotes for ~57k of text. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Not every sentence. But there must be at least one inline citation per paragraph.--Yannismarou 10:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Architectural design

I heard that the Greeks in order to make the building appear visually perfect, they did several things. The first was that instead of actually making the columns straight up and down and at right angles, they slanted them inward, inorder to appear straight up and down. Another is the building is actually slanted (either forwards or backwards) in order to keep it from appearing to be leaning over you. I also heard that the reason that the columns have a fluted shaft is because if it was just round it would appear flat, but by fluting it, it appears round. Those are just some things I have heard that the Greeks did in order to make it appear architecturaly perfect. I was just wondering if someone would be willing to do more research on that topic and add it to the page. i just feel it would be a really good addition to the site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.41.242.188 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Pollution

I have cut the following text:

The sculptures that reside in the British Museum are in a noticably better condition to the ones that were left attached (The pediment sculpture of Cecrops that Elgin left and the remaining Caryiatids resemble melted wax after 50 years of modern pollution).

As it is unreferenced and shows a non-neutral point of view. "Melted wax" - one may as well write "runny shite". The claim needs to be referenced and should be cleansed of its point of view. I do not disagree that the in-situ sculpture seems to be ni worse condition. I do disagree with the wording here. --5telios 10:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)