Talk:Palaeography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chinese character "Book" This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project’s quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the Project’s importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

History is the study of past times; Historiography is the study of the study of past times. Paleography is definitely the study of old handwriting, not the study of the study of old handwriting, so it belongs in the History category rather than the Historiography category. Dpm64 20:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is there an English concept similar to the German Historische Hilfswissenschaften? That's where it should belong. / Uppland 20:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, paleography itself is history. But paleography isn't actually paleography, it's an article about paleography. Hence Category:Historiography. (See use-mention distinction.)

If you really don't like Category:Historiography, find somewhere better. Category:History is much too large a category for any articles actually to appear in it. So find some suitable subcategory. Gdr 22:17, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

This could probably be solved by creating a Category:Palaeography. We have plenty of articles to fill it up (see the "See also" section of this very page...). Adam Bishop 23:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A good solution. Gdr 23:48, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

Is this an article on Palæography in general, or specifically Latin Palæography? The way the article is written seems to suggest an unfair slant towards Latin Palæography. But then, I'm a Greek Palæographer and would be happy to contribute a section on Greek Palæography if the good folk here think it not irrelevant. InfernoXV 3.32, 09 Sept 2006 (GMT+8)

Of course, please do! Adam Bishop 18:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] rename to palaeography

The UK Nation Archives calls it palaeography (versus palæography). It seems like the more modern and less pretentious spelling. I'd like to propose an article rename. Stbalbach 17:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Could there be supplied some pronunciation details. Specifically is it generally pronounced "pay-leography" or "pah-leography" ? - ToireasaTyers 14:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think "palaeo" would be closer to "pah-" (or the word pal) than to "pay-". talk to +MATIA 14:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually it is more like pay-, or the word "pail", like a bucket (or "pale"). At least, this is how all the Canadians, Americans, and Brits I know pronounce it, I don't think I have ever heard it as "pah-", but I could be mistaken. Adam Bishop 16:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The traditional greek pronounciation and the continental pronounciations in French, German and Italien would be more similar to 'pah-', but - as being a German and at the moment an Italian resident - I don't know the current use in UK and North America. GVogeler 20:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cleanup needed

This article is largely incorrect and incomplete, and appears to have been written by someone with imperfect command of English. I've deleted a few of the egregious misstatements, but almost everything about it is problematic. The brief historical discussion of the barbarian invasions is incorrect (the Ostrogoths and Visigoths, for example, were Arian Christians when they entered Italy and Spain--not pagans: but what's this doing here anyway?); nobody calls Gothic Textura "blackletter" anymore; and the bit on "Kurrentschrift" is out of place. Etymologically, "paleography" refers to the study of ancient scripts; the term "modern paleography" is thus oxymoronic, and the section titled "modern palaeography" should probably be removed. The article is also imprecise in ways that make one squirm: it refers to the ampersand ("the & sign") as an abbreviation, when it is in fact a ligature, for example. It also implies that paleographers exist mainly to transcribe manuscripts, which is not at all true. Many scholars are capable of reading and transcribing manuscripts. Paleographers study the development of ancient handwriting. 84.172.228.110 15:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.172.211.189 (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Removed paragraph

I removed this paragraph because it didn't fit in very well:

Pa-le óg-ra’-fí, the science of reading, dating, and analyzing ancient writing on papyrus, parchment, waxed tablets potsherds, paper, or any other surface. As a rule, paleography deals with Greek and Latin scripts and their derivatives, excluding Egyptian, Hebrew, Middle, and Far Eastern Scripts.

It reads like a definition, but it was the third paragraph and the term was already defined. - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)