Talk:Pottery of ancient Greece/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe it's worth asking, what is Greek pottery? What is Ancient? Shouldn't this page include the Minoan, the Mycenean? What about the Kerch style or pottery from the Greek colonies of southern Italy? Or from the Hellenistic period?

Contents 1 Grammar Problems 2 Vanadalism 3 Ceramics 4 Valediction

[edit] Grammar Problems

Could someone please do somthing about the serious grammar problems in the Rediscovery and Scholarship section please? It has serious grammatic problems that will confuse the reader badly.

What grammatical errors?Twospoonfuls 21:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The very first and second sentences need editing.

It's mainly the first paragraph.

Is this a guessing game? --Wetman 01:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's an idea, why don't you rewrite it mr anonymous?Twospoonfuls 08:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vanadalism

This page seems to attract a disproportinate amount of vandalism, perhaps it should be locked?Twospoonfuls 09:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ceramics

The quoted firing temperatures are too precise. Even with the most modern kilns and pyrometers it is accepted that a targeted temperature will have a tolerance. To suggest, as the article currently does, that the firing was to such a precise schedule is misleading, and I'm sure inaccurate as it is not possible to say that all production was identical. A little re-wording is neededTheriac

OK, feel free to change them. Twospoonfuls 12:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Have done.ThanxTheriac 12:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Valediction

Right then, you ungrateful buggers, I've had it with Greek pots. It might have been nice if this page could have been a collaborative enterprise, but no0o0o0o0o0o0o, I had to write it all myself. Which makes me uncomfortable given that all its defects are then my own. It is a Sisyphysian task writing a summary of 1000 years of craft production, ranging over the whole of the eastern Mediterrean and beyond and embracing several different cultures, so I might as well be candid about what it is I left out. Firstly there's the problem of of treating vases as objects d'art, they aren't of course, they're archaeological artifacts with a context and a find history - this article nowhere nearly gives an adequate treatment of the important finds, Vulci isn't mentioned once ffs. By the same token unpainted ware isn't mentioned at all. There is only the skimpiest treatment of the regional styles outside of Athens and Corinth despite the fact they have long and complex histories of their own. Its true this article would balloon to monograph size if it gave a detailed history of Boetia et al and would probably bore the lay reader, but still... Nor is there a careful delineation of the early, middle and late periods of the Progeometric and Geometric periods. Nor is tere any mention of the black-figure little master cups. Nor the Gnathia style. The treatment of the collecting history of Greek vases is laughable and it didn't even begin to touch on the social status of potters and painters let alone the icongraphy of the vase (though that is perhaps the subject for a different article, n'est pas?). Lastly I'm sure some doofus is going to call me on the inclusion of the Darius and Underworld Painters in the Hellenistic section rather than red-figure, but I say they're Hellenistic and that's that. Twospoonfuls 19:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That was a bit churlish. I couldn't have written this page without my crude machine translation of the comendable french article and Jastrow's superlative photography. Put the above rant down to ατή, and the fact that I feel guiltily responsible for a 1000 ill-informed term papers. I will archive this talk page later. Twospoonfuls 17:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)