Talk:Labyrinth/Archive 1

Archive 1

Theseus and the Minotaur in Roman Labyrinths

The Minotaur/Labyrinth connection became firmly established during the Roman period. I deleted this, with the thought that paragraphs about the Roman labyrinth patterns are better without it. If anything, the Roman pattern had lost its Minotaur/Labyrinth connotations. Am I right in this? Wetman 11:39, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The labyrinth was a popular feature of mosaic pavements in Roman times. Various examples have images of Theseus slaying the Minotaur at the centre (notably the one from the villa on the Via Cadolini near Cremona). The graffito from Pompeii of a square Cretan type labyrinth also emphasises the connection with the words: LABYRINTHUS HIC HABITAT MINOTAURUS - presumably as an uncomplimentary reference to the inhabitant of the house. A fresco in Pompeii shows the triumphant Theseus emerging from the labyrinth with the dead Minotaur at its mouth, and there was alao the famous "house of the labyrinth" there. (See the foot of this page [1] for three good images. Also [2] - scroll down to "floor--labyrinth mosaic with Minotaur slaying") So I think the connection would certainly still have been alive in people's minds at that time, if not always made explicit. SiGarb 13:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

DAB needed

There needs to be some sort of diasambiguation between this page and an entry for the Jorge Luis Borges book of the same title. 5:31, 27 March 2005

(DAB page seems to have been added some time ago, and does include an entry for Borges.) Elphion (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Game Example for mazes

Tomb Raider is the best example for the mazes. If you ever played on Tomb Raider you would know that the dead end of a mission is because of a maze.

Why are the Lara Croft series given as an example of mazes in modern computer games? I would have thought The Legend of Zelda series could be a far better example... Objections? ;) Fafner 09:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think no game sould be explicitly mentioned in this article - there wera dn are many and many of them and if one is added other will follow and make article worse. Pavel Vozenilek 15:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Very wise. Let's concentrate on the use of labyrinth features in video games in general. --Wetman 23:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

It is a terrible habit I've noticed on these pages to associate everything with computer games or comic books. I have deleted the Lara Croft reference. It was pointless.Schnizzle 11:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of games, why is there no mention--not even a link to a page--of the wooden maze toy generally referred to as a "Labyrinth"? Like the one available at [3]. For the most part, when I think of a Labyrinth, this is one of the first things that comes to mind. This game is already available on the iPhone. -Epynephrin (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I created the sub-heading Mass Media to differentiate actual labyrinths (what I interpret the page to focus on) from fictional ones, and tried to round up all modern fictional references from previous contributors into this section. The "Labyrinth (disambiguation)" page has a decent list of games -including the "wooden maze toy" mentioned by Epynephrin- so I made sure to direct readers there in the brief paragraph about films, games, and music.Ashtflash2 (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Ashtflash2

Labyrinth versus Maze

The maze article, which this links to and claims to be an example of, says:

A maze is a tour puzzle in the form of a complex branching passage through which the solver must find a route. This is different from a labyrinth, which has an unambiguous through-route and is not designed to be difficult to navigate.

This also seems to be born out by the example images of a labyrinth. This should probably be reworded to reflect that, though I don't have any good ideas on actual wording. PerlKnitter 16:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Excellent point, PerlKnitter. I edited in the very text you quoted. How's it now? --Wetman 23:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Not to jump on your edit, but it looks like there's a word (such as 'structure' missing from "...an elaborate maze-like constructed...". No edit because it looks like you're in discussion about a final version. Nae'blis 23:08:44, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

Good call. Fixed it. --Wetman 23:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. And apparently, I did miss below where you had already talked about that. Nice article. PerlKnitter 13:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

If a labyrinth "has an unambiguous through-route and is not designed to be difficult to navigate", then why did Ariadne need to give Theseus the famous thread with which to find his way back out again?

This probably stems from the popular conflation of the terms "labyrinth" and "maze."

Septegram 15:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I was led to this page to ask that same question, concerning the thread. The most convincing possibility I can come up with is that most of these myths have been rewritten and retold countless times, and it's likely whoever appended the thread part misunderstood the single-pathedness of the Labyrinth. If anybody has a better explanation, I'd definitely be curious to know. Would it not be a good idea to explain this somehow in the article? It might forestall other readers from thinking Ariadne and Theseus lack common sense. Recnilgiarc 14:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a misunderstanding of the Labyrinth's single path: The thread of Ariadne was the very image of the labyrinth's secret. Remember, we have in all of this a Hellene revision of a Minoan myth, or even a Hellenic etiological interpretation of a mysterious Minoan symbol, for which no Minoan story had been transmitted. --Wetman 16:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The current text compares labyrinth to maze, saying a "labyrinth has only a single Eulerian path to the center." But the entry on Eulerian path says, "an Eulerian path is a path in a graph which visits each edge exactly once." I interpret this as touching the start and finish only once. In which case, most mazes also have only one such path (i.e., only one solution). It seems to me that this distinction is not unique to the labyrinth. --Psgs 02:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"Eulerian" here is a pretentious distraction. If it is also inapplicable, just remove it. Here's the point to keep in mind: a labyrinth has an unambiguous through-route and is not designed to be difficult to navigate. The thread of Ariadne in the Greek telling makes the point concrete: it has no other purpose save a marginal reference to the mysterious art of weaving--Wetman 08:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"Eulerian" is actually an important distinction in that the term distinguishes a labyrinth from a Celtic knot, which intersects itself several times and has no defined beginning or ending. (Kern, Hermann. Through the Labyrinth : Designs and Meanings Over 5,000 Years. Munich: New York : Prestel, 2000, page 23) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.204.233.178 (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Eulerian" is being misused here: such a path can be self-intersecting, while a unicursal path is not. I've removed it. As for the bit above about the myths misunderstanding the unicursal nature of the labyrinth, it's quite clear that the Labyrinth (House of Daedalos) in the legend of Minos was a branching maze. The association with unicursal designs (and the "Classical" labyrinth in particular) came later. Elphion (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

An Egyptian source for the labyrinth of Knossos

The following, unsourced and with the usual passive of non-attribution ("is said to..."), is without historical or archaeological or even mythic foundation:

The Labyrinth of Greek legend that Daedalus is supposed to have built at Knossos on Crete for King Minos to house the Minotaur, is said to have been modeled after the Egyptian Labyrinth that is described by the ancient historians Herodotus, Strabo and Diodorus Siculus. That Egyptian labyrinth in its turn is believed to actually have been the vast mortuary temple that once stood adjacent to the pyramid built by Pharaoh Amenemhet III at Hawara, in Egypt's Fayum.

Herodotus' 5th-century usage of "labyrinth" demonstrates the extension of the word to describe a complicated mazelike structure, not revealing an Egyption origin for the labyrinth of Knossos (2nd millennium BCE) --Wetman 20:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The information on a labyrinth connection between Egypt and Crete appears in the article on Hawara. logologist 00:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no historical connection with the labyrinth of Crete that housed the Minotaur. Herodotus' use of "labyrinth" to describe the structure that he saw in Egypt shows how the architectural connotations of the word had developed by the 5th century BCE. I have corrected the misleading and erroneous remark at Hawara—an article that really could use some work, especially some references. --Wetman 08:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Ilinka Crvenkovska play

Could someone familiar with the play please repair and edit this sentence: "...Theseus in an act of suicide is killed by the Minotaur only to be killed himself by the horrified towns people." As it is, it sounds like Theseus is killed twice.

more possible artwork

Minotaur's labyrinth engraving on ancient gem

I will post some more illustrations if there is interest. Nidara 08:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The image page says "(Maffei)". Is this image from P. Maffei's Gemmae antiquae figuratae (1709, Pt. IV, plate 31, perhaps)? Such engravings without sources given are not very informative. Knowing that the image is late Hellenistic or Roman might be the background for explaining why there is a centaur—and not in fact the Minotaur— at the center of this (Roman?) engraved gem. --Wetman 10:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It is in fact MAFFEI, P. A. "Gemmae Antiche," 1709. The minotaur in this case is shown as a centaur. Also, it is Roman and there are other examples of the centaur representation of the minotaur such as an Italian 16th century bronze plaquette located at the British Museum. I will add the source to the image. I will also link to other images of a more "traditional" representation of the Minotaur as a bipedal man with a bull head. I just thought it may be interesting to add a Minotaur image to the page. Nidara 17:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This particular image as well as many others can be attained from this link. W.H. Matthews, Mazes and Labyrinths: Their History and Development

Minotaur [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

Centaur as Minotaur [17]

The Minotaur was generally represented as half-man, half-bull; but which half was which was not pinned down definitely. Some representations show a bull's head on a man's body, some the reverse. Minotaur is a proper noun; the use of the word as a generic term for a beast with a bull's head and a man's body is a modern invention. Objecting that some figures represent a centaur and not a "minotaur" misunderstands the history. They all represent the Minotaur. Elphion (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

And it's definitely not a centaur: the hooves (more easily visible in the full-sized image) are bovine, not equine. Elphion (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

So is the animal's body… the tuft on the belly is typical of a bull, not a horse. SiGarb | (Talk) 18:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed "oldest known examples" & Renaissance humanism

I removed this statement. It needs verification, and didn't really fit where it was. Certainly there are prehistoric inscribed pebbles/stones/chalk cylinders with spiral patterns, but these are not labyrinths (at least in the more precise, modern sense). They may be related, but this needs to be stated. Some quotable references would be useful here. Currently, the earliest actual labyrinth designs to have been discovered would seem to be petroglyphs in Galicia and Val Camonica [18].

The oldest known examples of the labyrinth design are small simple petroglyphs (incised stones) perhaps dating back 3000 years. These spiralling labyrinth-pattern petroglyphs are found in numerous places across the world, from Syria to Ireland.

I have also removed this, because it is unclear (I take it to mean that their religious significance faded and they began to be used simply for entertainment, though it could be taken to mean that Renaissance labyrinths differed in their design, being made without a definite centre); it is also unverified.

Starting from the Renaissance, labyrinths lose their central point: the person in the labyrinth is its center, a reflection of humanistic teachings.

SiGarb | Talk 16:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Herodotus' Egyptian Labyrinth

I have found no reference to a physical location for the Egyptian Labyrinth, but I have found a possible structure that seems to match the description:

Coordinates {from Multimap} Lat: 29:21:07N (29.3518) Lon: 30:52:47E (30.8797)

Google Maps has a good hi-res color image of the structure, which appears to be rectangular (with a corner cut out) and about 280 m long and 140 m wide with a WNW to ESE orientation.

It is about 5 km NNE of modern El-faiyum (former Crocodilopolis?) and west of the village of Al 'Idwah.

This does not appear to be the structure excavated by Petrie, which is about 5 km SE of El-faiyum.

(The above added at 18:47, 1 August 2006 by Tadchem | Talk)

I think it could just be a cemetery. Compare it with the other similar-looking areas on the edges of most settlements in the area (Google Earth is the quickest & easiest way to "fly over" the area, to precise coordinates – the centre of your structure is at 29 20.56 N, 30 52.29 E according to Google Earth). SiGarb | Talk 22:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Late comment: the Egyptian labyrinth is definitely the structure excavated by Petrie, adjacent to the pyramid of Amenemhat III in Hawara, SE of el-Faiyum. -- Elphion (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Cultural meanings

Hmm, speaking specifically on the origins of the Mediterranean labyrinth, I can't believe hundreds of people as a collective team still have a hard time piecing the symbolism together. This is why the world will blow up soon. I'm sure of it. In the meantime, let me give you some hints...

In a nutshell, the labyrinth is simply a symbol of the subterranean abode of the dead. Apparently you all missed that. So the maze is confusing for a clear reason: It prevents the dead from escaping the underworld. Afterall, the underworld is "the place of no return" just like the labyrinth.

The labyrinth idea derives from the same meandering path found in entrails, based on an extension of the basic idea of the dead being "swallowed up by the earth" (aka "buried"). So the deceased were originally conceived as going through the entrails of the earth (and thus, following the path of the labyrinth). And lo and behold, Babylonians, Hittites and later Etruscans would use sheep entrails or livers to divine the future because of this crazy association with "the world beyond". Then the internet came and all common sense was lost forever. The End. :P --Glengordon01 16:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

CRAP A DOODLE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.225.213 (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Minotaur and chickens

There's been a lot of editing lately, stating that the Minotaur was half chicken, half bull. Does anyone have any idea what this is about? It's been going on on the Minotaur article as well. ||| antiuser (talk) (contribs) 08:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I have protected this page because of the rash of vandalism by an AOL proxy. Let me know if people disagree. Sparsefarce 02:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources

here are some good sources [19] [20] [21] (sorry bout the format there in it's been a long time since i've done an exteranl link)
Xor24 ^{talk to me} 00:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

if it's not designed to be difficult to navigate, why was the minotaur stuck?

You say "[the labyrinth] was an elaborate structure designed and built by the legendary artificer Daedalus [...] to hold the Minotaur"

but

"A labyrinth has an unambiguous through-route to the center and back and is not designed to be difficult to navigate."

this doesn't make sense. wasn't it was built to be difficult for the minotaur to escape? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.214.224 (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Asterion was not "stuck" in the labyrinth that was his. He had no "biography" outside the labyrinth. Myth is closer to dream than it is to historical biography. Except among Christians, of course.--Wetman (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The original idea of the labyrinth was indeed that it was very complex and confusing, and in literature it remained that way. Even in the earliest Cretan coins, the image representing the labyrinth was designed to look confusing. But very early on (about 500 BCE) what we now call the Classical Labyrinth of seven courses, well-known previously from other contexts, came to represent the edifice of Daedalus, for reasons that remain very unclear. It makes no sense; Theseus wouldn't have needed a thread to find his way back out -- yet the Romans (who loved to portray the labyrinth in decoration) frequently included a representation of the thread in their invariably single-path mazes. It's one of those enduring cultural mysteries. Everyone understood the unicursal maze as a symbol for the confusing maze, despite its manifestly obvious solution. Branching mazes didn't reappear in art until the Renaissance. Elphion (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)d

I prefer that the "many scholars", whoever they are, are mistaken and the definitions of maze and labyrynth to be ambiguous and interchangeable. Prove me wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.120.98 (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You are not wrong (though "mistaken" pre-judges the issue). Similarly, if you use "speed" and "velocity" interchangeably, as they commonly are used in English, you are not wrong. But you may be misunderstood by a physicist, since physicists, for convenience habitually make an arbitrary distinction between them as technical terms. Roughly the same is true for "maze" and "labyrinth", although the distinction is not as rigidly observed.

There is another phenomenon at work here, though. For roughly 2000 years (about 500 BCE to 1500 CE, give or take a few years), *every* known visual depiction of the "labyrinth" (meaning the House of Daedalus where the Minotaur was kept) is unicursal. It's a bizarre way to represent what in the myth is obviously a branching maze, but there was (and is) something about those patterns that attracts our attention; and part of the reason "labyrinth" is often reserved for unicursal patterns is a reflection of that historical phenomenon.

Elphion (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Maze in The Shining

With respect, I think the article makes an error including the maze from the movie, The Shining, with the medieval labyrinth. The church labyrinth, as we have seen, did not have high walls - usually did not have any walls or even rails at all - and had only one permissible path, although it was winding; one of the purposes in church lore was that, by having to pay attention to the marked pathway and make all the appropriate turns, the person was effectively insulated from more worldly distractions. The Shining hedge maze, similar to some European garden mazes, was a puzzle with high walls, false paths, intersections, and so forth, so it was possible to become completely lost and have to spend hours before finding one's way out. (Presumably the 'original labyrinth' in the Minotaur myth was such a puzzle, with false routes.) At least some of those garden mazes were designed with a simple secret to finding the right path - something such as always turning to the left. Sussmanbern (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

an explanation

As I resolved the various versions I've read, the labyrinth was a simple but convoluted, long, easily defensible 'choke path' required to enter the palace of a demigoddess. When a human suitor was transformed into the minotaur for his effrontery, he was trapped in the labyrinth only by his love who, repulsed by his appearance, shunned him from the palace proper. His situation of physical power and romantic helplessness caused him, perhaps madly, to kill all others who attempted to enter, mostly warriors whose discarded stone axe head (labrum, from its tongue like appearance) was left to litter the floor. Hence the name labyrinth. Since none survived to describe the path, perhaps the string was a clever, enabling, but pointless invention. There are many versions, and layers of meaning built into the stories and myths, which make the labyrinth such an enduring image. As a multiple allegory to life, it also tells me (though I don’t believe it) that despite our supposed free will, our path, determined by the architect, merely appears complex, and that (as I do believe) death might wait around any turn. Yours, Wikid Wikid (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting if unsubstantiated take on a great old story

I never heard of the lady in the story, nor of the labyrinth being used as a defense, nor of that etymology. Interesting ideas. Boldklub-PJs (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, perhaps. Unsubstantiated, absolutely. Typical modern romantic make-believe. Elphion (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Origins

Why do essentially identical labyrinths exist in such widely differing cultures? The photos in the article show Scandinavian, Native American, and Cornish labyrinths which follow the exact same sequence of turns (the "seven-ring classical labyrinth") which the text implies was widespread in classical Greece. Is there any evidence of a common origin, or is there some explanation of how these originated independently? Something rooted in neurology even? HairyDan (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

An interesting question for which there is no good answer yet. The European labyrinths are all generally related, and it is plausible to think that the Middle-eastern and Indian (subcontinent) labyrinths share a common Neolithic cultural root with them. But the presence of the classical 7-course labyrinth in America (even if presented differently) makes you sit up and take notice. It appears early enough to make cross-fertilization from colonial sources an unlikely explanation, and the style of presentation and variation is quite unlike the Old World examples. But it's close enough to make you wonder about a tradition being brought across the Bering land bridge some 14000+ years ago. The other explanation (independent development) seems just as unlikely, unless, as you speculate, there might be some underlying neurological proclivity for labyrinths. That's an explanation I would have rejected out of hand once upon a time; but our fascination with these patterns does make me wonder. Elphion (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It's unsettled. Everyone believes early people crossed the Bering land bridge to the North West but hardly anyone believes that early people also entered from the East or North East despite several native american legends of existing inhabitants which they displace/killed. These supposed inhabitants, oft vilified; red-haired, cannibalistic and non anatomically modern in appearance, certainly give cause not to believe. But the mound builders, whoever they were, share weapon designs similar in strike pattern to points found in the Dordogne region of southern France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.182.112 (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Herodotus' Egyptian labyrinth

The labyrinth is still there. The supposed floor of the labyrinth seems to be the roof. Ghent University is excavating on the site right now. See: [22].--Narayan (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ilinka Crvenkovska and the stage play?

The myth of the labyrinth has in recent times found incarnation in a stage play by Ilinka Crvenkovska which explores notions of a man's ability to control his own fate. Theseus in an act of suicide is killed by the Minotaur, who is himself killed by the horrified townspeople.

I've been looking for the name of this play or that matter, any reference to Ilinka Crvenkovska (outside of a mirror of this passage) on Google. So far, I have been unable to do so. I would like to change the above passage to read: The myth of the labyrinth has in recent times found incarnation in a stage play by Ilinka Crvenkovska which explores notions of a man's ability to control his own fate. In the play <<insert play name here>>, Theseus in an act of suicide is killed by the Minotaur, who is himself killed by the horrified townspeople. to make the passage cleaner and reflect that this is the play and not the myth, but so far am unable to find the appropriate reference. --Shagie (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm no expert on Macedonian literature. The bit about the play was added in this edit by IP 80.189.125.55 (currently assigned to London) on 28 July 2004. That user's only contributions to WP were this edit and the immediately following one. I found (as you did) that virtually the only information about this on the web has been copied from this WP article. One begins to wonder about notability. Elphion (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nearly a year later (poking at my old edits), still nothing on this and not mentioned anywhere else. I'm removing this passage. --Shagie (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Dead links

Some of the links to sub-pages of labyrinthos.net on this and other articles don't seem to be working... AnonMoos (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the one in this article. Where are the others? Found and fixed similar links in: Caerdroia, Troy Town, Hilton, Cambridgeshire, Wing, Rutland, Turf maze, Maze, Rocky Valley, and Harmony Society. Elphion (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The "new age" slur

(Addressing recent edits by IP 76.164.46.73)

First, can we get past the ad hominem arguments? You comment that I should "please consult the literature". I am quite familiar with the scholarly literature, though not what you call the "new age" literature (for most of which I have little patience). "New age" itself has a whiff of the ad hominem about it and has no place in a serious encyclopedia article; I prefer your phrase "primarily interested in healing and therapeutics", which at least addresses some of the serious areas falling under that imprecise rubric.

I also agree that the scholarly distinction between maze and labyrinth is not hard and fast. But it is frequently made, and it is not of recent invention. My reference to Matthews was not to support the distinction, but to highlight evidence that the usage has been around since at least the early 20th century. It is not a "new age" development. Yes, Matthews says that any such specializing of the terms is "dogmatic" – but any technical vocabulary distinction like that is arbitrary and "dogmatic". Physicists have distinguished between speed and velocity in a totally arbitrary way; this does not mean that physicists are right and the layman wrong, or vice versa – it simply reflects a specialized usage, a shorthand way of making a technical distinction. Physicists are not being "new age" by doing so.

Doob argues that unicursal and multicursal understandings of the Labyrinth developed together, that historically they are closely related. But writers primarily interested in one or the other do often draw the distinction. Some writers (like Phillips) use the words interchangeably in some contexts but make the distinction in others. As a mathematician interested in unicursal patterns, I generally do make the distinction. Perhaps Phillips's term transit maze is preferable, but the use of "labyrinth" to characterize these is by now well established.

I suspect we are not far apart on this. What I object to in your text is the clear implication that making the distinction arose with Kern and is principally a "new age" affectation and somehow wrong. What I see is that it is a far earlier distinction and is used more widely. You observe that the article does not currently say much about the recent interest in unicursal designs as "objects of mystery", and we might want to say something about the universal preference for unicursal patterns in hospitals and clinics.

Elphion (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hearing no response, I've edited out "new age" in the article. Also, the Doob reference supplied in support of the dogmatic claim that others "insist" that they are the same does not support that claim; it merely argues that medieval usage applied labyrinth to both multi- and uni-cursal patterns. Elphion (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment moved from main

Someone please fix this, if the route was unambiguous and easy to navigate the minotaur would have easily escaped. --174.17.240.87 (talk) 06:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(The comment was added to the second paragraph in the intro, against the sentence, "A labyrinth in this sense has an unambiguous route to the center and back and is not designed to be difficult to navigate.") -- Elphion (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to fix. The next paragraph of the intro explains that the association of unicursal patterns with the Labyrinth defies the logic of the legend. But historically, that's what happened. -- Elphion (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Zeprider1 (talk)Please, you can not cite something[2] where the author disagrees. It is cited in the article that a choice has to be made. It is not a simple gilded path.

I have never put my 2 cents in here, but I have been in what is called a labyrinth and there are choices. I have been going through more than one dictionary and it is synonymous with maze. I am intimidated in posting, much less changing, but where I got lost was not a one way street.Zeprider1 (talk) 08:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

In ordinary English, labyrinth and maze are indeed synonymous; both terms are used to refer to unicursal and to multicursal patterns. No one is arguing that. But there is a specialized usage that draws the distinction between unicursal labyrinths and multicursal mazes. This latter usage is observed by many modern writers on the labyrinth, the canonical example being Hermann Kern. But Kern did not make up this distinction; the specialized usage goes back at least to Matthews's time, as his book makes clear. Though Matthews thought the distinction unnecessary, his book is good evidence that the distinction is at least that old, so it's a valid reference for the existence of the usage.

I don't understand what you mean by "It is cited in the article that a choice has to be made." This article (Labyrinth) does not insist that you (or anyone) must make the distinction -- it simply points out that some people do make it, that the distinction is something anyone interested in labyrinths is likely to encounter.

-- Elphion (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Nihil novi

one renoved brain from see also. Link to brain here is obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 10:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I then reverted it as well. As noted in my edit summary, it seems tangential at best. Oh and, as your talk page shows, you have been asked many times to sing your posts. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that should be "sign", although singing might help if his problem in writing English is due to a brain defect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

darn yes, you are right! Oops.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Place of the double axe

This is indeed debated, a debate which needs presenting in the article.[23], [24] are a start but not sufficient. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

(Suggest reformatting the comment above to clearly distinguish what is being linked to -- and some of the google links don't appear to work.) No problem with covering the debate, though I think Labrys is the right place to put the lion's share of the material. (The section "Cretan labyrinth" has the beginnings of the discussion. Perhaps we need a section on etymology, though the Cretan labyrinth section is probably the right place.) The association between 'labyrinthos' and 'labrys' is almost certainly a folk-etymology, and is largely an invention of early modern (19th-20th century) scholars. The linear A word borrowed as 'labyrinthos' appears only in association with grottoes. Elphion (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what happened to the links. [25] p50 Architecture of Minoan Crete: Constructing Identity in the Aegean Bronze Age and in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome, Volume 1[26]pp328-330. Yes, a section on etymology will be good.Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Zelazny: The Pattern

Another maze that should be included is the 'Pattern' from the Rodger Zelazny Amber novels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckey55 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy of maze and labyrinth and suggesting moves

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the pages to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 22:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

---

• Labyrinth → Labyrinth (architecture) and Labyrinth (Greek mythology)
• Maze → Labyrinth (puzzle)
• Labyrinth (disambiguation) → Labyrinth
• Maze (disambiguation) → Maze

– The articles are factually wrong when they describe maze and labyrinth as two different concepts. ツ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prattle} _{✉ post} 21:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The words maze and labyrinth are in some senses indistinguisable even though additional meanings not being synonomous also exists. The etymology (origin) of the words differ but in this sense their meanings do not. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) the word «maze» means «labyrinth» and vice versa.

• OED: labyrinth is «A structure consisting of a number of intercommunicating passages arranged in bewildering complexity, through which it is difficult or impossible to find one's way without guidance; a maze.» and
• OED: maze among other things means: «A labyrinth, and related senses.» which is described in more detail as «A structure designed as a puzzle, consisting of a complicated network of winding and interconnecting paths or passages, only one of which is the correct route through; a labyrinth; (occas. in pl.) the windings of a labyrinth. Also (as in quot. 1903): a structure comprising two points joined by a single winding line much greater in length than the direct line between the two points.» or«In extended use: a complex network of paths or streets; a bewildering mass of things (material or immaterial), in which the individual components are difficult to separate or make out.»

Please note especially that

• The WP article Labyrinth says: «.. maze refers to a complex branching (multicursal) puzzle with choices of path and direction; while a single-path (unicursal) labyrinth has only a single, non-branching path, which leads to the center. A labyrinth in this sense has an unambiguous route to the center and back and is not designed to be difficult to navigate. »
• The WP article Maze says: «Technically the maze is distinguished from the labyrinth, which has a single through-route with twists and turns but without branches, and is not designed to be as difficult to navigate. »

And the OED says the exact opposite in one of the senses of the word Maze:

• «a structure comprising two points joined by a single winding line much greater in length than the direct line between the two points.»
• «A structure designed as a puzzle, consisting of a complicated network of winding and interconnecting paths or passages, only one of which is the correct route through »

The Encyclopædia Britannica treats the two words as synonyms: Labyrinth (Alternate title: maze) and writes: «Labyrinth, also called maze, system of intricate passageways and blind alleys. “Labyrinth” was the name given by the ancient Greeks and Romans to buildings, entirely or partly subterranean, containing a number of chambers and passages that rendered egress difficult. Later, especially from the European Renaissance onward, the labyrinth or maze occurred in formal gardens, consisting of intricate paths separated by high hedges.»

In other words the distinction between «maze» and «labyrinth» described in the articles does not exist according to two of the most reliable sources to the english language available. Furthermore citation no 3 in the labyrinth article says «The usage restricting maze to patterns that involve choices of path is mentioned by Matthews (p. 2-3) as early as 1922, though he argues against it.» so this seems to be the conclusion of the source which is a German book from 1982. The discussion in the cited source probably was what led to the misunderstanding described above. In this case I suggest that relying on the OED and the Britannica is the advisable course of action.

1. Both articles should be rewritten to accomodate what the reliable sources says, since the words «maze» and «labyrinth» are indistinguishable in the senses described here.

Since the meaning of the words «maze» and «labyrinth» here is indistinguisable, the article titles are somewhat confusing and

1. labyrinth should be moved to Labyrinth (greek mythology) and
2. the content in labyrinth relating to architecture and gardening should be moved to Labyrinth (architecture) (which should say a little bit about the greek myth architecture as well).
3. The Maze article should be moved to Labyrinth (puzzle) and since the start of the article relies on Tour puzzle (an unsourced article) being correct the start should probably be given some citations and a slightly different start).
4. Afterward Labyrinth could redirect to Labyrinth (disambiguation) and
5. Maze redirect to Maze (disambiguation).
6. and the disambiguation pages should be changed according to the above changes and moves.

Hoping this was unambiguous and understandable. Regards --ツ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prattle} _{✉ post} 21:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing "inaccurate" about the distinction between "Maze" and "Labyrinth" -- people have been making this distinction since at least the early 20th century, since Matthews mentions it. It did not start with Kern, and is not a "misunderstanding" introduced by his book. As pointed out several times above, the distinction is a technical one commonly made by people who deal with labyrinths. There are plenty of reliable sources supporting or explaining the distinction, although as the dictionaries indicate, general English does not necessarily distinguish between the two senses. (The distinction is made in German too: "Irrgarten" refers to a branching maze, and "Labyrinth" can refer for either type.)

Your WP quotes are not quite in context. The quote from Labyrinth is explaining the differential usage, but not saying that this is a hard and fast distinction in the language. The quote from Maze probably overstates the case; it seems to be saying that to be technically correct you should make the distinction. I would prefer to see that watered down a bit along the lines of the first quote.

Currently the divide between the articles is somewhat different: Labyrinth covers the mythological labyrinth and the designs that were inspired by it; some are multicursal, the vast majority unicursal. Maze covers puzzle mazes, designed to require a solution. The two concepts overlap; the maze in Arkville, for example, is clearly a "labyrinth", with strong references to Theseus and the Minotaur -- and it is also an "architectural" maze or labyrinth as well. But there are many labyrinths that are not architectural.

I don't see a strong need to change that division, though both articles should make clear what they cover. I think Labyrinth and Maze are the appropriate titles, since when a distinction is made, those are the terms used. A separate article for the mythological Labyrinth (the "house of Daedalus") might be useful, for which Labyrinth (mythology) is reasonable. (NB: not "Greek mythology"; the Romans were avid fans of the labyrinth as well. There are far more more Roman ones than Greek, and many accounts come from Roman writers.) I would prefer to see that discussion kept in this article, since unicursal labyrinths developed as representations of the mythological labyrinth, which is why that term is used for them. I don't really see a need for Labyrinth (architecture), since labyrinths used as architectural elements are of one type or the other.

-- Elphion (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, Dyveldi, unambiguous and understandable. You make an interesting and well argued case, with plenty of apposite quotations from definitive but, of necessity (in the case of dictionaries) rather general, authorities. And even the OED and Britannia have been known to get things wrong sometimes! I can definitely see where you are coming from, and would agree that in general literary and verbal usage the two words are largely interchangeable. However, you (and they) ignore the largely ubiquitous modern usage in the specialist field of maze and labyrinth design, and the many, many publications in the past thirty years or more that have chosen to distinguish between the two types of pattern in this way. To attempt to list all these more recent titles that refer to this usage would encruft the page horribly, and perhaps lead to a petty "why include this one if not that one?" edit war breaking out. Also, your chosen alternative title of "Labyrinth (architecture)" is scarcely appropriate, as many of the earliest (and indeed recent) examples of the labyrinth pattern in its various iterations are scratched onto rocks or pots, painted onto ceramics, cast onto coins, cut into turf, woven into baskets or laid out in pebbles on hillsides or seashores, none of which I would describe as architecture. Only those where a unicursal labyrinth is laid out in the form of a mosaic floor, or with walls (or, at a pinch, with hedges), could qualify as architecture. SiGarb | (Talk) 22:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The timing of my reply clashed with that of Elphion, whose eloquently stated points I would also endorse. SiGarb | (Talk) 22:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment: whilst expressing no view on the debate (yet) can I just respectfully point out that the Disputed Accuracy tags on both articles were broken and rendered as a mess? I've removed them for now, not because I think that they should not be there but because I do not think we should leave the articles in a mess. I'd be delighted if someone could please fix them so that they match the original intent, but work properly and look good. Thanks and best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose "Maze" -> "Labyrinth (puzzle)" WP:COMMONNAME is "Maze", and the article says that mazes are not technically labyrinths. Maze (puzzle) would be the correct move location -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as proposed; the overwhelming common name for a puzzle where the object is to find the right path among a series of dead ends is a "maze"; this is the case irrespective of whether the article itself needs improvement. For example, Amazon.com has close to 400 results for "Book of Mazes", of which most are books containing maze puzzles, while it has only 33 results for "Book of Labyrinths", many of which are merely clever titles for fiction/fantasy books that do not contain puzzles. That being the case, there is no reason to move Labyrinth. bd2412 T 21:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• A fascinating idea. I do however have to oppose based on our predisposition at Wikipedia to seek out WP:NATURAL disambiguation. Red Slash 00:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I did rewrite the ledes in question, though. Red Slash 00:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted both changes, as they are not correct. We can work on the wording below -- Elphion (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose all as proposed. As a preliminary note, I have not read the enormous slab of text in the nomination, and do not intend to. Regardless of what it says, the common name for the puzzle is "maze" and "maze" most often means the puzzle, so the proposals to move maxe (disambiguation to maze and maze to some obscure title are both wrong. The suggested move of Labyrinth appears to be proposing a split, but if that's the case the use of a requested move is inappropriate and the nomination needs to be clearer in any case. I would probably support a split as it appears to be proposed, if it were proposed properly, but I can't support the unclear proposal above. With those moves disposed of, there's no need to move Labyrinth (disambiguation) either. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment based on suggestions above and below I will most certainly rephrase the suggestions. The suggesteded moves are based on WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC since in world litterature and scientific litterature the word labyrinth does not refer to a unicursal and easily solved pattern which is not mazing. Designing patterns has obviously given rise to at need for designers (and people describing the patterns) to distinguish between unicursal labyrinths/mazes and mazing labyrinths/mazes (which is the narrow and specialized case). But I can see that the articles need to be revised to cover the words better before I rephrase the suggestions. Getting the articles right is the main and most important issue. I think maybe that the discussion should continue in the thread below and whether or not this will lead to suggestions of different moves I am not shure. My suggestions of moves was premature since the articles need work before the correct article titles are clear. There is also the revision history of the articles to consider. Moving too much material around can disrupt the understanding of the previous contributions. --ツ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prattle} _{✉ post} 10:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Explaining "Labyrinth" vs "Maze"

It's hard to capture this in a concise statement. The following points need to be included:

• In ordinary English, both words can be used to refer to unicursal or multicursal mazes.
• Researchers/designers generally distinguish between unicursal mazes ("Labyrinths") and multicursal mazes ("Mazes").
• But "Turf Mazes" are almost invariably unicursal, and "Hedge Mazes" typically multicursal. This has to do with the kind of patterns that were typically used historically in those two kinds of installations.
• Paper and pencil puzzle mazes are almost invariably multicursal, and are typically called "Mazes", even in general English.
• The idea behind the mythological labyrinth was multicursal (which is why Theseus needed Ariadne's clew), but historically most graphical representations of the mythological labyrinth until the Renaissance (and even after) were unicursal -- which is why unicursal labyrinths are typically called "labyrinths".
• Unicursal labyrinths installed at churches and health centers for meditation are almost invariably called "Labyrinths".

-- Elphion (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Very good points showing my point exactly. The words have the same meaning and are used interchangably in English with some specialized exeptions.

• One exeption being the description of a pattern and usage in the world describing patterns (religious patterns, puzzle patterns, and other patterns). This is the specialized usage and does not apply in the world at large. The article about this probably should be called Labyrinth pattern.
• The other exeption being the typical newspaper/puzzlebook maze being a design showing a pattern representing a problem to be solved. This is also a specialized usage of the word. This article probably should be called Maze (puzzle) and maybe a redirect or article called Maze (pattern)
• Patterns depicted on coins, with garden arrangements and on mosaic floors are many and most of them are not English. Non-English languages does not have the word pair maze-labyrinth but they do have the word labyrinth. Cosequently the names when translated to english is regularily not translated to maze, but labyrint/labyrinthe and so on is translated to the english "twin word" labyrinth. This will obviously add to the confusion. These patterns are representations and are symbols of an idea and not the ting itself.
• The idea of the labyrinth has no article, the "original" labyrinth seems to be as far as we know now a myth and probably was an actual construction somewhere (possibly at Knossos). Possible alternative Labyrinth (myth) or Labyrinth of Knossos, but rewriting and splitting probably will reveal different possibilities and what the best titles are.
• As the articles are right now they denies the by far most common usage of both maze and labyrinth and this is confusing. Ordinary English is how the language is used and in this case the word labyrinth has been used for centuries in both scientific litterature and by the great authors (the worlds classical littarature).
• There definitely is a need to distinguish between the labyrinth (the idea of the labyrinthine problem) and symbolic representation (the pattern depicting a labyrinth/maze).

A comparison: Meander is a physical phenomenon and name for some river courses. Meander has its name from the Büyük Menderes River furthermore it has given its name to the Meander pattern. This problem is easier since meander is a physical phenomenon and meander is one pattern only. The actual physical labyrinth which gave name to all the other labyrinths we do not have, but we have the idea of the labyrinth wich permeates world litterature and by far is the most common usage of the word.

Both the article Labyrinth and the article Maze needs some rewriting and there should be some new articles and some splitting of the material. I am not quite shure of how best to split the material (there is also the article history and context of contributions to consider), but in my opinion the myth of the labyrinth and the connected idea of the labyrinth should have the main article. --ツ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prattle} _{✉ post} 12:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you are already converging on the article split we currently have. Labyrinth starts with the mythical maze, as it should, and then continues with patterns recalling the labyrinth; while Maze is primarily concerned with puzzle mazes.

Both articles should mention the other in the lead, pointing out that the words are used ambiguously, and both should mention the specialized usage. This adequately addresses your concern about accuracy. Accuracy cuts both ways: we need to state clearly that the words are widely used synonymously, but also that they have distinct technical meanings.

I do not think we need a separate Labyrinth (mythology). That should be discussed here, and the mythological maze should be the first section. The current WP material about it needs to be completely rewritten, however: the etymologies are inaccurate, and the pseudo history invented by Evans and others needs to be put in proper perspective. (There was no "Labyrinth of Knossos", so far as we know, though the ruins of Knossos were considered the remains of the legendary labyrinth even in Classical times. The Minoan word taken over by the Mycenaean Greeks (and passed into Classical Greek) appears to have referred originally to caverns like Gortyna; and subterranean structures like Gortyna -- including the Classical understanding of the mythological maze -- remained the primary meaning of the Classical word.)

But the next section of the article needs to talk about the 7-course Classical (or "Cretan") pattern, which is widely considered "the canonical labyrinth". This almost certainly did not originate on Crete -- very old examples are known elsewhere (Pylos, Etruria, Spanish Galicia), going back probably to Neolithic or early Chalcolithic times. The pattern was certainly known in Greece and Rome. It has no connection with the Theseus legend until it appears on Cretan coins around 400 BCE -- but that connection with the legend determined the understanding of "labyrinth" until the Renaissance: depictions of the mythological labyrinth -- indeed of anything we would recognize as a "maze" -- were all unicursal until the hedge maze was invented in the early 1500s, from which point unicursal and multicursal designs developed largely independently of each other..

All of this has gone into the modern distinction between "maze" and "labyrinth", and should be included in the same article with the mythological labyrinth. It seems to me we already have the correct division between articles, but as I have acknowledged all along, both articles need to be more forthright about the ambivalent use of the words.

-- Elphion (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

(I see that the rewriting has already begun: our treatment of Evans et al. has already changed since I last read the article carefully. -- Elphion (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC))

Which English?

Per WP:ENGVAR, which English is this article in? I note that (presumably inter alia but this is what caught my eye) it has 6 x "center" and 3 x "centre"; it would be nice to have it consistent, though I personally don't give a monkey's which way it goes. Any views please? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

'center' is somewhat more frequent here that 'centre', so I unilaterally changed the latter. Haven't checked for other ENGVAR differences, which generally blow right by me anyway. (An "equal opportunity" reader :-) -- Elphion (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

"11½ miles from the pyramid of Hawara" ??

The labyrinth is directly adjacent to the pyramid. This nonsensical quote is very obviously wrong. ♆ CUSH ♆ 13:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I've edited that paragraph. (The original description reported finds that turned out to be Roman ruins, not the labyrinth.) -- Elphion (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Disputed tag

I've removed the "disputed" tag, which was added because of disagreement over whether "maze" and "labyrinth" are synonymous. The lead now clearly says that that in ordinary English they are, but that labyrinth scholars often observe the distinction. -- Elphion (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Artois

In World War One "the Labyrinth" was a German trench system in the Artois Salient including underground redoubts between Neuville-Saint-Vaast and Vimy Ridge, which saw fierce tunnel fighting in the Second Battle of Artois. See http://ww1blog.osborneink.com/?p=8250

Labyrinth vs Labrys

The "Ancient Labyrinths" section now claims that Minoan "labyrinth" comes from Lydian "labrys". This idea is found both in Classical times and among early modern writers like Evans (whose unfortunate influence continues to dog this issue even today), but there is no evidence for it, and no evidence for double axes in the old Cretan grottoes that the Minoan "labyrinth" originally referred to. The two words are almost certainly independent. The ideas were conflated (along with much else, including Theseus) in the syncretistic late Classical period. -- Elphion (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Christian use

Why you have removed the Christian use of candle labyrinths from the article Labyrinth. Why you don't remove pagan symbols like Christmas trees or Advent wreaths from Christian articles because they were Pagan origin? ;-) And moreover the Christian cross itself has a Pagan origin. First it was a Roman execution tool from a time the Romans were no Christians.--Urmelbeauftragter 22:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It was not entirely removed: the gallery still has an example. Labyrinths are made of many materials; why are candle labyrinths particularly important? And they are not necessarily a Christian practice: I have seen them in a variety of settings. What was chiefly removed was the undue emphasis on a particular temporary labyrinth that was neither the origin of the use of candles nor a particularly notable example. -- Elphion (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes the example is still in the gallery. Do you mean the use of candle labyrinths as a symbol in a church service in general does not belong in the section "Christian use"? What would be a particularly notable example?--Urmelbeauftragter 08:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Is it specifically Christian? Is it a significant practice -- significantly different than any other temporary labyrinth? A notable example might be the introduction of the practice; otherwise I have difficulty thinking of any. -- Elphion (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, what do you mean with "the introduction of the practice"?--Urmelbeauftragter 22:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Where were candles first used? The first instance I know of was the candle-lit walk at Chartres (some time in the 1990s), though on that occasion candles were not used to outline the actual path. -- Elphion (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Elphion: I don't know when candles were first used. What is with the removed paragraph concerning candle labyrinths in this section which was replaced by arguments why labyrinths are "the latest fad in spirituality"? --Urmelbeauftragter 12:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I did not add the bit about Tooley, which was given WP:UNDUE weight; I've toned that down. Also added candle labyrinths as a variety of temporary labyrinth used in churches. -- Elphion (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

OK thank you. I've seen you added "temporary ones (e.g., painted on canvas or outlined with candles)". Beside the candle labyrinths I've seen some years ago a reduced scale copy of the Chartres labyrinth painted on canvas in a Protestant church in Frankfurt. It was used for a church service with a theme focus on labyrinths. The canvas labyrinth could be borrowed for occasions like this from a Roman Catholic organisation.--Urmelbeauftragter 22:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's fairly common. Many organizations rent out canvas labyrinths, typically copies of Chartres, Greys Court, Santa Rosa, "Bartholomaus" (a design long promoted by Veriditas), and of course the Classical 7-course labyrinth. -- Elphion (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Labyrinth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110101072958/http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/the-holy-grail-5048/Overview to http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/the-holy-grail-5048/Overview

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Labyrinth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150905153441/http://www.labyrinthos.net/typology.html to http://labyrinthos.net/typology.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090628174004/http://www.labyrinthos.net/indialabs.html to http://www.labyrinthos.net/indialabs.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)