Jump to content

Talk:Minoan pottery

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Ryan muro, Cscameron.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

[edit]

This should expand what is in Minoan civilization giving more detail on the pottery. The chronology section should be expanded.Dave 13:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note also the table and names as of this date need correction, clarification, expansion.Dave 13:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The useful artificially rigid serial organization

[edit]

"Usefully conceptualized in this artificially rigid serial organization, actual ceramics show blends of styles, either attesting gradual shifts in style or the conservative instincts of apprenticeship-trained potters and their patrons."

What? I can't seem to understand this passage. What styles would you say are being blended? Does that mean you might find EMI blended with LMIII? If so how is this sytem useful? And if it is artificial, and does not reflect the real chronology, how is it useful anyway? Moreover, how can it be rigid when no dates are assigned? And do you mean it ought not to be serial? Maybe the next layer down was not before the one on top but really after? I appreciate the desire to write nobly but I think one needs to be clear too. Well, I am going to leave this for now until I finish the table and finish giving more detail to the styles. I am not sure what I am going to do then but it ought not to stay. So dawn goes down to day. Nothing gold can stay. Meanwhile if you would care to add some clarity I think the thing might shine better.Dave 01:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The transparent meaning appears to be that Evans' structure of three periods each neatly divided in three with an A early and B late in every case is "artificially rigid" but "useful" and that in practice "actual ceramics show blends of styles" offering a suggested— and commonplace— reason for such stylistic overlaps in conservative training and taste. I see no further complications. --Wetman 04:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hercle, Wetman. Odds bodykins.Dave 21:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I probably shouldn't, but here I go. If the meaning was transparent we wouldn't be having this discussion, unless you mean my intellect is in deficit or your has a surfeit. Transparency produces an immediate act of "insight" (Lonergan, "Insight.") The rigidity, well, it never was that. As Jack Caskey once explained to me, "Early looks a little earlier and late looks a little late." I don't see any rigidity at all in "early" and "late." He was the first on the scene, you know, Evans was. As for useful, useful for what? No one ever speaks of a useful Minoan chronology because it is too fluid, non-rigid, variable and uncertain. It raises more questions than it answers. Ventris and Chadwick, "Documents in Mycenaean Greek", "It is not easy to arrive at an understanding of the way in which earlier Minoan scripts originated and developed.... Archaeologists are not in full agreement about the relative dating of the objects...". It seems that what looks early to one doesn't look early to another. Not too useful, compared to, say, dendrochronology, which Evans did not have. As for the blend, blend of what? There have to be some unblended styles before there can be blended styles or how would you know the difference? You say you see no further complications. I agree with you totally. I don't see any complications at all; in fact, I don't see that anything at all is being said, which is why, in the absence of any knowledge of what it means, I didn't see where to put it.Dave 21:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More!

[edit]

This article is going to be length-limited but it hardly scratches the surface. But, it really is quite interesting. I can see possibilities for "Minoan figurines", "Minoan Seals", "Minoan architecture" or "Palace Architecture", "Minoan frescoes", "Minoan ships", "Homeric Crete", "Minoans abroad", "Crete in World War II". The wealth of material on the Internet shows us that people are interested in the story of the civilization. Civilization series books always manage to get a volume out on them. This topic is a chess game waiting to happen. If you're addicted to Wikipedia, try a shot of Minoan Crete. Ho, you'll be at it for a while. When I get this to a certain point I am going to rotate away elsewhere.Dave 21:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Length

[edit]

I triggered the length message, which I knew I would do eventually. My plan is to move the big table and notes to "Minoan chronology". There isn't much choice if we are going to have a more detail on the chronology. Meanwhile the reader has that excellent right-hand table summary in "Minoan Civilization." If necessary I don't see much problem in breaking this article up into discrete units. The topic can easily "grow" in this way, we just have to be careful that everything gets linked together.Dave 11:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

images not showing

[edit]

Is there something wrong with my IE 7.0 browser, or are the images missing at the links in the article? I get a lot of links to a gallery of images which do not show up. Just a few examples: Early Minoan Forms
Example 1.
Incised Ware
First example - (Example)
Ayios Onouphrios, Lebena
Last example - (Example)
Also several Pages not found:
Koumasa and Fine Gray Ware
last example – (Example)
Middle Minoan
Table and service - (Table and service)

I think this article needs some updating with reconsideration of links to external links for examples.Grapeguy (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for Improvement

[edit]

There are a couple of hyperlinked topics that do not really make sense. Nikolaos Platon is hyperlinked but his Wiki page has no sources so it makes you wonder if the information is true. Also, Final Neolithic is hyperlinked but a Wiki page does not exist for this topic. I believe there is only supposed to be a superscript for the footnote. The hyperlink could be confusing for readers. Kate.dooley (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few suggestions

[edit]

Note that it is necessary to revise the wording in some of the sentences. It would be better if avoid using words like "extremely" in your leading paragraph, or "must" unless concrete evidence of this fact is provided after the statement.

Also there is need to provide dates for the specific archeological ages, and better explain the acronyms like "EMI". Those may confuse the new readers who are not familiar with the subject.--Maria HongminYu (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

During the section about "Marine Style" pottery, the article makes the claim that "Marine Style" pottery could be inspired by Minoan frescos of similar figures. While this is entirely possible, a citation is needed to verify a claim like this.ScottKilmer2 (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)User ScottKilmer2[reply]

Feedback

[edit]

Overall, I think the article was well written. I just think you forgot to mention a few things that would answer some questions the readers might have while looking at this article. You mentioned the different locations where Minoan pottery turned up, but you never mentioned why they turned up there. I think it's worth noting that Minoan pottery ended up in these locations because of their trade network. Also, you casually mentioned the decline of Minoan civilization and the disappearances of the palaces the once dotted Crete. You should briefly explain with a sentence or two the theories for the decline of Minoan civilization and provide links to articles about those theories so readers could continue with that line of inquiry.

Cscameron. Cscameron (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 29 external links on Minoan pottery. 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:

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) 14:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some resources

[edit]

Here is a start on some internal resources by request. It has been suggested that we illustrate the pottery better from Commons; that is, more explicitly. Sounds like an excellent idea. All Minoan pottery is divided into type. The types are then assigned to the periods devised by Arthur Evans. This is a relative scheme: early, middle, late, with an early early, middle early, late early, etc. Once a particular type is known to be of a period, then any layer in which that pottery is found is of the same date as the pottery. General dates are given to the layers. In many cases "absolute dates" exist; that is, dates that are independent of the relative chronological scheme. So, when you go to graduate school in Bronze Age archaeology, you must study dates, dates, dates, chronology, chronology, chronology, pottery, pottery, pottery. The date is the thing in which we catch the conscience of the kingpin. The more expert in pottery you are, the more credible an archaeologist you are. We can't expect anyone here to be an expert. The experts write books on pottery, very dry books, with lots of pictures. The pots depicted in them are naturally divided by period and site. This is Ware x of Middle Minoan y z, etc. When I started this article I thought it best to imitate their method as best I could, but there was nothing in Commons. Now we are thinking each period should have a gallery. All we need are the pics. If you have some pics and are inclined to donate them then Uncle needs YOU! How can we be expected to do an article without pics! This topic is a central one of classical archaeology, exercising the analytical genius of Arthur Evans, his father John, and many others. If you really are inclined to do some work, then photograph images from books out of copyright and send them along. Be careful about the copyright business.Botteville (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The periods are to be found in the article Minoan civilization. I'm having the best luck in searching the contents of museums. For a starter try this one: Media related to Prepalatial Minoan pottery in AMH at Wikimedia Commons. The AMH is Archaeological Museum Herakleion. More later. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: THURSDAY - Spring 2024 HIST 401

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2024 and 16 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vic020699Fo (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Vic020699Fo (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Minoan_pottery&oldid=1222953115"