Jump to content

Talk:Mount Hasan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

That Çatalhöyük painting belonging to an erupted Hasan Dağı is only speculation, have no scientific basis. 217.174.37.234 (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Çatalhöyük wall paintings

In Çatalhöyük there are wall paintings of a volcano. But how do we know if these show Hasan Dağ ? In fact, Çatalhöyük is in the slopes of another extint volcano namely Karadağ. Probably the wall paintings show the Karadağ instead of Hasan Dağı. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

And [1] Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Çatalhöyük mural

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: thanks for your work on this. Let me start with the last two sentences of the article: "A 6,200 years old mural discovered in Çatalhöyük has been interpreted as showing an eruption of Mount Hasan[1] and has been connected with the 8,200[2] or 8,970 ± 640 eruption although this interpretation has been contested.[3] The recorded eruption probably was a lava dome eruption and a possible although disputed reconstruction of a mural recording the eruption is in Museum of Anatolian Civilizations in Ankara. [4]"

My apologies for not adding The Paris Review source in sfn, is there an easy tool for this? I'm not clear about the other references and quotes from them would be appreciated.

The Schmitt article only shows that the mural could depict an actual explosion, it doesn't try to claim that it does.

I found another excellent source, a blog[2] which I think we can treat as by an expert.[3] It's got an interesting analysis of the arguments and points out that (contra our article) the obsidian did not come from Hasan.[4] (although that author is sympathetic to the idea that the mural repreents Hasan).

The article needs to represent the dispute, thus needs a section on it and a lead that summarises the section. And says that Mellaart thought the obsidian came from Hasan but was wrong. As an aside, the mural is genuine. 15:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Doug Weller. AFAIK there is no automated way to format sfns, I'll see to format it manually.
Regarding the sources, Dogan et al. 2008 says A wall painting recovered from the Catal Hoyuk digs in central Turkey showing the eruption of the Hasan Dagi is dated to be 6,200 years old (given that there are questions about the correctness of this interpretation raised by other sources, I did state the case a bit more weakly), Aydar and Gourgaud 1998 say However, the last eruption 8200 BP was recordedby ancient civilizations. KrAr dating of an andesiticlava-dome from the northern flank gives an age ofless than 6000 years., Kuzucuoğlu, Çiner and Kazancı 2019 says British archaeologist James Mellaart excavated the Neolithic settlement of Çatalhöyük in the Konya Plain. The results provided unique insights into the living conditions of humans at the transition from hunter-gatherer to settledagriculture societies. Among the striking discoveries during the excavation were a high number of murals that were photographed and sketched on site. One of them is famously described as depicting volcanic eruption (Mellaart 1967). If this interpretation is correct, the painting is the oldest depiction of a volcanic eruption and is also the first graphical representation in the world of an event or even a landscape (Clarke 2013). This interpretation is, however, much debated among archaeologists who are convinced that it is not possible that men drew 9000 years ago a town plan represented from above and/or a “story-telling” picture.. Note that I wasn't actually finished writing this article - that list of sources in the preceding section is of things I still wanted to incorporate and the lead also wasn't done yet.
Regarding this Matthew H. Edney, putting their name into Google Scholar gives a lot of good results; I'd concur with "expert". I think perhaps I also need to put something in about As an aside, the mural is genuine. as the question of the mural's genuinety is separate from the question of whether it represents a volcanic event.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: real life is overwhelming me right now, so I don't think I can help much although I'd love to! Doug Weller talk 18:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Dogan et al. 2008, p. 797.
  2. ^ Aydar & Gourgaud 1998, p. 133.
  3. ^ Kuzucuoğlu, Çiner & Kazancı 2019, p. 557.
  4. ^ Savas, Aysegul (17 October 2017). "At the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations". The Paris Review. Retrieved 28 July 2019.
Error in Template:Reply to: Username not given.Thanks anyway, although a source for As an aside, the mural is genuine would still be useful. I've written one paragraph about that mural but without using some of the primary sources [5][6][7][8] as I am not sure about how much detail is warranted on the arguments and am further not sure of the best formulation. I think the problem with the whole map-or-not business is that there isn't a summary of the arguments pro and con, while there is for the volcano-or-not aspect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mount_Hasan/Archive_1&oldid=1117513915"