Jump to content

Talk:Burney Relief/Archive 1

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

Question about realism

I don't know much about art, but I didn't know there were artists producing such realistic human figures so early in history. Was this common, or is the Burney Relief special in this sense? --Allen 17:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

1950 BC isn't that early in the history of art. There are numerous examples of human figures executed with comparable skill from before this period, for example some of the statues of Gudea of Lagash are quite remarkable. Egyptian sculpture was quite accurate also. Plus there are the famed human representations of the Indus Valley civilisation, such as the Dancing Girl. There are others, but I'll leave it at that. 80.47.155.184 00:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't the presence of flanking animals around a female goddess-like figure indicate a reference to Potnia Theron, or the mistress of the beasts? Supposing this to be true, the image of Potnia Theron is seen in relation to a number of deities which included Inanna, or Ishtar, but these were higher level deities within Assyrian and Sumerian religion. what is the evidence that an image of Potnia Theron as being related to the biblical Lilith. also if she is presented as a deity of death, why does she sport in her hand an Ankh which is a symbol of life and carried by underworld deities like Nephthys.--E —Preceding comment was added at 04:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You can read more about this plaque on the British Museum's website: http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/me/t/the_queen_of_the_night_relief.aspx

Rewrite drive May 2009

You might notice that a major expansion and rewrite is currently in progress. It is remarkable - given the relief's uniqueness, detail and popularity - how much of its interpretation is under debate and how much is based on conjecture from the 1930s that would not be considered adequate by modern standards. This in itself is a fascinating story. I'll post a note here once the new material is substantially in place, and outline remaining questions. Enki H. (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Enki H. (talk) 06:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009 - Feedback

Feedback appreciated after this rewrite. Open questions? Awkward style? Rating? Enki H. (talk) 06:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

re. "engvar. title should really be current name" ... I assume this to mean the article should use "The Queen of the Night" throughout? I've been wondering about that ... all the literature prior to the 2003 renaming calls it the "Burney Relief". Albenda (2005) describes the name change and then calls it the "British Museum Plaque"; Collon, being employed by the BM, of course calls it the "Queen of the Night" but also writes (2005) "The change of name has had the unforeseen result of humanizing the plaque. Whereas the Burney Relief was always referred to as 'it', the Queen of the Night is definitely 'she'." I too see a problem in this respect. "Queen" has a very specific meaning that should be avoided here. Regarding the title, according to WP:NAME "article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" and I expect this to change to the British Museum version over time, not sure that the time is already now. Enki H. (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The plaque got considerable publicity, in the UK anyway, after the BM bought it, especially with the help of the brothel angle. That was all using the new title. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Visual_arts/Art_Manual_of_Style#Works_of_art says "Where there are several variant titles, preference is usually given to the predominant one used by art historians writing in English, and if this is not clear, the English title used by the owning museum." At the moment these tests probably give different results, but as you say, the "Queen" will presumably come to dominate. I was not aware of "Burney Plaque" personally, having only seen the press coverage. I suspect "Queen" is already the best known among general readers. I would have gone for Queen myself, but I'm not too fussed. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"No other examples of owls in an iconographic context exist in Mesopotamian art, nor are there textual references that directly associate owls with a particular god or goddess."

This statement is inaccurate. Owls and the demons lilitus are associated with Inanna. Lilitu was called the "hand of Inanna" (Hurwitz 58) as she was sent out by Ishtar to "lead men stray". Lilitu is a name for a spirit/demon and owls. Hence the confusion in Isaiah 34:14.

Then you have the Sumerian Ki-sikil-lilake which Kramer based his intereptation of the relief of. Ishtar, has a aspect of "kili" which further denotes owl association. Lastly you have owls as a symbol of the underworld and evil spirits, as do the bird feet, which is why its been suggested as denoting Inanna's descent into the underworld.

The statement is indeed entirely accurate to the best of my knowledge. If you have a source to the contrary, I will gladly check it. Re. the mis-read Ki-sikil-lilake, see Note #16. Cheers Enki H. (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I would have used a better academic source which is Jacobsen in Figuritive Language in the Ancient Near East

Inanna is associated with owls and it's likely the Burney relief is Inanna in her kili/nin-ninna form or "divine lady owl". Whomever decided that no Mesopotamian deity has a connection to owls, since they're symbols of the underworld and prostitution, clearly has no idea what they're talking about.

Xuchilbara (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Citation formats

I note that the citations use a manual system of named anchors and <cite id=""> to cross reference "references" to "bibliography". Would anyone object to changing the bibliography to use the simpler "ref" parameters for citations rather than the cite tag? I believe this will make the article easier to maintain in the long term. Fæ (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Now integrated as suggested. For an explanation of the "ref" parameter, see {{citation}}. Fæ (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Color version?

Maybe someone could add an approximation of the original painted look, perhaps by perusing this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Lilitu.jpg ? --79.193.39.90 (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Lilith

I've restored content deleted by Yworo here based on the ongoing discussion between IanThomson and Yworo at Talk:Lilith. It would be better to tag any unsourced content here with [citation needed] etc. The Isaiah material should have been sourced from Judit M. Blair (2009) rather than a priori delete. I personally am not clear where the academic consensus now stands. The article in DDD still makes the Lilith-Burney link, the AnchorBD rejects the Lilith-Burney link. It would be helpful to (date) all references inline in the text as it seems that consensus has moved in the last 20 years. In any case two views need to be refed and dated In ictu oculi (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Have gone further and added 3 sources - Blair De-demonising the Old Testament; an investigation of Azazel, Lilith, Deber, Qeteb and Reshef in the Hebrew Bible 2009, ABD and BR 2001 - as a modern codicil to the 1930s Lilith/Burney material. Whatever the details, the modern consensus appears to be to read the relief solely in relation to contemporary ANE sources, not via the prism of Jewish traditions originating 1700 years later. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Yworo, you have now removed substantial sourced content with the edit summary (please make what changes you desire *without* merging into one long run-on paragpraph, which I had fixed) (undo) - if you need a paragraph break (and there were 3 paragraph breaks) then you are free to insert a paragraph break using the [ENTER] key. What am I missing here? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I looked again. With all objectivity I cannot see the reason given justifies a (-1,988) delete of sourced material. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to depict either the purely demonic lilitu of written texts or the first wife of Adam (before Eve) of late Jewish folklore, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the lilitu/Lilith connection is completely irrelevant. Anyway, the interpretation has been fairly widely disseminated for about 75 years, and so must be dealt with on this article... AnonMoos (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

AnonMoos, agree definitely the Emil Kraeling interpretation was influential for 75 years and should be prominently in the article (as it is). But by the same token the "revisionist" views of the last 20 years should be there too - it's the modern views disagreeing with Kraeling and Franckfort which are in the (-1,988) removed. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Notes removed from

the article - added just now: [Ancient Brothel Signage Interpretation (NEW)} Frontal Nudity: lack of pubic hair means prepubescent sex slaves. Big breasts means matured sex slaves. Crown: a phallic representation or crown of snakes. Owls: Open all night (Sunset to Sunrise). Bird References (Claws and Wings): Slaves can be (ironically) set free to a new master or sold to someone who pays the brothel a fee. What is in her hands: Most slaves in the brothel were chained to the wall and have intercourse with clients while standing. The beasts at her feet: Beds available for intercourse if another fee is paid.

Moved by Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to keep these personal interpretations on the talk page? BabelStone (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know that it is that, though I see what you mean. Editors frequently accuse the most widely-held views of being "OR". But remove if you like. Johnbod (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Lions

Twice, the article describes the two lions' position as supine. Aren't they shown in a prone position? I'm not sure whether this is the right word though, or whether they should be called couchant, as used in heraldry. (They're also addorsed). Thoughts? ---Sluzzelin talk 00:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, supine is not the correct adjective, and I have removed/changed its two instances as you suggest. Thanks. BabelStone (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, BabelStone! (I still think precise descriptions are valuable in our articles, particularly for visually impaired readers, but removing false descriptions is a start)! ---Sluzzelin talk 19:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burney Relief. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 16:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burney Relief. 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) 18:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The Anzû

@NC360: You still are not listening to what I have been saying. By including the part about the Anzû relief in this article, which is about the Burney Relief, not the Anzû, you are making a comparison between them. Even though you do not mention the Burney Relief in the sentence you added, the comparison is still implied because the Burney Relief is the subject of this article. What you are doing is known as original synthesis; you are taking already published ideas, but organizing them in your own way to make your own, original comparison. In order to include the part about the Anzû in this article, you need to provide a citation to a reliable source that directly makes a comparison between the relief of the Anzû and the Burney Relief. It has to mention both in order to count.

The British Museum source you keep citing says nothing at all about the Burney Relief; it only talks about the Anzû. The source therefore fails to establish relevance for the sentence about the Anzû relief in this article. You are welcome to add the statement that the Anzû is shown in a relief facing forward standing on the backs of two stags in the article Anzû, but you can only put it in this article if you provide a source that directly relates this to the Burney Relief. I am not trying to be mean or anything; I am just trying to keep this article in line with policy. Since this article is currently recognized as a "Good Article" under the Good Article criteria, it is especially important to keep it up to standard. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: The sentence before the edit from the wiki is: "In this episode, Inanna's holy Huluppu tree is invaded by malevolent spirits.", and I only added the following sentence: "One of the spirits named Imdugud or Anzû, is shown facing forward, winged, on two stags." I'm not including any new malevolent spirit to the article. It is the same, and a continuing from the former sentence. I didn't include Anzû also being displayed standing on two lions, as that isn't the point I'm making now. The British Museum source you removed only needs to show the malevolent spirit. Even though we can still see similarities, that isn't the point now, nor is it a fault in itself. The new point cannot be: it's too similar to the article for it to be included. NC360 (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
@NC360: You are still ignoring what I have been saying, which is that the source provides no warrant for why the relief ought to be mentioned in an article about the Burney Relief. Nonetheless, I am tired of arguing, so I am just going to give up and let you have what you want, even though it is against policy and, in my view, detracts from the quality of the article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Katolophyromai - please don't re-add the stuff without a source that explicitly links the two. Johnbod (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

There are 2 dead links (1, 2) on this page, but I'm not sure whether to replace them with links to the functional page because I think they're from a template. OwlsTalon (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, replace them, and on the template if you can find it. Where are they? Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
The first one is in the external links section (uses Template:British-Museum-object and the second one is in the infobox (uses Template:British-Museum-db). Going by Template talk:British-Museum-db, they're both broken due to the British Museum website having been redesigned at some point. I've fixed the infobox one by changing the ID, but I have not done the same for the external links one because that URL is more dissimilar to that of the functional page than the one in the infobox was. OwlsTalon (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burney_Relief/Archive_1&oldid=1259138983"