Talk:Pignora imperii

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pignora imperii article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancilia

My understanding is that one sheild was given to Numa Pompilius, and that another eleven were fashioned so as to protect the original from pilfering. That is why the original line said only the one sheild was part of the list. All twelve were paraded in specific ceremonies.Rococo1700 (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's correct. They seem all to have been treated identically, since that was the reason for creating the copies. I'm not sure anyone knew which one was the "real" one (even in the myth, they were all made at the same time, so to later Roman eyes they would've looked the same and of the same age), so while I suppose technically only one was the pignus, nobody but the legendary Numa and Mamurius (the craftsman) would've known which one it was—whatever the reality of the original's origin. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a note on the ancilia. Apologies if my edits have been brusque; I was linking to this because I'm working on something else and feel frustrated that I'm contributing to the topic in haste. Best wishes, Cynwolfe (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a better explanation of singular/plural. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean did not exist materially?

The link to a book by a recent Anglophone scholar looks a bit a shooting into one's foot. I read a few lines and it looks this guy has read very little and is fabricating a speculative case on Varro's supposed affection for number 7. These objects are mentioned by Roman and modern scholars. Is a sceptre or a veil or ashes not a materail object? I think he who has written this rubbish is not a serious scholar and cannot be cited.Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also why is Salvioni's work considered unreliable?Aldrasto11 (talk) 04:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]