Jump to content

Talk:Temple of Artemis, Corfu

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

Panthers

[edit]

Are the animals panthers? In the Apotropaic magic article the picture is describing them as lionesses which is correct? 8.14.165.3 (talk) 12:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. The inline citations used in the article describe them as panthers/leopards. There are other citations however, not included in the article as far as I can remember, which call them lionesses. I guess the scholars are not completely in agreement. Thank you for the inquiry. Best regards. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks the inconsistency confused me but the articles do use two different sources so that explains it. 8.14.165.3 (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The errors here are caused by authors making presumptions and simply not looking at what is before their eyes in an analytical manner.
  • The animals have small manes, not present on either a panther or a lioness
  • The animal to the left has a penis, which has been copied on the reconstruction of the animal to the right. It is not in the correct position for a feline penis, but it is almost certainly intended to represent that part of the beast's anatomy. Consequently, one may assume that this is not a lioness.
  • The beast to the left has a tufted tail. This occurs on a lion, but neither a lioness nor a panther.
  • The beast to the left has a spotted coat. This coat would seem to indicate that the beast is a panther. However, the artist may know that young lions are also spotted, although the spots would usually have disappeared by the time the mane starts to grow.
On the evidence of the small mane and the tufted tail, I would assume that these creatures are intended to represent immature male lions, rather than either panthers or lionesses. Furthermore, immature male lions appear in other ancient sculpture and presumably had some iconographic meaning of which I am totally ignorant. A number of ancient examples exist in the British Museum. Several generations of children in our family have been yelled at by security staff for patting them and flopping on them, as I'm sure the children of ancient times must also have done.
Amandajm (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not about if those animals are lions or panthers : they are mythological figures. In his book Kerkyra : archaist Bauten und Bildwerke, G. Rodenwald argues if they are panthers or lions, and without finding a good reason to decide, call them Löwenpänther. In a more recent article about Corinthian art (Modèles stylistiques corinthiens dans le monde colonial de la deuxième moitié du VIIe siècle », in Revue Archéologique, 2003), F. Croissant gives the reasons why the question of a specific animal is useless : first, the artist has probably never seen neither a lion or a panther, except in a painting or a sculpture, second, Artemis is often imagined in mythology with wild animals such as lions or panthers, and that's why the temple bears this representation. I would add that on ceramic paints from Thasos, very close models to Kerkyra are found, so the carver isn't showing his own model but rather a stereotype, and lastly, in the beginning of the 1920's, when the ancient graveyard near the temple was excavated, apotropaic sculptures which look like our Löwenpänther were found. As the Gorgoneion, they are mythical animals which make sens inside Artemis cults. They are not a picture taken from a real animal.212.198.239.102 (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

600 BC versus 580 BC

[edit]

The references provided to support 600 BC do not actually say so. One is actually in the article already and mentions "soon after 600 BC". The other reference mentions in the text only the 6th century BC which includes anything from 600 to 500 BC and mentions "c. 600-575" in the caption of the picture, not really a reliably sourced fact. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :) i will not start a edit war, i most admit i were not aware of the three-revert rule on a single page within a 24-hour period, so thanks for helping me my friend :)
The references do say 600 BC, and i think it is importent to get several references instead of one. Lactasamir (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. No problem, thank you for being so kind and understanding. As far as the years, how about c. 580 BC? A Google books search prefers that over the range 600-580. Other books yet mention 590-580 and even 575. I think "around 580" or "c. 580" is sufficient. I'm not sure why you want to mention 600. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello :) yes, let us just keep it at 580, have a nice day :) Lactasamir (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You too. :) Thank you Lactasamir. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So are we decided then? If the date that has been settled upon is 580 BC, then why have the dates 600-580 BC been used in the List? Amandajm (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]