Talk:Ai-Khanoum

Untitled

This article has had its dating nomenclature changed on 09:57, 3 February 2007. The original article system employed is BC/AD and it is Wikipedia policy that this not be changed. The change from 09:57, 3 February 2007 is then in violation. Changing it back is the only fair way to apply policy on an issue that divides so many. Unfortunately we have some people who refuse to comply with this policy and will support changes in the dating nomenclature based on personal preference. Avraham is such an editor, though this person has been shown the facts that this article had the BC/AD system employed he still supports the change made on 09:57, 3 February 2007. This is in violation of Wikipedia policy and is also rather disrespectful to those who do not agree with him but abide by policy. Avraham also refers to WP:MOSDATE (http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:MOSDATE&redirect=no) which completely supports my statement when you look at the full edit history of this article. Please review the edit history to reveal the truth, you will find that the first application of any dating was the BC/AD on 13:06, 23 July 2004 by PHG. Lets be honest and not biased. Thank you… Monsieur Voltaire (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia policy that one not engage in any kind of warring (era or otherwise). See also Disruption of Wikipedia to demonstrate a point, and Gaming the system. Take your custom interpretation of WP:MOSDATE/WP:ERA to WP:AN/I if you think you have a case. -- Fullstop (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Lotus designs predate alexander

Lotus designs predate alexander so it has nothing to do with greek influence as exhibited on indian punch marked coins which predate alexander's invasion.

Link: https://classicalnumismaticgallery.com/searchauctionitem.aspx?auctioncode=11&pricerange=&keyword=&category=1&material=0&lotno= Link: http://www.rajgors.com/auctioncataloguesold.aspx?auid=53

im sure similar is the case with palmette

both lotus and palmette designs were copied from ancient egypt, since there are no lotuses, palm trees in greece, lotus, palms are both native to north india.

Edits

@पाटलिपुत्र:, I am trying to improve and expand this article. While it may be long-standing, the image overkill, lack of citations, and general focus on superficial detail are not aspects which lend themselves to good articles. I intend to get this article up to GA and perhaps even FA; if you wish, I will do my edits in a sandbox, and then copy them here. Best wishes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. A lot of the material, especially visual material, in the long-standing article is quite important. Probably better to work on it in your Sandbox indeed. Will be looking forward to the result! Best पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: the result is now completed, and added to the article. There is one paragraph still to go, but I will wait until the GOCE copyeditor is done before adding it. Probably was a good idea to expand in a sandbox first—thanks for the advice.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Good work! but a lot of the photographic and thematic material seems to have been lost. Good articles/ FAs can also be visually rich (see Tang dynasty, Song dynasty, Roman Empire...): in a multi-media age, most people do not read extensive text but instead mainly rely on photographs, captions and reading a few short paragraphs here and there. I'll see if we can find a nice editorial comprise. Best पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 04:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

If it's only one paragraph, you might as well add it now. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: I will try to incorporate more pictures as you say. @Dhtwiki: I will do so later today: it is a small paragaraph in the Other Structures section, so you can copyedit everything up to there, and the scholarship section too, if you want. Thanks to you both. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: I have added a Fair Use image of a 3-D reconstruction of Ai-Khanoum for the infobox. It can be used somewhere else in the article if necessary, but will ultimately be deleted if not used. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 10:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र:, I think I can find a Fair Use photograph of Ai-Khanoum which was taken by the archaeologists; I think that would be preferable to the reconstruction, which I could move somewhere else in the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Yes, because the site does not exist anymore (destructions), Fair Use of an excavation photograph is probably defensible (there is an amazing photograph of a row a Corinthian pillars in the excavation report, but can't readily find it at this point). Best पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र:, exactly my thoughts. I will shortly upload my image.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र:, please stop justifying the inclusion of content violating Wikipedia's policies by stating it is 'long-standing'. Not only is this justification completely irrelevant to whether the content should remain on Wikipedia, it also reflects poorly on yourself for trying to keep it on the article. A simple quick skim of the Boardman article would tell you that Ai-Khaoum was only mentioned as an example of Persian architecture in Hellenistic construction programs. I will remove the paragraph, and I expect any reversion of that change to be preceded by an evidence-based argument on this talk page. Thank you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Hey, you're not alone editing here. I have been very open to your mass changes so far, so please reciprocate a bit. This is long-standing content, so if you want to remove it and it's challenged, then you have to create consensus on the Talk Page first per WP:BRD. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र:, as explained already, it being long-standing does not affect whether it should be in the article. Please provide evidence per WP:RS. And, not incidentally, the bit about the disk is already in the article, and with rather more detail (I believe "mother of pearl" is more detailed than "various colorful materials"). Do you not agree?~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

If you look at Boardman page 15 (second column), what he is discussing is the role Ai-Khanoum might have had in transmitting Hellenitic styles to India. As for the Shakuntala plate, I am not shocked by mentioning it twice, but it is probably better located in the paragraph about India. Maybe your content can be displaced there... पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

And re the material of the Shakuntala plate... it's probably not just mother-of-pearl. Do you have a source? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

That is WP:OR. He simply states that the ruins of Ai-Khanoum show similar styles to what was later used in India. He does not state that Ashoka was influenced by a building program which only started after his death! look Mum I can use underline too! Whether the Ashokan pillars used Hellenistic inspiration or not is a scholarly question, but the suggestion that that inspiration came from Ai-Khanoum is laughable. As for the paragraph about India, I am not really sure that it should exist in the first place. As the Boardman synthesis is deprecated, and the Shakuntula plate description is duplicated, all one has is a paragraph about coins. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hummm, according to Rapin the background plate is an assembly of shellfish plates, but the decoration consists in colored glass paste with gold separations p.186. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

You are right, it is not just mother-of-pearl, it is predominantly mother-of-pearl with polychrome glass and gold thread, as mentioned in the source provided. If this satisfies you, I will add it to the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I think I would prefer "shellfish plaques" per source, as "mother-of-pearl" is different and shiny and used for decoration, whereas what we have here is just a rigid supporting plaque of white color... पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I re-read Boardman, but he clearly says of Ai-Khanoum that "All this was being undertaken at least as early as the erection of any Ashokan column", so no, no chronology problem here... He clearly presents Ai-Khanoum as a candidate for transmission of Hellenistic styles to India. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Please can you provide your source for "shellfish plaques"? Your Rapin source explicitly mentions nacre, as does one of mine (the other, also by Rapin says 'encrusted disk of shell'). I do not know what "Afghanistan, tresors retrouves" is supposed to refer to—could you please provide a proper source? Also, do you have a source for the statue File:AyKhanoumWoman.png being from the sanctuary?~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Rapin: "un assemblage de plaquettes taillées dans du coquillage (...) creusées d'alvéoles remplies de minuscules incrustations en pâte de verre colorées et cerclées de lamelles d'or" p.186, that's really "shellfish plaques" if I'm not mistaken. Do you have a source with "nacre?" I am afraid it isn't "nacre" really, just by looking at the photograph... Sorry, I have to go for now. Cheers पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I have provided two sources with 'nacre' above, and I find myself reluctant to overturn them based on 'just looking at the photograph'. Best wishes.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide links and exact sources/quotes for "nacre"? I'm interested... पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

"Ai Khanoum sanctuary, mould of female head" p.116 Fig.8 in Francfort, Henri-Paul (1 January 2012). "Ai Khanoum "temple à niches indentées" (temple with indented niches) » and Takht-i Sangin "Oxus temple" in historical cultural perspective: a hypothesis about the cults",". Parthica, 14, p. 109-136. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Nacre links: p.3 " Le disque indien en nacre incrustée (légende indienne de Sakuntala)"; p.54 "un objet discoïdal de 20 cm de diamètre, couvercle ou revers de miroir, formé d’un assemblage de plaquettes de nacre". — Preceding unsigned comment added by AirshipJungleman29 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

OK for "mother-of-pearl" then.. Thanks! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that excavation of Ai-Khanoum was stopped due to the Saur Revolution and subsequent Soviet–Afghan War? Source: Martinez-Sève, Laurianne (2020). "Afghan Bactria". In Mairs, Rachel (ed.). The Graeco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek World (1st ed.). Routledge. p. 220. doi:10.4324/9781315108513-13. ISBN 9781315108513. S2CID 243416462.
  • ALT1: ... that the site Ai-Khanoum was comprehensively looted during the Soviet–Afghan War? Source: Martinez-Sève, Laurianne (2014). "The Spatial Organization of Ai Khanoum, a Greek City in Afghanistan". American Journal of Archaeology. 118 (2): 267–283 p. 269. doi:10.3764/aja.118.2.0267. JSTOR 10.3764/aja.118.2.0267. S2CID 194685024. , Mairs, Rachel (2014). The Hellenistic Far East: Archaeology, Language, and Identity in Greek Central Asia (1st ed.). p. 26 University of California Press. ISBN 978-0520292468. JSTOR 10.1525/j.ctt7zw3v4.
  • ALT2: ... that papyrus fragments recovered from Ai-Khanoum may have originally been a lost work of Aristotle? Source: Hollis, Adrian (2011). "Greek Letters in Hellenistic Bactria". In Obbink, Dirk; Rutherford, Richard (eds.). Culture in Pieces : Essays on Ancient Texts in Honour of Peter Parsons. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 107–108. ISBN 9780191558887. ProQuest 2131025788.
  • ALT3: ... that the ancient city of Ai-Khanoum was rediscovered in 1961 by the King of Afghanistan? Source: * Bernard, Paul (2001). "Aï Khanoum en Afghanistan hier (1964-1978) et aujourd'hui (2001) : Un site en péril" [Aï Khanoum in Afghanistan yesterday (1964-1978) and today (2001): a site in danger.]. Comptes Rendus des Séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (in French). 145 (2): 971–972. doi:10.3406/crai.2001.16315.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Working from Within: The Nature and Development of Quine's Naturalism
  • Comment: This article is currently a FAC which might make this difficult.
    Comment from AirshipJungleman29: I think that one of the alts, the latter two of which I have just added, would make the best DYK.

Improved to Good Article status by AirshipJungleman29 (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 03:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC).

•  Reviewing... LordPeter2go (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Disk depicting Cybele, a votive sacrifice and a Bactrian sun god

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - okayish, but better ones possible

Image eligibility:

• Freely licensed: - why none? :)
• Used in article:
• Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Earwig's picks up some similarity, but I checked and it's only (long) titles of sources, so no issue (we can't "rephrase" the title of a source). As for the hooks, I prefer ALT2 or ALT3; ALT0 and ALT1 are only about external circumstances, which are unusual, but don't highlight why this city was (is) so important. I know it's your choice, and there's no guarantee, but I still say this at a number of nominations: Why no picture? :) The GA reviewer specifically noted they were "Impressed by the number of images and maps that are included, which really benefit the article." I believe there might be a better angle for a hook about the site itself, ideally in combination with one of the several excellent pictures. How about e.g. the attached file, which is described as "a remarkable example of hybrid Greek and Oriental imagery that typified the arts of Hellenized Asia" in its file description? Heck, the average Wikipedia reader might not even know about Bactria or that Greeks were once in Afghanistan! There might be a hook angle about how the King of Afghanistan discovered an old Greek city there – ideally also with a mention of the art found and attached or other picture. Wanna give it try Onegreatjoke & AirshipJungleman29? –LordPeterII (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

LordPeterII, I think this just avoids any length issues: ALT4: ... that archaeologists at Ai-Khanoum, an ancient Hellenistic city rediscovered by the King of Afghanistan in 1961, found this disc (pictured) which displays Ancient Greek deities in an Oriental style? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 and Onegreatjoke: Yeah ALT4 goes in the direction I meant. How about adapting it slightly to get

• ALT5: ... that artefacts from Ai-Khanoum, a Hellenistic city rediscovered by the King of Afghanistan in 1961, include a "remarkable" disc (pictured) displaying "hybrid Greek and Oriental imagery"?

It's a little shorter but might still highlight some interesting things. –LordPeterII (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

... and I just realized I didn't follow the citation style (at least not in wiki code) used in the article otherwise, when I added a reference to the Met Museum. @AirshipJungleman29 I hope you can adjust that if it bothers you, I don't know how since I only ever use the "easy" way of citing. –LordPeterII (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry about the citation style—I'll have a look at that. I've made some slight alterations to the hook, but I think its satisfactory on my end. Thanks very much for your contributions, LordPeterII. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Thanks, yeah those fixes were needed :) Excellent, then I shall only

request another reviewer for ALT5. –LordPeterII (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Graearms (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Changes to article

83d40m, thank you for your changes to the article. You picked up on several typos that I missed when hastily reverting your initial revision. Nevertheless, I wish to point out a few things.

• This article is written in British English. Per MOS:ENGVAR, specifically MOS:RETAIN, it is not helpful to change the variety of English. Among other changes of yours which I have reverted: "toward" (AmE) vs "towards" (BrE), "artifacts" vs "artefacts", "disk" vs "disc", and a much more prescriptive outlook towards "that" and "which", which is less important in BrE.
  • In addition you seem to prefer that additional words not come in the middle of verb structures: "Burials were generally not" --> "Burials generally were not", "which were probably used" --> "which probably were used". I do not feel comfortable using these constructions in BrE-please raise them at the FAC nomination if you feel like they must be changed.
• Finally, you have introduced an excessive amount of intricate detail concerning the Cybele medallion. While I appreciate your work, please note the following points.
  • Also mentioned at WP:ERRORS when the article was nominated at DYK: the Nike in the Met Museum source is a mistranslation. The excavation notes and all subsequent French studies very clearly refer to a Nike, as in a general spirit of victory, not the mythological goddess. At present, the closest a Wikipedia article comes to that is the winged victory section of Victoria (mythology). If you feel that removing the link entirely would be beneficial, I will do so.
  • In addition, the level of detail you have provided is not needed. The excavation notes are provided as a source, and readers are more than welcome to use them. If I were to produce a similar level of detail on every artefact and structure mentioned in the article, we would have a 25,000 word article that failed nearly every guideline. Perhaps I will create a Ai-Khanoum Cybele plaque article in the future, per WP:SS. Who knows?

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

User:AirshipJungleman29, Thank you for replying. Nike is a Greek deity featured in the object and the article goes into great detail about the "remarkable" cultural hybrid of "Greek and Oriental imagery". There is no hybridization with Roman culture that arose a couple of centuries after the object was fashioned, so I fail to understand why one would choose to reinsert information that is inaccurate into an article after it had been corrected. Just failing to note one of the two central figures in the image distorts its meaning and prevents conveying accurate information to our readers. Providing a link to a deity from another culture that arose centuries later rather than the one who ought to be identified, seems inexcusable to me. Deleting a reference link rather than correction of the error, certainly does not appeal to me. The additional details I provided clarify the Oriental features, the other element of the hybrid. We certainly should provide known and accurate information regarding the significance of the subject material of the object. It is featured in the article for that reason. I disagree with your view that our readers should be left to search for such information if they even can figure out what it might be. Identifying the elements that are the foundation of why the object is "remarkable" ought to be important — especially — if this article becomes one featured as among our supposedly best efforts. The other edits you choose to reverse are editorial preferences for clear communication with the richness of the language to readers of all levels while not sacrificing accuracy with the lowest common denominator, not worth the time to discuss each at the moment, but I object to your reversals of the edits about this significant object and believe that "ownership" issues are related to your justification. Reconsideration seems in order, I think you might concur upon that. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

83d40m, you appear to have not read my comments. The object does not feature the Greek goddess Nike, it features a Nike, the general spirit of victory. Quote from the original excavation report: Le décor du médaillon représente la déesse Cybèle traversant un pays montagneux dans son attelage de lions conduit par une Niké. lit. "The medallion's decoration represents the goddess Cybele crossing a mountainous country in her team of lions led by a Niké." You may wish to contrast the difference between 'the goddess Cybele' and 'a Niké'. I have deleted the link to the Roman goddess, but I will continue to revert the addition of a link to the Greek goddess.

For clarification, this was your addition to the medallion section: This disk depicts two Greek goddesses, Cybele and Nike, in a chariot drawn by lions. They are attended to by a religious official holding a parasol over them as they approach an alter elevated by three steps with another religious official on its top level. Multiple astronomical symbols of religious importance are featured in the sky as well. These natural astronomical features held differing importance to the two cultures, but would have resonated nonetheless, as significant to both. I do not see how this clarifies "the Oriental features" of the medallion, especially the last two sentences, which are mostly just waffle, and would never pass at FAC.

I have no clue what "editorial preferences for clear communication with the richness of the language to readers of all levels while not sacrificing accuracy with the lowest common denominator" is supposed to mean, but I am glad that it is not worth discussion. Regarding your repeated charges of "ownership", you may wish to see WP:FAOWN, which this will hopefully soon satisfy. As this article is currently undergoing a Featured Article nomination, you are more than welcome to write your comments there. Thank you for your time.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 and 83d40m:The French report does present Nike here as a goddess, not just a "general spirit of victory": Le contexte grec de la scène est accentué par la présence d'une Niké-aurige au côté de Cybèle. Rien de plus grec également que le vêtement des deux déesses et leur chevelure coiffée en rouleau autour de la tête. p.343 lit. "The Greek context of the scene is accentuated by the presence of a Nike-charioteer alongside Cybele. There is also nothing more Greek than the clothing of the two goddesses and their hair rolled up around the head." This confirms that here "Une Niké" is not meant to describe a "general spirit of victory" (which I am not even sure is a valid categorization), but one of the forms of the goddess Nike, here the "charriot-driving Niké", otherwise well known. It seems to me that the proposed description of two goddesses on the chariot, and the link to Nike (mythology), are thus probably correct. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, that is an excellent point, पाटलिपुत्र. How does one explain the 'une Nike' then? As the same phrasing is used in the 2014 summary of the excavation, it seems unlikely to be a mistake. Am I just mistranslating the French language—it's very possible—I noted in the FA that I had mistranslated chausse-trappe as trapdoor, when it actually means caltrop (!)—but I am fairly certain that the 'une' renders a new meaning to the word. Otherwise, wouldn't the terminology just be "Nike"? You don't happen to know of any French speakers on Wikipedia? We could ask a WikiProject, if need be. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I think I may have just found something. Same article, page 341. "Le personnage féminin, un peu plus petit que Cybèle, vêtu d'une robe liée sous les seins, qui de l'avant du char dirige l'attelage à l'aide des rênes et d'un aiguillon, est une Victoire, reconnaissable à l'aile qui se profile derrière son épaule gauche." Translation: "The female character, a little smaller than Cybele, wearing a dress tied under the breasts, who from the front of the chariot directs the team using the reins and a goad, is a Victory, recognizable by the wing looming behind her left shoulder." Thoughts? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29:It seems fairly standard in literary French to use "a" when referring to a statuette, or more generally an artistic representation, of a deity. If you look for "une Vénus" in Google Books, you will find many examples. But I think it is also a rather common usage in English: "He finds the fragments of a Venus: torso , arms , hands with slender fingers, and, finally, head." [1]. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

पाटलिपुत्र, yes, it does appear that it is a common usage in artwork. I am slowly coming around to your point of view. But why are the other figures not referred to as 'une Cybèle' or 'un Helios'? As far as I can see, in all French publications that discuss the medallion, the only article used with Niké is 'une'. Just coincidence then? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29:The first figure in the medallion is referred to as "une Cybèle" here [2] for example. There are many other examples, including for Helios [3]. Otherwise, you have "Nike, the goddess of victory, can be seen driving the chariot of Cybele.", also in reference to this very medallion [4]. Or "A disc from Ai-Khanoum, dating to the 3rd century BCE, shows the Greek deities Nike and Cybele." [5] etc... I suspect usage is rather fluid... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I am fully converted. I will add the link shortly. My thanks for a constructive discussion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

User:AirshipJungleman29 - not to belabor the discussion, but overlooking of unsupportive details such as "at the moment" or "remarkable" does tend to provide different interpretations that may be used for justification. We seem to differ regarding this factor, in that I would prefer an informative discussion for our readers that is derived from collaborative editing. You express being fully prepared to war over something that certainly provides exploration beyond the superficial, with a quite personal objective and an unfortunate sense of ultimate authority over an article.

The inclusion of details in an image considered remarkable in such an archaeological find are fundamental to interpretation.

a remarkable find of hybrid cultural symbolism

The intended significance may be communicated subtly by things such as displaying three steps to elevate a component, inclusion of two extremely symbolic deities as companions in a chariot, displaying in an offset row a specific deity as the sun along with a crescent moon and a "star" (now known to be a planet) in the sky at the same time, a sacred parasol able to be held by a static standing figure (bending awkwardly backward) over those in a moving chariot, what the species drawing the chariot signifies, why the gender of the species is reinforced with a feature not found naturally in this well-known species, etc. Symbols provide extensive cultural information in shorthand to inform members that must be interpreted for understanding by those living a thousand years later in cultures for whom these messages fail to be effective communication.

There is plenty of space available in this article for additional detail that would enrich the information provided in an already good article to make it an excellent article. Our proper motivation ought to be that it is better to enhance the education of our readers than to have a "FA" one editor may cherish as a shiny ornament in a merely personal scrapbook. Discussion of this difference may prompt other editors to contemplate its value and, contrary to deleted details, will endure so long as the article exists. That is worth the time entailed. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that I'm extremely confused by quite a few of your sentences, 83d40m. I cannot make heads or tails of overlooking of unsupportive details such as "at the moment" or "remarkable" does tend to provide different interpretations that may be used for justification, and how this relates to collaborative editing, which I am always in favour of, or "exploration beyond the superficial, with a quite personal objective". I believe you mean that my removal some words means I want to edit war because I feel I own the article, but I have not removed either "at the moment" or "remarkable" from the article. Could you please explain?

I also don't quite know what to make of your second paragraph. You seem to be suggesting that I am intentionally omitting relevant explanations for many things. In actual fact, I do not know the answers to much of what you speak. I have no clue, for example, what you mean by "the intended significance [of] displaying three steps to elevate a component" or what the star (now known to be a planet) refers to; I do not understand what you mean by "why the gender of the species is reinforced with a feature not found naturally in this well-known species" (incidentally, you can just say lion); and lastly, but by no means least, I do not know why you think the article requires an extensive discussion of possible interpretations, which you quite rightly point out are made two millennia later by those who don't fully understand what's being displayed. Just to be clear, the identification of Cybele is scholarly consensus, but that too has been disputed. If you have the answers to all these questions, and reliable sources to back this up, it looks like that Ai-Khanoum Cybele plaque article will be created rather sooner than previously thought!

I was also under the impression that the FA process is designed to enhance the education of Wikipedia's readers, alongside being worthwhile goals editors can work towards. Do you disagree? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, not into protracted talk page drama in the shallows, just the accuracy of pesky details and educational objectives of the deeper waters. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't have opinions on all of the issues discussed here, but agree that there should be a wikipedia article on the plaque, probably at Plaque of Cybele (without qualification as primary topic) or Plaque of Cybele (Ai-Khanoum). Furius (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Will do that soon. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Splendid! I look forward to that. Furius (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you think it would be better suited in a wider article such as Religion in the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Improvements

AirshipJungleman29, I added some relevant and interesting information to the article regarding the Greek and Iranic names of the officials inscribed on the storage vases, along with citation from a reliable source. I also added important information about burial structures found outside the city walls which is highly interesting and rarely heard of, again I included the citation, which can be verified. I have studied and presently know a great deal about Ai-Khanoum and the Hellenistic period, having studied over many years. I believe it would be great that they be included as they will improve the article and provide much interest in readers. That would be much appreciated. Leopardus62 (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit, Leopardus62; interest in this obscure topic is always appreciated. I have readded some information on the names, but this time sourced to high-quality sources (Narain, while influential, was always generalist and is now too out of date to be high-quality). The newer high-quality sources make clear that the important fact is not just a list of what the names were, but their origin and positioning, and whether conclusions can be drawn.

As for the small burial structure, many such small structures were found in the city or outside the walls—they cannot all be discussed in detail, because of the requirements of the balanced aspects policy. Your added paragraph was 1% of the prose of the article—hugely overrepresenting the prominence of the structure in reliable sources.

Once again, thanks for your edit, which made me look back at this fascinating topic. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks a lot for your reply, but I respectfully disagree with the claim that Narain is an untrustworthy source, that is not always the case. I think that in the least the names of the Greek and Iranic officials should be included, but the burial information should be left out. Furthermore the inclusion of the names is highly relevant to the previous sentence which mentions the official named Zenon, and the citation I included also mentions the same Zenon, along with Oxeboakes and Oxybazos. Therefore at least in this case only, the information is reliable, so that is not a problem. Its inclusion also helps with the understanding of the anthroponymy of Bactria in the Hellenistic period -- something not well known.

I believe in the improvement of articles, and I hope we can reach an agreement, as Wikipedia is about collaboration and joining forces in order to disseminate reliable information and knowledge. It's not just under the control of one person, but many people. Thanks for your consideration. Leopardus62 (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain why you described the basic principles of Wikipedia, but sure. If you reread my above comment, you'll see that I did not say Narain is an "untrustworthy" source, but simply not a "high-quality" one, as required by the featured article criteria. Have you seen the modified version I have added to the article? It gives analysis of the situation, as you would expect from high-quality source, rather than just a list of names. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Some suggestions

I was prompted to take a look at this article because User:AirshipJungleman29, in the answer to question 2 at his RfA, described it as "close to perfect". It's a good article, no question: thorough, detailed, and based on up-to-date scholarship. All of this makes it better, by several orders of magnitude, than most Wikipedia articles on Greek and Roman archaeological sites. But perfect is a high bar to get over. I haven't gone through the article in detail, but below are a handful of corrections and suggestions (all relatively minor) on three passages that caught my eye during a quick read-through.

The gilded silver disk of Cybele

• In the citation that follows the description of the Cybele disk (currently note 97), the page nos. in Bernard 1970 should be 339-347.
• The disk is not just silver, but gilded silver ("argent doré" in Bernard 1970; the gold is clearly visible in the photo).
• described as "remarkable" by the Metropolitan Museum of Art on account of its "hybrid Greek and Oriental imagery". This is technically true, but misleading, because the text that appears on Met's web page for the Afghanistan exhibition in 2008 is based directly on the description of the disk by Paul Bernard in the catalogue of the exhibition: see Afghanistan: Hidden Treasures from the National Museum, Kabul (Washington DC, 2008), pp. 101 and 118. It seems more honest to me to say that it is Bernard who calls the disk "remarkable" and discusses the "hybrid Greco-Oriental" features of the iconography, rather than crediting the potted version of his description on the Met web site. And the Ai-Khanoum chapter of the exhibition catalogue is perhaps worth citing in any case, as a short English alternative for those readers who can't tackle the French of the original excavation reports.
• The Greek elements in the iconography of this disk are said to include the chlamys all the deities wear. There are only two deities in this relief, Cybele and Nike, and of them only Cybele is wearing a cloak that might conceivably be confused with a chlamys (but is in fact not one; see the next point). Nike is wearing no cloak at all, just a chiton (a thin tunic) bound high up under her breasts. (The gilding of her arms suggests that the artist misunderstood the garment, or thought that she was wearing it over a tight-fitting shirt with long sleeves, but in any case she does not have a cloak of any kind over her shoulders, as Cybele does.)
• The Greek chlamys is a relatively loose traveling cloak normally worn by men and usually (in art) fastened over only one shoulder. As a rule, the only women in the ancient Greek and Roman worlds who wear chlamydes are hunters (like Artemis/Diana), athletes, and Amazons. What Cybele is wearing in this relief are two very different garments: underneath, a thin chiton or tunic (only the bottom of which is visible, from the knees down), and on top of that a heavier, more enveloping cloak tightly wrapped around both shoulders and arms. The Greek term for this kind of cloak seems to have been himation; in English scholarship it is often called a "mantle". It is commonly found in portrait statues of Hellenistic and Roman women, especially those of the type that modern art historians have labeled the Large and Small Herculaneum Women: compare the figure of Cybele here, with her right arm bent at the elbow and crossing her breast and her left arm down at her side, with this this Roman example of the type in Venice, and many others in c:Category:Large and Small Herculaneum Women. I don't know how the word chlamys made it into the WP article, since it does not seem to be used by either of the two sources cited for this sentence in note 97: Bernard 1970, p. 341, calls the outer garment a mantle ("vêtue, par-dessus son chiton, d'un manteau qui l'enveloppe étroitement"), and the Met web page doesn't mention Cybele's dress at all, except to note "the naturalistic rendering of the drapery". But however the word arrived, it is inappropriate here and should be removed.
• Since you'll need to get rid of the chlamydes, you may as well take the opportunity to revise the rest of the sentence about Greek vs. Oriental iconographical elements as well. It's not immediately clear (at least to me) what is meant by "the fixed pose of the figures", since the poses of figures in a static work of art are by definition fixed. Bernard (both in the 1970 report, pp. 343–346, and in the exhibition catalogue linked above, p. 118) lists several other elements that would be easier for most readers to understand: as examples of eastern elements, mentions the priest holding the parasol, the Achaemenid design of the chariot, and the tall stepped podium supporting the altar; and as examples of Greek elements, the depiction of a winged Nike, the lions drawing the chariot, the pattern of Cybele's drapery, and the representation of the sun as a rayed bust of Helios. These examples are more concrete and specific, and therefore, I suspect, more helpful to readers, than a vague phrase like "fixed pose".

The Delphic maxims

• The English translation of the inscription on the stele base is credited to Shane Wallace and Rachel Mairs, and the explanatory note explicitly attributes the translation of the epigram (the first four lines) to Wallace. But the English translation currently in the article is not the same as that printed by Wallace. Perhaps it was when you first added it (I haven't dug into the article history to find out), but if so, someone has been at it since, tinkering with the wording, and not for the better. What Wallace writes is this: "These wise sayings of men of former times, the words of famous men, are consecrated at holy Pytho; from there Klearchos copied them carefully, to set them up, shining afar, in the precinct of Kineas." (I have underlined the words that differ from the translation in the article.)
• More importantly, even if the translation is reproduced exactly as Wallace prints it, the source is still wrongly attributed, because as Wallace himself acknowledges (p. 215, note 38), this is not his own translation, but the translation of Michel Austin, taken from Austin's widely used Hellenistic sourcebook, The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest (2nd ed., Cambridge 2012), pp. 336–337, no. 186 (= pp. 314–315, no. 192, in the 1st edition of 1981). The only difference is that Wallace has replaced Austin's "Clearchus" and "Cineas" with "Klearchos" and "Kineas".
• The layout of the Greek text of the first four lines of the inscription should be tweaked to indent lines 2 and 4. As the article notes, these four lines are an epigram, which in the Hellenistic period means that they consist of one or more elegiac couplets. In order to make the metrical scheme clear, it is conventional when printing elegiac couplets in Greek and Latin to indent the shorter second line in each couplet: see the couplets printed in the WP articles on Nossis and Callinus for examples, and compare the way that the Greek text of this particular epigram is printed in Robert 1968, p. 422.
• The poem also shares thematic elements with the Buddhist Edicts of Ashoka (inscribed in 260–232 BC); and Valeri Yailenko has proposed that it may have inspired them, suggesting a contribution of Hellenistic philosophy to the development of Buddhist moral precepts. This sentence confuses the poem (which is the four-line epigram on the base) with the Delphic maxims themselves (which were in prose, and presumably occupied the whole of the stele originally inserted into the base). The maxims may or may not have points of connection with Buddhist moral precepts, but the "poem" (that is, the epigram) certainly does not.
• If you haven't seen it, you may be interested in this article: P. Hoffmann and A. Thiollier, "Les maximes delphiques d’Aï Khanoum: Retour sur la base de Kinéas et restitution en 3D de la stèle disparue", CRAI 2017, pp. 1103–1151. In addition to proposing a possible reconstruction of the missing stele that held the Delphic maxims, the article, in its second half, digs deep into the debate over the philosophical text preserved on the papyrus fragment.

"Megarian" bowls

• The improvement in the city's fortunes can be seen through innovations in the manufacturing and sophistication of pottery—Achaemenid styles were replaced with more varied shapes, some of which were reminiscent of Megarian bowls. Not many WP readers are likely to know what a Megarian bowl is, and wikilinking the adjective "Megarian" to the article on the ancient city of Megara is no help at all, because Megarian bowls, in spite of their name, have nothing to do with Megara. The name is a modern one, and a misnomer: we owe it to the 19th-century German archaeologist Otto Benndorf, who used it for a group of examples that he wrongly thought were produced in Megara. In fact, they were produced in Athens, and there is no evidence that a single "Megarian bowl" was ever produced in Megara. See the section on "Nomenclature" in Susan Rotroff's Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and Imported Moldmade Bowls (1982), pp. 2–3. To avoid using a name that was known to be inaccurate, Rotroff called them "Hellenistic moldmade bowls" (since they were made in molds, rather than being thrown on a wheel), and in recent decades more and more scholars have done the same. But because everyone in the field of Hellenistic pottery still knows exactly what you mean when you say "Megarian bowl", that term has also continued in use, although now often enclosed in scare-quotes or prefixed with the qualifier "so-called". I don't doubt that the name is used in the source cited for this sentence, but it's useful to compare the way that other contemporary scholars refer to the moldmade bowls found at Ai-Khanoum: Lyonnet 2012, p. 155, writes "moulded bowls (or Megarian bowls)"; Lerner 2003a, p. 378, writes "'Megarian' mold-made bowls" (with scare-quotes around "Megarian"). Another article by Lerner, "Revising the Chronologies of the Hellenistic Colonies of Samarkand-Marakanda (Afrasiab II-III) and Aï Khanoum (northeastern Afghanistan)", Anabasis 1 (2010), pp. 58–79, not cited in the WP article but perhaps worth adding, has a whole section entitled "('Megarian') moldmade bowls" (with "Megarian" in scare-quotes and relegated to parentheses), and in the text thereafter he drops the "Megarian" and simply calls them "moldmade bowls". You can probably see where I'm heading. I'd suggest that you revise the sentence slightly to say "reminiscent of the Hellenistic moldmade bowls commonly called 'Megarian bowls'", or something similar, and replace the current citation with a reference to a more substantial discussion of the bowls, like pp. 66–69 in Lerner's 2010 article cited above. The exact wording doesn't matter (and you will probably prefer to write "mould-made" rather than "moldmade"); the goal is simply to help people who have never heard of one understand a little better what a Megarian bowl is. Until WP has an article on Megarian bowl that you can link to, adding this kind of gloss to the text will probably help readers more than sending them to the irrelevant article on Megara, from which they will emerge no better informed.
• Lerner 2003a was published in 2004. I can understand listing it as Lerner 2004, or as Lerner 2003–2004 (since it's a double volume encompassing both years), but listing it as Lerner 2003 perplexes me.

Because having your nits picked can be tiresome, I'll say again here that I think it's an excellent article overall, and one that deserves its FA status. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions Choliamb! I'm horribly neck-deep in Mongol history at the monent, but I'll certainly try to recollect my work for this article when I get time. If it's not too much trouble, and since you seem far more knowledgeable on classical topics than I ever was, could I also ask if you have any nits to pick at two other articles I have worked on: Boukephala and Nikaia and List of cities founded by Alexander the Great? If you can't, I'm still much obliged for the above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)