Talk:Tomb of the Julii

Untitled

Wall mosaics and frescoes are seldom relegated to the decorative arts.--Wetman 05:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if the article had some form of explination for why it is called the Tomb of the Julii. Is there a label/marking the tomb as being of the Juli/Julian/etc family? discovered in July? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.55.121.8 (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Apollo

It’s Apollo not sol 174.194.133.123 (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? On Wikipedia we require sources for statements. I see you disagree with the current sources (understandable, since they are very old) and you say you have expertise in the field. In that case it should not be too difficult to find a more modern source supporting your views, right?

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 15:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

All of the sources that I could use are in Italian and from my colleagues word. The problem is no one has published anything in English in quite a long time. The tomb is dated to the “Tardo” period which means low Roman Empire in Italian. Therefore, it cannot be invictus sol. 2.32.6.171 (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Italian-language sources are fine. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I am telling you it’s the word of my colleagues. No one has written about this tomb in like 15 years. I know you realize it’s possible to not write a paper on everything right. 2.32.6.171 (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

If there isn't written evidence for it, then we can't put it on Wikipedia. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I am going to keep changing it and eventually you will just forgot. Also if you can see the edit history it was changed to say Apollo like almost a year ago and no one cared. At this point I am actually going to publish a paper and cite myself. The point of Wikipedia is to have accurate information and this is impeding that. You are not an archeologist so why do you think you know better. 2.32.6.171 (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You can't keep changing it; the page is protected from editing. I have added it to my watchlist as well, so if you try to make unsourced changes after the protection expires, it will be protected again. Repeated attempts to make disruptive and/or unsourced edits may result in your IP being blocked.

If a paper, book or other reliable source does emerge, you are welcome to return to this discussion with it and it may be possible to add it.

The point of Wikipedia is to have accurate information and this is impeding that: the point of Wikipedia is to be verifiable and to cite reliable sources. Letting random users make edits because they say they are experts and their expert colleagues told them something would obviously not be tenable as a policy, even if in this individual case you happened to be correct. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I gave you a source now change it. 2.32.6.171 (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

That source as you quoted it doesn't mention the Tomb of the Julii. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Yea it does I just quoted that part of it so I seriously need to show you the whole book dude Petronia Iusta (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You need to show the part that mentions Tomb of the Julii, anyway. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I just showed you it Petronia Iusta (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the overwhelming opinion sees the mausoleum as Christian. Some even see the vines covering the walls of the tomb as representative of Christ as the True Vine (John 15:1-17), rather than as the vines of Dionysus (e.g., Beckwith, Early Christian and Byzantine Art, p. 19). For Allen Brent, the charioteer is unmistakably Christ, who has been intentionally modelled on the sun god. Brent describes this type of Roman iconography as a desire to depict “a synthesis of imperial order and divine order,” rooted in the emperor Aurelian’s championing of the cult of Sol Invictus, who could also be identified with Apollo. For Brent, by synthesising Christ with the sun god, the later Christian owners of the tomb wished to tap into a Roman expression of cosmic order and portray their own saviour as firmly in control of this (Cyprian and Roman Carthage, p. 229-230). Petronia Iusta (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, this seems sufficient to add mention of Apollo; I don't see overwhelming reason to delete the existing content though, since this source doesn't contradict it, just mentions multiple interpretations. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

What I have been trying to say is that the interpretation as sol invictus is wrong. Apollo is identified as Sol invictus in this case. If you won’t take out sol invictus at least put it could also be Apollo Petronia Iusta (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I've added in Brent's interpretation with reference to the book. At this point we do just have two sources which are variously describing it as Sol Invictus and Apollo, and absent compelling reason to distrust one interpretation we sort of have to include both. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It’s not perfect by any means but thank you for at least including Apollo. 2.32.6.171 (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I Made an account so I will edit in four days Petronia Iusta (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

That would be edit warring, a violation of Wikipedia policy. It may result in your account being blocked and/or the protection of the page being increased. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean at the very least change it to not say Christus sol 2.32.6.171 (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Brent describes this type of Roman iconography as a desire to depict “a synthesis of imperial order and divine order,” rooted in the emperor Aurelian’s championing of the cult of Sol Invictus, who could also be identified with Apollo. For Brent, by synthesising Christ with the sun god, the later Christian owners of the tomb wished to tap into a Roman expression of cosmic order and portray their own saviour as firmly in control of this (Cyprian and Roman Carthage, p. 229-230). 2.32.6.171 (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2024

It needs to be changed to say Apollo instead of Christus Sol Petronia Iusta (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --AntiDionysius (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the overwhelming opinion sees the mausoleum as Christian. Some even see the vines covering the walls of the tomb as representative of Christ as the True Vine (John 15:1-17), rather than as the vines of Dionysus (e.g., Beckwith, Early Christian and Byzantine Art, p. 19). For Allen Brent, the charioteer is unmistakably Christ, who has been intentionally modelled on the sun god. Brent describes this type of Roman iconography as a desire to depict “a synthesis of imperial order and divine order,” rooted in the emperor Aurelian’s championing of the cult of Sol Invictus, who could also be identified with Apollo. For Brent, by synthesising Christ with the sun god, the later Christian owners of the tomb wished to tap into a Roman expression of cosmic order and portray their own saviour as firmly in control of this (Cyprian and Roman Carthage, p. 229-230). Petronia Iusta (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)