Talk:Aegean art

Photograph
The photograph of the Aegean snake goddess seems like a fake. Originating from Near Eastern and Mesopotamia, the female faience figurines have different qualities than what the photograph shows. Many of the figurines were forged in the early 1920's and I wonder if this photograph is an example of one.

Moore?
"This type of figurines are furthermore particularly intriguing, because of the high resemblance they excibit with modern sculptures (e.g. in Henry Moore's works)." Er...couldn't Moore simply have been inspired by this Aegean art? Where's the intrigue? (The above quote is also poorly written.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.33.130 (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Aegean art. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051105024809/http://www.ou.edu:80/finearts/art/ahi4913/aegeanhtml/aegean2.html to http://www.ou.edu/finearts/art/ahi4913/aegeanhtml/aegean2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Definitions issue
Botteville has raised the issue of whether "Aegean" can ever mean Helladic, or Greek mainland Bronze Age. This article portrays "Aegean" as a synonym for Greek Bronze Age. Botteville does not think it is, but only refers to the Cyclades and Crete for some periods. He believes it means mainly Minoan and Cycladic culture of unknown ethnicity, while Mycenaean should be excluded. The point of view expressed in this article also appears in many others, due, botteville thinks, to the predominance of certain aggressive editors in those areas. Johnbod has come forward as the champion of the status quo. So far the contention is friendly. If bottevile is right, all these articles will have to be reintroduced and to some degree rewritten. If the article view is essentially correct, then botteville will assist in the referencing that should be there, but is not. Meanwhile except for citation requests already placed, botteville will refrain from putting them in. I'm botteville. I would like to use this section as a storage for references pro and con, until we can determine for certain how the scholars use this word and make appropriate decisions. Right now there is nothing here, as I have only started. I will be adding substantial references. I may subdivide the reference, or anyone may. I'm looking for clear definitions by substantial figures, not implications that might be interpreted in different ways.Botteville (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it would be good if you can kick off with some references supporting your view. When you first raised the matter (wherever-that-was - link please) I easily found some basic references supporting the meaning you object to. If yours is instead the orthodoxy, as you claim, it should be easy for you to do the same. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your swift reply. Unforunately I cannot offer you an equivalent swiftness, for which I do apologize. I think you will just have to be patient. Do you have other things to work on? This is among my current things but I have plenty to do around my place. You preferred that I not just abandon it. Fine. If we are not to be insulting each other all over the place we need due process! That is how the law works too. Otherwise the outcome depends on who can insult the most, cost the other party the most time, and do the most reversions without getting blocked. So, calm down. Have you ever seen a law case be settled swiftly, or legislation passed swiftly? Etc. Now, statements such as "his use of the term is very clear" don't give me much confidence. It means you are looking at his implications, not at his definitions. But this view of mine means nothing until I check the ref. So, not only do I have to find refs, I have to check yours. I think you should not get your heart set too much on this, you might be wrong. Or, we might both be right, if the term evolved and is now equivocal. In that case we would need a balanced presentation. But, one thing at a time. If I must concede or have developed an educated firm view, I will of course announce it. Meanwhile, be patient. As part of the my presentation I will be supplying links to articles I think are affected. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

refs for the status quo

 * Here's another one, btw: Introduction to Aegean Art, By Philip P. Betancourt (that's Philip Betancourt) - his use of the term is very clear from the opening pages. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I bet you thought I forgot.I'm going through Rutter's biblio. Here's one: All I can say is, pretty big Aegean. Why don't we get Russia into this - Aegean civilization began with the Slavs. It doesn't doesn't look good for me, but let's go on. I can still hope for equivocal meanings with a word history. And, you can see what I mean by reference. Nothing implied here.Botteville (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

refs for the claimed orthodoxy
(tbs)

Objections to intro wihdrawn
The intro as it currently stands seems good to me, tentatively. We still have to finish the above study. The vocabulary question is clearly one of current usage. Usage certainly changes. What changed my mind is the "often seems contrived." I was looking for some recognition of the fad aspect of the language and I think that is it. Right now I'm working on commons cats concerning pottery and trying to tackle specialized articles. On the Mycenaean Pottery article I see in the discussion I was pretty hard on it several years ago. I should go over it again. I think I will raise my priority on the pottery articles. So far it looks as though johnbod and I are arriving at an agreement, but as I say, I want to go on checking references.Botteville (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Back to the "Greek Bronze Age"
The lead currently begins:
 * Aegean art, which effectively means Greek Bronze Age art

This is problematic. Of course, the Aegean and much of the adjoining land have been culturally and linguistically Greek for millennia, but during the Bronze Age, much of it was not. In particular, "Greek Bronze Age Art" would exclude Minoan and Cycladic art, both of which are widely accepted by scholars as being non-Greek civilizations and integral parts of Aegean Art. See: Pace above, however, "Aegean art" clearly does include Mycenaean, and hence Greek, art. --Macrakis (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * David Sacks, Oswyn Murray, Lisa R. Brody, Encyclopedia of the Ancient Greek World, p. 211: "The Minoans were not Greeks, and their language, religion,and social structures were not Greek."
 * David Sansone, Ancient Greek Civilization, p. 1: "...the arrival, in about 2000 BC, of Greek-speakers ... and their encounter with the two non-Greek cultures they found on their arrival, the civilizations known as Cycladic and Minoan"
 * Linear A, which records the Minoan language, is clearly not Greek.
 * The whole area may not have been Greek for some of the period, but by the end of it, it was. We need some wording that conveys this. Obviously, Greek Bronze Age art redirects here, and needs to be near the start. The rest of the 1st para covers the various sub-regions adequately, I think. Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've proposed new wording. Take a look... --Macrakis (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we need to include the apparent considerable increase in "Greekness" over the long period covered. I don't like flatly calling Cycladic civilization "non-Greek" - I don't think that was entirely the case even at the start of the period covered. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's more complicated than that -- influences flowed both ways from the Minoans, in particular. But sure, I agree that this sort of thing should be added. By the way, from what I've seen so far in my background reading, "Aegean Bronze Age art" is probably the best title for the article, widely used since about 1980 in the academic literature. After all, it's not as though we're covering the Aegean in the Paleolithic or the Ottoman periods... :-) --Macrakis (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Update of Botteville's view
Hi. Whenever the big issues come up I tend to cop out - too much conflict in my life I guess. I got into this issue with Johnbod first I believe; that is, the meaning of "Aegean" and whether "Aegean" was to be Greek. I dare say we are only mirroring the conflict over the Bronze Age conducted by the scholars. The whole thing got started with the decipherment of Linear B in the 1950's. The discovery that it was Greek apparently was a great clap of thunder that resounded throughout academia. What we are hearing now are its distant echoes. Before then, the Bronze Age was not Greek, oh no, not it, never. This view goes on and on under various champions. "Greek" art starts in the Geometric Age. I encountered this stubborn view over 50 years ago now. To a large degree this is a contest of wealthy wills, so to speak, not of reality. These big names in archaeology leave all kinds of money for this and that including perpetuation of obsolete views. This is something like Monty Python's Department of Funny Walks regarding the military. Recently the department of obsolete views has kept open the wedge in the dyke a little too long and have lost control of it despite endless Machiavellian manipulation of the money. The most current books are free apparently to define "Aegean" as they please. We read of the Peloponnesus being not Greek any more but being Aegean. This anarchy effects our efforts to summarize the topic. I KNOW what our ultimate response is going to be. Somehow we are going to have to capture all these views in multiple articles, more than what we have now, which means each article will have to be flexible enough to admit of other views, which I envisioned happening in the lead. It will have to go something like "so-and-so's concept of Aegean" (or Greek). We tend to form intense loyalties to whomever we read first. So the beat goes on (and on). Boardman's flopping around is an example. Which part of Boardman are we going to present, if any? I was going to dive into this and I might yet but frankly I am overwhelmed by the magnitude of trying write real. We have to give each writer their due respect. It will take much more than what we got. Overwhelmed, I am taking a break on some different articles. At some point I will try to get back in when I can see an appropriate degree of flexibility. Not yet.Botteville (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

"The Minoan Linear A is clearly not Greek, however."
This phrase needs a citation. In fact, it is inappropriate to discuss this script as Greek or non Greek, as in prehistoric Greece there were different tribes and the all-encompassing term "Greek" appears only later. My suggestion is that this statement is inappropriate, as it is a-historical. Ictinos4 (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)