Talk:Parthenon/Archive 3

Parthenon in modern culture?
Would it be relevant to list appearances of, or references to, the Parthenon in modern media? The only thing I can think of is an episode of Wonder Pets!, but I'm certain there are others. --Procrastinatrix 19:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Would it be relevant to list appearances of, or references to, the Parthenon in modern media? No. Twospoonfuls 20:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Would Wonder Pets! add to the Wikipedia reader's understanding of the subject of this article? That what relevant means. --Wetman (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Visit
Anticipated is the 2008 visit of Athena, where once again, the omnisicient wisdom of Athena will be on display for all. /s/ dad 76.195.232.219 (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Add Photo
I would like to propose adding this photo http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Parthenon-2008.jpg to the article 24.215.229.202 (talk) 07:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Room for Improvement
I am doing an essay on the origins of government and the Parthenon is mentioned. Like the lesson I studied from, this article does not do a very good job of explaining just what this building was for. The architecture and sculptures are fascinating and all, but what was the purpose of this building? What could this building be compared to in modern times? Quietmartialartist (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

the parthenon is located in greece, where drama originated.Based on what you see in this picture,what have benn important to the ancient greeks? help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.199.164 (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The article states that for approximately 1000 years, the Parthenon was a Christian Church, the Church of the Parthenos Maria, indicating the importance of the Christian faith to the Greek people. This appears to have been annoying to Greece's Muslim neighbours, as the article states that the Muslims invaded, eventually turning the church into a mosque. Santamoly (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Correction regarding the marble used in the reconstruction
The refurbishment of the Parthenon is not using the same marble used in the original construction. The original Pentelic marble quarries are closed to further extraction. The marble now being used comes from the north side of Mount Pentelikon. Although similar in appearance, the marble has a higher quartz content and is more difficult to work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shpike (talk • contribs) 06:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Dates are incorrect or backwards... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.158 (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Construction
In the construction section no reference to HOW it was built only the design and dates etc. No reference at all to the slaves etc although I gather some were paid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.109.1 (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Would such a reference indicate an opposition (to some other similar construction, for instance)? Would it be possible for Athenians to not use slaves for such a construction? Since the obvious answer to both questions is no, such a reference would be uneconomical and futile (and would even contradict the Parthenon’s thriftiness as well). All big (at least) western (at least) constructions of the ancient (at least) world were based in slave-labor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaalis (talk • contribs) 21:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone knows that. And conditions and dates are important too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.214.143 (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

These comments suggest to me that their authors were unaware of the Parthenon accounts that actually document the accounting for several years of the building's construction. They include specific information such as from which account the government alloted money, the cost of materials bought (and material overages sold), and how much certain workers were paid (including sculptors, carpenters, door-hangers, gold- and silver- smiths). William B. Dinsmoor, Attic Building Accounts I: the Parthenon, AJA 17, 1913, p. 53-80 and William B. Dinsmoor, Attic Building Accoutns V: Supplementary Notes, AJA 25, 1921, p.233-247. Slavery was certainly an aspect of Classical Greek society (as it has been at one time or another in most societies), but for some reason, people seem to get very touchy about the construction of the Parthenon. No one seems to care reading Greek Philosophy that a number of these philosophers would also have personally owned slaves, and usually didn't think twice about it. I think the notion carries over from the idea that the pyramids of Giza were built by slaves, although the evidence from the worker's cemetery at Giza does not suggest this (nor can it completely rule them out). The general method of construction of the Parthenon is not a mystery to us, and is even lavishly illustrated after a study of the Pentilikon quarries in Manolis Korres' rather cute (half storybook, half archaeological study of the quarries) From Pentelikon to the Parthenon. (I personally refer to the book as "The Little Column Capital that Almost Could." It actually follows a flawed column capital from its place in the quarries to its non-use on the Pre-Parthenon.Lucretius6 (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Lucretius6

Location
This article could use some map coordinates —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.49.45 (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to be confused with the pantheon
Should a "not to be confused with the Roman temple the pantheon" be added? The two names are very similar, and, for example, I frequently confuse the two. UNIT A4B1 (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this is unnecessary. One building is round and made of brick and cement, the other rectangular and made of marble. --5telios (talk) 08:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The potential for confusion is caused by the similarity of the names; the building materials aren't that relevant. I still don't think we need to add the note, because we expect people to read the articles; if they do so, their confusion will be sorted out. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would have no problem with adding a "not to be confused . . " note and wikilink. Helpful if people can't remember (or spell) these similar words. Awien (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Um how do you do that? EG is there a template? UNIT A4B1 (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Done the simple way I can. The clever formatting people can take it from there if they want to ^_-  Awien (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Height?
Is the height of the building supposed to be given in centimeters? If so, why not convert to meters, or is (CM) some other non metric increment? If it is centimeters it should be (cm)
 * Thanks for pointing this out, height was wrong anyway, I corrected it. A Macedonian (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Dates
Article is not consistent with dates; some are AD/BC, some are CE/BCE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.97.140.43 (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Dates were being arbitrarily changed to the CE notation, which is against the established guidelines. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 03:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Section about threats to the Parthenon due to tourism needed
Just read the article and realised that there is no section regarding the threat posed to the monument by tourism. I feel that this should be included as this is not the only ancient monument that is being damaged by tourists coming to it. Would any other Wikipedians care to give their opinions on whether this should be included in either a new section or incorporated into an existing section of the article. Thanks 84.13.120.86 (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Please correct the dates used in the first paragraph. They make no sence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.132 (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone watching this page?
Today I noted that the lead paragraph had been anonymously edited 10 days ago, to assert that the Parthenon is NOT a temple, but was a storehouse for tributary gold!!! I have treated this highly contentious and unreferenced edit as vandalism, and reverted it. But I am amazed and dismayed that such a high profile article could contain such a dubious assertion unchallenged for 10 days! Ian Page (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hm. Well, the edit certainly should have been reverted. However, there is some justification for claiming that the Parthenon wasn't a temple, since there seems to have been no religious cult associated with it (see the "function" section), and it's certainly right that it was used as a storehouse (which is a normal function of a Greek temple), and it may have held tribute from the Delian League—so the edit is not as unfounded as it may have seemed at first. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification!Ian Page (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The current scholarship on the topic would actually assert that it was not temple, and was indeed a storehouse for gold, and the statue of Athena was not the cult image. 130.126.219.53 (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

A second to the last comment. Athena Parthenos recieves no votives (the best indication of worship,) and no dedicated priest or priestess served the cult. Please see This is only about as contentious for professionals in the field as the recognition of rising temperatures (not their cause) in climate science, or the idea that a fatty diet leads to high cholesterol among doctors.Lucretius6 (talk) 07:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Lucretius6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucretius6 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Pic
I just replaced the lead pic, and hope this won't be contentious. The pic that was there was a very beautiful photo, but it didn't represent the building at all well, since it showed both the side, and the pediment that sustained the worst damage, and did not reveal the iconic view. In fact there was no really good image of the building as it usually appears, in the entire article.

I had recently selected that same cloudy pic as the front of the article Architecture of Ancient Greece and when I checked this out, thought that one of them needed changing and that this was the best one to change, since the building is not actually very well represented in this article. Amandajm (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Pleiades
What does it mean that the Parthenon is "aligned" with the Pleiades? Is there a better source than the one given? (Everything on Google Books, at least, seems to be astrological, mystical stuff, not actual scholarly sources.) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about footnote 5, in which case it is the Hyades. The entire article in question is available here: http://www.academia.edu/1457255/AITIA_ASTRONOMY_AND_THE_TIMING_OF_THE_ARRHEPHORIA I became very suspicious when I read the way it was worded here. I agree that most archaeoastronomy I have come across is mystical in nature, but this one was published the the annual of the British School at Athens, an extremely scholary source. I suggest that it be changed when someone else agrees after reading the cited article. A quick read confirms, as I thought, that the authors didn't seem to be talking about alignments, but myths and constellations, and how the local geography, combined with these etiological myths ("aitia") can help us interpret some of the artwork of the Parthenon, and possibly elucidate some Athenian rituals that took place on the acropolis (but not in/at the Parthenon). Of course, the biggest influence on the alignment of the Parthenon was the "pre-Parthenon" that it was built on top of. That, in turn, was likely to have been built on top of yet another building. (This is hard to prove since you can't move the Parthenon to look underneath the "pre-Parthenon"--but the sheer amount of major architectural decoration and fragments on the Athenian acropolis from dismantled archiac buildings makes it very unlikely that the considerable space taken up by the Parthenon had been left empty, and the only other main candidate for the location of these disassembled buildings is the foundations of the Temple of Athena Polias, to which some portion of them should probably be assigned.) Lucretius6 (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Lucretius6

Should this article be protected?
This article's history makes it rather evident that it has been subject to frequent attempts at vandalism, mostly by IPs. I would support a request for page protection if other editors also agree. (I'm not particularly familiar with the specifics of protection, but I would guess that semi-protection would perhaps be best in this situation.) --Mike Agricola (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Stylobase aesthetic is false
It was easier to follow the curvature of the rock floor than to straighten it up(since most Greek buildings sit on hill top), As an illustration, Romans would make(or just chose) a flat base floor out right for a flatter stylobate for the building to stand on. But I guess the Romans were very stubborn also, they built straight road or highway is another example. But one can not say La "Maison Caree" is lack of aesthetic, it's the squarest, straightest Roman temple building one can get. That was what the Romans do, they wanted to be perfect and had the mean to do it that way. "Entasis calculation" is another modern myth; ancient Greeks used a sculpted big tree to serve as live model-since the column has the appearence of a naturally grown tree, larger at the base and narrowwer on top. The model tree was then cut into multiple sections to further serve as models for each marble sections of the columns, it was that simple -problem now solved. Greeks might have copied the Egyptian column, but on the construction site, wooden models of sectionally sculpted and finished tree trunks were likely used for quick reference and copy as workers came from many different parts, they had to make column of the same size. Parthenon's columns were not Egyptian copy or entasis, straightly speaking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.15.185  17:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

In regard to this unsigned comment, I can not provide documentation at this moment, but Manolis Korres suggests that a saggy string was used to establish gradual curve over long distances. One might look at J.J coulton's Greek Architects at Work. tehre were certainly mathematical calculations to be made by ancient Greek archtiects, as in many construction projects, archtiects only had aesthetic control over the ratios of the architectural elements, intercolumnations, etc. The general "look" of the finalbuilding was already set by its category (temple, theater, stoa), except in unusal circumstances, like the Arsenal of Philo or a hellenistic palace. Korres agrees that the "optical illusion hypothesis" does not explain teh stylobate curvature. What is your source for the tree trunks? At first glance this seems quite problematic, and also unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucretius6 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)