Talk:Shrine of Miosach

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 Desertarun (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Shrine of Miosach, late 11th and early 16th centuries

• ... that large parts of the 11th century Irish Shrine of Miosach (front pictured) were added during a 16th-century refurbishment? Source: Stalley, Roger. "Irish Art in the Romanesque and Gothic Periods". In: Treasures of early Irish art, 1500 B.C. to 1500 A.D: From the collections of the National Museum of Ireland, Royal Irish Academy, Trinity College Dublin. NY: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1977. p. 187. ISBN 978-0-8709-9164-6

• Reviewed: Mount Eerie (album)

Created by Ceoil (talk). Self-nominated at 23:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC).

Interesting artwork, covered in detail on fine sources, mostly offline and accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. The image is licensed and almost a must. The hook is fine! - In article and image caption or hook, it should become clearer which parts exactly were added, because for a while I understood that all we see pictured was 16th century. - Suggestions for the article which you can follow or not:

• The first sentence is too long for my taste.
  • Done
• I didn't understand "leaves from a Gospel" right away, - prefer the later "extract".
  • Done
• If you go for GA, perhaps move the background from the lead to the body, and have only a summary of it in the lead.
• The standard-bearer is not mentioned in the body, and has no ref in the lead. - That might be also good for a hook, btw.
• The sequence of images in the description might be reversed, to show the "old" first.
• In the now first, I see no Madonna with child.
  • clarified. ps, this image comes first because it shows the cross in the center, and the two of the 4 M~&C's (in reply to the sequence of images point above)
• Is a museum a plural word, requiring "their"?
  • rewrote this Ceoil (talk)
• For the discussion of a translation, it would be nice to have the Latin also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • ya, looking around. Ceoil (talk)
  • Thanks Gerda, working on these. If I find more on the standard-bearer aspect, will propose an ALT hook. Ceoil (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

    Thank you so much! I you want a different hook, I'll look again, but this is fine with me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

    Great. Will ping you back here (prob tomorrow night) when happy all of the above have been sorted. Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Is the frontpiece modelled on the Israelite high priest's breastpiece?

The Description of the frontpiece contains these sentences: "It still has the original metal cord used for carrying it. Its length indicates that it was probably intended to be worn around the neck." This and the fact that it has semi-precious stones suggests that it could have been modelled on the breastpiece worn by the Israelite high priest and described in Exodus 28:15-21.

Fashion a breastpiece … of gold, and of blue, purple and scarlet yarn, and of finely twisted linen. It is to be square — a span long and a span wide — and folded double. Then mount four rows of precious stones on it. The first row shall be carnelian, chrysolite and beryl; the second row shall be turquoise, lapis lazuli and emerald; the third row shall be jacinth, agate and amethyst; the fourth row shall be topaz, onyx and jasper. Mount them in gold filigree settings. There are to be twelve stones, one for each of the names of the sons of Israel, each engraved like a seal with the name of one of the twelve tribes.

Braided rope-like chains of pure gold were attached to a ring at each of the four corners; the other ends of the chains were attached to the shoulders and the waistband, so that the breastpiece would be snug against the wearer.

Given that there are only two attachment points for the frontpiece, it may be that it was worn at the waist, not hung around the neck; for the latter, the two attachment points would logically have been the upper two corners.

While there are similarities, there are differences:
- there were 12 stones in the breastpiece, but only 8 (large) stones in the frontpiece;
- there was a ring at each of the four corners of the breastpiece, but only two at the middle of the short sides (the first graphic shows one; I'm surmising that there's another at the other side);
- the breastpiece was about 23 cm square, but the frontpiece is rectangular (23.2 cm wide x 26.6 cm high - but these dimensions are close to those for the breastpiece);
- the materials are quite different - gold, yarn and linen for the breastpiece, yew-wood, bronze, silver and enamel for the frontpiece.

Despite these differences, could the purpose have been similar, and the frontpiece was worn by the one officiating at the shrine? Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, and thanks for bringing the association here. Ceoil (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)