Talk:The Exaltation of the Flower

.

Issues and errata

 * Some early sources (late 19th - early 20th c.) refer to this work as part of the Archaic period in Greece. However, since the dating of this work falls outside that range, either the work must have been reassessed and given a later date, or the so-called "Archaic Period" date range was changed.  I am unable to determine which is true at the moment. Viriditas (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That article says the Persian invasion of 480 BCE marks the end of the period by convention; transitions in artistic style aren’t as clear-cut as e.g. regime changes—and the difference is only a decade or two. If this is indeed a piece of religious iconography, one might expect a degree of traditionalism and adherence to conventional forms despite a changing fashion elsewhere, particularly in places outside the major centres.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  03:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The leguminous shrub Astragalus is mentioned in the discussion of the depicted plants; are we sure the sources are not referring instead to astragali (vertebrae, talus bones or similar)? Because of its name (and the origin thereof, based on resemblance), the plant might have been seen as symbolic of the bones, but OTOH a literal reading seems more parsimonious. Liddell & Scott cite only De Materia Medica & Galen (I & II c. CE) for the botanical usage of the term, but that certainly doesn’t preclude its being older—likewise the underlying simile. Since a good part of the controversy hinges on exactly what the ladies are holding, animal or vegetable, it behooves us to read the sources carefully lest we fall for an ancient pun.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  22:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you are correct; the sources refer to bones, not flowers. My mistake. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Now fixed. Viriditas (talk) 04:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Date of discovery
I've corrected the date of discovery from 1863 to 1861. I'm aware that some sources (like the Perseus Project) give the date as 1863, but that appears to be a mistake. Most of the work of the Mission Archéologique de Macédoine was carried out in 1861, and Heuzey and Daumet returned to France in 1862: see the avant-propos in vol. 1 of the publication. The Louvre acquired the relief in 1861, immediately after its discovery; see the entry in the online catalogue of the museum. See also Hampe's monograph (cited in the article), p. 6. The mistaken date of 1863 is perhaps due to a misunderstanding of the first paragraph in Mission Archéologique de Macédoine, vol. 1, p. 411, a few pages before the description of the relief, where the phrase "rédigés dès l'année 1863" refers to the writing of several special reports ("mémoires spéciaux") after the completion of the field work, not to the original investigations and discoveries described in the following pages.

I have also corrected the name of Heuzey's colleague, the architect Honoré Daumet (not Henri). Choliamb (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)