Talk:List of ancient Greek and Roman monoliths

Mausoleum of Theodoric

There is a - IMO completely unnecessary - row about whether this building, or rather its roof slab, should be included in the list of ancient monoliths. In my view, the fact that the mausoleum was built under Ostrogothic lordship is really only of secondary importance for two reasons:

• although this was a period of transition from late antiquity to the early Middle Ages, from Roman to Romano-Germanic culture, Roman culture, customs, language and architecture were still strong, and actually experiencing a revival under the stable and circumspect rule of Theoderic (cf., e.g., Boethius and Cassiodorus)
• more importantly, the Mausoleum is explicitly treated in an "ancient" context by the two sources given: Heidenreich, Robert; Johannes, Heinz (1971), p. 63 & Coulton, J. J. (1974), p. 19. In terms of art, it may owe much to Ostrogothic taste, but the technology, and this is crucial, for moving the monolith and putting it on top of the rotunda was in the Roman tradition through and through. The Ostrogoths did not know how to move such large stones, and neither did so before or after Theoderic's rule. Since the thrust of the article is very much on the capacity of moving large monoliths, to include the roof slab as still ancient, not medieval, feat is perfectly reasonable. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree, though it is borderline. One could say the same about a Byzantine effort 100 yrs later, which I think would have to be called medieval. Johnbod (talk) 03:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say this is a good reminder that period designations such as "ancient" and "medieval" were in reality fluid. There wasn't some hypothetical person who went to sleep one day in the ancient world and woke up the next morning in the Middle Ages. I suppose I would pose the question as: what harm would it do to include it? (None that I can think of.) Would it raise interesting questions (such as those posed by Gun Powder Ma) that the article would then address if a reader went to it? (Yes.) Would its inclusion on a list as "ancient" have to exclude it from any list of "medieval" somethings? (Not unless someone was more concerned with sorting socks than presenting the full intellectual picture.) Cynwolfe (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

So, we agree that, while it is a borderline case, its inclusion would not hurt, and may indeed raise interesting questions for the reader. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I would add a brief explanatory note to the existing footnote about its inclusion. But it isn't all that unusual to see the 6th century, particularly the early 6th century, treated as "late antiquity" anyway. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

What note exactly do you have in mind? Be my guest (you can use the "Notes" section). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Something along the lines of what you said above about the construction representing transition and/or revivalism, and the continuity of ancient technology. Just a sentence like "although the mausoleum reflects Ostrogothic style, its construction relied on the continuity of ancient techniques during a period of revivalism under Theoderic." (Forgive me if I've misrepresented what you said; I don't have independent knowledge of the specifics and am just trying to show what kind of statement I meant.) Cynwolfe (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You've all horribly missed the point. Something that was built by the Roman Empire is Roman, something not built by the Roman Empire (especially, AFTER it collapsed) is not Roman. For this reason alone the Mausoleum should not be included. In addition, it's questionable if this should even qualify as a monolith at all [[1]] let alone Roman.Hell Hawk (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Why shouldn't this be a monolith? The list features monolithic drums, columns, blocks, statues and obelisks, so why not monolithic roof slabs? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Both those questions belong here [[2]]. Stick to the point, this isn't Roman. We give credit for buildings to the people who built them, not to who the builders got their technology from.Hell Hawk (talk) 09:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You merely reiterate your point which has not found consensus here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If we've all "horribly" missed your point, Hell Hawk, is it possible that you've missed ours? "Roman" frequently produces this ambiguity: something is "Roman" as it pertains to the Roman Empire, but might at the same time be Greek, Gallic, Syrian, or African — wherever one happens to be within the Roman Imperial sphere. Also, in a culture without anything approaching universal literacy, knowledge is a matter of living tradition: it's a continuum, and in reality not partitioned neatly into divisions. See also Romanesque architecture, and Walter Horn's methodology in studying the relation of ancient architecture to medieval. However, if the title of the article is List of ancient monoliths, one might reasonably question why it only covers Greek and Roman. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It goes with the more narrow definition of Classical antiquity like some of the other architecture lists linked in the template. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Cynwolfe, something that was built the Roman Empire is Roman, something built by somebody else is not Roman, where is the ambiguity coming from? The Mausoleum of Theodoric was built by the Ostrogoths, therefore it can only be Ostrogothic, not Roman. If you wish to change the page from a Greek/Roman layout to an Antiquity layout, I'd only object on my other point which is to be discussed here: [[3]]Hell Hawk (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about this; I took Gun Powder Ma's point to be that this was about a tradition of architecture, so whose labor actually built it was less important than the technique employed, in terms of how someone might be using the list (to trace a particular form of architecture). I don't have an opinion on the other point I raised, except that it results from an ambiguity of English syntax. Placing "ancient" before "monolith" in an adjective-noun relationship is susceptible to more ambiguity than "List of monoliths in classical antiquity." This problem often comes up in article titles and categories. However, if it were "List of monoliths in classical antiquity," in my view Hell Hawk (great name, BTW) would have a stronger case, because even "late antiquity" ≠ "classical antiquity," and if you say "in antiquity," you're back to "what about everybody other than Greeks and Romans?" SInce I took this to be a list of monoliths constructed through the techniques/technology of classical antiquity, I guess the title seems right to me after all. Or "List of ancient Greek and Roman monoliths"? Should the lead section clarify a bit more? (Under the Roman section, we have the note that monoliths standing in Greek territory built during the Roman Imperial era are included.) File this post under "thinking out loud." What if the Comment for the Mausoleum were reworded to something like: "built by Ostrogoths using Roman technology"? Too long? Cynwolfe (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hell Hawk, since you base your argument purely on nominal grounds: The Ostrogothic Kingdom was not an independent state and the Ostrogoths not an independent people, but Theoderic was viceroy of the (Eastern) Roman Empire, that is he recognized the suzerainty of the Roman Emperor with his seat in Constantinople, and formally the Ostrogoths were Roman subjects. So even nominally your argument does not add up. We can close this discussion once you actually bother to read a few lines about the period which was one of transition defying simplistic attributions of 'nationality'. As been said, I would include the Mausoleum without hesitation also among a list of medieval monoliths which however requires the mental disposition to count one's socks more than in one way. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable and well-reasoned to me. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Architrave

According to Banister Fletcher, the central architrave block at the Temple of Artemis, Ephesus (356 BCE,) measured 4 feet deep by 28 feet long. I don't know what the third dimension was. I think this one would be up there with the monoliths. I wanted to link it this article or the Ancient architectural records article, if appropriate. See List of Ancient Greek temples Amandajm (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of ancient Greek and Roman monoliths. 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/20080528061612/http://traianus.rediris.es/ to http://traianus.rediris.es/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)