| Revision as of 18:02, 21 October 2010 editYobot (talk | contribs)Bots4,733,870 editsm Cleaning Expand tags from stubs + general cleanup using AWB (7310)← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:18, 3 January 2011 edit undo178.232.22.160 (talk) →Confusing...Next edit → | ||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
| ::::Additional I find that the base is older than the twins quite difficult to understand. Surely their mountings would need forming in the base before it was fired, placing the date of the addition of the twins at about the same time. Also why keep a pottery base, when it was easy enough to make a new one? | ::::Additional I find that the base is older than the twins quite difficult to understand. Surely their mountings would need forming in the base before it was fired, placing the date of the addition of the twins at about the same time. Also why keep a pottery base, when it was easy enough to make a new one? | ||
| ::::] (]) 22:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | ::::] (]) 22:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::::The core and cloak, on which the original wax statue would have been formed in the first instance and covered by in the second, was not made the exact same way modern casting cores and cloaks are made of - animal manure (horse manure is one of the better european alternatives) was a major component of ancient, medieval and early modern casting tecniques, mixed with the other materials (we have a number of written descriptions of this, from all over the world). This manure included a lot of plant material that is the source of the carbon, and is mentioned in the Lombardi article and Carruba's unpublished notes to the final dating. | |||
| :::::The thermoluminescence dating references by Lombardi were also conducted on the core, not the surface. As Lombardi describes, the refiring c.1500 affected the dating (one of the many reasons tl is not a popular dating method anymore). | |||
Revision as of 12:18, 3 January 2011
_part_2.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
 | A fact from Capitoline Wolf appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 April 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Dimensions?
Online documentation for this statuary is sorely lacking. I tried for two hours to find the dimensions of it, and could not. I know the one in Georgia is supposedly an full-size replica, and according to it, it weighs 1500 lbs. Looking at it in context in front of the City Hall steps, it appears to measure about 2 ft x 3 ft. Any help? Iamvered 03:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Googling "Lupa Capitolina cm" found the measurement in centimeters, now added to the article. --Wetman 12:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Ambiguity
"When the twins' grandfather Numitor was overthrown by his brother Amulius, he ordered them to be cast into the River Tiber." Who did - Numitor or Amulius? PiCo
- I've re-edited, so that no one could be confused.--Wetman 19:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The added twins
That the twins were added in the Renaissance is a commonplace of popular travel guides, which, with ninety seconds' worth of googling, might have been confirmed for even the least informed. I have added the NY Times travel guide to the articles "references" (!) but the online Frommer Guide has this: "...you'll find Lupa Capitolina (Capitoline Wolf), a rare Etruscan bronze that could date from the 5th century B.C. (Romulus and Remus, the legendary twins who were suckled by the wolf, were added at a later date.)" The attribution to Pollaiuolo (noted as "possible") in my edit, is also a commonplace, though not quite so universal: "The figures of the twins, Romulus and Remus, being suckled by the Wolf (lupus), were added by Antonio Pollaiuolo in the 15th Century." Now that it's been pointed out, I'm sure that a cursory inspection of the wolf and the twins will bear out their separate origins, even from a photograph. --Wetman 19:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
"Expand"
In which direction is expansion being requested? I have removed the tag from the head of the article itself, as unnecessarily disfiguring. Any concrete requests for expansion? --Wetman 12:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The history in this article seems contradictory
On the one hand, the article states, "after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire the Capitoline Wolf was housed until 1471 in San Teodoro..."
On the other hand, the article also states, "The bronze wolf was said to have been unearthed under the northwest spur of Palatine Hill, and was noted at the Lateran Palace from the beginning of the 9th century."
There are two parallel histories presented here. In the first, it seems the wolf was never lost in late antiquity, and remained in the Church of St. Theodore until it was moved to the Capitoline museum in 1471.
In the second, the wolf WAS lost, and only unearthed on the Palatine in the ninth century, after which it was on display at the Lateran palace law court.
Any way to explain the contradiction, or to smooth it out?
Simonesj 11:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- R. Lanciani, from the ext. links: "As regards the She-Wolf, the positive evidence of its being kept at the Lateran dates from the beginning of the ninth century. Benedict, a monk from Mount Soracte, who wrote a Chronicon in the tenth century, speaks of the institution of a supreme court of justice "in the Lateran p286palace, in the place called graffiti, viz., the mother of the Romans." Trials and executions "at the Wolf" are recorded from time to time until 1450. Paolo di Liello speaks of two highwaymen, whose hands, cut by the executioner, were hung at the Wolf. It was removed to the Conservatori palace on the Capitol in 1473, together with the colossal Head and the Camillus." I note the telltale formula "was said to have been... and I try to think what a ninth-century archaeological report would look like... --Wetman 17:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Text about San Teodoro was added by User:Neddyseagoon, 11 January 2007; text about "unearthed on the Palatine Hill" by User:Iamvered, 29 April 2006. Check with them: I've spent enough time on this. --Wetman 17:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC) .
Fair use rationale for Image:1960.jpg
Image:1960.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:1960.jpg
Image:1960.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
A reference
Italian wikipedia gives the reference Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli and Mario Torelli, L'arte dell'antichità classica, Etruria-Roma, Utet, Torino 1976. Can anyone find what is said here of the Lupa Capitolina? --Wetman (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
This entire article is no longer valid
This article has been made obsolete. The University of Salerno has recently concluded, after a battery of tests, that the wolf was cast in the 13th century. The additions of Romulus and Remus were cast in the 15 century --Jeremiahta (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
This is interesting -- the article maybe should include some of this. It's been kept a secret for over 10 years!.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've rewritten the article to bring it up to date. One of the peculiarities of the current situation is that 200 years' of scholarship is now going to have to be thrown out - all those learned books and articles telling us about how the wolf is a prime example of Etruscan art... -- ChrisO (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well done ChrisO. You're right, lots of work there. Doug Weller (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Linking the Times article. --Ghirla 10:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Confusing...
So if the wolf is a 13th century AD piece, then what about the references by Cicero etc.? They must have been looking at something - would the current wolf be a copy or reimagining of a now-lost original? Vultur (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Probably, but nobody really knows. Almost everyone had assumed that the current statue was the same one seen by Cicero etc. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Anyway, as stated in the article, the 13th century datation is far from sure. I would wait the conclusion of the story... Alex2006 (talk) 07:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- It seems that the Museo Nuovo are not planning to release the C-14 dating results to the public. I've corresponded with Carruba, who claims that the casting core samples, tested at several different C-14 labs, all correspond to the medieval period, with the most likely date being the 13th century. I'm adding a note to the article that notes that the museum has not released the data as promised.
- OK, good! To me looks like a lot of people just don't want to give up the etruscan datation for reasons which are far from scientific. Alex2006 (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Haven't a clue about the date, but there seem to be a fair few inconsistanties in the scientific dating results. Perhaps more details about what PART of the sculpture they are from are would really help understand the significance of them. Fair bit of the following is OR but...
- Thermoluminescence done on pottery not bronze, so that result would have to be for the base? If the piece was reworked, then any pattina that formed on the surface of an older casting might have been removed. Quite possibly by the application of vinegar (a source of 15thC carbon, that would penetrate the surface). Additionally the surface could have had it's colour/texture manipulated by reheating at lowish heat in charcoal dust, any of these could raise a date towards 15th C. Not at all sure where ANY carbon would have come from in the casting cores. I've done metal casting and you don't NEED to add any carbon to a fully enclosed core made of baked sand+clay. (carbon's purpose is to provide pourosity, but if the gases can't escape anyway, it's detrimental to generate more Co2 as any carbon burns off)
- OK, good! To me looks like a lot of people just don't want to give up the etruscan datation for reasons which are far from scientific. Alex2006 (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Additional I find that the base is older than the twins quite difficult to understand. Surely their mountings would need forming in the base before it was fired, placing the date of the addition of the twins at about the same time. Also why keep a pottery base, when it was easy enough to make a new one?
- steve10345 (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- The core and cloak, on which the original wax statue would have been formed in the first instance and covered by in the second, was not made the exact same way modern casting cores and cloaks are made of - animal manure (horse manure is one of the better european alternatives) was a major component of ancient, medieval and early modern casting tecniques, mixed with the other materials (we have a number of written descriptions of this, from all over the world). This manure included a lot of plant material that is the source of the carbon, and is mentioned in the Lombardi article and Carruba's unpublished notes to the final dating.
- The thermoluminescence dating references by Lombardi were also conducted on the core, not the surface. As Lombardi describes, the refiring c.1500 affected the dating (one of the many reasons tl is not a popular dating method anymore).