Talk:Knossos

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emaddux.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Matthew McDaniel.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Etymology of Cnossos

It is possible that the name "Cnossos" (or presiously, Cnôssos) (modern Heracleion) contains the same root ( "*cdn-" ) that is enclosed in name "Cydonia" (or preciously, Cydônia) (modern Chania), the city of people Cydones, in Classical Greek Era.

A probable evolutionary process may be:

• *Cydon-is < *Cydon-issos < *C(y)dno-issos < *C(d)nôssos.

The historical conclusion, from this etymology, is that Cydones (or else, Keftiu) first inhabited Cnossos, in central Crete, and when this city was captured by another people (Minoans?, Achaeans?) (who distorted its name), they migrated to western Crete, where they founded Cydonia.

Note: Plus, the same root "*cdn-" is enclosed in name of Cycladic island "Cythnos".

--IonnKorr 19:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps not. NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Your guessing has no place. Try looking up the opinions of professional historical linguists. --Victim of signature fascism 19:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, friend "Victim of signature fascism". Thanks for your answer.

--IonnKorr 20:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Victim is correct, if not so tactful. In a Hellenic (or, for that matter, Indo-European) language, you cannot say that a word has a "root" of *cdn, as words don't have triconsonantal roots like Semitic languages. You actually have to pay attention to the vowels. And also, you do have to get a source for "probably evolutionary processes"; you can't guess in anything in language change, especially if you're inexperienced with a language family and its morpho-phonological history -- user:Cevlakohn

I have to agree with Cevlakohn here. If you even follow Stihler's theory, you would be using biconsonantal roots if any, but we wouldn't see this sort of relation. In the Ancient Greek language, d !~ th, likewise 0 !~ y in any pairs. We'd see e ~ 0 ~ o. What Ionn Korr's doing is about as accurate as using pocket dictionaries in find relations between Quechua and Chinese. --Anonymous

Etymological speculation is one of the most interesting games there are, I think. A lot of people have been playing it for a long time. The way it is currently played is, you have to find a rule or rules that explain the transformation from the supposed root to the word being explained. Even if you find it, unless you can come up with parallels or some other evidence that the word actually changed that way, it is still only speculation. WP does not accept editor etymologies. Refs are necessary. FYI, Knossos is substantiated through about 1400 BC in the Knossos tablets. As it is possibly hereditary from a non-Hellenic and unknown culture, no one of any note attempts to etymologize it. I understand your excitement, however, as I've spent some time doing it myself. You ultimately either have to get more professional or just get away from it.Dave (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Image problem

Hello, I am working on the project Wikipedia:Untagged Images and some of these images on this page have copyright problems, I notified the uploader, but it seems like that person may not be active on wikipedia. These higher quality images that usually get deleted, so I just wanted to notify someone on the article area. See the uploaders talk page User talk:Jetti for more information. - cohesion★talk 09:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Added

Information about the Palace and more about the architecture. Had to totally scrap some stuff about the palace that wasn't quite correct. Also added the correct original meaning of labyrinth. Verloren Hoop 13:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Throne Room

I'm changing throne room a little (not too much) because it presents a one-sided view of the room. Maybe it was primarily religious, maybe not. Nothing is settled.Dave 19:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Legend Section

Much of the 'Labyrinth' part of the 'Legend' section is either speculation or jumbled nonsense. Firstly, there is little to no evidence that the double-axe was used to prevent a place or object from being 'killed'. We only have evidence for the double axe being used as some kind of sanctifying element, as with the 'Horns of Consecration', for a site.

Second, on the etymology of the word labyrinth, this is rather jumbled. In the first sentence we read: Labyrinth comes from the word labrys... but then later: The etymology of the name is not known; it is probably not Greek.

The second sentence is correct. 'Labrys' is a Lydian word (see the Wiki for Labrys) not Minoan/Cretan or Greek, and the connection of labyrinth with labrys is ancient but mistaken. Somewhere in the ancient literature (I forget the reference) is recorded that the Minoan word for the double axe was 'wao'. Also in the Linear B archives, we read of a certain da-pu-ri-to-jo, probably transliterated 'dabyrinthoios' or 'labyrinthoios' (see the Wiki for Labyrinth). To connect 'labrys' and 'labyrinth' is misleading and widely known.

It's also wise to remember that Homer remembered the Labyrinth as a patterned plaza for dancing... 9again see the labyrinth wiki...

There is also virtually no archaeological evidence that human sacrifice took place within the site of Knossos itself and to include this statement on a general summary of Knossos is faintly ridiculous. The nearest site, to my memory, where evidence of Minoan human sacrifice is found is Anemospilia, a sanctuary on the slopes of Mt Yiouchtas about 10km away from Knossos...

Could someone more experienced than me at this Wiki lark work some of this into the text where relevant please? I'm not even sure if I've edited this Talk page correctly, and if I haven't, my aspologies firstfox (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Himeji Castle is, however, possible support for the maze theory. Fuficius Fango (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Original name

I think we need a reference for this one. Who says ku-nu-su refers to Knossos? Cyrus Gordon tags it as meaning "wheat" but that is more or less conjectural. Is there any text where ku-nu-su is used unequivocally in such a way that it must mean Knossos? Is there any theory by a published figure who suggests that? I have temporarily commented out the supposed Linear A text for Knossos. If you have the reference I think a footnote would be appropriate. Thanks.Dave 15:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't the actual name ko-no-so? Certainly that was one of the key places names within Linear B that led Michael Ventris to decipherment - pretty much the cornerstone of the decipherment. I think another was A-mi-ni-so for the port of Amnisos, about 3km north of Knossos. Linear A remains undeciphered with little or no agreement as to how to approach it. But if we're talking Linear B ko-no-so, then a good reference is 'The Decipherment of Linear B' by John Chadwick, or 'Documents in Mycenaean Greek' by Michael Ventris and John chadwick. firstfox (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In Linear B it is ko-no-so. No source given for ku-nu-su. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph (tone)

I have removed the Disneyland reference as it doesn't seem quite right stylewise - however visited Knossos is, it bears little resemblance to Disneyland in terms of what it represents. I think a bit more needs to be said about the reconstruction beyond the "imaginative" bit, but not quite sure what! JohnGray 20:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Having vistied it I'm not entirely sure it does differ from Disneyland that much! Maybe include something about the reconstruction being largely speculative and little basis in fact? --Philthemancunian 10:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Society section

On matriarchy: we have no direct evidence that Minoan Society was matriarchal. That said, the almost complete absence of imagery depicting male gods or male figures of authority might suggest this, but there isn't any direct evidence and so it should be stated so certainly... firstfox (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Discovery

Knossos was not discovered by Minos Kalokairinos. The discovery of the palace is credited to Arthur Evans. I have never heard of Minos Kalokairinos before reading this article. If i am mistaken then i am sorry but I'm almost 100% sure that Minos Kalokairinos did not discover or excavate the palace at Knossos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.209.95 (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Minos Kalokairinos was a native Cretan whose informal excavation was terminated by the Ottoman authorities. He has become something of a hero to Greek archaeologists resentful of foreign interpretation of their sites. See J. A. McGillivray's book about Evans 'Minotaur' (2000)

Also, Evans heard about the site from a seller of antiques, who sold him items from the site. It is hence clear that he did not discover it, but excaveted it! (2011) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.106.23.33 (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"Stacked Dildos"

The last sentence of "Legend" is "Also stacked dildos on their heads to praise the faith." Is this a joke/vandalism or is it legitimate. If so, an elaboration needs to be made, as it has confused myself and fellow Archaeology classmates. EarthBoundX5 19:27, 16 November 2009 (CST)

"Hamsters"

More vandalism, could someone in the know repair it and protect this article? edit: thanks to whoever reverted to a correct version!

You're welcome! In case you weren't aware, you can fix it yourself, the same way you edited this discussion page. To see an older version so you can undo the vandalism, just use the "view history" link. I'm having trouble with Wikipedia loading very slowly right now, but once it's working again, I would be happy to help you learn more about editing. Click the link to my "talk" page and leave a message there if you'd like to do that. -- Avocado (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

How is it that the site was in use upto 1400's bc but was "discovered" in the 1800's ad?

It is confusing and needs clarification. Was it buried under volcanic ejecta?

211.31.4.111 (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC) r33s2@hotmail.com

YES, according to all the written material I have seen, and the article bears no reflection of it. There is a also massive part of the world's less new age oriented Atlantis scholars who believes (including myself though I am not a scholar) that Crete WAS Atlantis and the Minoan eruption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_eruption was the disaster which hit same island who plato spoke of. I do not know for sure wether that is a coincidence, but I think not.

HenrikHansenDK1631 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.209.251.57 (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

NO, not any time recently. Not surprising at all. Many places in the US dating to the 17th, 18th and 19th century are lost. Man has such an exalted view of himself. He thinks he will be remembered after his death. He won't be. How many individual dinosaurs can man remember? No explanation needed. Only seems strange to you. Oblivion is not long ago and far away, it is right in front of you, but you choose not to see it. That needs no explanation either.Dave (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Ref 2: "many of the best-known frescoes from the throne room are almost complete inventions of the Gillérons"

This is just a thoughtless regurgitation of Geres dubious opinion. Similar is her comment re "sub- Barabara Hepworth sculpture known as the Horns of Consecration" cf http://gogreece.about.com/library/blsantoriniphoto-4.htm http://www.utexas.edu/courses/classicaldig/Crete/0208070609.jpg Also compare the Knossos paintings with undisputed santorini murals. Finally read this review from the American Journal of Archaeology: http://www.ajaonline.org/pdfs/book_reviews/114.2/10_Marinatos.pdf which ends with this comment: “On a positive note, Gere’s demonstration of how Greek/Cretan myths were perceived and used by thinkers and artists, and how they were appropriated by feminist and new age writers, makes a fine contribution to thehistory of ideas. But all of this has little to do with Evans.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.70.127.210 (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Knossos has been around for so long now that authors are straining at gnats to find something meaningful to say. Also, keep in mind they are trying to sell their books, a difficult job in these days when publishers are grinding out billions of meaningless books, the great part of which will not be either available or desired in 20 years. If you want to stock up on toilet paper, now is the time to do it. Typically the proceeds from your book and 1.75 will get you a cup of coffee. In my Internet researches so far I have seen several good biographies of Evans. They all want to play the game of taking one incident out of context and performing a complete psychiatric post-mortem on it. I have never seen anything quite as absurd (unless it is American politics) in my life. In this particular conceit apparently endorsed by an authoress who otherwise knows better, Arthur Evans, impressario, concocts a civilization out of a bunch of old ruins of unknown function, perhaps memorial, and hires some of the best experts in the field to help him put over this lie on the public for reasons of - what? Maybe to sell books and get rich like the authoress? But, he did not need the money ... and I must say it was a pretty darn expensive hoax. Maybe she means the trinckets they sell in the store. Too bad John Pendlebury had to get shot by the nazis as curator over this great hoax. In this type of environment the goals of people still trying make ends meet at the level of dollars and pennies are not to be attributed to the major players. Don't even give this suggestion a second thought (maybe it is too late for that). All Piet had to work from is little flakes of fallen plaster. He carefully assembled them and noted the types of borders and scenes. Thus if he found a flake representing a given border he restored the border from the flake. His restorations are undoubtedly the best that could have been obtained. The fragmentary nature of the antiquities was the most severe obstacle. His restorations are credible. They recapture what is obviously the aesthetic spirit. Of course most of the area on some of those frescoes is fill-in. That is the nature of restoration. Do you think, in gazing at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, you are observing the original painting? Better study some more art history.Dave (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The jokes

I appreciate a good joke myself but it is sort of unfair to inflict a joke article on a reading population of potentially millions looking for information on Knossos so I think I will start taking a hand now trying to make it more serious. At the moment it is sort of like walking into the boys room at the local high school and trying to read the wall graffiti. That's not what the encyclopedia is about, or at least not what it should be about. There will be some rewriting involved. I was once once a boy myself but we need to put aside the boy talk now.Dave (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The destruction by explosion of Thera

"The city of Knossos remained important through the classical and Roman periods, but in 1450 BC the volcano Santorini, a hundred kilometres away, blew its top in one of the biggest eruptions in recorded history. A tidal wave swept over Knossos, which was then right on the Cretan Coast, and the death blow to the Minoans was compounded by a devastating fire, scorch marks from which can still be seen on alabaster and gypsum blocks throughout the ruins."

I removed this. Too little. Marinatos had a great theory there. Now, however, the micro-evidence points to a date somewhat earlier than 1450. You can strain it down to the middle of the 16th at absolute latest but that still gives you gap. That there was a terrible destruction carrying away most of the settlements, which were coastal, with their fleets and probably the majority of their population, is fairly certain. When is another matter. Whether it is represented by any of the destructions at Knossos is still another matter. Knossos is not on the shore, you know. It is up on a height away from the shore. It is possible the destruction opened the region to being overrun by Mycenaean Greeks. Whether the Minoans recovered, how long it took, how, are all open questions. Since this article is about mainly Knossos rather than the destiny and details of the civilization as a whole, I am removing it from here. Perhaps revised it could go under Minoan civilization. I would suggest some ideas from different people need to be presented. Right now it is unreferenced, although I am sure you could pull up something by Marinatos. It would not be current, however. Ciao.Dave (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

last I heard, dendrochronology put the eruption at 1628 BC, but some think they can get closer by a year or two. It seems to have taken a few centuries for life at Cnossos to disappear completely. Fuficius Fango (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

References tag

I removed this, as I am working on this now and it is pretty much in my face. I am cognizant of the former references problem. It had a lot of other problems also that no one has mentioned. You may see that I have made some progress here and will make more. There are specific tags on sentences.Dave (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Legends of Knossos

A lot of this is wrong, some is unclear, all is unrefed. I'm doing a heavy rewrite.Dave (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Split

It has been obvious to me for some time as I work on the various aspects of this article and this topic that the size of the topic far exceeds this single article we have given to it. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. This is a major site. It has undergone a LOT of history. It is the keynote site for a whole civilization, the Minoan, also for the Mycenaean. I've worked up to what I consider a reasonable size limit, and yet, I've scarcely touched the subject. In my opinion it is time for the split mentioned previously in the discussion. The material in the article covers three major aspects. First is the modern history of the site, which is extensive, probably more so than any other site in the Med. region, except of course for Marseilles, Rome, Athens and the like. Second is the description of the palace and its works of art. Third is the site history: Knossos in the Neolithic, Early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age, etc., etc. Arthur Evans wrote 4 massive volumes to cover those latter two topics, and he worked on them most of his life, and he lived a very long time. I do not propose we should attempt to duplicate that effort in any way. But, just to introduce those topics is a daunting task. Few other editors are on this subject for very long. However, "fools step in where angels fear to tread." What is Knossos? The public wants to know. I find I cannot even begin to summarize without more space. Therefore I am breaking out the first of these topics, which is well along, since everyone starts there. This will be, "Knossos (modern history)." I will do that shortly. I don't want to call it "site history" as that would comprise the ancient as well as the modern. I don't want to call it "Excavation history" because the topic is bigger than its actual excavation.Dave (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, you were wrong. If the FORKed page has more details than the excavation history, it shouldn't. What got created is a mess, with a single topic split needlessly over two pages and lots of duplication. This page should be an overview of everything and anything forked off should be essentially a longer subsection of this page, not a to-be-continued version of its history. — LlywelynII 15:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Validity of Evans' work

Questions concerning the validity of the restorations and the frescos have been with us since the the work was first done. Indeed, there were serious questions as to whether such work should be done. John Pendlebury, then a very young man, Arthur's personal choice for the man most suited to replace MacKenzie, who by then was non-functional and over-ready for retirement - he was significantly impaired and died in an institution - actually criticised Evans for his restorative efforts. He did not change his mind until he had been on the job for a year and saw first-hand what it took to preserve the ruins. He then joined Arthur in pointing out to the world that it was either restoration or nearly total loss. Pendlebury and Evans did not get along well. Arthur trusted him however and went home, leaving the site to Pendlebury, which says a lot for Pendlebury. Unfortunately the war took him away, and Arthur died in 1941.

What I am trying to do in this article is at very least to present the joint view of Arthur and John. You can't get away from Arthur Evans on this topic. I expected some tags but I wanted to see which statements would be tagged. My decision is NOT to get into the very extensive debate in this article, which has so very much to cover. If necessary there should be a distinct article on the debate. Consequently having pointed out the reasons for the debate and having made sure that Evans and Pendlebury's original philosophy was presented, I am withdrawing the questioned statements. They are not necessary. If I provide any of the requested references then we will be devoting space to the debate. That is my decision as to what is best.

Now, if you want something more, if you want to get into the debate, you will have to do it on your own. I will not do it for you. I've thought somewhat about this. YOU take responsibilty for YOUR edits. Do not try to badger me with them. I will not respond. Mark up the whole article as far as I am concerned. Delete it, revert it, whatever strikes your fancy for whatever reason. I presented my suggestions. Take it or leave it. If you make it impossible for me to work then it will stay just another Wikipedia dead end, unable to be brought up to any satisfactory quality, totally ignored by all. That is not MY responsibility. From now on you deal with the public and with James Wales and his representatives, not with me. But of course I will consider fixing any reasonable request. If it isn't reasonable I will not fix it. The problem will then be how to get ANY articles on Wikipedia that are untagged. I did not volunteer for that so it isn't my problem. Ciao.Dave (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As a random reader I feel compelled to give feedback regarding how confusing and long-winded this article is. I came to this talk page in hopes of gaining clarity on such sentences as "The palace is not exactly as it ever was, perhaps in places not even close, and yet in general, judging from the work put in and the care taken, as well as parallels with other palaces, it probably is a good general facsimile." After reading this talk page, I am even more confused. I appreciate the work and research that contributors have done and admit that I would do no better, but sentences such as I quoted above (and indeed talk page posts such as that posted above me) convey nothing useful to a general audience. 71.209.185.209 (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC) A Confused Learner

Botteville/Dave is a long-winded pedant/narcissist who babysits his incomprehensible "improvements"/additions to this article and others. Since your comment there has been no real improvement and there never will be - until he keels over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.123.194.114 (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Editing and Organizing

There are some good facts in this article but it needs a lot of work. 1) The introductory paragraphs get into too many specifics. 2) The history of the site and the neolithic beginnings should be dealt with first before going into the art and artifacts.

Also, I was at Knossos this summer and have some pamphlets from the ministry of culture and tourism that are worth citing as they are up to date and concise, but I'm not sure how I can (or if I should) reference a pamphlet. Any ideas?

Additionally, some of the sources cited in the this article are old, and I don't believe they follow our most recent information. AParks2012 (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I know it is way too late to respond to this but these are good comments. I will keep them in mimd.Botteville (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Not a World Heritage Site

The article seems to suggest Knossos is a UNESCO World Heritage site. This is not the case, as the site, as seen today, is mostly ferrocement. The site has been put forward many times, but one can only assume the status has been rejected due to Evan's highly imaginative 'restoration'. Whatever the reasons, the World Heritage connection should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MONDARIZ (talk • contribs) 14:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Knossos. 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/20070617084609/http://odysseus.culture.gr/h/3/eh351.jsp?obj_id=2369 to http://odysseus.culture.gr/h/3/eh351.jsp?obj_id=2369

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Article Evaluation: Knossos

1. Everything about the Knossos article is on topic and it does not appear to be missing anything important.

2. Everything stated is explained informatively. I did not catch any bias throughout the wikipedia page.

3. I would like to see that there is more of an explanation on who was controlling Knossos throughout the years.

4. All of the links that I clicked took me to the correct places. The sources backed up everything that was stated in the article.

5. Most facts are backed up by reliable sources. There was only one source that was from a .com site and that is the only one I am concerned with. Most of the sources are from reliable textbooks or ancient texts such as from Homer's lliad.

6. Nothing looks to be out of date. I think it would be helpful to include more information on who actually lived in the palace of Knossos. More citations could be added throughout the page.

7. There seems to be a lot of correcting being done because people that are not positively contributing to the article are making edits that they should not be making. It is mostly the people who are trying to improve the page trying to figure out whether to allow the new edits or not.

8. Knossos' page is rated as a start class. There are currently four WikiProjects taking place on Knossos.

9. I would say Wikipedia has gone more into depth about Knossos than we have in class. It also seems to have a variety of sources that we have not touched base with either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emaddux (talk • contribs) 22:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the eval. In reply I should say an encyclopedia article is supposed to go into more detail so that it can be used as a resource for class work. Also I'm sure you realize that most of what you are expected to learn in the course is not covered in class. If they are not making you do the homework then you are getting shorted. You note that there are four projects apparently on the topic. Only four? We need to improve that. For the people that are spending our time figuring out whether to allow new edits, well, forgive me but you are still at an unsophisticated level of experience. Who are they to be figuring out what edits to allow? If they knew enough about the topic to be able to know that, they would not be doing what they are doing. I would say, there are some people dedicated to making sure WP articles do not get very far very fast. Our word for that is vandal. Some vandals are more obvious, some less. However, there is no other way to face the challenge than to face it. Finally, this is not really a start article, now is it? It has all the elements of an article. Looking back here over the discussion I would say we need some experienced persons making an honest effort. I think we have pretty well had enough of phony evaluations by covert vandals. This article has been around for a long time. It is time to start getting somewhere.Botteville (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Hellenistic and Roman period

I added this to the Roman part of the text.

The colonial status of Knossos came nearly 40 years after the initial invasion of the entire island of Crete. It was at this time that the Romans completely changed the architectural landscape of Knossos to look and become more Roman.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Sweetman|first1=Rebecca J.|title=Roman Knossos: Discovering the City through the Evidence of Rescue Excavations|journal=The Annual of the British School at Athens|date=10 June 2011|volume=105|pages=339–379|doi=10.1017/S0068245400000459|accessdate=4 November 2017}}</ref> --Emaddux (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Knossos. 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/20111201050413/http://projectsx.dartmouth.edu/history/bronze_age/ to http://projectsx.dartmouth.edu/history/bronze_age

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Gap due to modern developments

The confusion leading to the tags comes from the fact that even while Wikipedia was writing about the palace new historical data was being investigated. I refer to the "Knossos Urban Landscape Project," a collaboration between the British School (which runs the site) and the Greek government. It began with a mapping of surface artifacts over a wide area around the palace. The results were something comparable to Troy. Schliemann only excavated the palace at Troy. The main city around it remained undiscovered until recent times. The survey, conducted 2005-2007, discovered a city around Knossos also. The website calls it "the first state in Europe." Hundreds of thousands of artifacts were found. These are in the process of being studied now. Evans was unaware of the city, and so was Pendlebury. So, our view is somewhat outdated. We want to talk about the palace discovered by Evans. We need now to talk about the city-state around and including the palace. And the beat goes on, etc. Sources might be a problem at this early stage. For example, the area of Knossos is larger and more variable that what we state, etc. So, that is what needs to start being done, I think.Botteville (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I've decided to do some work on the Minoan articles, which I last worked on about ten years ago. The field has changed significantly. I intend to start with the intro, which is too scanty and does not represent the information in the article. For one thing, the extent of the site is not portrayed correctly. Evans excavated on Cephala. That was only part of the city, which sprawled beyond Cephala and varied in size. We're not making clear that the dimensions given are only the size of the government reservation, so to speak. In fact we ought to be stating up front who owns and manages the site and that following Evans they have "restored" it as some say in steel and concrete. Also, we've been portraying the site as a bronze age site. It is just as much Neolithic as it is BA. Furthermore, the city was never abandoned. There is an long Iron Age continuity as well. And finally, there is not one word about the cultural significance, about the unknown character of the earlier peoples, the undeciphered script, and the takeover by the Greeks, first Mycenaean and then Dorian. In short we are pretty much shorting the public of the major part of what there is to know. I will be doing the research to get the best references, maybe what is there, maybe not. Except in the case of well-known ancient authers I use only templates for the citations and will alter any refs not properly templated. I plan to use cite web if that is the best or only source. I certainly will consider your comments and revisions. I always select what seems to be the best alternatives. I will not tolerate outright reversion of my contributions without very good reasons and I will not tolerate any reversion without a reason. Back up your reasons with references to the policy. However I am sure we can work out most disagreements if you are trying to work them out. If you have a preference for an alternative phraseology unless it is wrong I usually accept it. Let's get a valid and worthy aricle here. Oh, I mean to say, whatever comments I made several or ten years ago applied to the article as it was then. I can't even remember that. For the most part this is going to be a new article. Ciao. Botteville (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

ISSUES: the videos

Pinkbeast has reverted my creating a separate section for the videos and has restored the tags at the top of the section. Very well. Thank you for your concern, pinkbeast, but this leaves us hanging, does it not? You say there is a problem with this section but you offer no solution and you reject the one I suggest. I don't mind being rejected but I am looking for an ANSWER to this problem. Fair enough? I am opening this dialogue so that we may FIND one and not leave the issue hanging forever. You are a positive force, you know, and can propose changes yourself. If you do not wish to participate in this dialogue I will just re-revert to my solution.

ISSUE 1. Should videos be allowed on Wikipedia? (Public please participate). Botteville: Yes if they are encyclopedic. Wikipedia has a template, "cite video." Why would they have that if videos per se are not allowed?

ISSUE 2. Are these videos appropriate to the article? Botteville: Yes. They contain excellent illustrations of the objects covered in the article. They are an invaluable contribution to the article.

ISSUE 3. Where are the videos to be specified? Must they necessarily be in the external links? Botteville. There is a contradiction here. The tag calls for redistribution of the links to the text. If these links are not allowed in the text, how can they be redistributed? Of course links can be placed in the text. They are OFTEN used for reference material.

Please do contribute your opinions and suggestions. If we decide to keep these videos, then clearly the tags have to come off, as they need to go somewhere. My suggestion is to keep them and place them in a separate section. I'm certainly open to any reasonable suggestion. I am not open to NO suggestion and will revert to my solution.Botteville (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Issue 3 is simple. If external links appear, they appear in the external links section. This is Wikipedia policy. Please do not revert to a situation that does not respect this policy. There are a few exceptions (eg an organisation's Website appears in the infobox) which do not apply. They cannot be used in the body of the article as reference material because they don't really serve to support the material in the article.

Youtube links are not in general felt to be suitable in any event, given that they are not necessarily published by authorities on any given subject.

Are these videos appropriate? Probably not. The article has very many external links and that is not normal procedure. (They are also all incorrectly put in cite templates).

The tag itself links to the relevant policy sections which will help to assist an editor who does trim the links to decide which ones to remove.

However, there are clearly too many external links at the moment ("Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum") and so if the tag is to go, many of them would need to be removed. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I question that. What is an external links and where does it say it has to be in an external links section? Chapter and verse please.Botteville (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh really? Where does it define the exceptions and on what basis are they excepted, as well as from what are they excepted? Chapter and verse.

I assume you mean the videos, as the other sites are all often used as references in this topic. Is that what you meaan?Botteville (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

That is the non-encyclopedic argument. There is also an uncertain copyright argument (just to be fair). If you can find any help section covering it I would appreciate that. Frankly the videos seem encyclopedic to me. They are one step up from photographs of the site. However, I'm open on the topic.Botteville (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't see how you can say that. Templates are not only correct they are the expected method of specification. Explain please.Botteville (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I have already cut down on the size of the section. I feel it is fine. If we have a separate section for the videos it will be even shorter.Botteville (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Felt by whom? Policy ref please. What has "not necessarily published by authorities" mean? What if they are published by authorities?

No it does not, unless you mean the entire help section. Specifications, please.Botteville (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

An external link is a link to another website. The tag itself links to relevant policy pages. Please review those before going further.

Cite templates are correctly used for cites. These aren't cites, so the template is not correctly used.

If we have a separate section for the videos it will not make the section shorter in any useful way; the tag would remain since the article would have just as inappropriate a number of external links but also place some of them in an inappropriate section. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)::::

No, that is entirely unsatisfactory. Every link of any kind goes to another website if not WP. But, the help distinguishes between links used in references and links used in the external links section. The same link can appear either place. What will happen to those non-video links I cannot say at this point. We will probably end up considering the merits of each one, but that is down the road yet. They are OK as is for now.

The number of external links is NOT inappropriate. The help gives no limit specific or general. It only says to keep to a minimum and points out that an external links section is not necessary. I ask you for help sections - quote if you have to - and you give me more of your personal opinions. On what basis do you define such a section as "inappropriate?" Your insistence on the inappropriateness of things without help references is inappropriate. What do you mean "in any useful way?"Botteville (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Not so. They are recommended for any specification of another work or external site. They are correctly used. The word "cite" is only a programming convention, not a Wikipedia language definition. You can use those templates under any circumstances. Please review the list of templates that begin with "cite"Botteville (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with Pinkbeast about the external links, although I admit I'm not completely familiar with the policy. I don't believe external links add value because they tend to lead the reader to sites which provide trivial, misleading or uninformed data that they can do without. That is the nature of the internet, unfortunately. If a website does have something worthwhile to say about the subject that is not evident in a book source, it should be in the article and sourced as such. External links certainly do not carry the same weight as additional reading book sources. I'm not convinced that YouTube has anything worthwhile to offer. I firmly believe that an article like this must be fully referenced by credible written sources which must be books or articles authored by acknowledged subject matter experts. Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we have to distinguish between videos and the other links. If you are saying, we should have NO external links, that is not according to policy, which allows links. Our links are to some of the major educational sites in the field. If you are saying, we should not have videos, well, that is the topic under consideration.Botteville (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Issue revisit

Thanks for your replies. I was holding my breath for a minute. I should probably put your minds to rest. Now that this is a public issue in discussion I cannot revert anything without our reaching a consensus. I will reply to each of your comments individually. Pinkbeast, I don't understand many of your definitions. Also you are making some statements that seem wrong without reference to the policy. If you could be more specific - chapter and verse - I would appreciate it. I can state that overall the messages seem contradictory. On the one hand they encourage us to work the links into the text as references. On the other you are stating that they must be in the link section! Do you see what I mean?

Meanwhile I do not anticipate a resolution soon. We need to hear the public on this. I regard the article as important so it is worth waiting for. But, there is a larger task ahead of us I fear. I am refering to the ground survey of 2005-2008. The data has totally changed the outlook on Knossos and many of the concepts previously defined are being redefined by agencies who clearly have the power of redefinition: the British School and the Greek government. The two of them manage the site conjointly and the British School inherited all Evans' material. I am going to be concentrating of this rewrite while keeping this discussion going. I hypothesize a resolution at the end of the rewrite, when most of the sources and notes will have changed. But, you have picked up my gauntlet so I have to follow the rules of the challenge. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Links should be worked into the text as references when they actually can serve as useful references to support material in the article, and when they appear to be from reliable sources. That does not appear to be the case here. Pinkbeast (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

After re-reading the links help and looking at your comments again, I have some general perceptions. First, I think a large part of this discussion is semantics. I don't know what you may have meant by insisting that external links belong in the external links section. Second, your definition of external link is way off. Many kind of references refer to external sites. Moreover, the links help declares that nothing it says applies to citations in references. You can link to wherever it is you think you are justified in linking. Also I note for its definition of an external link in a text the help seems to refer to the older practice of \[\[url\]\]. I used to use those when WP was small but I don't see them very often now. In short nothing we say here has any impact on regular notes and citations. And your statement above seems to agree with that.

Exactly what then are we arguing about? On the bottom line it is going to come down to specific items: Item A is sat or unsat for reason x, Item B is sat or unsat for reason y, etc. I'm not in a position to do items yet. OK I agree the references are generally unsat right now. The article is old, out of date, and needs rewriting. When that is done I will take the tags off the top. If you want to keep them you will have to find items that are unsat. But, who knows what will happen; anything can happen. Maybe someone else will take an interest. Meanwhile you may wish to check the refs I put in or reformat. You suggest that many of the links belong in the references. That may be so, I got no idea at the moment. Later.Botteville (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Another revisit

The discussion appears to be getting confused. Some of us are mixing up the answers and not keeping it straight. Let me summarize. Pinkbeast likes the term "inappropriate." He feels the number of links is inappropriate. He feels the presence of youtube videos is inappropriate. The only ref to the help section he can offer is that external links are to be kept to a minimum. Is that fair, pinkbeast?

My perception is that your standard of appropriateness is totally unclear. Here are a few examples: "external links belong in the external links section." "Cite templates are only for citations." Are you jesting with us? So far I have not seen any justification for the tags at the top of the external links section. I do not think they were placed by you. I remember them from earlier. At that time there were a lot more links. I don't think your arbitrary opinion can pass for WP policy. I think at this moment we can benefit from some of those links, but I am not sure how many I will have to use as references. So, I am not making an issue right now. For the Youtubes, well, I need more information. If you can't give it to me I will have to look for myself. So, I am putting it on the shelf until I can research this. I think we have defined the issues. Now we have to test the waters.

Well I have an impending rewrite on this so I am passing over this issue for now. Things might look different after the rewrite. I think you were concerned about the use of a link in the box. You felt it is an exception to something or other, what, you can't use cite web in a note? You can too. Anyway that note will have to be rewritten, not because it is a link, but because the habitation site, Knossos, does not have fixed dimensions. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not remotely fair. I suggest you review all the policy linked from the tag, which plainly you have not if you think it's my "arbitary opinion", or if you are protesting that references have links in as well. However, "external links should be kept to a minimum" is sufficient; plainly, that has not been done here, and that justifies the use of the tag - which was placed originally by someone else, but replaced by me.

Cite templates are intended for citations, yes. Your contention that the word is "just a programming language convention" is unsustainable. Template:Cite_book, for example, begins "This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for books".

I had hoped you would be willing to trim the set yourself, since I think you are better equipped to determine which are most important. Failing that I intend to ping a relevant WikiProject in the hope that someone knowledgeable in the subject area will come and attend to it. Pinkbeast (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your honesty, pinkbeast. I regard it as a mark of respect for me and for WP. It is plain now that at this point we cannot agree. You have a right to your opinion just as I have a right to mine. Even though it seems to me you have proved nothing and don't understand the policy, nevertheless I cannot deny that your opinion as to what should be there is itself a valid input. If you or anyone thinks there should be fewer external links that must be considered. As for your hopes that I would be willing to trim the set, well, I never said I would not. I got no objection to doing it just because that is what you would prefer. Why didn't you say that? Well never mind, but I do think we need some help on this. I would say, if you have some trick up your sleeve to interest ANYONE to giving their interpretation and input, certainly, that is a great resource. We have actually been starving for inout. I often start at the end of an article but in this case I see that might not have been best. The article needs a rewrite. I will keep those links in mind. I want to get on now to the rewrite, so why don't you go on with your discovery of WP policy, enlisting any help you can get, and I will get on with the rewrite, but also I want to check the current thinking on Youtube. By the time I reach the end of the article we will hopefully have some help and some answers. Ciao. PS I'm going inactive on this in favor of the rewrite so it may be a while before I look at this again. Anyone can always get my attention with a message on my talk page.Botteville (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it is absurd to say I don't understand the policy when plainly only one of us has actually even read it. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Received message, understood. You're baiting me, pinkbeast. I'm not going for it. I think we are getting off the track. This is not about you or me, but is about the article. Typically I start at the back of an article, which is how we managed to collide over the links and videos. I need really to start at the top. I see on the Internet there are well over 100 videos available. And sites that present some view of the topic, there are a lot of those. I may well end up agreeing with you on this. We can't put all those in or rely on them either. Wikimedia is pretty much a fixed graphic resource. But, I cannot make any recommendations until I finish the rewrite. So, I think it best to defer this dicussion. Do what you like with it, at least for now. CiaoBotteville (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The rewrite, the rewrite

I've been looking at this pretty carefully. Since I worked on it in a major way, it has become, so to speak, an overgrown field. The organization is one of the worst faults. It keeps skipping around from topic to topic sometimes in mid-paragraph. Much of my original writing has been spiced by inane and non-encyclopedic remarks without references. So, it is a big job now. It might even be easier to delete it and start over. However, we don't do that. I will have to fix it topic by topic starting from the top. I beg your indulgance. At this point in my WP career (such as it is) I am taking on hard articles that no one seems to be able to fix or know what to do with, but only a little at a time.Botteville (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Here it is October. I'm on another series of articles, which I was doing before we got involved with pinkbeast. The problem is, this Knossos article is likely to be a major undertaking and I'm already on a major undertaking. There is a certain saving in labor to staying on one thread. I'm loth to jump into this thread until I'm done with the other. I'm not really an egotist, but I notice no one is working on this or has worked on it who knows very much about it, except me. The Knossos afficionados are avoiding it. This is sort of like chess, you never play against lesser skilled players because they will dull your edge. You don't want to waste your time. I recommend someone else who knows something of the topic take an interest. I don't know when I will be back. Just as a basic gauge, if you don't think Evans was a major archaeologist who established a still valid framework of a civilization, don't even bother. I may be back, don't know when.Botteville (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

One hopes never. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.122.29 (talk) 04:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Minoan name of Knossos

I saw that an edit of mine was undone, twice. I tried to add the name a source. The source indicated that KU-NI-SU, doubtedly, meant "Knossos". But it was put as a possible translation, with a question mark. If you search "Linear A#Theories regarding language", the source is mentioned at the entry. Thus, it is a reliable source and the name can be written, as well, with a question mark, next to it.

http://www.people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/#10c. Here, is the source, for anyone wanting to check it out. 89.210.41.248 (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, "I agree with the removal by user:IdreamofJeanie Per the source the proposed correlation is very doubtful. We don't need to include it, even with your question mark." Meters (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The source says that the link is "very doubtful". The best you can say is that Knossos was "probably not" known as Ku-Ni-Su. We don't need to add things that are "probably not" true. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

"Very doubtful" correlation means that it does not merit inclusion. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

82.78.123.145 has been re-adding this to the lede so I wanted to point them to this older discussion. But in addition to the problems noted above, the Palaeolexicon link they're using as a source is broken and I wasn't able to find any mention of "ku-ni-su" anywhere on the site. (Maybe it's been updated since the user last checked it?) Given the significant doubt that the term refers to Knossos, I think it would be extremely misleading to include it in the lede, even with a question mark.

That's the bad news. The good news is that I'm actually open to mentioning this toponym in body of the article, if it is properly contextualized and properly sourced. Proper contextualization would mean explaining why scholars think it could refer to Knossos, and also why they are skeptical. Proper sourcing would mean recent-ish published articles that are detailed enough to support that level of discussion. Botterweg14 (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. We also don't say where "Knossos" comes from - presumably it was just the local name by the 19th century. Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Concur with the other commentators that this shouldn't be added given its lack of verifiability and the bad WP:TSI of asserting it without qualification; reverting the recent addition. Ifly6 (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Early Minoan and Pre Minoan Bronze Age

We move from the Neolithic period to the Minoan palatial period. The period from 3.200 BC up to 2.000 BC is forgotten. We should include "Early Bronze Age". Historyandsciencelearn (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)