Jump to content

Talk:Ishtar Gate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

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): Racheal Rivera.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 August 2020 and 3 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nathananguyen. Peer reviewers: Lawrencekp.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

old talk

[edit]

I am curious to find where other pieces ended up. I found one mention that a lion went to a museum in Philadelphia. Rmhermen 21:06, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

I found that, besides Berlin, only Istanbul and Detroit got dragons. The University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropolgy may be the other U.S. one -there website is still under construction but they have a large Iraq collection. Rmhermen 21:58, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

What the hell do soldiers have to do with the Ishtar gate? I took the photo down because of its irrelevance.

definitely it is irrelevant, but some funny twat had to put it back, time to get rid of it again --Arsenio 18:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Babylon:

US forces were criticised for building a helipad on ancient Babylonian ruins following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, under the command of General James Conway of the First Marine Expeditionary Force. The vibrations from helicopter landings led a nearby Babylonian structure to collapse.[1]
US forces have occupied the site for some time and have caused damage to the archaeological record. In a report of the British Museum's Near East department, Dr. John Curtis describes how parts of the archaeological site were levelled to create a landing area for helicopters, and parking lots for heavy vehicles. Curtis wrote that the occupation forces
"caused substantial damage to the Ishtar Gate, one of the most famous monuments from antiquity [...] US military vehicles crushed 2,600-year-old brick pavements, archaeological fragments were scattered across the site, more than 12 trenches were driven into ancient deposits and military earth-moving projects contaminated the site for future generations of scientists [...] Add to all that the damage caused to nine of the moulded brick figures of dragons in the Ishtar Gate by people trying to remove the bricks from the wall."
The head of the Iraqi State Board for Heritage and Antiquities, Donny George, said that the "mess will take decades to sort out". Colonel Coleman issued an apology for the damage done by his troops in April 2006, however at the same time arguing that they were protecting the site from looters.

Do we want to include anything on this in Ishtar Gate? - 201.51.231.141 02:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should put this part about amrican troops base in the article Dr B2 (talk) 09:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian?

[edit]

Why is the name being written in Assyrian Neo-Aramaic only? If the gate was constructed in 575 BCE, then wasn't the Late Babylonian stage of the Akkadian language (lišānum akkadītum), written in cuneiform script instead of in the Syriac alphabet, still being spoken? Both languages are commonly called "Assyrian", but if we're saying Nebuchadnezzar II built the gate then can we be sure Aramaic had fully taken over Akkadian in only 25 years since the Chaldean invasion? ----Rcgy 20:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Babylonians also spoke Aramaic at the time. Babylonians and Assyrians were the same people anyway, so what's the problem? — EliasAlucard|Talk 09:36 04 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
Is the writer certain that there is an aleph after the ayyin in the Estrangelo writing of Ishtar ? It looks odd to me, but I'm not an expert. Pamour (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walls of Babylon

[edit]

The Ishtar Gate was NOT one of the Seven Wonders. Its just a part of the Walls of Babylon, which were one of the Seven Wonders. Read the german version about the Walls of Babylon (Stadtmauern von Babylon). You can find much more informations about this topic. Maybe someone can translate it into English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.4.124 (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Observation:

[edit]

The excellent image has allowed me to notice something upon which I have never before seen comments. The "dragon" has the hind legs of a raptor, the forelegs of a feline, the head and hide of a reptile, and a tufted tail like a lion. It also appears to be "snorting out the breath of the terrible flame of bright fire" as its forked serpent tongue flicks. It would seem that the beast is less a 'dragon' and more a 'chimera,' in accord with the Homeric description.131.81.200.158 (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon and Chimera are hardly set terms that describe specific animals. Composite beasts are a common motif among ancient cultures and we often label them with the term Dragon.

ishtar gate

[edit]

the ishtar gate is a place where you make a wish and it comes true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.229.139 (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Needs More Info

[edit]

Considering the age and significance of the Ishtar Gate, this article is surprisingly lacking in info. In fact, it's mostly about where the surviving pieces are today. The article needs more info on the role the gate played in ancient babylon and its significance in the ancient world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the original gate? Kevink707 (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lapislazuli

[edit]

There seems to be a misunderstanding, whereas the color is similar to lapislazuli, the gate of course isn't made from actual lapislazuli but from glazed bricks. Or do I miss some information? --Pjacobi (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The Met

[edit]

The article says The Met has a lion, but I was there this month, and it has a dragon. The sign next to it says "One of these dragons is on long-term loan to The Metropolitan Museum of Art from the Vorderasiatishches Museum, Berlin." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.180.200 (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Babylonian Lion in RI

[edit]

FYI, I am currently a docent at the RISD museum and we have a Babyonian Lion. I ended up here because I wanted to Know how the lions were made. My theory is that the lion was modeled in clay then cut into a type of brick size grid. From there each brick was made into a mold so one would have a paw brick mold, a knee brick mold and so on and so forth. They would then cast all these bricks and put them back together like a puzzle, after each brick had been fired, glazed,etc. I am not an expert. I just happen to have a sculpture background and know 68.230.153.127 (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)something about casting bronze.68.230.153.127 (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Angela Kane[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ishtar Gate. 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:

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) 05:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

enamelled and glazed redundancy

[edit]

in the History section you talk about "enamelled yellow and black glazed bricks" this is a redundant statement. glaze and enamel are the same thin at there base level. Glaze is usually collection of minerals and glass that water is added to, where enamel is just those same materials without water both are melted at high temperatures to create a colored glassy or mat finish. you should just use enamel or glaze when describing the colors of a brick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiprojectgroup2 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for further information 11/28/17

[edit]

This page has a lot of strengths. The section on "Design," the gallery, and the inclusion of the inscription are great. One area that could use more information is the "History" section. I noticed that a considerable portion of it is formal description that might be moved to "Design." It might also be helpful to add more citations under the "Excavation" section.

SarahMRedman (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Sarah Redman[reply]

I agree with the statements above, but I also think that the order of sections could be worked on. For me, the sections on "Design" and the "Processional Way" should be ordered before the "Excavation" section just in terms of timeline as they have to do with the Ishtar Gate in antiquity versus the modern era. In terms of citations, it seems there are a lot of comments that more are needed in general, but I would also encourage adding more information about the inscription other than just the translation of the cuneiform text. How does this inscription compare to other Akkadian texts? Was inscribing a structure like this a new phenomenon or is it a detail that builds upon Near Eastern tradition? Asnders (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions 11/28/17

[edit]

Everything's looking really well. Could you perhaps stick in a side panel, under your first image, full of easy access to information about the gate as well? - wingerterka —Preceding undated comment added 23:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite your sources.

[edit]

Hello! I was really confused at first when a plethora of new accounts suddenly started editing this page, all within a short time frame of each other. At first I thought that it was one person trying to work on the article, but who did not know how to log in and just kept creating new accounts every time he or she wanted to make an edit. Now I see that there is apparently an art history class working here. I wanted to say that I really appreciate all the work you are putting in, but please remember that all content must be cited to a reliable source for verifiability. Any content that is not cited could qualify as original research, which is strictly forbidden here on Wikipedia. Some of the material you have added (which seems to be useful, relevant, and accurate) is uncited, or at least appears to be. Please provide sources for this information so that it can be kept; otherwise, it will eventually have to be removed. Citations should be placed in proximity to the text they are supporting, so that it is easy for the reader to see where the information in that passage comes from. This means that every paragraph needs at least one citation, even if those citations are used elsewhere. It can feel redundant, but otherwise it can be nearly impossible to tell which sources are supporting which statements. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions 11/28/2017

[edit]

Overall it looks great. You guys did a great job adding a lot of needed information on this incredibly important monument. There are a few places that need citations, particularly in the later sections. I'm especially interested to know about the connection between lions and Ishtar. Is there a myth (or several) where the link is explained? Do any we have any written accounts about the importance of the imagery in religion? If so, it would be great to include them! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmxn (talk • contribs) 01:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have quite a few sources about Inanna/Ishtar's associations with lions. I recommend reading the passages I wrote at Inanna#Iconography and Ishtar#Iconography, the former of which probably contains more relevant information on the subject. Some good sources that discuss Inanna's associations with lions that I have been using in other articles include the following (I have provided page numbers for your convenience):
  • Black, Jeremy; Green, Anthony (1992), Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary, The British Museum Press, pp. 118–119, ISBN 0-7141-1705-6 {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Collins, Paul (1994), "The Sumerian Goddess Inanna (3400-2200 BC)", Papers of from the Institute of Archaeology, vol. 5, UCL, pp. 113–114 {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Citations

[edit]

Looking back at the history of this page, it has shown great improvement. The information that was added seems relevant and rather useful but as mentioned above, there are a few areas that could use a little more citations, for example the "Ishtar Gate and Processional Way" section. Overall, the page looks great! SergioFer (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions—11/28/17

[edit]

Sections 2,3,4,and 5 seem to have been added recently. All well done. The pictures are exquisite, and the text is rich with valuable information that gives life to what was otherwise a short page that didn't do the Ishtar Gate justice. That being said, more citations need to be made, lest these sections be removed by someone other observer. Dvchicago (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Dvchicago[reply]

Suggestions

[edit]

I think you guys have made some really great additions to this page - I think the images you've incorporated are very helpful. I think citing more sources to back up your information would make your edits a little bit stronger but overall I think you've added a lot of useful description to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye1797 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ishtar Gate. 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:

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) 20:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additions of Repatriation as well as Controversy surrounding Excavation

[edit]

This article has become more fleshed out since I have been viewing it, however there seems to be a glaring lack of information on the repatriation of the gate and its history. When the gate was excavated, it was airlifted out of its original site and taken directly to a museum in Berlin where it currently resides. As of 2002, Iraq had been petitioning the German government in order for the return of the gate. Currently looking for viable sources on this. November10th 2020


Comparing the German (original?) article with the English one.

[edit]

I have the strong feeling that the English article about the gate is less clear than the German one, in that it almost immediately has a line "It [the gate] was part of a grand walled processional way leading into the city." That led several contributors to organizing the processional way category (in commons) as being part of the gate one. In the German article the two are treated as separate. In particular in describing the way the two were reconstructed in Berlin (“So konnte schließlich mit dem Aufbau des Ischtartores und eines Teils der Prozessionsstraße im Südflügel des Pergamonmuseums begonnen werden, um sie 1930 der Öffentlichkeit erstmals zugänglich zu machen.“) the distinction is clear.

In the English article, under “History” it reads “Through the gate ran the Processional Way, which was lined with walls showing about 120 lions, bulls, dragons, and flowers on yellow and black glazed bricks, symbolizing the goddess Ishtar. The gate itself depicted only gods and goddesses. These included Ishtar, Adad, and Marduk.


Comparing this to the German article, which seems to be the original one, only lions symbolize Ishtar, not the menagerie and its flowers. It states wild bulls symbolize weather god Adad. And that the dragons symbolize Marduk. Looking at the reconstructed gate one can see these animals. The line “The gate itself depicted only gods and goddesses” with its silly “only” suggests on its service one would see gods in more human guises, but that is not the case. The next line suggests these three are only some of more gods and goddesses depicted, that again is wrong, at least in the reconstruction. I would edit the text is it were not for the fact I do not have any original sources, and do not know if the German article can be trusted 100%. It might be nice if a specialist took a look at the English text, though.Dosseman (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ishtar_Gate&oldid=1194098297"