This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Microstates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of European Microstates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European MicrostatesWikipedia:WikiProject European MicrostatesTemplate:WikiProject European MicrostatesEuropean Microstates
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cemeteries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cemeteries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CemeteriesWikipedia:WikiProject CemeteriesTemplate:WikiProject CemeteriesCemeteries
It would be nice if the article had some form of explination for why it is called the Tomb of the Julii. Is there a label/marking the tomb as being of the Juli/Julian/etc family? discovered in July? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.55.121.8 (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for that? On Wikipedia we require sources for statements. I see you disagree with the current sources (understandable, since they are very old) and you say you have expertise in the field. In that case it should not be too difficult to find a more modern source supporting your views, right?
All of the sources that I could use are in Italian and from my colleagues word. The problem is no one has published anything in English in quite a long time. The tomb is dated to the “Tardo” period which means low Roman Empire in Italian. Therefore, it cannot be invictus sol. 2.32.6.171 (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am telling you it’s the word of my colleagues. No one has written about this tomb in like 15 years. I know you realize it’s possible to not write a paper on everything right. 2.32.6.171 (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to keep changing it and eventually you will just forgot. Also if you can see the edit history it was changed to say Apollo like almost a year ago and no one cared. At this point I am actually going to publish a paper and cite myself. The point of Wikipedia is to have accurate information and this is impeding that. You are not an archeologist so why do you think you know better. 2.32.6.171 (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't keep changing it; the page is protected from editing. I have added it to my watchlist as well, so if you try to make unsourced changes after the protection expires, it will be protected again. Repeated attempts to make disruptive and/or unsourced edits may result in your IP being blocked.
If a paper, book or other reliable source does emerge, you are welcome to return to this discussion with it and it may be possible to add it.
The point of Wikipedia is to have accurate information and this is impeding that: the point of Wikipedia is to be verifiable and to cite reliable sources. Letting random users make edits because they say they are experts and their expert colleagues told them something would obviously not be tenable as a policy, even if in this individual case you happened to be correct. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, the overwhelming opinion sees the mausoleum as Christian. Some even see the vines covering the walls of the tomb as representative of Christ as the True Vine (John 15:1-17), rather than as the vines of Dionysus (e.g., Beckwith, Early Christian and Byzantine Art, p. 19). For Allen Brent, the charioteer is unmistakably Christ, who has been intentionally modelled on the sun god. Brent describes this type of Roman iconography as a desire to depict “a synthesis of imperial order and divine order,” rooted in the emperor Aurelian’s championing of the cult of Sol Invictus, who could also be identified with Apollo. For Brent, by synthesising Christ with the sun god, the later Christian owners of the tomb wished to tap into a Roman expression of cosmic order and portray their own saviour as firmly in control of this (Cyprian and Roman Carthage, p. 229-230). Petronia Iusta (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this seems sufficient to add mention of Apollo; I don't see overwhelming reason to delete the existing content though, since this source doesn't contradict it, just mentions multiple interpretations. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I have been trying to say is that the interpretation as sol invictus is wrong. Apollo is identified as Sol invictus in this case. If you won’t take out sol invictus at least put it could also be Apollo Petronia Iusta (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added in Brent's interpretation with reference to the book. At this point we do just have two sources which are variously describing it as Sol Invictus and Apollo, and absent compelling reason to distrust one interpretation we sort of have to include both. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brent describes this type of Roman iconography as a desire to depict “a synthesis of imperial order and divine order,” rooted in the emperor Aurelian’s championing of the cult of Sol Invictus, who could also be identified with Apollo. For Brent, by synthesising Christ with the sun god, the later Christian owners of the tomb wished to tap into a Roman expression of cosmic order and portray their own saviour as firmly in control of this (Cyprian and Roman Carthage, p. 229-230). 2.32.6.171 (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, the overwhelming opinion sees the mausoleum as Christian. Some even see the vines covering the walls of the tomb as representative of Christ as the True Vine (John 15:1-17), rather than as the vines of Dionysus (e.g., Beckwith, Early Christian and Byzantine Art, p. 19). For Allen Brent, the charioteer is unmistakably Christ, who has been intentionally modelled on the sun god. Brent describes this type of Roman iconography as a desire to depict “a synthesis of imperial order and divine order,” rooted in the emperor Aurelian’s championing of the cult of Sol Invictus, who could also be identified with Apollo. For Brent, by synthesising Christ with the sun god, the later Christian owners of the tomb wished to tap into a Roman expression of cosmic order and portray their own saviour as firmly in control of this (Cyprian and Roman Carthage, p. 229-230). Petronia Iusta (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --AntiDionysius (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
