Talk:Xoanon

message: This original article of this name described an Occult publishing house Xoanon Publishing. However 4 of the 5 links to this page were for the wooden statue of Greeky myth. I've moved the occult article to a more appropriate name, and have created a stub here for the Greek myth reference. Please expand!  Cje 08:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I'm worried about this picture. What in the text is it illustrating? It's clearly not an xoanon, is it even Greek? Twospoonfuls 18:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Cypriot, and therefore Cycladic in art historical terms (IIRC), which is usually thought of as Greek or something close. I believe it's here because it's the closest thing to a xoanon in the Commons; it's probably close to what they looked like even if it's a different material. I'm pretty sure that no acutal xoana survive. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but did they speak proto- or Mycenean-Greek? Or were they ethnically related to the Greeks? Don't ask me, I get all my information for wikipedia! Seriously though, this picture seems to have little or nothing to do with the subject, I really think it ought to be removed. Twospoonfuls 17:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you then an illustration of a xoanon to replace it with? And why not? Look at the illustration to see how much labor has gone into reproducing a xoanon in the soft stone. Why for you does a xoanon have to speak "proto-Greek"? On what basis are you assuming that among xoana conserved in classical Greek temples none pre-dated the arrival of the Greeks? Are concerns about Greekness or not-Greekness of modern Cyprus affecting your response to the image in some way? Do you understand that they are irrelevant? The illustration evokes a xoanon better than a Waterhouse painting evokes a nymph or a naiad. If the illustration is misleading in any way at all, why not discuss that in the article? --Wetman 18:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Cyprus in particular was a major cultural crossroads, and was influenced by Anatolian, Cretan, Levantine, Egyptian, and Aegean cultures. Certainly during LCIII (corresponding to LHIII on mainland Greece) there was a large influx of Mycenaean Greek settlers or refugees. So there were Greeks present on the island, yes. Whether or not this particular object was carved in imitation of wooden xoana I can't say since I have no other information about it, but it certainly resembles them as they were often described. It's very tempting to see a relationship between a cult object like this and the hermai of Classical times. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If my highly-colored and rather too pointed leading questions weren't thought-provoking, then they have failed. Perhaps the image juxtaposed with the text is too provocative also.  Some published text about xoana being rendered in more permanent stone would cure any ills. Shouldn't be hard to find some a propos remarks about xoana as prototypes of stone carvings. Cycladic? Any suggestions? --Wetman 07:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think one problem of putting the picture so prominently in the article is that people might think of it as being typical of what a xoanon looked like. But although no ancient xoana remain except if you also count chryselephantine sculpture for example, we can tell something from extant sculpture and found artefacts from related European cultures. Not all ancient xoana were plank figures, many must have been figurative, although probably initially heavily stylised. It also leaves the impression that aniconic or abstract cult images weren't employed in later times, but the metaphorical dokana, the conical agyieus and the stylised omphalos show otherwise.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

text: Or the stelae in southern Italy, which continue into the Roman era. Or look at the pictures here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: I've removed this: ‘Such an archaic image of wood of the Tauric goddess [Artemis] was stolen by Iphigeneia and Orestes in Iphigeneia in Tauris (line 1359).’
This play was written ca. 412 BC, in a 12 to 11'th century BC setting as imagined by people in the 8 to 7th century BC. We don't know much about the inhabitants of the Crimea in the 11 century BC and I think it's safe to assume that Euripides didn't either. The situation is further complicated by the fact that his Taurians seem to have very Greek cultural practices and rather modern ones at that. (As a mental anchor, the first mud-brick temples were built in the 9th century BC and only slowly developed into their classical form.) Now, before the 3rd century BC, the word xoanon didn't have any specialistic meaning yet, it just meant a carved god figure. It couldn't have meant ‘archaic’ or ‘ancient’ at the time after all. We don't really know anything about it, except that Euripides tells us it had eyes and was brought to Brauron. I imagine he intended it to be the xoanon there, which doesn't help us since it has been lost.
Therefore we cannot put it forward as an example of ‘an archaic image of wood’ because we don't know what it looked like nor what it was made of.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iphigeneia 

message: The pronounce proposed here is a modern one, used only in English; it is better to specificate it, and also clarify that the ancient pronounce of the Greek letter was "cs"
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Greek-alphabet#ref280772 Feidhelm (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronounce of xoanon