Talk:Roman funerary practices

message: No citations, no bibliography, poor organization, no introduction. Smith's "Funus" (external link) contradicts at least some of the information here. For instance: the coin for Charon is said here to have been placed on the eyes, and the article implies that Vergil says this. He does not, nor do any other Greek or Roman sources I know of, which consistently place the coin in the mouth. (This false assertion is repeated in other Wikipedia articles, always without a citation.) This subject is very interesting, and I hope someone rewrites the article from scratch. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple issues

message: Aha. I plan to re-write the topic on a user-page, then redirect to a finished article titled "Funereal practices in ancient Rome". The rewriting will take me an age (everything does), will cover a broad range of practices and is likely to be an ugly business best done under cover. In the meantime I'll leave this one alone. Any interests, objections or suggestions? Haploidavey (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Or maybe not, as this is now taking shape and I've not even started the other. I just had a skim-through of relevant pages in a long-forgotten gift of yore, namely Salway's History of Roman Britain, OUP, 1993, pp 493 - 497 - but not footnoted, alas. Anything further to be found on pipe-cremation burials? Those with a feeder-tube for regular libations? One was found at Caerleon, "an example of a Mediterranean practice rare in the northern part of the empire...". There's also a very touching mention of pipeclay figurines (two at least; one is a ram, the other a Rhineland mother-goddess) to accompany the coffin-burial of a "hopelessly hydrocephalous" child, less than a year old at death, in Arrington, Cambridgshire, (happily, jstor has the report). Those seem lovely examples of care for the dead. Particularly the last. Haploidavey (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, those are amazing examples. I hope nothing of what I'm doing precludes the contributions you wish to make. I didn't realize your "Cultish" page was on funeral stuff; sorry, I didn't even look at the talk page before I jumped in. I just needed to have some kind of outline here, because I need to link to a couple of sections. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And sorry too if my current affection for simplemindedness is a downer. I'm just in a mood of thinking that a number of WP articles are being dragged into unreadability by an accumulation of too much interpretation instead of presentation. And it's the interpretation that gets editors in endless quarrels. (I just read Infant baptism, which I think spends about half the article on minute theological arguments for and against the practice, as if WP editors just can't stand to describe something and leave it at that without shoving "this is how you have to think about this" down readers' throats. The connection to this article is tangential, but does touch on ancient beliefs on death and protecting the soul from nasties that might snatch it.) Cynwolfe (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I'm happy to add to this. The reorganisation's strong. That "Cultish" page was simply an interim dump for material from this article (as was) and a couple of others (as in ashes, dust and sundry detritus). I'd completely forgotten about it until a few days back. "Simpleminded" descriptive text is GOOD. Let's say what they did, much less about what they might have done, and even less than that about why they might have done what they might have done if-we-but-knew-what-it-all-meant. Drowning/suffocation/utter bafflement of the reader should not be on the menu. I'll dare present a half-arsed rationale on your talk-page, some time over the next hour or two. It might or might not be titled "Springes to catch woodcocks". Aka when not to argue the toss on obscurities, and possible reasons my editing's been slow and hesitant of late). Haploidavey (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A partial preview here of Jocelyn Toynbee's overview, Death and Burial in the Roman World, originally Cornell UP, 1971 (repub. as paperback, Johns Hopkins, 1996). The Caerleon pipe cremation's very interesting. The "urn" and feeder-pipe are made of lead. Interesting pic here, showing the pipe at a genteel and considerate angle. No unseemly splashing, minimal disturbance I guess. Similar outline examples (not illustrated) from Italy (stone vessel, lead pipe) and Sicily (terracotta vessel and pipe, with removable stone stopper), see pp 51 - 52. Haploidavey (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I considered whether your proposed rename would be better, and it probably would be, but having looked over the number of links to this page that would need correcting, I'm too lazy to do it. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Project suggestion

message: Please edit and improve the article.It also lacks a bit creativity.Bishal Baishya 12:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement required 

message: Currently we have, speaking of the transition from inhumation to cremation, "Bodel (2008) places the main transition as the 1st to 2nd century AD." This is startling, not least because Bodel's 2008 chapter is ""From Columbaria to Catacombs", the opposite shift. , was this maybe a typo or misplaced? NebY (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to admit that I find the whole transition business confusing, as Toynbee places it about 3 centuries before that. Haploidavey (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Oh, duh. Can't believe I made such a fundamental cock-up. Total brain-fart and I'm not surprised at your startlement. Haploidavey (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries - it's amazing how much you've improved the article this year. I've taken the liberty of moving your revised sentence and sacrificing the mention of Hadrian (from Nock 1935?) as superseded by Bodel's greater detail. I hope that makes the sequence easier reading. NebY (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you may not believe this (I wouldn't if I were me) but we just had an edit conflict and I found that your re-shuffle was not exactly the same as mine, but rather better for losing Hadrian. It reads well. Bodel is an extraordinarily insightful, opinionated, productive and insistent scholar, amazingly useful. Thanks so much for the support and appreciation, NebY, it does get a little lonely out here sometimes! Haploidavey (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never come across Bodel before, but then there's so much scholarship I know nothing of. I only dropped in to check my impression of transition dates and their consequences for analysis of remains, but now I'll look forward reading the whole article – though I doubt I'll be lucky enough to find anything else I can contribute. :) NebY (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bodel on transition