Talk:Dodona

Panorama

I added a panorama of the theater. There was already another photo of the theatre, but the photo I added is more clear, sharper, has a higher resolution and shows a lot more of the environment. Can we remove the old photo? I'm asking here because the added photo is my own work and I'd rather see that it's an objective decision. - Onno Zweers (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Illyrian dedications

It's obvious that dedications were brought to the oracle in that period and not found there as any either dedication Mycenaean, Thracian etc. so please stick to what the source says. This [1] edit is wrong because at that period there weren't processions, headpriests etc. The site wasn't yet used as an oracle in the context of Delphi but it was more of a shrine to mother earth and a thunder god and the only thing resembling an oracle in the context of Delphi was the sacred oak. The edit also implies that the archaeologists found that Illyrians sent dedications to the shrine, but the archaeologists found the real objects not evidence that someone had brought Illyrian objects, so please stick to what the source says to avoid such mistakes. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua again attributed to me the motive of trying to hide something while it is obvious that dedications of any civilization don't originate from the area of the Dodona itself.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

and why you are so obsessive on removing this explanation? At least the source says they were 'received' something that we have no reason to hide.Alexikoua (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not against the fact they sent pilgrims with dedications etc. The wording used is wrong because the oracle didn't receive any dedications because there wasn't a headpriest to accept these dedications. That happened only after 600 BC.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I completely disagree, a headpriest is completely irrelevant with this, and still the source says 'received' (and it seems right).Alexikoua (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This is yet another [2] example of source falsification by ZjarriRrethues. Get a load of the OR insertion of "Paleo-Balkan". I mean, where does this come from? What's next, "Dodona was an Illyrian shrine"? Athenean (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Athenean the source refers to the Illyrians and the Thracians who were the northern Paleo-Balkan tribes while the Greeks were the southern ones. At that period there weren't any Greek tribes using Dodona while after 650 BC they started using it. Athenean please don't insist like you did in Byllis, until eventually FutureP had to intervene to stop you.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"At the period there weren't any Greek tribes using Dodona". Nice bit of OR there. Guess you've never heard of the Mycenean artifacts found there. Athenean (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Mycenean artifacts aren't related to the shrine itself of that period. Athenean the source makes a comparison of importance between Illyrians-Thracians and southern tribes regarding the importance of the shrine to each people so please don't revert blindly without even reading the source.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I did read the source. Did you read the source about the Myceneans? Athenean (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

[3] It disrupted the flow? That was the beginning of the section and you moved it for the usual wp:idontlikeit reasons.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it did disrupt the flow. Don't you find it weird that your sentence should come before "Dodona is the oldest Hellenic shrine"? Just like your addition at Amphipolis disrupts the flow. Seems you are so eager to show that everything is Illyrian, that you just want to add it wherever it is most visible, article flow be damned. I'm actually surprised you didn't stick your "Illyrian" right into the lead this time. Athenean (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, if you had actually bothered to read Boardman, on p. 272 he clearly mentions that a Mycenean building was used as a shrine there. The history of Dodona is complex, and sources like Boardman are difficult to follow. You are dabbling in subjects you have clearly no idea about, using sources you cannot comprehend, for the sole purpose of telling the world that everything Greek, ancient or modern, is actually Illyrian/Albanian/non-Greek. Your recent edits show you are not interested in building articles, rather only to add POVish bits here and there. You have been doing this for a while now and it is rapidly becoming disruptive. Athenean (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Herodotus's text was of the 5th century while the events I added where of the 8-7th century so obviously I added them in the beginning of the section or is the chronological arrangement of events to be overriden over such issues?.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph presents a historical overview of the subject. Then historical details are mentioned in the second paragraph, beginning with the Mycenean finds. Duh. Athenean (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, in your haste to show how non-Greek Dodona is, you actually omitted the word "Dodona" in your addition. Fixed it for ya. Athenean (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

1840 source

A sentence is sourced by a 1840 source which is wrong. The rest of the history paragraph will be chronologically arranged: 2000-1000 BC, pre-650 importance for Illyrians and Thracians, after 650 for northern Greek tribes, after 500 for southern Greek tribes etc. For the last two I'll add sources since no one has added them.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I just noticed the french wiki article is a featured article, so I think I'm going to translate it and try to turn this one into a featured article. Athenean (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

So is the German wiki one so we could translate that one because its about 60k while the French one is just 29k.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

" Zeus displaced the Mother goddess in the Bronze Age and assimilated her as Aphrodite.<ref>{{harvnb|Hammond|1986|p=39}}.</ref> ."

Probably some editor has misread Hammond: Zeus did not "assimilate" Aphrodite in any sense, in the Bronze Age or later. Perhaps the meaning of "assimilate" was unclear to the editor. The former text was more accurate.--Wetman (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I see that Hammond states "p. 39. "...Greek gods too, especially Zeus the sky-god, were at home on Mt. Olympus and in Pieria, and the Zeus of Dodona derived his importance from the Bronze Age when he displaced a Mother Goddess and assimilated her as Aphrodite." Even Hammond nods. What could he have intended in saying that Zeus displaced a Mother Goddess and assimilated her as Aphrodite?--Wetman (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Any evidence originally focused on Dione?

I understand that the role of Dione ("she-Zeus") is usually underemphasized, but what's the rationale for her being the original sole occupant of the oracle? Bacchiad 06:22, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't the oldest oracle in Hellas precede the appearance of Zeus in Hellas? I think that changing Dione "the nameless consort "goddess"" --she is all three things-- to Dione "whose name is a feminine form of Zeus" is misleading, for she is a feminine form of "Zeus" only inasmuch as the name "Zeus" simply means "deity." "Dione" is the "dea" or "nameless goddess." The change gives the distinct impression that Zeus is primary at Dodona and Dione is just a feminine form of Zeus. Which isn't right, is it? Wetman 08:07, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Morphologically, "Dione" is a feminine form of "Zeus". We know that "Zeus" is primary (again, linguistically) because of the cognates Jupiter and Dyaus Pitar, Dievas, Tyr etc. Actually, it's even a feminine form of the patronymic or dimunutive in -iota-omega-nu (cf. Kronion for Zeus) "Zeus" -> "Dion" -> "Dione".

Linguistic questions aside, how do we know that Dodona was "originally an oracle of the Mother Goddess" called by Dione or any other name? I'm not saying it was always Zeus's, but how do we know who was there before? Are there perhaps votive deposits of Willendorf-type figurines? This would be good to know. Best, Bacchiad 09:58, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

According to the current version of the Britannica, "the earliest mention of Dodona is in the Iliad (xvi, 234), where its priests are called the Selloi (or Helloi) and are described as “of unwashen feet, sleeping on the ground.” The description suggests worshipers or servants of an earth goddess or of some chthonian power with whom they kept in continual contact, day and night". Also, please count in Pliny's evidence about the torches (Hist. nat. II, 228) and Cicero Div. I, 34, 76. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved down for comment, re-emphasis.

This question still hasn't been answered, let alone sourced. Given the conversation above, it seems that local nationalists seem to be camped out and I guess I shouldn't hold out too much hope of fixing this, but really we need some strong sourcing for this claim. All the literary sources I know of and all the sources currently cited by this article make it primarily a shrine of (some chthonic form of) Zeus from its inception. Is there any evidence from the inscriptions that (some form of) Dione was ever the primary diety or is that entire tangent a part of the 20th c. attempt at giving classical antiquity a long-lost matriarchal period? — LlywelynII 19:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

earliest worship

The question of the nature of the earliest worship at Dodona is somewhat disputed. Clearly Homer is the earliest source and he did not note any goddesses or priestesses. If someone wants to dispute this matter, please present sources. I found Strabo's analysis rather cogent, and I'll try to add something from him. Y-barton (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)