Talk:Graffito (archaeology)

What exactly is Graffito? It was created by humanity, but is it writing? A specifc kind? Etc. --Awiseman 20:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The "Magic Square graffito"

When I created this 'article' Graffito (archaeology), it was for presenting the Magic Square:

It is printed as it was originally created:

Magic square graffito, Christian, Pompeii

The 79 CE destruction of the Italian city of Pompeii, left one of humanities greatest historical records, a complete city, preserved under the protective blanket of ash. Since the unearthing of Pompeii, starting in 1748 CE, the Magic square graffito is one of the intriquing discoveries, (found inscribed onto a pillar). The Square is composed of ( 3 ) Latin words and must be read Boustrophedon, (back and forth, reversing directions). Each side thus offers one starting point, the ending point, being the other corner on the same starting side. There are therefore ( 4 ) starting points, one per side.

The square reads as follows (boustrophedon):

R...O...T...A...S

O...P...E...R...A

T...E...N...E...T

A...R...E...P...O

S...A...T...O...R

The square reads: Sator opera tenet; tenet opera sator, and is approximately: "The Great Sower holds in his hand all works; all works the Great Sower holds in his hand." See Ceram Ref., pg 30.

• See List of Latin phrases.

Note: Later note:–The 3 Latin words offered are: sator, opera, and tenet.

The original discussion I know about is in C. W. Ceram's archaeology/art book: The March of Archaeology, (c 1958). And the story of Mr. Ceram (pseudonym) will help understand how he did, what he did. ....// And the history of archaeology, ..marches on. ..... (from the Sonoran Desert)--Mmcannis 03:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

And.... if someone wants to get technical, try and put this "christian" item into the "Early history of Christianity". Thank goodness, I don't have to. (I only get to deal with 3 Latin words, and Pompeii ! ) ---//from the desert--Mmcannis 03:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea how the square is supposed to be read, I only know I didn't understand a word of this section in the article. It is also highly confusing that the text version of the inscription (also posted on this page) is not the same as the image of the supposed same text just below it. If someone could unscramble the gobbledygook in this section so it makes sense, I'm sure the readership at large would be most grateful. See also the "Delete it" section below, which is not something I wrote, but that I wholeheartedly agree with. 2A02:8388:8500:E200:5D02:D7FE:1C0B:8E3E (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

2nd major note on the Magic Square

The link at Sator Arepo Tenet Opera Rotas shows one of the original graffito's: Original graffito: Rotas...... It does not begin as "Sator...." /// From the Desert--Mmcannis 04:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Clean copy of my comments. Mmcannis: Please don't do this. If you're wondering who made a comment, the edit history will tell you. If you want to reply to a specific point, quote it; breaking up a post with your responses is the equivalent of interrupting someone while he's talking. —Charles P._(Mirv) 15:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The 3 Latin words offered are: sator, opera, and tenet.

That's one view; most others read arepo and rotas as well.

The original discussion I know about is in C. W. Ceram's archaeology/art book: The March of Archaeology.

The square has been studied at least since 1880, by a variety of scholars, giving a variety of readings and interpretations.

And.... if someone wants to get technical, try and put this "christian" item into the "Early history of Christianity".

Please don't. The theory that it's Christian in origin is not universal, and while it could certainly be mentioned briefly in history of early Christianity, large amounts of detail on it would be inappropriate there (or indeed anywhere but the dedicated article).

The link at Sator Arepo Tenet Opera Rotas shows one of the original graffito's: Original graffito: Rotas...... It does not begin as "Sator...."

Not that this makes a blind bit of difference, since it's a palindrome and word order is unimportant to the meaning of a Latin sentence.

There were two problems with the text: one, it offered a single interpretation as if it were uncontroversial fact, without mentioning any others; two, it was far too detailed for this article when there's an entire separate article devoted to the subject. The short mention now is appropriate and fine with me; if you'd like to expand on Ceram's interpretation in Sator Arepo Tenet Opera Rotas please do so. —Charles P._(Mirv) 15:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The 3 Latin words offered are: sator, opera, and tenet.

[ That's one view; most others read arepo and rotas as well.]-(external comment by: ? )

The original discussion I know about is in C. W. Ceram's archaeology/art book: The March of Archaeology.

[ The square has been studied at least since 1880, by a variety of scholars, giving a variety of readings and interpretations.] (external comment by: ? )

And.... if someone wants to get technical, try and put this "christian" item into the "Early history of Christianity".

( Please don't. The theory that it's Christian in origin is not universal, and while it could certainly be mentioned briefly in history of early Christianity, large amounts of detail on it would be inappropriate there (or indeed anywhere but the dedicated article). ) (External comment by: ? ) ((Mmcannis 06:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Christian in origin? 79 AD, how could it NOT be Christian ? In Latin-Land, Pompeii (the italian peninsula) ( (former- or present-Kingdom of the religious Kings and Queens in their coloured robes) out of that big building in Rome ?)--Mmcannis 06:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It is Naive to think that the Human Masses, the "common folk" didn't swallow sugary creations like this Magic "Sator Square". Something got christianity going (The Roman road technology, etc.) To ASSUME that this "expression" of the "Core Philosophy" of common rot-gut christianity was NOT influenced by these "individually-created" creations is Crazy. When individuals create and a Neighbor, "connects" with it, It just reinforces the club/ group thought," the Cabal at work. (The Club). I would assume that is all it initially was. Look out, about what is out there NOW—Holy-Cow!.....Mmcannis, out in the Sonoran Desert of Arizona, USA--Mmcannis 06:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The link at Sator Arepo Tenet Opera Rotas shows one of the original graffito's: Original graffito: Rotas...... It does not begin as "Sator...."

( Not that this makes a blind bit of difference, since it's a palindrome and word order is unimportant to the meaning of a Latin sentence. ) External comment by ? ) (Continued additions by external commentor:){Plus reproducing my paragraph above.)

There were two problems with the text: one, it offered a single interpretation as if it were uncontroversial fact, without mentioning any others; two, it was far too detailed for this article when there's an entire separate article devoted to the subject. The short mention now is appropriate and fine with me; if you'd like to expand on Ceram's interpretation in Sator Arepo Tenet Opera Rotas please do so. —Charles P._(Mirv) 15:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have only thought about this a "minute" amount (of Time) in the past 24 hours. --Mmcannis 06:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

But...

1–If ... ...this is going to be called a "Sator Square" since it is the possible, and probable topic, isn't it of Major question why it starts out with "sator" spelled backwards ?. The conclusion has to be drawn, that (this is a little bit of immediate jumping to a deductive conclusionn. ////Break://////....without understanding it entirely 4 years ago, I knew it was a "Sator Square" topic. So, that..the conclusion that "one" better start reading this ITEM Boustrophedonically. The obvious usage of "tenet" as the [ center of a cross , (THAT cross MEANS nothing to ME, but the Christian–square–interpretation, I assume can use that as an additional argument], (and forget that I am not religious), even the TeneT helps form a cross. So the Boustrophedon, that stares one down so dramatically, have to be not just taken at face value, but just accepted as the "Fun of the Square's Creation". (What a discombobulated little paragraph-SpeakOut! )--Mmcannis 06:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC) (IT SOOOOO... BUGS ME THat deductive reasoning is not used. I jumped to the conclusion that this was christian, 2-4 years before I started to understand this square. There are actually only 2 starting points on this square. The 2 corner S's, but at each corner, one reads vertically or horizontally (the 4 entrance points into this "Boustrophedon--ic" Square !)(IT IS SO Difficult to accept TrutH)--Mmcannis 06:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

2–Nothing is "MagiKal" or "eSpiRITUAL", about this square. One cannot conjure up, or pretend, or go visit Alpha Centauri by riding this creation. It is only a play with words. (And it won't help one be a christian, ..a zealot, .. or a wiki-zealot. I expect my comments will need a copious amount of sugar (Sugar-coating), etc. ..to be accepted. )(Mr C. W. Ceram certainly chuckled, OR LAUGHED OUT LOUD.)--Mmcannis 06:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If humans make "Out of it".... any THING more than a dumb "Graffito", which just happened to help the Craziness of our Zealotted-out world, then it is just a second order Usage, playing with a simple first-order-creation. There is nothing profound, religious, or mystical about using 3 words, and making it mean something Boustrophedonically.

And thus the article Graffito (archaeology) was made to present this square. Humans have many other graffiti pieces, AS GOOD, or better. (by the original author of article: Stuck out in the Sonoran Desert of Southwest USA}--Mmcannis 06:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And Note: I have separated-(and indented) all the inserted comments above. Please, I beseech (in a "religious"-way, Sign your insertions with 4 tildes. ...(Or go to the end of the "Comments")(I have signed a couple of insertions into your comments above.[They respond to your conclusions or assumptions.])--Mmcannis 06:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And 3rd—Note: The Reason the square starts with ROTAS, saviour backwards, is so that it can present the Final word: namely: SATOR, i.e. (saviour). (And save-me from having to explain any more of this, iT is TOO, TOO, obvious (deductively)-)....Mmcannis out in the Sonoran/Wild desert--Mmcannis 06:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

79 AD, how could it NOT be Christian ?—At that time Christianity was still a minor religion concentrated in the eastern Mediterranean. There were Christians in Italy, yes, but they were a small and disreputable group, as Tacitus's writing on the Great Fire of Rome indicates. Some people think it's a crypto-Christian symbol; others disagree. isn't it of Major question why it starts out with "sator" spelled backwards ?—This is true of some iterations but not of others; some start out with sator spelled forwards. Like I said, this doesn't make any difference to its meaning; Latin has no fixed word order, so "rotas opera tenet arepo sator" means the same thing as "sator arepo tenet opera rotas". So, that..the conclusion that "one" better start reading this ITEM Boustrophedonically.—That's one conclusion. It is not the only one. The obvious usage of "tenet" as the [ center of a cross , (THAT cross MEANS nothing to ME, but the Christian–square–interpretation, I assume can use that as an additional argument]—I think you're right; I'll have to check up on this. And thus the article Graffito (archaeology) was made to present this square. Humans have many other graffiti pieces, AS GOOD, or better.—Precisely, so this one graffito doesn't need to be the dominant item within this article, especially when there's a separate page devoted to it. The Reason the square starts with ROTAS, saviour backwards, is so that it can present the Final word: namely: SATOR, i.e. (saviour).—"sator" doesn't mean 'saviour' (see); are you thinking of "soter"? (That's a borrowing from Greek, IIRC.) —Charles P._(Mirv) 15:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, it seems that we actually agree on the content of this article, so any further discussion of the square ought to go to the appropriate talk page. —Charles P._(Mirv) 15:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

So....without reading all of the additions (sorry about my Freedom of Will), is there really any doubt that the "sower", the planter, is actually also referring to the 'saviour' ? ....Like I say, I do not play the religion game, list all the religions and pick one, and add 'agnosticism' and 'atheism' as in the same "religion-game list". It is obvious to me the whole purpose of this square is Religious, and related to 'Christianity'. The only proof i (sic) would accept of a different conclusion, is if it appeared before 0 CE, or very many centuries after the beginning of Christianity, (and it seems to have started shortly after the zero-time point). From the Arizona-desert//--Mmcannis 17:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Additions of Egyptian ostracons-graffiti

There are wonderful graffiti, any good graffito, additions that are examples of the Egyptian workers productions, who in there spare time made comments with Graffiti! (Both non-sexual, and sexual, but usually poking GREAT Fun at their superiors, including the Male, or Female pharaohs!) Can anybody find them? --Mmcannis 06:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem

Article pages are not allowed to refer to talk pages... Also, what is the difference between petroglyphs and graffiti, according to the definition given in the article? AnonMoos (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

A query

For years and through many edits the article has had the words "from prehistoric times, and possibly earlier." Could one of those past editors explain what might be earlier than prehistoric times? Or is the whole article with its lengthy talk unencyclopedic--SilasW (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete it

This page is almost completely incomprehensible and appears to contain no information of any value. It doesn't even explain what graffito means. Why does it exist? If it is just to include a description of the "sator square" (which appears to be the case) then the rest of the material should be deleted and the page renamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thirteenangrymen (talk • contribs) 21:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ostraca

I really don't think discussion of ostraca are really relevant to ancient Eygpt. Ostraca are potsherds used in Athens in the fifth century BC, whereas this article seems to use them in an Egyptian context, which doesn't make sense to me. In any case, I fixed the plural from ostracons to ostraca, and when I have more time will try and fix other stuff too, and include some of the stuff I have researched recently about Athenian graffiti. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mygrum (talk • contribs) 23:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

(Wrong)The Egyptians visited there ancient sites (of the 3000 year history of Ancient Egypt), and did graffiti to their own historical areas. Photos of some of these individual locations are found in a percentage of the "books with many photos", or the "books on the Egyptian language-(tombs, etc.)", since the graffiti was in hieratic, Egyptian hieroglyphs, or Demotic (Egyptian). The "Egyptian ostracon graffito", as an artform can be demonstrated by numerous examples, with The Stonemason Ostracon being one premier example. (from HotSonoranDesert, ArizonaUSA)...Mmcannis (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Mmcannis is wrong here, and Mygrum is right. The Stonemason Ostracon is not graffiti, and the page says nothing about graffiti. A web search for ostraca graffiti or ostracon graffiti turns up a lot of hits for "ostraca and graffiti", but they are not the same:

• thousands of inscribed ostraca and rock graffiti
• Index of references to papyri, ostraca and graffiti as quoted in the notes
• map locating provenances of ostraca and graffiti
• The use of marks on ostraca and in graffiti, in horizontal rows or vertical columns
• Leur histoire nous est connue par 1 1 graffiti en écriture libyque originale,2 34 inscriptions lapidaires exploitables3 et une sur bronze, 151 ostraca à l'encre
• The best evidence for such widespread literacy would be the Mesfiad Hashavyahu ostracon, along with graffiti at sites like
• Hitherto, some ostraca, graffiti and inscriptions from the twentieth century excavations were the only surviving written records from Abu Mina.
• Especially interesting are a number of ostraca found at Herodion with scribblings in various languages ressembling the graffiti on walls found at the same

I've deleted that line, "Ostraca type graffiti, with pictures", from § Listings of graffito. --Thnidu (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

bone pieces from prehistoric times, and possibly earlier.

Meaningless. What is earlier than the entirety of time before history? Deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.4.107 (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Medieval church graffiti

I'd like to expand this section to include the increased interest in this field of study in the UK recently. The studies in Norfolk have given rise to sister organisations such as that in Kent. I'm happy to make edits but I'd like to change the title to something like 'Medieval graffiti in Britain' as the research in this area is mostly UK based right now (although I'm sure work is being done elsewhere but I don't have access to the info.), this also allows more scope to explore graffiti in secular buildings such as that discovered at Knole in Kent last year. If anyone has anything to add to this it would be greatly appreciated. Riled Ignatius (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Riled Ignatius: Finally! Something worth while on this talk page. :-) — In case there are existing links to the section, add an anchor with the old section title into the new section title, like this:

== {{anchor|Medieval church graffiti}} Medieval graffiti in Britain ==

--Thnidu (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Have done that. I've made a first pass at adding some more info to the page but I'm not done yet.Riled Ignatius (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Graffito (archaeology). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110821161027/http://medieval-graffiti.co.uk/index.htm to http://medieval-graffiti.co.uk/index.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)