TUSC token 259b6bc01efe785e48ac5fbedc421f5eEdit
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
Valued Image Set PromotionEdit
Hello, I didn´t really get it how I have to answer you and I hope you see my message here. I work for EDH (Epigraphische Datenbank Heidelberg) and my boss is selecting fotos of inscriptions and adds them to the Category Withoutlink to EDH from where I get them and work on them. To work on them means to search for this exact inscription on different databases but specially on EDH and if we have it, then I link the foto with the EDH-page. Then I remove the Category (Without Link to EDH) and put a new one - Linke to EDH. At the end my boss can see how many and whitch inscriptions I´ve worked on.
I hope this answers your question.
Stone Mace Head of Decea Muresului Type from SardEdit
My name is Peter Le Couteur, I’m an artist and researcher doing a PhD at the Royal College of Art in London. I’m very interested in the intersection of sculpture, museology, anthropology and narratives; sculpture here meaning primarily a way of thinking about objects.
I’m writing to you with a question about the small stone toroids classed as “mace heads”. I’m not an archeologist, and so had no idea who best to contact about my question. The image you uploaded to Wikimedia of the Decea Muresului Type from Sard is an excellent example of what I'm interested in, so I thought I would write to you.
In the course of my researches, I saw an artefact in the National Museum in Istanbul, which was labelled as a fragment of a “mace head”. I was a bit suspicious (my research is all about being suspicious in museums) and I assumed the classification was either a) a translation error, or b) a classic case of trying to label an artefact as more exciting than it was. Not possible it’s from a mace, I thought; the haft would have been too narrow to use. And there it was again, in another case, this time flatter and labelled as a 'loom weight', though it was clearly of a different class than the weights it was grouped with.
The funny thing was, I had instantly recognized the class of object from some ethnographic research I’d been doing about pre-industrial tools: it was (I thought) the flywheel weight from a pump drill. An excellent piece of ‘primitive’ technology, and the very same tool – in fact – that was likely used to make the stone’s well-drilled hole in the first place.
I did some digging online, and found that while these objects are found internationally, the “mace head” category seems a bit of a misnomer. These artefacts, labelled "mace heads" since the late 1800s, are classed as decorative because they are absolutely unsuitable as mace heads, and there is longstanding uncertainty about what (if anything) they are actually for.
Rather than being a strangely international, cross-cultural example of a decorative status symbol, each embodying days of skilled, precise labour, I'd argue they are in fact functional components of a highly advanced and practical mechanical tool. Of course, this hypothesis would only apply to examples which have rotational symmetry. Some design elements from particularly interesting examples – such as your image of one from Sard – really become interesting if you imagine them spinning. I'm certainly not suggesting that stone-headed maces did not exist, but that in examples like this, the tiny diameter of the haft in comparison to the weight of the "head" would make the object impossible to use; even ceremonial weapons need to at least look functional!
I’d love to know if there is any contemporary debate / interest about the practical use of “mace heads”, and particularly if anyone has suggested / examined the idea that they represent the only surviving (because non-biodegradable) component of the widespread use of pump drills?
All the best,
- Hello Peter!
- Thank you for reaching out with this very interesting topic. I am not an archaeologist either, just someone with passion for history and the "old worlds". Some of my goals and hopes behind these picture contributions to Commons is to make such objects from unknown and underfunded Romanian museums accessible to scientists who can research them.
- I couldn't find much around the mace head topic in Wikipedia. Very few things are discussed about the Mace's Prehistory. Probably it would be interesting to read more on the Decea Mureşului culture but most likely there is very little literature, especially in English. Here is some interesting Google Books search results: Decea Mureşului culture mace head, Decea Mureşului culture. Among the hits, I would recommend this really impressive book: The Lost World of Old Europe: The Danube Valley, 5000-3500 BC
- Your ideas are fascinating and I wouldn't be surprised if archaeologists misinterpreted the functions of some objects. Worth talking to some of them about your thoughts. The mace head I posted is hosted by the National Museum of the Union in Alba Iulia. I can try to find out the archaeologists involved with it if you want.
- I also found this paper by Florin Gogaltan. It covers that mace head and a lot of others I didn't know about, all from Transylvania. Unfortunately it is written in Romanian with a German summary. Google Translate could help and I can to, if you need.
- Do you have pictures of the artifact from the Museum of Istanbul? Would be worth posting them to Commons and point archaeologists to them. Maybe there are some connections here.
- Best regards!
- --Codrin.B (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
OTRS permissions queuesEdit
Hello Codrinb. You are receiving this message as a license reviewer. As you know, OTRS processes a large amount of tickets relating to image releases (called "permissions"). As a license reviewer, you may have the skills necessary to contribute to this team. If you are interested in learning more about OTRS or to volunteer please visit Meta-Wiki. Tell your friends! Thank you. Rjd0060 18:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2015 is open!Edit
You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2015 Picture of the Year contest.
Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2015 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the tenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2015) to produce a single Picture of the Year.
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.
There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images. There are 56 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category. In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.
Round 2 will end on 28 May 2016, 23:59:59 UTC.
-- Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 09:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
re your picture -File:2106-21Last Flight of Captain BallEdit
Hi there Codrinb
I noticed that you have done a digital copy of the picture 'Last Flight of Captain Ball' and would be grateful if you would give me your permission to use your copy. My late husband author Graeme Cook used the same picture for the cover of his published book 'Wings of Glory' in 1972 (now out of print) and as I am preparing this book as an Ebook I would like to use part of this picture for the front page.
I would of course credit you.
- Dear Fidelma,
- Thanks for reaching out. I assume your refer to File:2106-21LastFlightof CaptainBall.jpg.
- This image is marked as Public Domain and as such you could use it without mentioning Wikimedia or myself. But if you wish to give credit, you could say "Courtesy Wikimedia/Codrin Bucur" for example. As you can see in the description, the original author was Norman G. Arnold (1919). He deserves most of the credit.
- Good luck with your book. Does it have a title you could share?
Avem o problemă de interpretare la multe imagini din România. Vă rog să ne (pe noi, românii) ajutați, dacă este nevoie, cu confirmarea a ce spune textul legii românești în discuția de aici: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Catedrala din Timisoara.jpg deoarece discuția este esențială pentru multe alte fotografii din România. Situația este neobișnuită pentru cei care judecă doar pe baza de minimis și No FOP, dar legea română nu se este așa de restrictivă cum au impresia cei de aici. Iar legea americană permite, nu ea este cea restrictivă.
Jim a folosit propriul meu argument cu privire la arhitectul Ioan Traianescu, dar el l-a aplicat arbitrar, fără să cunoască legea românească. Nu știu cum să discut cu el. Și eu am vârsta lui, și eu m-am ocupat de calculatoare de pe vremea lui, și eu sunt voluntar OTRS și cunosc foarte bine problema drepturilor de autor, în special în România. Poate acest lucru va trebui să i se explice lui Jim. Oricât este el de important aici, de data asta nu este în temă. Să facă bine să mă lase pe mine să decid ce este FOP în România și ce nu. Vă mulțumesc pentru orice răspuns. --Turbojet (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)