Talk:Catacombs of Rome

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 March 2019 and 29 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Henrykuv, Rickyderas, Fudymben.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

This article could do with images - plenty out there!--shtove 23:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

The article’s lead describes the catacombs as a place of burial for Christians and Jews alike. The remainder of the article, however, is entirely about Christians. It would be good to have some clarification and expansion. —Ian Spackman 06:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also, they were extensively used by pagan Romans too. Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

And what on earth is meant by this sentence: "The Jewish catacombs are similarly important for the study of Jew Gold at this period"? Jew Gold?--98.114.178.63 (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Vandal 4 days ago. Now reverted. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Edited for grammar and clarity under Catacombs of Domitilla. 68.34.95.56 (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

How long does tufi take to harden after exposed to air - as was the case in the catacombs?

The article states that there is a bust of St. Sebastian in San Sebastiano however, I believe the Bernini bust in the church is actually of Christ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.160.107.50 (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catacombs of Rome. 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/20041121025235/http://www.catacombe.roma.it/en/intro.html to http://www.catacombe.roma.it/en/intro.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 02:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

My edit to reduce redundancy was reverted: "what do you mean?". This reason is not good enough to revert. "Underground cave" is redundant, because all caves are underground by definition. If you feel the need to distinguish this cave, please provide a reason wanting to re-add "underground". Leitmotiv (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Agree. I've reverted the anon IP's revert. Dave.Dunford (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

We are a group of students at the university level looking to edit and improve the information on this Wikipedia page. Through research, we have found information that will enhance the level of information provided on this page regarding the catacombs of Rome.

Jewish catacombs are distinguished from their Christian counterparts by various signs as well as the fact that Jewish people did not visit the dead in the catacombs. Parts of the Old Testament and the symbol of a candlestick with seven-branches have been spotted on the walls of Jewish catacombs.^[1]

Due to high levels of humidity and temperature, bone preservation has been negatively affected in the catacombs. Scientists are unable to identify the sex of the dead due to the lack of preservation in the bones.^[2]

1. ^ Robertson, R. Reid (1933-11). "The Christian Catacombs of Rome". The Expository Times. 45 (2): 90–94. doi:10.1177/001452463304500208. ISSN 0014-5246. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
2. ^ Cite error: The named reference :0 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Through research, it has been found that the population’s diet consisted of freshwater fish. Sample D9-W-XVI-8, considered to be a two-year-old child, shows that children in Ancient Rome were breastfed and this child, in particular, was not yet exposed to weaning off of their mother. It can be determined that the child had not begun to wean due to the fact that the δ15N values had not begun to decline.^[1]

Fish in the early Christian diet was not only for symbolic and religious reasons, but was also used as a meal to commemorate the dead. Fish also represented that the religious and the secular were intertwined in Roman society as fish was a concrete staple of the daily diet.^[2][1]

Henrykuv (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The word catacombs comes from the Latin root word "catatumbas" meaning either “among the tombs” or other translations from the original late Latin say it means “next to the quarry”. The later translation stems from the first excavations which resulted in the creation of the catacombs system, which was conducted on the outskirts of Rome in the quarry.^[1]

Originally the system of complex tunnels, later known as the catacombs, were first excavations by the Etruscan people that lived in the region, predating the Romans. The system of tunnels that became the catacombs, was first excavated in the process of mining for various rock resources such as limestone and sandstone. These quarries became the basis for later excavation, first by the Romans for rock resources and then the Christians and Jews for burial sites and mass graves.^[2]

Fudymben (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

[File:Adam & Eve 01b.jpg|thumb|An earlier catacomb wall art, depicting Adam and Eve from The Old Testament ]] Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).The roots of Christianity can be traced back to Ancient Rome, with the discovery of catacombs. Christian catacombs exist as a burial ground for early Christians accompanied by inscriptions and early wall art. ^[3] Although catacombs were of Jewish origin in the first century, by the end of the sixth century there were over 60 Christian catacombs. These catacombs served as a connector for various Christian communities through the underlying concepts of socio-economic status shown within the art. Additionally, the art showed a story of how Christians in the first couple of centuries viewed the world and their idealistic view of how it should be.

^[4] Christian art in the catacombs, is split into three categories: iconographic, stylistic, and technical. From the first to the sixth century, the art in Roman Christian catacombs progressively went into phases as well: an early phase, The Old Testament phase, and The New Testament phase. ^[5]Benitalukose (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Benita LukoseReply

@Stalwart111: Here is, in case you cannot see it, my source: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/catacombs.html

"The catacombs hold a very interesting place in the romantic tradition about how early Christianity developed. It's often been suggested that these were great hiding places, and the Christians would go down in the catacombs to worship during periods of persecution. But really there weren't that regular kinds of persecution going on, and even when we find larger rooms or chambers in the catacombs, they weren't used for regular worship. Churches didn't go down in there to hold Eucharist and assembly on a regular basis. So, what were these rooms used for? Why did they have benches lining the walls, what looked like places where you could hold eucharistic assembly? The answer is, they're holding meals for the dead. We know, in fact, from a number of sources, Christian and non-Christian alike, that the funerary meal, a kind of picnic with the dead, was something that most families practiced in the city of Rome. So, we have to imagine as part of their daily life, as part of their regular activity, Christians, just like their pagan neighbors, going down into the catacombs to hold memorial meals with dead members of their families."

It was at the end of the paragraph I added. I do not understand what else you are trying to say, I have given attribution from the very beginning to this paragraph. Veverve (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I trust you are not as petty as undoing my edit because I did not say "According to prof. L. Michael White" at the beginning of it. For, surely, if it was the case you would have simply added it yourself, instead of bluntly undoing my edit. Veverve (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

• It's got nothing to do with petty. Including a large block quote without attribution is contrary to WP:QUOTE, MOS:QUOTE, and WP:NPS. I'm the second person who has taken issue with your use of block quotes without attribution and you have blindly reverted both times, contrary to WP:BRD. Paraphrase properly and rewrite the paragraph with proper citations and your edits likely won't be reverted. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Stalwart111: Does it suit you now? By the way, the version you reverted was not a large block quote. Veverve (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't have to suit me, and you've reverted (breaking WP:3RR) 3 times in 24 hours to re-insert your favoured content. Of course it was a block quote... so much so that it was a copyright violation. The fact that you have sort-of rewritten part of the introduction in your own words makes it marginally better. But the fact of the matter is that you inserted copyright material into an article and then edited it. It doesn't work that way. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

You've ignored WP:BRD, edit-warred per WP:3RR, and you're still trying to insert the same block quote without attribution. So I've referred this to WP:ANI. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Here is the latest version of my paragraph:

According to prof. L. Michael White, the catacombs of Rome have a place in the romantic tradition which narrates how early Christianity developed. Indeed, it has often been said those cathacombs were good hiding places, and that, he says, "Christians would go down in the catacombs to worship during periods of persecution." However, the persecutions of Christians were not regular in the Roman empire. Moreover, larger rooms or chambers within the catacombs were not used for regular worship by Christians; Christians did not regularly go down in the catachombs of Rome to hold Eucharist and assembly. White says that in fact those larger rooms which seemed like places where eucharistic assemblies could be held, with benches lining the walls, were used by Christians to "hol[d] meals for the dead. We know, in fact, from a number of sources, Christian and non-Christian alike, that the funerary meal, a kind of picnic with the dead, was something that most families practiced in the city of Rome." Therefore, Christians, in their everyday life, regularly went down into the catacombs of Rome, he continues, "to hold memorial meals with dead members of their families Christians, just like their pagan neighbors."^[1]

@Stalwart111: could you tell me why you are to me opposed adding this paragraph? Veverve (talk) 03:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

• First, and perhaps most importantly, I'm not opposed to you adding a paragraph at all. What I have a problem with (per WP:COPYVIO) is the inclusion of any content that is simply copy-pasted into an article from a primary source and then edited to avoid appearance of a copyright violation. The original copyright violation remains as part of the article history and so remains a problem. Ultimately, copyright violation is not a problem that can be resolved through editing. That's not the way it works. The same can be said of a quote that is added to an article and then attributed to the person being quoted in later edits. While that does resolve the lack of attribution, its not good editorial practice. And I don't think I need to explain the difference between in-article attribution and referencing. The fact that you included a reference is good (nay, required) but that's not the same thing as editorially providing attribution for a quote.

Secondary to all of that is whether the content needs to be presented in the form of a quote. I've seen your writing elsewhere; your prose seems solid and you have no trouble expressing ideas. Why not write what White is saying, in a different way, and simply cite that article per WP:V? His style of writing isn't particularly encyclopedic or academic (nor would we expect it to be given where he is publishing) but is being presented here as if it is. I have no doubt the same content in your own words would be exponentially better. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ok, glad we could sort this out.

First, I do not believe the quote, even in its original, unaltered form, constitues a copyvio. I have see way longer quotes on WP from copyrighted sources. But, if you want to erase from the article history those parts as you feel they may be copyvio, feel free to do so.

As for the rest: you should have said sooner you felt I was closely paraphrasing the quote. I will work on summarising it. Veverve (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

It absolutely did, and the fact that there are other examples of copyvio just means there are other articles that need work too. And paraphrasing and prose is a distant second to copyvio, but I'm enthusiastic about your newly written version. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Stalwart111: Here is a new version:

According to prof. L. Michael White, the catacombs of Rome have a place in the romantic historiography of how early Christianity developed. This is because it has often been said those catacombs were good hiding places, and that when Christians were persecuted by the Roman Empire, they would go there to hold their worship.^[1]

However, White believes Christians did not use the catacombs of Rome in such a way. He says that they did not so, first because Christians were not persecuted on a regular basis by the Roman Empire. Second, because the larger rooms or chambers within the catacombs were not used for regular worship, eucharist or assembly by Christians. White says that those catacombs' larger rooms, which had some benches along their walls and were appropriate to hold eucharistic assemblies, were in fact used by Christians to "hol[d] meals for the dead." He states such "funerary meals" were practised among most families of the city of Rome. Therefore, he explains, Christians, in their everyday life, regularly went down into the catacombs of Rome, not to hold assemblies or eucharist but, "to hold memorial meals with dead members of their families, just like their pagan neighbors."^[1] Prof. V. Rutgers considers that "[r]esearchers have long debunked the myth that Christians used the catacombs as hiding places in times of persecution", because when those persecutions took place, the exact locations of the catacombs of Rome were widely known.^[2]

Veverve (talk) 09:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've made a few minor edits within the paragraph above (which you can see in the diff for this comment). Your version is a substantial improvement on the original. Nicely done. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Veverve: the latest additions are really solid. I'm glad that we were able to get things on the right track. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Stalwart111: thanks! I am glad we were able to sort things out. Veverve (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply