Talk:Austen Henry Layard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GCB[edit]

The 1911 article states that Layard received the GCB in 1878 on the occasion of the Berlin Conference. This cannot be correct, as the Berlin Conference was in 1884. Other places mention him receiving it upon his retirement as ambassador in Constantinople, yet in the text of the Cyprus Convention he is listed with GCB in his title. Is there some source to find the correct info reagrding this?

The Congress of Berlin was in 1878 as its function was to place the terms of the treaty of San-Stefano signed between the Ottoman Empire and Russia earlier that year before the great powers for renegotiation. According to the dictionary of national biography Layard got his GCB in June 1878 presumably due to his success in bringing the Ottoman Empire and Britain closer together.
Yusuf
I see the problem. It was the Congress of Berlin, not the Berlin Conference. Looking at the Cyprus Convention, I noticed that Layard was not written with GCB on June 4, 1878, but he was on July 1, 1878. The Congress of Berlin began June 13, so that all seems consistent. --Mmm 08:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antecedents[edit]

His maternal ancestry seems to be Portuguese and not Spanish. cf. Layard 220.247.242.14 10:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Austen Henry Layard's mother was the daughter of Nathaniel Austen, banker of Ramsgate. Her mother is not mentioned. More about his paternel ancestry can ce found [1]--92.76.101.82 (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nineveh[edit]

It should be noted that "Nineveh" in the titles of Layard´s books means not just Kuyunjik but also other sites such as Khorsabad and, especially, the site of his most major excavations Nimrud. He seems to have believed that "Nineveh" was the name of an urban region covering a wide area, though he especially applies the name to Nimrud. He cannot really be credited, therefore, with the identification of Nineveh with Kuyunjik. (Anyway, notwithstanding some confusion over what area "Nineveh" covered, the identification with Kuyunjik was widely accepted, and I believe the ancient name appears in the right place on many much older maps and globes; in any case it seems that any confusion was only in the Western World and in the region the location of ancient Nineveh was always known).


Cyros cylinder[edit]

This cylinder was not discovered by Layard. Please look into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_cylinder The British Museum does not mention Rassam as discoverer - this is only assumed. --88.70.222.170 (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Clay Tablet[edit]

Does anyone know of a clay tablet written around 700BC and contained celestial information from 3123 BC? Supposedly, this also contains information about an 'impact' in the Swiss Alps about a town called Kfels in the Austrian Alps? Is this impact of sorts true and when did it happen? Thanks.Mylittlezach (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that Layard is supposed to be the discoverer.Mylittlezach (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got this quote about a book that was written called 'A Summerian Observation of the Kfels' Impact' by Alan Bond and Mark Hempshill - It ended up in the British Museum's cuneiform clay tablet collection as catalogue No. K8538 (also called "the Planisphere"). Anyone heard of this??? Mylittlezach (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I see that the website I got it from missspelled it. It should be Kofels' impact and there is info elsewhere on Wikipedia that I will now read.Mylittlezach (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Austen Henry Layard. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austen_Henry_Layard&type=revision&diff=799422836&oldid=799421368
"The report he gave on his return proved to be controversial, generating negative responses in the Australian press"[1]
  1. ^ Sydney Morning Herald, 18 August 1858, Sydney Morning Herald, 5 September 1858

This wasn't found in the source - in fact it seemed to get a positive response eg see http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/result?q=layard+1858 - dates 17 Aug and 6 Aug.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/49779977?searchTerm=layard%201858&searchLimits=
and
http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/112897381?searchTerm=layard%201858&searchLimits=

It's not clear why the responses in an Australian newspaper where considered relavent here anyway, even if they existed in the first place.5.198.10.236 (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Austen_Henry_Layard&oldid=1208114363"