Talk:List of missing treasures

Clarify meaning of legend vs confirm

I want to know what do Wikimedia mean by leagend vs confirm about exsistance 115.187.47.66 (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, clarification is needed. For example, the Ark of the Covenant is listed as "Confirmed" but its existence is only supported by religious texts; it would seem to me that this would make it "Legendary".

In contrast, the following entry Menorah from the Second Temple is also listed as "Confirmed" but is supported not just by religious mythology but also by secular records, e.g. a Roman sculpture depicting Romans looting it . Alex Hajnal (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I guess it depends how many historians think the Ark is real.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

It also depends on how one defines historian. Generally historians require unambiguous or corroborated physical evidence to declare something historical; for historians studying the Levant up through Roman times though a single mention in any text is considered sufficient to do so. (I'm partial to the former standard of evidence.) Alex Hajnal (talk) 08:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I think you're just showing bias. If someone is a reputable historian, that's enough for us. Your opinion doesn't matter.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Yep, Wikipedia is written by and for people in modern times and the existance of something being confirmed is pretty unambigious by modern standards, so I am also on the side of greatly questioning why something like the Ark of the Covenant is depicted as confirmed. Wishful thinking on the part of some religious agent perhaps? ~2026-29266-73 (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Update

The Helmet of Coțofenești and two of the Dacian bracelets have been recovered~2026-37885-07 (talk) 04:18, 3 July 2026 (UTC)