Talk:Sheela na gig

message: I have removed the "Symbol of Baptism" section from the Theories portion of the page.
I have done this as this as it is not a widely known theory, cites no sources and appears to be original
research. If this is not the case then please put the section back in but first make yourself aware of 
Wikipedia's rules re original research and verifiable sources. 
Pryderi (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbol of Baptism 

message: I've reverted an edit which removed the sentence which stated that there was controversy over the name and was not directly translateable into Irish. Both have documented in the Witch on the Wall and Images of Lust. (Pryderi (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name not translatable into Irish 

message: I was wondering if a section on the origin and distribution of the figures would be appropriate? This could possibly follow on to a section on the theories surrounding the origin of the motif? Anyone fancy doing it? I'm aware I am adding most of the stuff on the page at the moment Pryderi 21:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have a added a stub section on the distribution of the figures but I have avoided giving hard and fast numbers. The definition of what is and is not a sheela na gig figure seems to be very much "in the eye of the beholder" Pryderi 16:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Distribution of the Figures 

message: The La Fontaine reference seems to be wrong in several of the quoted authorities, who state it is from La Fontaine's Fables, but the illustration they refer to is from La Fontaine's Nouvelles Contes. The story in question is Le Diable de Papefiguière. The illustration by Charles Eisen was copied to decorate a late 18th century porcelain cup and saucer, which I found illustrated at  (Accessed 17:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nice bits on the La Fontaine origin SiGarb and the parallels section. Just one thing on the first paragraph... It seems to be an expansion on the territorial goddess part of the pagan section? Might better off integrated into that section? Pryderi 19:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Moved goddess of kingship info from Paralells to the goddess section. It seems better off in that section given that other writers have made the connection and its not really a "parallel". Pryderi 10:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apotropaic exposure of female genitalia 

message: Just wanted to say that I very much appreciate the developments that have been happening on this page... I took a break when things were getting mired around verifiability issues, and recently returned to be pleasantly surprised with the newly added information... sources I haven't heard of! Excellent. I am wondering if the first few paragraphs can be incorporated into the later sections about theories... I think all of the current information is helpful, just imagining a more effectively organized article... any comments? If I find the time I may take a run at it... -Fennel 06:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, just read Pryderi's suggestion of an origins and distribution section, this would improve things more effectively than incorporating into other sections. Sounds perfect. -Fennel 06:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you have ideas on better organisation, I for one would welcome it. It's not one of my strong points :o). On the distribution side it would be nice to get some maps done but fairly time consuming. Anyone know of some free European map templates? Pryderi 18:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Love the developments! also, organization of article 

message: A minor point, I noticed in the "Origin" section that a qualification has been added to McMahon and Roberts' position concerning the materials that make up the sheelas in comparison to the surrounding materials - "They point to what they claim are differences in materials and styles..." I asked Eamon Kelly (Keeper of Irish Antiquities, staunch proponent of the Anglo-Norman origin theory) about this point when discussing origin theories with him, and he acknowledged that many of the carvings identified as sheelas are made of materials obviously different from those surrounding them, and that some are apparently on their sides. He offered no explanation, shrugged his shoulders, but the acknowledgement is there... Do Jerman, Weir, or Anderson discuss this at all? I haven't read their writings. Fennel 03:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There nothing especially surprising about such anomalies, but one would have to look at each case. Carvings might be locally imported from a mason different from the one used to cut the building stone, or they might be reused from an earlier building, and their meaning may change from the original context to a later one. Paul B 09:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, if it's not in the published sources, it shouldn't be in the article. Wikipedia is averse to original research. SiGarb | Talk 15:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What shouldn't be in the article? The talk page is not the article. Paul B 15:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I wasn't concentrating; I noticed the bit about Fennel's verbal discussion with Eamon Kelly (which of course can't be referred to in the article), without re-reading the article properly. It's fine, as the material therein is attributed to a written source. As for whether the reference should be qualified, I don't have the other works to compare, so I can't say whether the theory is theirs alone. SiGarb | Talk 21:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to a friend of mine who has her doctorate from Yale in Medieval art and architecture, and who has studied the sheelas in situ, many of the sheelas are of obviously different and probably older materials.  She says it was very common to re-use cut stone from older structures, and *any* pre-cut stones that could be found.  Obviously, this was practical in that it saved labor for the stonecutters. Stones with any sort of carvings and decoration were especially valuable to the builders. However, we don't know if the recyclers interpreted the symbolism on the stones in the same way as intended by the original carvers. Unfortunately, my friend decided not to focus on the Sheelas in her Phd. dissertation, so I don't know of anything published on this. I could probably dig up a cite on the general practice of recycling among the guilds, though.  And perhaps I can persuade her to publish on this in the future.  ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dont know how much you can read into the "different materials" angle. As Kathryn says material was re-used from any source and as Paul says its not that surprising. I know of at least two churches in the UK with sheelas that have large amounts of Roman tile in their make-up. Easthorpe church has arches made from Roman tile and also has a circular window in a white stone which is completely different from the rest of the church and appears to be later in style. Churches are very much composite buildings. The sheela at Church Stretton is of similar stone to the remaining Romanesque fragments in the church. We have a local church which has large fragments of Roman sculpture included in the fabric and even has a altar to mars in the porch! Its a bit of leap though to go down the Mother Goddess route just on the basis of it being different from the rest of the church. On a more Wikipedian note most of the academic papers I have read which quote Roberts and MacMahon usually do so with a note that "caution" should be applied. Should we doing the same here? Pryderi 21:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree that Roberts and MacMahon are not the best source.  They are essentially self-published, aren't they?  Some self-published works go through peer-review, but I don't think they have.  I think they are far too enamored of the, "Everything points to Goddess worship" POV, sometimes to an embarrassing extent. I think it damages their credibility to not say "we really don't know" in the cases where, well, we really don't know.  ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Roberts and Macmahon may not be the most "rigorous" source, I agree... However I do think that the possibility that some Sheelas may predate the buildings in which they are found is significant. I'm not suggesting that those who recycled the stone were necessarily interested in or respectful of the original purpose of the carving; in fact I would suspect that the recyclers were often indifferent to the sheelas' origin, as suggested by sheelas that have been placed on their sides (such as the famous and very public sheela on the castle at the Rock of Cashel in County Tipperary). What I am interested in is the possibility that some sheelas predate their supposed source, such as the Anglo-Norman buildings that they are often found in, because this seems to discredit the theory that the sheelas came to Ireland with the Anglo-Normans (I can't imagine that they would cart along large stone carvings to recycle in their construction efforts in new lands). Which is one of the points made by Roberts and MacMahon, a point that has not been discredited by academics that are aware of the point, such as Eamonn Kelly, and, I am wondering, Weir, Jerman, Anderson? So, my point: Roberts and MacMahon have an interesting and apparently unchallenged criticism of the academic theory of the sheelas' source. I would love to see reference to a rebuttal of their point, particularly after my conversation with Kelly.Fennel (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reuse does not imply that they predate "Anglo-Norman" culture, just that some were in an earlier building than the one they are now in. Buildings were rebuilt all the time. And no-one I think is suggesting that Sheelas were physically carried over the sea, just the idea was, or that craftsamen were. Paul B (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  differences in materials of sheelas and their contexts... 

message: I propose we move this page to Sheela na Gig.  Any objections? - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move

message: One of the theories missed out is that of the Mason's Joke. I.e. any anomalous or sexual figure is treated as
as joke played by the mason who did the original sculpture. Is it worth including a section on this? I know the Kilpeck figure has had this explanation attached to it in the past.
Pryderi 11:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mason's Joke 

message: Why does it say "and/or" between Czech and Slovak republic? Either they're in both or just one surely??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.220.214 (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Czech/Slovak 

message: "Dineen also gives Síle na gCíoċ, stating it is a stone fetish representing a woman, supposed to give fertility, gnly thought to have been introduced by the Normans" presumably contains a typo. I'd change it myself but I am not sure "only thought to have been introduced by the Normans" is especially good English. Also, if its a quote it should be in quotes, not italics. Pedantically yrs. Ben MacDui 17:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's his abbreviatin for generally. By all means, change the italics ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo of some kind 

message: The great Ethnopsychologist George Devereux, Georgebecause he has lived in the US for a time :fr:Georges Devereux/:de:Georges Devereux has published a book, Baubo on female cult figures showing their genitalia, there are some pictures of Sheelas.
* Baubo, ? (French edition). 
** Baubo. Die mythische Vulva, Eva Moldenhauer (translator), Syndikat, Frankfurt a.M., 1981 (German edition).--Radh (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[George Devereux]], Baubo 

message: The Opening (of the "Mouth") is Uttering the Word  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.225.70.121 (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Blind" Path of Sophia/Sheila 

message: As documented by Herodot... is maybe not wrong, but seems to be misleading. He could not, did not document religious prostitution.--Radh (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herodot 

message: The caption in the article states 'town wall', which is a very specific and historically important type of wall. Are we sure this is the town wall rather than any old wall?86.133.215.43 (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:    http://fethard.com/histor/Trail.pdf Yes it does appear to be on the Town Wall Pryderi (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:   I took the photo myself and can confirm that it was on the town wall, being the fortified wall surrounding the old town of Fethard, which it seems that Pryderi has already established Fennel (talk) 07:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location? 

message: See Anasyrma the danger of a woman stripping, ideas dating back to AD 77-79 with references. USchick (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Anasyrma

message: My feeling is we should nix that section, it's turning into an advertisement section for strange books. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Gets my vote Pryderi (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  But some of those are serious and scholarly works (eg Dr Anne Ross). I agree we don't want a long, rambling list of novels or fantasy genre stuff that use (or abuse!) the motif or just mention sheelas en passant, but a select list of serious reference works can't do any harm. They should be cited properly, though, and self-published stuff without an isbn is probably out. Some if not all of the Popular culture refs should go, though.SiGarb | (Talk) 15:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion is, if they're serious, then they can be used to back up some fact or other. But "Books that mention" is totally meaningless as a reference or even just to suggest additional reading. It's a bit like listing Harry Potter on the Scotland page because the books mention Scotland - that doesn't help. I did not mean that necessarily all of them need to go but it needs a weed-out. If you're familiar with the topic, then please, by all means, suggest which one's should stay because I have not read any of them but things like Pauline McLynn, 'The Woman on the Bus' (2004) just scream "random" at me :) Akerbeltz (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The further reading section is now basically a list of dodgy books on the subject. I agree with Akerbeltz a book an can be referenced in the main text. Sorry even with the changes I still think it should go.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pryderi (talk • contribs) 14:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on, Akerbeltz and Pryderi! Do you have the books? Have you read the books? How do you know they are dodgy? Intuition? I've removed The Woman on the Bus (a comic detective novel by "Mrs Doyle" from Father Ted!). For the rest, I can only vouch for a couple (Dr Anne Ross's classic work on the subject of Celtic Britain, and the Thomas Wright, which I have now read online, and which seems to be the earliest scholarly work to mention these figures in any detail) but Dexter & Robbins' magisterial tome will set you back over £60 and hardly seems to be a bit of vanity publishing! Look it up on Amazon, the subject-matter is directly relevant, and Dexter is co-author of a couple of the articles listed, from feminist publications. A subject like this is bound to attract the interest of feminist scholars; should they not be represented?  The Oakley and Woodcock article is a report on a recently identified figure, I believe. Ronald Hutton is a respected historian, and his book was published by Blackwell, a respected academic publisher. Dodgy? Rufus C Camphausen might seem to be a bit of a populist but he has certainly put some work in on this and related subjects, given his list of publications. George Devereux published more then 400 works; look at the selected list in the article about him - he doesn't seem likely to have been a superficial dabbler in these matters! OK, the more feminist/spiritual/pagan/meditationist spin given to the topic by Edain McCoy may not be your cauldron of tea (or mine, frankly, having dipped into some extracts via Amazon) but it is probably the one publication listed here that you could justifiably diss as "dodgy". Remove it if you like. I agree it might be better if every one of these publications were scoured for a different viewpoint or spin on some aspect of the subject so it could then be referenced as a proper footnote, but mightn't listing them as Further Reading lead someone to read them and then add to this article by doing just that? SiGarb | (Talk) 12:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Whoever related Na Gig to the temple priestess of Inanna, should be referenced in this article because of the following: Woodhead, Wayne Beane, Stowasser "Dictionary of Iraqi Arabic" p.247 schallah > remove the clothing from the lower part of the body (exactly written there), Hinds, Badawi "Dictionary of Egyptian Arabic" p 476 shalah > flash, expose the genitals (again exactly written there), Spiro "Dictionary of Arabic" schaalih > undress, undressed, Hans Wehr "Arabisches Wörterbuch" p 672 schalaha > ausziehen, ausgezogen, Arlette Roth-Laly "Dictionary of Sudanese Tchadien Arabic" p 256 schalaha > uncover. This is remarkably closer than any celtic attempt, the latter being given too much space here. - 130.133.155.68 (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: These are all dictionaries of modern Arabic with a transcription in latin letters. How is it possible that modern Arabic gives such a translation? _ 88.79.151.163 (talk) 06:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: But this is T. Vennemann's theory! 89.27.154.46 (talk) 07:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

text: I'm relaxed, thanks! You should see me when I ain't! SiGarb | (Talk) 18:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi SiGarb yes I do have a quite a few of the books on the list and yes I have read them (not all I will admit). The Worship of the generative powers book is a good historical source and Ronald Hutton is generally brilliant (and hasn't really written that much on sheelas). I thought the section was becoming a dumping ground for dodgy books and will likely still be so. Unfortunately there is a lot of dross written about sheelas which includes a lot dross from "respectable" sources and by dross I mean unsupported by evidence. I think the further reading section could turn into a dumping ground like the previous section did hence my desire for removal of the section. Saying that I am not that exercised by it but if you looking for my opinion it should go. Pryderi (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, if you have these books and know their content to be drivel, delete them. It's your call. SiGarb | (Talk) 23:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

text:  I'm a librarian and think that all those additional books are no drivel. It's helpful for students to be able to use Wikipedia to look for addtional sources through the page. Please don't delete them. --Sue Maberry (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books that mention 

message: I appreciate that most sources seem to quote the 11th century as the beginning of the Sheela culture, however experts have been dating the Sheela na gig of Castle Widenham in Castletownroche, Co. Cork, nowadays known as Blackwater Castle, dating from most certainly the 8th or 9th century, which would make her the oldest so far. the original location at the holy well (since christian times known as "St. Patrick's Holy Well) reinforces the theory whereby the Sheela - and the well - would have been part of a fertility/wedding ritual in pre christian times, deriving from a mother goddess/ mother nature type of tradition.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackwatercastle (talk • contribs) 15:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  age 

message: I am a medical editor checking up on some of the material present in the anatomical article, Vulva. The first sentence mentions vulva but no where else is the term used to describe the images. The first sentence remains unsourced. Best Regards,
:  Bfpage |leave a message  21:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several references to the female genitalia - see para on Protection against evil and also Parallels. --Iztwoz (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Vulva

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sheela na gig. 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/20121120094326/http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu/Author/Blackledge/excerpt.html to http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu/Author/Blackledge/excerpt.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified