Talk:Gundestrup cauldron

message: I took it that the cauldron is basically a 69 cm sphere that has had chopped off a sphere cap 27 cm tall, thus it having a volume of 133.1685783 litres... But I really haven't got any first hand reason to say it is so... Some sources approach this data claiming it had a capacity fo 28 gallons (127 liters I guess) or of 130 litres... But... Anyone out there can quote sources for this data?Undead Herle King 21:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A correction of the data entered in one part of the equations furthers complicates my calculations giving that 113.6062735 litres was its capacity, not 133... Furthermore with this correction to the formula for the sphere cap volume's and considering that indeed 21 centimeters of its height were a cylinder and 21 centimeters a sphere cap gives a volume of 116.6245587 litres... The correction being that I had calculated the radius of the base circle for the sphere cap with 27 cm (the height) as hypotenuse and the square circle's radius as a cathetus (the rest being the sphere's radius minus the height); When the hypotenuse would had to be the sphere's radius (34.5 cm)... Anyway seeing how easily I could misscalculate this I'm even more doubtful of what non-expert pages claim... Any precise data out there?Undead Herle King 21:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Capacity

message: Does User:Wiglaf's entry Pre-Roman Iron Age relate to this in any way? Wetman 10:28, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: of course, via La Tene. dab 10:47, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Oops, I see that I have been beaten to it already: possibly commissioned by the celtic Scordisci and fallen into the hands of Cimbri who invaded the Middle lower Danube in 120 BC. This text assumes that the Cimbri took it and that some of them brought it back.--Wiglaf 19:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I vaguely remember typing that -- I think I found it on the web somewhere :) dab (ᛏ) 21:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know the origin of the name Cimbri, and possibly the origin of Himmer? I'd love to add a linguistic note to the names :).--Wiglaf 07:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In spite of your categorization, I'm not even sure we know they were Germanic not Celtic. so, no. The Cimmerians/Sugambri/Cumbria connection is of course popular, but not very credible (British Israelism). If they were Celtic, at least the connection with Cumbria/Cymru may be worth a thought. I am sort of enamoured of the idea, recently, that Proto-Celtic expansion, while still connected with Urnfield, of course, was related by the apparent tumults further east, the apparent Iranian migration that pushed the Cimmerians over the Caucasus. It is not inconceivable that Germanic tribes would adopt the names of Celtic or Iranian tribes with whom they were allied, or whom they had defeated, much like the "Hittites" adopted the Assyrian Nesa as an ethnonym. So who knows, maybe the names of the Cimbri and the Cimmerians are related after all, via some complicated amalgamation due to a 8th century BC Migration period. dab (ᛏ) 07:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why I recategorized them as Germanic is that I did some googling and the more reliable sites I could find (Britannica , Encarta  and Columbia ) all called them Germanic or German. If we identify the Germanic tribes with the Nordic Bronze Age, then the Jastorf culture could have been Germanic superstrate culture with a Celtic substrate. On the other hand, the Celts were probably a group that the Germanic tribes admired and wanted to emulate. One way of emulating them would be to claim Celtic tribal names.--Wiglaf 07:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but where would the 'emulation' begin to be 'assimilation' to the point of being Celtic? On some occasions, where they bordered on one another, and possibly mixed, Celtic and Germanic tribes would have been almost impossible to tell apart. Since we don't have any scrap of the Cimbrian language, we can't tell. I suppose the idea is that since they were allied with the Teutons, who were probably Germanic, they would have been Germanic too. It would be safer to say that they were part of a 2nd century BC "Celto-Germanic continuum". dab (ᛏ) 07:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and we have the Ambrones, who were a Cimbric subgroup with a clearly Celtic name. Perhaps the name Cimbri might give a clue. Grimm's law which probably gave Himmer had not affected the name Cimbri, and so it should be considered a Celtic name (if Grimm's law already had come into effect). I guess Celto-Germanic is a good term, but that would probably make the Jastorf culture Celto-Germanic and not Germanic.--Wiglaf 07:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jastorf would be the kernel of "Celto-Germanic" syncretism, although I imagine in 600 BC it would still be clearly (pre-)Germanic. A real continuum would begin to form with Germanic expansion to the Rhine and into Celtic territory, I don't know, 200 BC to 100 AD? The Cimbri seem to be a perfect example of this. Since in their time, the Germanic sound shift was clearly complete, they would have been either 'true' Celts, or Germans who had 'taken over' a formerly Celtic tribe, or at least their name.  Is there no Germanic etymology for Himmer? Maybe, if rumors of the Cimmerians played such a major role in the 8th century, the name may have been adopted several times. But it seems unbelievable that the Gundestrup cauldron has anything to do with the Himmer name. Or could the Germanic sound shift have remained active as long as 100 BC? I don't really think so. dab (ᛏ) 09:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I have never suggested that the cauldron is connected to the name Himmer (it was only found in Himmerland). Perhaps, I should have moved the discussion to Talk:Cimbri.--Wiglaf 09:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: yesby, but if we speculate that the cauldron was brought to Himmerland by Cimbri, and that Himmer is related to Cimbri, naturally a connection between the toponym and the cauldron is suggested. dab (ᛏ) 09:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dab, I have tried to find an alternative etymology for Himmer, and when I could not, I asked you about it. The connection is plausible, because if we assume that speakers of Celtic and Proto-Germanic lived in close contact at this time, Grimm's law would probably have been a transparent feature. Celtic kim- would perhaps have been recognisable as Germanic him-.--Wiglaf 09:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It is of course possible that the name is related to the Cimmerians. IIRC, Croatia and Serbia take their name from Iranian tribes. Here is another interpretation from Nordisk familjebok, which analyses the name as kimme meaning "rim" and referring to the Cimbrians as the "coast people". According to Pliny the Elder, there were still Cimbrians in the northernmost Jutland (i.e. in the area of Himmerland) in the 1st century.--Wiglaf 10:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Related

message: The article currently states that on plate C (Right)...
:"The group is surrounded by elephants and griffins similar to those on plate B.".
However I do not see how this can be true, I couldn't find a picture of plate B on Wiki, but here is one from a website , now anyone who compares these two plates will instantly know that the animals represented are not the same. There are Griffins on plate C alright, but those other animals are clearly not Elephants. The Elephants on plate B have many distinguishing features that make them elephants, they have large Tusks and a Trunk, for one, the animals on B do not. They also have different feet, the elephants on B have flat feet (the type you would expect on Elephants), whereas the creatures on C have long claws and paws, like some kind of predator. If I was to hazard a guess, I'd say the Plate C animals are probably some kind of dogs. For these reasons I think that that reference to Elephants on C is wrong, and should be removed. --Hibernian 13:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elephants on Plate C? 

message: Hello! Has there been a X-ray fluorescence analysis effected on the Gundestrup cauldron? --Bullenwächter (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, but I know that Taylor and Bergquist opted not to perform any alloy or lead isotope analysis because they thought it likely that the cauldron had been made from melted coinage (they seem to have confirmed that), and that these coins would have originated in multiple mines, making isolation of a source mine impossible. Fuzzypeg★ 22:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  X-ray fluorescence analysis (XRF) 

message: Why is there no photo of plate B and no discussion of the female figure?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.240.243 (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plate B 

message: 
I added an images of this 4th century BC Celtic helmet discovered in Satu Mare, Romania, which is obviously very similar with the one on the cauldron. If you look at this quality picture of the warriors on the cauldron, it is quite obvious. I didn't get the chance to put sources yet, and I'll look for some, but I don't think this is OR. I think is very relevant. We just need sources. --Codrin.B (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Codrin.B, but I've just performed a small clean-up of uncited or undue material in the article, and noticed this. Two years on we've still no scholarly citation for this comparison, so I've removed the image and caption as WP:OR. Haploidavey (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raven totem helmet on cauldron 

message: The gallery seems to offer undue weight and prominence to Taylor's interpretation. I've no argument against the source or its broad conclusions, but Taylor's comparisons and proposals are speculative. The image captions invite the reader to make comparisons, to note iconographic similarities and draw specific conclusions. I don't know if they're Taylor's conclusions; or if he referred to these specific images, but even if they are - and he did - we should not seem to be arguing for a particular viewpoint (Taylor's), or offering it undue weight. Imho, the gallery distorts the section, and should be removed. Apart from the business of due weight and proportion, the central figure on the so-called "Pashupati" seal is amenable to a whole range of modern interpretations. Few modern sources support it as an ancestral or proto-Shiva (Pashupati); the second, third and fourth images would be problematic even without those assertive, instructional captions, as they inevitably nudge the unwary reader towards Taylor's interpretation and no other. Haploidavey (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretations section and its gallery 

message: Whilst the usual interpretation is that the horned man / god is holding a serpent by the head, it strikes me that this might also be a sword belt - Balteus in Latin.
58.172.244.207 (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Never seen that in a source, and why would he? Johnbod (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interior Plate A 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gundestrup cauldron. 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/20160112064611/http://www.nms.ac.uk/national-museum-of-scotland/whats-on/celts to http://www.nms.ac.uk/national-museum-of-scotland/whats-on/celts/
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) 06:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: garuda
guntestrup cauldron
INdus valley civilization, BMAC
jiroft
griffin
Guntestrup
Indus valley civilization
vegetal motif containing mountain tulip and pipal leaf
guntestrup
indus valley civilization
unicorn
guntestrup
indus civilization
spearing/using sword a bull/ unicorn
guntestrup
indus civilization
lord of animals
guntestrup
jiroft
indus valley civilization
female hair tied/ wrapped in cloth
guntestrup
jiroft
jiroft
indus valley civilization
indus valley civilization
head band
guntestrup
indus valley civilization
horned diety grabing snake
guntestrup
jiroft
Thracian plate
Thracian plate Letnitsa treasure
octopus star, indus valley civilization, surkotada, near BMAC
jiroft man on a horse carrying a spear
BMAC motif of egg and dart
jiroft beard and hair style
priest king indus civilization 115.135.130.182 (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but don't forget the 1,000+ year gap between the IVC & the cauldron. Many of these motifs had been widespread around Eurasia for a long time, and some, like the Master of Animals appear earlier elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  connections with jiroft, indus valley civilization and BMAC 

message: can anybody share some information about the possible order of the plates? i see three overview photographs with utterly contradicting plate-orders (bge, decf, bfa) but nothing about who chose for these particular orders or by what reasoning. in the article a theory by sophus müller is shared (and defied by taylor), but not which order müller proposes except the alternation of male-female-figures. anybody? Raaskal (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The cauldron was discovered disassembled, so the original order is ultimately unknowable. I don't remember too much in the literature on this - it may not even have been important to the makers. It seems as if it has been reassembled different ways in the recent past, but I don't know too much about that. Compare the Torrs Pony-cap and Horns btw - I think that has been displayed 3 different ways in recent decades. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand, those 3 different ways explain the 3 different photos. still i am curious about müller's order, -and the other orders- even when its/their academical ground is shaky. for even these are part of the - though very recent - iconographical history of the cauldron. Raaskal (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure the arguments are recorded somewhere in the literature, perhaps not in English though. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  order 

message: What was it used for?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.92.180 (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use??