Talk:Cerne Abbas giant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 17th Century Origin??? 2 Covering up the giant (and his manhood) 3 17th Century Origin??? 4 "rude" meaning "naked"?

[edit] 17th Century Origin???

Its some 30 yrs since I've been to Dorset, but I seem to recall that there is a well in the village called St Augustine's well. Supposedly Augustine (that's the one who founded the churches (cathedrals now) at Canterbury and Rochester) came to convert the local pagans and strongly objected to "The Rude Man". The locals showed their displeasure by covering Augustine with excrement which he later washed off at the well. So Augustine arrived in 597 and died around 604. Gaptech (talk) 04:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaptech (talk • contribs) 04:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed the spelling of 'Herakles' to 'Heracles' so it was consistant throughout the article, although 'Herakles' is a perfectly valid spelling. GameKeeper 13:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Covering up the giant (and his manhood)

I've read on various sites that the giant's penis was "covered up" during the prudish Victorian era, and that the entire giant was obscured during WWII to stop German pilots from using it as a landmark. I can't find any reputable sources for this, however. 217.155.20.163 16:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can, please share with us. I wouldn't be surprized about the WWII thing, was there anything around there the Germans would want to bomb? I don't think the Victorian thing is true though, to my knowledge, only the skin or cloak hanging from the arm was ever covered up, and that wasn't on purpose.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it would have been a target per se, but it would have made a good navigational aide for pilots. --Landsknechte 03:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 17th Century Origin???

The theory of the 17th century origin of the giant seems downright bizarre to me. The Uffington Horse has to be scoured regularly to keep it visible, and isn't the same possible for this carving? It might have eluded notice in the medieval era for the simple reason that it was covered over with foliage, and then "re-cut" in 1694 as documented in the historical record. Political parody or not, seventeenth century Europe was hardly the hotbed for gigantic reproductions of neolithic hill carvings. --Landsknechte 03:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It does seem odd, but remember that these things must be maintained regularly. If it had been covered up by foliage for hundreds of years, there would be no trace of it today (or at least no trace discoverable by folks in the 17th century). Additionally, 17th century Englishers creating hill figures is not so out of place as it may seem; creating and maintaining them has been a longstanding tradition for thousands of years, and many (if not most) of them are of relatively recent date. Take, for instance, the Osmington White Horse of 1808, or the Long Man of Wilmington, which is perhaps contemporary to the Cerne Abbas giant. Whereas the Uffington White Horse was noticed and documented since the early middle ages (and there is apparently archaeological evidence for it far before that), the Giant isn't mentioned by any pre-17th century source, even though some sources describe the area, and some 18th century sources claim it was created in the 17th century. I haven't the faintest idea why the Brits have spent so many thousands of years making these things, but then again I don't know why they do a lot of things they do. ;)--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

we do these things because we can-- like crop circles. Jinnythesquinny 10:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I do think that the claim that Celtic or Roman origins are "unlikely" because the first mention is so late is a bit POV. Plenty of monuments that are certainly ancient are at best patchily recorded. Personally I tend to regard the idea of a Celtic origin as mere romanticism: however, the theory of a late Roman origin - c. 200 AD - looks quite plausible and is considered so by a number of scholars. Bear in mind that the Uffington Horse, which was thought to be Saxon, then first century BC/AD Celtic, has now been dated conclusively to c. 1000 BC by silt-luminosity tests (i.e., it's pre-Celtic, older than anyone imagined). Oh, and those "some 18th century sources" are in fact ONE source. Why don't people get on with the tests at Cerne Abbas, now that they can be done? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.243.235.94 (talk)

[edit] "rude" meaning "naked"?

According to what source? Couldn't "rude" also mean "displaying a prominent erection?" 67.135.49.158 20:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's the evolution of the word. "Rude" used to (and still can) mean bare, raw, in a natural state. For example "rude cotton" is unprocessed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)