Talk:Gundestrup cauldron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Gundestrup cauldron falls within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a project to create and improve Denmark-related Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, all interested editors are welcome!
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the Norse people, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	Gundestrup cauldron is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Celts. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess. The project aims for no vandalism and no conflict.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

[edit] Capacity

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)

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)

[edit] Related

Does User:Wiglaf's entry Pre-Roman Iron Age relate to this in any way? Wetman 10:28, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

of course, via La Tene. dab 10:47, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The region where this cauldron was found is thought to preserve the name of the Cimbri. Since the cauldron is contemporary with the Cimbri, it is itching in my fingers to type that it was a Cimbric cauldron. Too bad, my original research alarms starts ringing at the mere thought of it :o).--Wiglaf 18:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

I vaguely remember typing that -- I think I found it on the web somewhere :) dab (ᛏ) 21:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

The reason why I recategorized them as Germanic is that I did some googling and the more reliable sites I could find (Britannica [1], Encarta [2] and Columbia [3]) 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

this is really interesting. Check out this map of "Thraco-Cimmerian" bronze finds -- with remote outposts just about reaching Jastorf. It appears that the Proto-Celts were influenced by the "Thraco-Cimmerians" just like the Proto-Germans were influenced by the Celts. dab (ᛏ) 10:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Elephants on Plate C?

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 [4], 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)