Talk:Torc

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Starting Talk:

Viking torcs[edit]

I thought that the torc was used by the vikings? And then what about a table of Category:Celtic art with approximate timeframes for usage of some of the items? ....Michael in HOT,Yuma,Ax, --Mmcannis 09:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was, although I'm curious whether it wasn't something they picked up on their raids. An explanation of the source of Viking torcs would be interesting. -LlywelynII (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that if the Vikings were wearing torcs it was because they copied (and/or stole) the idea from Celtic peoples they encountered in their raids and trading voyages. Irish warriors would surely have still worn something like a torc for decorative purposes to show off their wealth and prestige regardless of becoming Christian. The Welsh too, and the Picts of Scotland, I would think would have had something similar in the Viking Age. The Picts especially since they were a little slower at converting to Christianity than the Irish and Welsh. So torcs would have not gone entirely out of fashion, just a loss in significance as a protective talisman.Celticus25 (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't assume that. I don't think anyone was wearing torcs in the Viking period, or several centuries before. Evidence for this? The Picts seem to have worn big silver neckchains instead. Johnbod (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Norse learned their trade of going viking from previous Celtic traders/raiders who picked it up from Phoenicians. Torqs were a convenient way to carry trade metals hooked around neck, arm, ankle. Just don't fall overboard.Chuklitl (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources?[edit]

Ok, "torcs" proper are jewelery from the Celtic Iron Age, c. 500 BC to 200 AD. They may have Bronze Age predecessors, or Scythian or Persian models, or Viking Age successors, but all of these are not "torques" proper, but gold necklaces similar to torcs to a greater or lesser degree. All claims of "Germanic torcs" or "Scythian torcs" will need sources, and it will need to be made clear that we are looking at a broad vs. narrow use of the term. --dab (𒁳) 14:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think that should also apply to the "Modern torcs" section; I'm deleting the following line: "Torcs are also popularly worn in pierced ears, nipples, navels and other parts of the body." because they aren't Torcs if they're not worn around the neck, they're just rings. They may be "torc-shaped rings" but not actually torcs. Anyway there's no sources or references. Master z0b (talk) 07:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Torques proper are firm twisted metal jewelry, whether the Bronze Age predecessors, Scythian or Persian models, or Viking or modern successors. If there is a style of piercing universally called "torques" and based on these models, it should be included in the article. -LlywelynII (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Torques proper are firm twisted metal jewelry"

And yet more than 50% of the torqs shown on the page are not twisted metal at all. So the point about them being either Celtic, with some predesessors in Sythia, etc. is valid. So if Torq means necklace or bracelet with an open end to it, then all of these are torqs. The word 'torq' means 'twisted', so it seems it is specific to Celts. If all open ended necklaces and bracelets are torqs, then that should be stated that although the name means twisted, scholars use it more broadly for any open-ended bracelet or ring.

"And yet more than 50% of the torqs shown on the page are not twisted metal at all" - I don't see that, nor does the quote at the top of this section (from 2007) appear in the article, which has begun for some time: "A torc, also spelled torq or torque, is a large rigid or at least stiff neck ring in metal, made either as a single piece or from strands twisted together". Johnbod (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Open?[edit]

@"open-ended at the front": The image looks like a closed loop. Also, it's a replica, shouldn't the caption mention that? Shinobu (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

The image on this page does not satisfy the definition given in the first paragraph - A torc, also spelled torq or torque, is a rigid circular neck ring or necklace that is open-ended at the front. Should the image be deleted or replaced? Alphonsus (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image doesn't look like any torc I've ever seen, http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=torc&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi take a look, the typical torque shape is very distinctive, and nothing like the picture. All we need is a good free image of one. 88.107.191.208 (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Posters are right that the image shouldn't be a non-representative sample. If someone with a good knowledge of what does and doesn't constitute public domain images could pull something off google, that'd be great. The Celtic and Roman-era torques were of one type and the Viking era ones were often more elaborately decorated, so maybe one of each, plus an example of the torque armbands? -LlywelynII (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torques[edit]

Also include the firm twisted metal armbands worn by the same tribes who wore the collars. Included. -LlywelynII (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torcs from the Celts[edit]

Sir A Evans, the excavator of Minos, also of Mycenae, shows that Mycenae prepared for siege and lost. I believe it was their Minoan slaves, of which Mycenae was a grain colony, that destroyed Mycenae and then sieged Athens. After Santorini exploded, the collective consciousness 'forgot' about the escaped slaves to the extend that no knowledge of Mycenae was claimed to be known or of Linear B, found to be early Greek, with Linear A still undeciphered. When it is it will be records of commerce only. My particular interest here is the torc. A search of the early Harappan civilization included a clay stamp of a begging dog--wearing a torc. One can go in any direction with that for a idea. Did the slaves of Minos wear iron bands on their neck or waist, chained together? Did the megaphone-like symbol inappropriately called a double axe, produce a sound to confuse the mind? Is this why the Celts, once away over the Alps, wear only a metal helmet into battle? The torc on the necks were perhaps both a portable wealth (gold) and a refutation of the slave neck band.

The torcs were perhaps disseminated into many forms; say perhaps the Trirata which looks to me like two torcs side by side. As we approach what we consider the height of technology, it seems to me possible that we are only discovering what was known. Do we not lay a current-carrying wire embeded around our yards to keep dogs wearing a 'shock collar' inside the perimeter? All things old are new again. Take a new look at that historically-described 'double-axe' the Minoans depict. Isn't it a megaphone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.13.241 (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beowulf rings?[edit]

Are these torcs the 'rings' mentioned so often in Beowulf? And the king is often called 'ring-giver'? If so, it would be interesting to mention it here as it shows the societal importance of rings back then.Malick78 (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a very different period. The rings in Beowulf are just rings, though in fact these are less common as survivals than brooches. But here's a nice Anglo-Saxon one, though probably well after the Beowulf period. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I'm sure though that at one (just one) point in my translation of Beowulf (by E. Talbot Donaldson) he mentions "arm rings". Either way, one article in WP should at least mention the use of rings for consolidating bonds between kings and thanes. Which article should it be?Malick78 (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think the Vikings had armlets and I'm sure bracelets and bangles for women and maybe men. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Torc. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phooey?[edit]

Since when do we use unsourced & personal art evaluations like this in Wikipedia's articles?. Will revert again soon unless someone explains. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since pretty much always, but sparingly. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but are you protecting your personal opinion at the expense of acceptable encyclopaedic neutrality? If so, find a reliable source that calls that torc "elegant", or else it has to go. No personal opinions. Neither sparingly nor otherwise. That pertains to you, me, everybody here. Some people do not find that one elegant and would like to see simplistic, even boring. I've checked. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And do such people write articles on art? I'm guessing not, and they certainly should not. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your position as an art expert calls for extra care in not extending your personal opinions in Wikipedia articles as if they were facts. Please change "elegant" back to sleek. That torc is unquestionably sleek as per definition. "Elegant" is a matter of (good or bad) taste. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this is appropriate in reinstating an unsourced personal opinion like that, and I especially object to that being done with an edit summary reading only "again" and no use of this page for discussion. I will remove "elegant" again (this is not a fashion magazine) unless a reasonable motive is given here to keep it in. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal?[edit]

The article says some would have been extremely difficult to remove. How did people get them on? It's one thing for something on an arm or leg, but the neck? 86.5.88.131 (talk) 03:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not much sourcing on this. Gold is very soft, and many spiral torcs actually thin strips, so one could imagine them just being pulled wide. But some look as though they were worn permanently, and perhaps needed a metalworker to help getting them on. Johnbod (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Torc&oldid=1201693389"