Talk:Pillar of the Boatmen

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Celts Mid‑importance

	Pillar of the Boatmen is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the ancient Celts and the modern day Celtic nations. 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.CeltsWikipedia:WikiProject CeltsTemplate:WikiProject CeltsCelts articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

France: Paris Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Paris task force.

Gaul Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gaul, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gaul on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GaulWikipedia:WikiProject GaulTemplate:WikiProject GaulGaul articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Translation of the inscription ?[edit]

Can someone please translate the inscription for those who are not capable of understanding the Latin language (I assume that their number is not small) ? Alrik Fassbauer (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a little tough to translate coherently, since most of it is a list of theonyms, and as I look at the transcription, I'm puzzled by some notations, such as (!) (evidently to mark an unorthodox verb form). If those better informed on this monument will forgive me, I'll provide a temporary paraphrase until someone can offer something more substantial based on good sources (since the inscription itself needs checked). Cynwolfe (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as I look at the section more closely, the inscription is already sufficiently paraphrased. What I might do is to insert parenthetically portions of the inscription to help readers see what's what. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to Cagwinn for improving the transcription and general presentation. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Untitled][edit]

I corrected the spelling of several of the other Gaulish deities mentioned and corrected the part about the name of Cernunnos, linking to the etymological discussion in that article. Deleted spurious reference to the non-existed deity "Eurises" (a Gaulish word meaning "dedicated to"). --Nantonos 21:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

thanks! it was blindly copied from that french page. dab (ᛏ) 07:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I saw that there was a cleanup template on this page so I got together some references and cleaned it up. I can't find the title of the 1712 publication, though. --Nantonos 13:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Bibliothèque nationale catalogue has this "Description des bas-reliefs anciens trouvez depuis peu dans l'église cathédrale de Paris [Texte imprimé] Publication : Paris : P. Cot, 1711 Description matérielle : In-4, 39 p. et pl." which is probably it.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other depictions of Cernunnos[edit]

I'm going to move this discussion onto the talk page, if that's all right, Redheylin, just so there's a record of it all in one place. Redheylin removed the last five words in the phrase "Cernunnos is assumed to have been depicted in a cross-legged seated position ~~as with other Cernunnos depictions~~", with the edit summary "these is no other attested image of Cernunnos". I (Q·L·1968) reverted this change, saying, "no other depictions name him, but there are about 40 other depictions".

You have reverted my edit, perhaps based upon your own theory - or a general neo-pagan belief - that there are many representations of Cernunnos that do not name that god. However a slight knowledge of the archaeology would aver that there are many such horned gods otherwise named, and that therefore no unnamed image can be claimed to have held that name. Please, as soon as you are able and if you are able, add an authoritative archaeological reference stating that there are numerous images that definitely represent Cernunnos - or else allow this unsupported claim to be removed. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

First off, there's no need to speculate about my motivations for making an edit—you can just ask! In this case, I'm not referring to my own theory or neo-pagan belief; the literature on depictions of Cernunnos is fairly abundant. (To mention a couple, Phyllis Fray Bober's paper gives a wide-ranging survey; Émile Thévenot's Divinités et sanctuaires de la Gaule begins its section on "Le dieu aux bois de cerf : Cernunnos" on page 144 talking about the rock engraving at Val Camonica and continues on through the Gundestrup Cauldron to the bronze statuette of Autun, the Reims stele, and so on; Miranda Green follows roughly the same trajectory on pp. 86-96 of Symbol & Image in Celtic Religious Art.) By convention, antlered (not horned) gods are referred to as Cernunnos if the archæological context indicates a connection with Celts, and particularly if a ram-headed snake and/or torc and/or a cross-legged posture are involved. Second, the point that no other depictions name Cernunnos is perfectly true, and deserves being brought to people's attention more often than it is, but it's not actually relevant to Cernunnos' probable pose on the Pilier des Nautes (whereas the existence of other [cross-legged] depictions of palpably the same deity is relevant, regardless of the name). However, we can cite Bober if you really think it's warranted (I'd actually welcome an excuse to wade back through her article, which I haven't looked at in maybe a couple of years). Q·L·1968 ☿ 05:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely necessary, if some commentators use the word "a Cernunnos" as a typological term for similar gods because of its meaning, to make clear with quotations and citations that this is what is going on, and that it should not be inferred that the image in question was known by this name historically. Not to do so clearly leads to misunderstanding and "fantasy religion". I do remember the Gundestrup figure has been compared with Cernunnos, but have not seen it identified as such. In the same way, I have seen that figure compared with early depictions of Shiva, but it would not be right to identify it as "the god Shiva" without careful explanation. Thx. Redheylin (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Redheylin: No problem. Added. Though it's an old article (1951), Bober is well worth reading (provided you have JSTOR access). Our article Cernunnos could maybe do with some tightening of its references in this regard as well, although I think it does a rather good job of presenting the archæological evidence along with the necessary caveats and nuance. (Let me know if you'd like any direct quotes from the article.) Q·L·1968 ☿ 18:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

I've used the {{harv}} markup for inline citations. I have to say, though, I never use inline parenthetical citations (I'm a true believer in footnotes), so please fix any mistakes I've made. Also, I suspect the Saragoza reference should maybe be to this article rather than the longer reference with "et al."; any thoughts? Q·L·1968 ☿ 18:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]