Talk:Cerne Abbas Giant/Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

This text gives the best case for the Giant being a hoax:

Timothy Darvill, Katherine Barker, Barbara Bender, and Ronald Hutton. "The Cerne Giant: An Antiquity on Trial". Oxbow Books. 1999 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.146.128 (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"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)

Question

Has anyone researched whether the Cerne Abbas giant is related to the Effigy Mounds? It appears similar; so I was curious to know if there is a connection. 2010Kathleen (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)2010

The 'missing' Lion Skin

This has been known for a long time, certainly since before 1983. 2010Liam (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)2010

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for reported 50° 48′ 49″ N, 2° 28′ 29″ W Actual 50° 48′ 49.16″ N, 2° 28′ 29.09″ W

—118.93.126.13 (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

They don't need to be in the exact centre, see Wikipedia:Overprecision. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Missing reference?

Three of the references in this article are different pages of a book identified simply as "Koch", without any further bibliographic details being given. I assume they were included in a reference that has since been deleted. A title would be useful.... Nick xylas (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for the catch. Looks like I neglected to add the full cite, and I (or anyone else) didn't notice for over a year.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear

"It has also been suggested that his large erection is, in fact, the result of merging a circle representing his navel with a smaller penis during a Victorian re-cut."

This is wrong on so many levels. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Heracles Hercules

The article mentions Heracles several times. I rather feel that the name should be spelled Hercules, for several reasons. Hercules is the most common spelling in the modern West, which is confirmed in the article about Heracles. Hercules has a direct connection with the Roman civilization, which held sway in the area more than the Greek. Although it is thought unlikely, it's not an established falsehood that the figure dates back that far. The possible later connections also support the choice of Hercules over Heracles. I believe the spelling should be changed to address all those things. 184.41.116.202 (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a problem in Wikipedia convention. All the significant material on the figure is at Heracles; Hercules contains a little about the Roman treatment of the figure and then a lot of random material (and pop culture trivia). The issue has been discussed a number of times over the years, but little has been done to find a workable solution. I'll try here, let me know what you think.Cúchullain ^t/c 19:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Gratuitous pre-GA feedback

Some nice work on the article. Some ideas for improvement follow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• metric/imperial units plz

• I suspect there must be some more investigation on archaeology of the site? Surely some forensic investigation looking to date it?

more later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have some references to archaeological sources, but none of the original papers. But I may be able to extra enough information from the record summaries. There is also some stuff on the associated archaeological sites such the the "Trendle" or "Frying Pan". I still have some of the papers from Antiquity journal to continue reading through, and hope to add more information from them. Unfortunately there is very little in British Archaeology journal, and my recent enquiry into the National Trust wildlife survey found that the results were never published. Shame. Suggestion for improvements are certainly welcome; I'm still not happy with the format of the article, not quite sure what major sections there should be, and what facts go in which sections. Hopefully once we have a bit more information, it will become clearer. --Iantresman (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I added the reference for the Uffington White Horse and converted some of the figures. Also I noticed that dd-mm-yyyy, mm-dd,-yyyy and yyyy-mm-dd were being used so I changed them all to dd-mm-yyyy. I know the MOS says that references can use yyyy-mm-dd but it is better to be consistent throughout. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with both developments - I have university access so might be able to get fulltexts of some journals. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Some very good work here (and thanks for making the date format consistent, Cambridge). I also have access to a bunch of sources, but they're mostly in random places. As far as what's there now I think the format is coming together; I think we need to avoid oversectioning and introducing the same or similar material in different places. I do think we'll need to tighten up the prose and the citations, and and a discussion of archaeology would be good to have.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

As I say, I think a section specifically on archaeology is a good idea, but right now so much of it duplicates what's already said elsewhere (sometimes word for word). I don't think we need any historical/historiographical information in that section.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, but I would leave the duplicate stuff in place for now, and once it is there, hopefully it will become apparent which section it is best suited in. It may turn out that there isn't enough hard archaeology, and the stuff is better distributed elsewhere. --Iantresman (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A recent article I couldn't access, but which looked interesting was "Eighteenth Century Descriptions of the Cerne Abbas Giant" by Dai Morgan Evans, in Antiquaries Journal, volume 78, 1998, pages 463 - 471.[1] --Iantresman (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I can get that - send me an email. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Ian, sounds like a plan. However, I strongly recommend we avoid such lengthy quotes, especially when the material can be easily paraphrased. Otherwise it's a good start.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think I've found all the archaeological information I can. Some of the inline references have links to online text where more might be found. There is certainly information in the section that doesn't belong there, and yes, the quote could probably be converted. Please feel free and make any amendments you all see fit. --Iantresman (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Some comments:

1) I can't find any reference in the article to the fact that the hill, into which the giant is carved, is itself composed of chalk. I think this should be mentioned, otherwise readers may believe that the lining of the trenches is undertaken using a material that is alien to the underlying bedrock.

2) In the 'Description' section there is inconsistency of priority with respect to measurements in metres and feet - some measurements place metres first, others place feet.

3) I notice in the image showing the Homer Simpson depiction that the colour of the turf is very different inside the Giant's 'enclosure' compared to that outside; I'm assuming this is due to the fact that fertilisers are not used on the turf inside the enclosure, and wonder if it's worth researching/mentioning as part of the text about wild flowers/ecology etc.?

4) At one point in the article's recent history there was a mention to some TV research done by Aubrey Manning; this seems to have disappeared, though it isn't obvious why.

5) Currently there are some drawings of the Giant under the caption "Cerne Abbas Giant at different dates", though I wonder if the wording of the caption means this classes as original research and is misleading; how do we know that these depictions are/were accurate? Is it not possible that artistic licence might have been used in any of these drawings, particularly with respect to depicting the presence (or not) of the Giant's phallus? I would prefer the caption "Depictions of the Giant at different dates", perhaps with a note in the text that artists might not always have been honest in how they portrayed the Giant's erection.

6) The article's first image, with the perspective adjusted, is a somewhat misleading representation - no-one on the ground ever gets a view like that. I understand why such an image is included, as non-manipulated photos of the Giant are not as clear to view, however I personally think a manipulated image should appear further down the article.

PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions:

1. I've mentioned that the figure is cut into the chalk rock,[2]
2. In the 'Description' section, I've made all measurements, imperial units first, which I think is still the preferred unit in the UK, and tends to be the one used in most of the references, even though in UK science, it tends to use metric first. At least we should be consistent.
3. All the Homer Simpson images I've seen have different coloured fields, which I guess could be due to fertilizer, or just different types of grass/crops.
4. I think I removed the Aubrey Manning sentence. The link in the reference to the Open University was giving me a "page not found", and although I found an alternative [3] (a) I couldn't find a mention of the Giant (b) Manning was billed as "a leading experts on animal behaviour"[4], so I felt that his comments were just an opinion, with no easy way to check. But I have no objection including it if someone knows more about the programme.
5. I think the references given all substantiate the captions under the row of little images. It is quite possible that there has been artistic licence, and unless there is contemporary photographic evidence, I don't think we would know for sure. The Gentleman's Magazine's drawing includes measurement, and seems to resemble more modern photos. The sketch looks very crude compared to all the others, but we do say it is a sketch. I don't think we give the impression that they are necessarily accurate, but I know that I'd be interested in seeing early presentations and drawing my own conclusions. Leslie Grinsel's paper mentioned in the Journal bibliography is actually specifically about how the penis shape has changed over the years, so perhaps some observations from him would be useful?
6. The first article images used to be an independent sketch/tracing.[5] I felt that the lead image should be a photo, but there were not decent ones from above that could be used, due to copyright. I'm happy to use an alternative, there are some at Commons,[6] and some on Geograph.[7]

Iantresman (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Just found a new potential lead image. On the downside, it is monochrome, on the plus side, it is an aerial shot with less distortion. --Iantresman (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree it's a shame that it's monochrome, but I do think it's preferable to the distorted one, which to me looked unreal somehow (a result of the strange perspective and the saturated colour). It might be worth checking the interwiki for alternative images that might not be on Commons - this one on the Polish article isn't bad. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the one on the Polish Wiki is somewhat indistinct, so let's keep the monochrome image as the lead for now, until something significantly better comes along, or someone feels strong enough about another image. --Iantresman (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I may have found a superb photo of the giant. I emailed the photographer last week, a professional, and he has agreed to upload it to Wikipedia, after further balancing the colours. I am looking forward to this, as it seems so right. --Iantresman (talk) 10:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks to PeteHarlow for uploading a set of his own images of the Cerne Giant under a Creative Commons license, from which I have acquired what I think is the best new lead image. --Iantresman (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's easily the best pic of the Giant, and not only does it portray the Giant itself very well, but the earthworks above his head are also very clear. Do you know if the pic was taken just after a re-chalking? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

A 2008 BBC article says that it was re-chalked in September 2001, the original photograph is dated a month later in October 2001. --Iantresman (talk) 11:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cerne Abbas Giant/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 17:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Some small fixes made.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead: ok. Layout: ok. Weasel: not an issue. Fiction: n/a. List: n/a.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Good coverage.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	No problem.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No sign of it.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Good.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Good focus. Reasonable detail in each section.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No sign of bias.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No recent editwarring.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images fine, checked at Commons.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Interesting images both photos and antiquarian.
	7. Overall assessment.	Enjoyable article, just the right amount, well-researched with interesting details and fine photos.

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to go through the article, I know how time consuming it is. Sorry for not replying early, but have been rather busy with the day job. Much appreciated, and thanks again. --Iantresman (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)