![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following text has been deleted by User:Berig:
The remarks struck me as usefully interpretive.-- Wetman 21:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Please see Category talk:Earliest known manuscripts by language. Enaidmawr ( talk) 01:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
If anyone is interested in keeping the mention of the possibility of a connection between Erta, Erce and an earth goddess in reference to the Franks Casket (which is questionable to begin with), here's one place to start looking:
Schrader mentions the connection as purely conjectural, however. — Aryaman (Enlist!) 12:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the version of the article as at yesterday gave Simmons' interpretation a good deal of coverage, considering it is essentially an amateur web-only article. Becker is at least published, and his views less divergent from other scholars. Unless evidence is produced of scholarly support, I think today's additions tip the balance over to WP:UNDUE. His whole paper is available online, sadly unlike the more usual interpretations, and indeed has been added by an SPA to a large number of articles. What do others think? Johnbod ( talk) 03:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
What exactly does the source say to cover "Carol Neuman de Vegvar (1999) observes that depictions of Romulus and Remus are very common in Anglo-Saxon art"? AFAIK, there are only the Larling & Franks carvings, and a series of early East Anglian coins, as mentioned here. This doesn't amount to "very common". Johnbod ( talk) 21:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
"Very common" downgraded to "frequent", "Anglo-Saxon" limited to "East Anglian". My webpage dated 12/6 still a little overstated, but I'll leave it for now. Thanks. HuMcCulloch ( talk) 22:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Link with stuff on construction, including a useful diagram [1]. Johnbod ( talk) 18:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good, Johnbod! Why don't you add it to the article? I'd suggest at the end of the second paragraph of the Description section, since it pertains to the structure of the box. I've already added more than my share already. HuMcCulloch ( talk) 03:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the body of this article in a while, but I noticed that a lot of the references put into place here are problematic. Namely there's some ibid.-style referencing going on that needs to be altered to explicit referencing' (there's no ibid referencing on Wikipedia; for an explanation see WP:IBID). Also there are references here without page numbers. This is particularly problematic and needs to be taken care or any editor can just come by and remove the improperly referenced text for any reason (see WP:PROVEIT). :bloodofox: ( talk) 19:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Some of the material may be from Leslie Webster's new book. I've ordered a copy but haven't received it yet. If I find anything when I get it, I'll add page refs. HuMcCulloch ( talk) 18:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The paragraphs on Krause and Peeters seem out of place in the Simmons section. The Peeters paragraph was added as a misformatted footnote at the end of the article on 4/30/10 by Rtorrez, and then moved by Johnbod to the Simmons section of the text. The Krause paragraph was added directly to the Simmons section by 188.96.71.99 on 4/17/12.
If no one objects, I'd like to move these both to the section on Becker (after tightening it up some), since they pertain more to his theories. Where they are gives undue weight to Simmons. I haven't been able to locate Peeters' 1996 article, but it surely can't be commenting on Simmons 2010. HuMcCulloch ( talk) 19:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Just added subsection on Rhiannon. At least 4 of these 5 theories of the Bargello panel must be completely wrong! HuMcCulloch ( talk) 04:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I've replaced the B&W photo of just the left half of the front panel with a color photo of both halves, cropped from the lead photo and brightened. I could split it in two if there is popular demand. Or revert to old photos and captions. HuMcCulloch ( talk) 14:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Although it hasn't been discussed here, Johnbod has noted in another discussion on Wikipedia that my incorporation of mentions of my own web essay could be consrued as a Conflict of Interest. I have therefore removed both mentions and moved my essay down to External Links. If someone else wanted to reverse this edit, I would have no objection. HuMcCulloch ( talk) 13:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
If no one objects, I'm planning to do some more editing here. I plan to move the Becker and Osborne numerological considerations out of the lead subsection of Interpretations where they receive undue importance, and make this a final subsection, after all 5 panels have been discussed. Becker's rune connotations are interesting, but should be briefly mentioned at the end of the discussion of each panel, rather than given their present undue overview status. I plan to add sub-subsections to the right panel subsection on Leopold Peeter's Madness of Nebuchadnezzar theory and David Howlett's Death of Balder (Saxo Grammaticus version) theory, and to tighten up the Becker/Krause Goddess of the Wood theory. I'm presenting these right side theories more or less in chronological order as they have been proposed. If there is no objection, I will scratch the back and lid photo in the lead section, since we only need one lead photo and details of the back and lid appear farther down. 68.175.123.19 ( talk) 18:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC) HuMcCulloch ( talk) 18:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I had originally added the Sigurd Saga runestone image at 160px, to conform with other non-FC illustrations relating to other theories of the right side. Johnbod (who has been editing this page a lot longer than myself) upped this to 220px, thus singling out this one theory as more important than the others. While it has admittedly been around for the longest time, I think this gives it undue weight, and would now like to revert it to 160 px, if Johnbod has no objection. HuMcCulloch ( talk) 17:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
On 2/1/14, user Blueporch "corrected" the Front Panel translation by Page, but gave no reference for the revision. I concur with Blueporch that it is more reasonable to assume that the sea cast up the fish, than that the fish cast up the sea, per Page. I am therefore replacing the entire Page translation with that in Hough and Corbett, Beginning Old English, which agrees with Blueporch on this point, and is equally authoritative. Blueporch also adds an unreferenced objection to the runological theory of Becker in the Front Panel section. Since this paragraph was redundant to start with, I am deleting it entirely, leaving similar material in the last section. If Blueporch wants to add a referenced objection to Becker's theories there, that would be the appropriate place. HuMcCulloch ( talk) 22:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The (unfortunately damaged) term agl[?] looks like a 1:1 cognate with Gothic agls "shameful, humiliating" (Feist 1939: 7, s.v. agls translated from the original German "schimpflich"). The sound correspondences of Goth a- and OE a- are a bit wonky, but it seems like Franks Casket has a bunch of weird phenomena happening to (specifically) a vowels (cf. hiæ for hīe, warþ for wearþ, hærmberge for hearmbeorg, etc.) Holthausen seems to interpolate this issue as well s.v. ā-, ǣglǣća 'wretched, miserable, etc.' (translated from the original German 'Elender, etc.' (Holthausen 1974: 3))
Feist, S. (1939). Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der gotischen Sprache. Leiden: Brill.
Holthausen, F. (1974). Altenglisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Winter. Vindafarna ( talk) 21:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)