Talk:Khalid Nabi Cemetery

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

Phallic? Please!![edit]

Headgear - tombstone at Khaled Nabi Cemetery
headgear depicted on a Turkmenistan stamp
Turkish Turban tombstones at Istanbul

The description of these tombstones as phallic or fertility symbols is popular but obviously not correct. Many of the cylindrical stones have a simple thick top which obviously led to seeing them as "glans penis". This, however, does not explain other structures, namely the rings around the shaft which many stelae have. Some however, show structures at the top end which nobody ever will see on a really phallus (even assuming the circumciser was a carving artist... he won`t have more than 1 chance...). Example is this one:

This is clearly an Islamic headgear ( a "kolah" = conic cap - see Kalpak) wound with a scarf (simple turban) as in the second image. From these several clear depictions of headgear on a number of stones at Khaled Nabii also the rest becomes obvious as showing kolah caps without depiction of an additional wrap. The Turkmen People of Northern Iran are not the only Turk Muslims who adorne graves with headgear symbols in order to sow that this is the grave of a Muslim believer.

The whole entry does not have 1 scholarly reference but relies completely on laymens' observations. I wait for comments before changing it.Kipala (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have cited it as a phallic site. If you have sources to prove it is not phallic and is headgear please cite them. If you can't you can't change it because it would be OR.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, the whole entry is obviously some kind of OR. There is not 1 scholarly source but only lay blog entries (plus your impressive input on the phallic entry).Kipala (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, the thing is most sources lead back to that Global Post article.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well the http://historicaliran.blogspot.de/search/label/Khaled%20Nabi%20cemetery%20golestan is a bit older, but all of them just record some of the chatter of locals (who offer about 6 different sets of guesses - I have been there a few times) plus their own clue. I try to contact some archaeologists. Obviously some people in Iran feel that the place might be in danger if it is seriously noticed by morality authorities - which to me seems not unrealistic if the whole internet keeps on insisting this is a phallic place. Now even if people love to see phallusses (to believe is to see?) this is no more than a guess - and the image I uploaded points to good Muslim grave markers crowned by kolah.
Even the Global post noted that the stelae are "topped with a hat"... but adds his judgement "clearly, represent penises" - why?? as Muslim grave markers often show headgear which represents headgear as a symbol of the believer - lots of Sunni teaching on the advisability of headgear for true Muslims.
So do I have to set up a blog entry somewhere first which I can quote before we can widen the perspective?? Kipala (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some do say that it represents the men and that ovary shaped statues represent women. But like a lot of "phallic" monuments, sometimes there are open to interpretation and I think it's probably true that tourists do visit it and giggle, even if it might not be true they were intended as penis stones. But it would be original research to claim they were hats if you can't back it with a source. I agree, we should know more about the cemetery.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, finally I have got access to the only (so far known to me) scientifical desription of the cemetery by Berkeley archeologist ans Iran specialist David Stronach with a comment by the late William R. Royce.
Standing Stones in the Atrek Region: The Ḥālat Nabī Cemetery, Author(s): David Stronach and William R. Royce, Source: Iran, Vol. 19 (1981), pp. 147-150, Published by: British Institute of Persian Studies,Published by: British Institute of Persian Studies, Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4299712 .
Stronach saw what I saw: headgear, and was informed by what was also my impression: Ottoman grave markers. He tries dating them and “place the majority between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries”.
Any objection to rewrite accordingly ? --Kipala (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Add it, but don't remove anything. So yes, there IS AN OBJECTION to your proposal as stated. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly give one reason why the present text should stand. It is completey unreferenced by any scholarly standards and contains speculations.
As far as the sources are concerned we have one scholarly evaluation by Stronach who is among the internationally renowned archeologists specialized on Iran, properly published in an academic publication (see above). Stronach is not used in the article.
The present article references only a) an anonymous website article (globalpost - straight away reporting penisses without any hint of doubt or knowledge of Stronach ), a blog entry (author says he does not know what it is but guesses prehistory) and a short travel guide book entry which correctly mirrors Stronachs dating but does not try to identify the shape of the stones.
From this the previous contributors made a "notable example of phallic architecture"; this commentary is a nice example of OR as there is nothing to back it. The article mentions Stronachs evaluation but has made no use of it; obviously the first author had no access to it. The widespread popular perception of the site as visible from a vast mass of blog entries on the internet of course has to be mentioned. But the only quotable factual interpretation so far has been Stronach and the entry should follow this. Kipala (talk) 06:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to improve it, but to my knowledge the mentioning that some have interpreted it as phallic is worth mentioning, but rather than saying it is phallic, you should say some have interpreted it is phallic and claim that the site's major attraction to tourists is because of this source of amusement. If there were sources of "scholarly worth" available at time of creation then they'd have been used.. It isn't just blogs which mention phallic mainstream sources like AOL have articles about it and the Huffington Post hosted that "Global News" article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, except I need to point out that the AOL article is based on the GlobalPost article, nothing new in it about the cemetery I believe. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So it seems, but it still is a fact that several mainstream reliable news sources like Huffington Post and AOL chose to host such an article. I wonder if different transliterations would pick up anything else?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To count HuffPost and AOL as reliable sources on historical and archaeological matters is a bit courageous, especially as this topic has been treated as curiosity and not an archaeological one. (otherwise I imagine they would have put one of their specialist writers on the job who would have found Stronach). I agree that there is the phenomenon of this extremely widespread perception of the gravestones as phallic and fertility symbols - which has come with the internet.
Is the cemetery really is main attraction nowadays? I am not sure. Basically I see that the Farsi wikipedia entry had a better start by naming its article "The Khaled Nabii cemetery and pilgrimige site ensemble". In fact it is two adjacent places: the mausoleum of the Christian Hermit / islamized prophet on top of a mountain and the widespread cemetery area starting about 1 km away from it on the next, lower ridge. My image of visitors is this: The mausoleum is a pilgrimage site for Sunni Turkomans from the wider area; there are also Shia coming who nowadays live in the towns of the Irani Turkoman area as well as tourists from places far away like Teheran; The cemetery next door attracts a number of the pilgrims but also not so much religiously interested tourists who come for the oddly described gravestones. Stronach refers in his article to a British traveler of the early 19th century who says that the Turkoman tribe burying their dead at the site took the trouble carrying the bodies for a few days thru hostile territory; which means that already back then the people who were connected to the burial site were no more living closeby which explains to me why today there is no proper local tradition on the cemetery and all legends have space to blossom. Maybe I get something quotable, I have a contact with an Iranian doing his PhD on religious tourism to Khaled Nabi.
I`ll still add some more info from Stronach. Kipala (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I'm cautious towards any US-based source writing about Iran.... But I'm satisfied that it does seem to have some sort of reputation as a phallic cemetery even if the perception of the stones is wrong and that these sources are accurate in stating this. A lot of buildings have been interpreted as phallic when they're really not intended that way, but it becomes a big thing about why the building is known. Glad you've found a scholarly source on this, look forward to seeing the improvements. but you really don't have to make a big thing here, I probably agree with you on most of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki +[edit]

could someone please add an interwiki link to fa:مجموعه_گورستان_و_زیارتگاه_خالد_نبی Kipala (talk) 08:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DONE, is in place (had overlooked it)Kipala (talk) 10:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did it earlier.♦ Dr. Blofeld

Oh, thanks! I thought i had been sleepy. Kipala (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Alireza Hesar Nuee"[edit]

If she he is a historian, why can't I find her mentioned anywhere not in connection with this cemetery? Even in foreign language sources. Dougweller (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw him on Farsi sites, could be a regional government archeologist, but am still not able to judge that quotation in the blog entry. Kipala (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates[edit]

I used the coordinates from google maps which show the location of Khaled Nabi mausoleum; the google label ("Khaled Nabi Cemetery") is, however, a bit misleading as the cemetery is 1-2 km northeast of the mausoleum. But for finding it it is ok as the mausoleum is end of road. At Wikimapia the place is correctly labeled (though in Farsi only) Kipala (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khalid Nabi Cemetery. 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) 17:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Khalid_Nabi_Cemetery&oldid=1210129463"