Talk:Golden Horns of Gallehus
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Lehmann, Thoretical Bases of Indo-European Linguistics says it is 'generally dated about 325 AD', I don't know on what grounds. As for the translation, the German Wiki has 'famous guest', Hlewa being klewos, Greek cleos, fame or reputation. Gastiz is the guest/host/hostile/hospitable/xenos(Greek) group meaning, (most clearly in Greek 'xenia') a relation of guest-friendship with a potentially hostile stranger. To be the guest-friend of someone with great cleos is to be an important person. Homeric Greek and Germanic are different things, but the idea is likely to be similar. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- The earliest known certain Elder Futhark inscription is the Vimose Comb. The current translations should be referenced or pulled in favor of referenced translations, of course. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I tend to be very suspicious of sweeping "decipherments" involving gematria and archaeoastronomy, but it turns out that Hartner was an academic of the first order, although a historian of science rather than a philologist, and I have found two glowing reviews of the book in peer-reviewed journals, so Hartner's hypotheses should probably be taken as WP:RS. In any case, I find the suggestion that the top segment of the large horn bears an inscription in cipher rather striking, in the light of the contrast of the arrangement of the icons wrt the remaining imagery, and I am surprised that these "Nordic hieroglyphs" haven't made more furore in the New Agey corners of the 'net. --dab (𒁳) 16:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
state at discovery
The two horns obviously form a pair, but their construction does not match, the individual segments being of different width nd shape. Hence it it is impossible to say wether they had been of the same length (although it seems likely that they were). Of the "large horn", seven segments survive. The six plain segments and the plain rim are additions made by Christian IV (hardly Christian V, b. 1646) just like the screw-on pommel, as he "refurbished it into a drinking-horn" in 1639 or 1640 before Wormius ever set eyes on it in 1640 or 1641 (Wormius explicitly states that he had never seen the horn in its original state). That is, all surviving depictions of the "long" horn represent the state after it was made into a luxury item for the edification of Denmark's Baroque nobility. The Slott-Møller painting is thus rather misleading, the peasant girl didn't find a "horn", she found seven gold rings telescoped together. Of the "short" horn, six segments were found, including the narrow one at the rim bearing the inscription. The article claims that a seventh segment belonging to the "short" horn had been plowed up and melted even before 1639, but I haven't been able to substantiate this.
I imagine that many people had extended walks with metal detectors on the field in question since that time, and no other segments are likely to turn up, so it would seem likely that seven segments each is the whole story. I haven't found this suggested anywhere yet, but this makes it seem plausible that the two "horns" much like some Greek or Persian rhyta never did have a pointy end but were stopped up with (lost) terminal segments after the seventh segment. --dab (𒁳) 08:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC) why are the coordinates on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
luxury item for the edification of Denmark's Baroque nobility
Wowee - a high class example of neutrality here in Wikipedia classification #2.
The question that should have been addressed and asked is, why did the painting not show Kirsten Svendsdatter wearing the red silk skirt given to her by the king? Why is she described as a peasant? she was a lace maker. AnnaComnemna (talk) 08:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
According to this piece here in Dutch, there is actually a chance the Horns could be of (North) Frisian origin. Should there be some mention in the article about it? I don't know if there are any other sources that mention this. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Undue Emphasis on Cipher Runes Theory
Right now this article places a lot of undue emphasis on an obscure topic: the idea that the figures on the horns represent a code. As it stands, this notion has received essentially no traction but you wouldn't know this from this article. I'm not sure if an editor here found themselves enamored by this idea and the word had to know about it or what, but this article needs a lot more discussion about the many problems surrounding the horns and less about secrets codes. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)