Talk:Sheela na Gig

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Archives

Talk:Sheela Na Gig/Archive1

[edit] Name not translatable into Irish

I've reverted an edit which removed the sentence which stated that there was controversy over the name and was not directly translateable into Irish. Both have documented in the Witch on the Wall and Images of Lust. (Pryderi (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] The Distribution of the Figures

I was wondering if a section on the origin and distribution of the figures would be appropriate? This could possibly follow on to a section on the theories surrounding the origin of the motif? Anyone fancy doing it? I'm aware I am adding most of the stuff on the page at the moment Pryderi 21:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a added a stub section on the distribution of the figures but I have avoided giving hard and fast numbers. The definition of what is and is not a sheela na gig figure seems to be very much "in the eye of the beholder" Pryderi 16:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apotropaic exposure of female genitalia

The La Fontaine reference seems to be wrong in several of the quoted authorities, who state it is from La Fontaine's Fables, but the illustration they refer to is from La Fontaine's Nouvelles Contes. The story in question is Le Diable de Papefiguière. The illustration by Charles Eisen was copied to decorate a late 18th century porcelain cup and saucer, which I found illustrated at [1] (Accessed 17:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)) where it is described as follows:

Paris cup and saucer with scenes from La Fontaine's Contes 1785-90

Dark blue ground, rich gilding of scrolls, foliage trails and vases. Reserves on the cup and saucer with grisaille scenes, identified in gilt writing on the underside: on the cup "la jument du compere pierre", and on the saucer "le diable de papefiguiere". No marks. Height of cup 6.1 cm, diameter of saucer 12.9 cm. Circa 1785-90.

This cup is of the Sèvres "gobelet litron" shape. Although unmarked, the quality of the gilding indicates one of the top Paris factories at the period, such as the Duc d'Angoulême's (Dihl & Guérhard). The two painted scenes are taken from the 1767 edition of the Contes de La Fontaine, which was pirated from the famous 1762 Fermiers Généraux one, with engravings after drawings by Charles Eisen. Le Diable de Papefiguière is the story of a devil which comes to frighten a village…

The commentators state that the woman exposes herself to fighten the demon, but I think the story is less straightforward. I haven't found an English translation yet, but it seems to me to be a variation of a well-known folk theme in which Satan/devil/demons are tricked by a cunning peasant couple. An English example would be the folk song "The Devil and the Feathery Wife". SiGarb | Talk 17:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice bits on the La Fontaine origin SiGarb and the parallels section. Just one thing on the first paragraph... It seems to be an expansion on the territorial goddess part of the pagan section? Might better off integrated into that section? Pryderi 19:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Moved goddess of kingship info from Paralells to the goddess section. It seems better off in that section given that other writers have made the connection and its not really a "parallel". Pryderi 10:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This may represent a very old superstition. I recall reading (in Peter Maas's book on the Romany people) that there is a Romany belief that a woman can curse a man by exposing herself in this way. If there is a connection between this superstition, the La Fontaine piece, the Italian superstition mentioned in the article, and the Sheela na-Gig, then the superstition could be as old as the second millenium B.C. (or older), since that is the age of the cultural unity of these groups. Natrum (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Love the developments! also, organization of article

Just wanted to say that I very much appreciate the developments that have been happening on this page... I took a break when things were getting mired around verifiability issues, and recently returned to be pleasantly surprised with the newly added information... sources I haven't heard of! Excellent. I am wondering if the first few paragraphs can be incorporated into the later sections about theories... I think all of the current information is helpful, just imagining a more effectively organized article... any comments? If I find the time I may take a run at it... -Fennel 06:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops, just read Pryderi's suggestion of an origins and distribution section, this would improve things more effectively than incorporating into other sections. Sounds perfect. -Fennel 06:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
If you have ideas on better organisation, I for one would welcome it. It's not one of my strong points :o). On the distribution side it would be nice to get some maps done but fairly time consuming. Anyone know of some free European map templates? Pryderi 18:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] differences in materials of sheelas and their contexts...

A minor point, I noticed in the "Origin" section that a qualification has been added to McMahon and Roberts' position concerning the materials that make up the sheelas in comparison to the surrounding materials - "They point to what they claim are differences in materials and styles..." I asked Eamon Kelly (Keeper of Irish Antiquities, staunch proponent of the Anglo-Norman origin theory) about this point when discussing origin theories with him, and he acknowledged that many of the carvings identified as sheelas are made of materials obviously different from those surrounding them, and that some are apparently on their sides. He offered no explanation, shrugged his shoulders, but the acknowledgement is there... Do Jerman, Weir, or Anderson discuss this at all? I haven't read their writings. Fennel 03:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There nothing especially surprising about such anomalies, but one would have to look at each case. Carvings might be locally imported from a mason different from the one used to cut the building stone, or they might be reused from an earlier building, and their meaning may change from the original context to a later one. Paul B 09:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, if it's not in the published sources, it shouldn't be in the article. Wikipedia is averse to original research. SiGarb | Talk 15:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
What shouldn't be in the article? The talk page is not the article. Paul B 15:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't concentrating; I noticed the bit about Fennel's verbal discussion with Eamon Kelly (which of course can't be referred to in the article), without re-reading the article properly. It's fine, as the material therein is attributed to a written source. As for whether the reference should be qualified, I don't have the other works to compare, so I can't say whether the theory is theirs alone. SiGarb | Talk 21:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
According to a friend of mine who has her doctorate from Yale in Medieval art and architecture, and who has studied the sheelas in situ, many of the sheelas are of obviously different and probably older materials. She says it was very common to re-use cut stone from older structures, and *any* pre-cut stones that could be found. Obviously, this was practical in that it saved labor for the stonecutters. Stones with any sort of carvings and decoration were especially valuable to the builders. However, we don't know if the recyclers interpreted the symbolism on the stones in the same way as intended by the original carvers. Unfortunately, my friend decided not to focus on the Sheelas in her Phd. dissertation, so I don't know of anything published on this. I could probably dig up a cite on the general practice of recycling among the guilds, though. And perhaps I can persuade her to publish on this in the future. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I dont know how much you can read into the "different materials" angle. As Kathryn says material was re-used from any source and as Paul says its not that surprising. I know of at least two churches in the UK with sheelas that have large amounts of Roman tile in their make-up. Easthorpe church has arches made from Roman tile and also has a circular window in a white stone which is completely different from the rest of the church and appears to be later in style. Churches are very much composite buildings. The sheela at Church Stretton is of similar stone to the remaining Romanesque fragments in the church. We have a local church which has large fragments of Roman sculpture included in the fabric and even has a altar to mars in the porch! Its a bit of leap though to go down the Mother Goddess route just on the basis of it being different from the rest of the church. On a more Wikipedian note most of the academic papers I have read which quote Roberts and MacMahon usually do so with a note that "caution" should be applied. Should we doing the same here? Pryderi 21:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree that Roberts and MacMahon are not the best source. They are essentially self-published, aren't they? Some self-published works go through peer-review, but I don't think they have. I think they are far too enamored of the, "Everything points to Goddess worship" POV, sometimes to an embarrassing extent. I think it damages their credibility to not say "we really don't know" in the cases where, well, we really don't know. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Roberts and Macmahon may not be the most "rigorous" source, I agree... However I do think that the possibility that some Sheelas may predate the buildings in which they are found is significant. I'm not suggesting that those who recycled the stone were necessarily interested in or respectful of the original purpose of the carving; in fact I would suspect that the recyclers were often indifferent to the sheelas' origin, as suggested by sheelas that have been placed on their sides (such as the famous and very public sheela on the castle at the Rock of Cashel in County Tipperary). What I am interested in is the possibility that some sheelas predate their supposed source, such as the Anglo-Norman buildings that they are often found in, because this seems to discredit the theory that the sheelas came to Ireland with the Anglo-Normans (I can't imagine that they would cart along large stone carvings to recycle in their construction efforts in new lands). Which is one of the points made by Roberts and MacMahon, a point that has not been discredited by academics that are aware of the point, such as Eamonn Kelly, and, I am wondering, Weir, Jerman, Anderson? So, my point: Roberts and MacMahon have an interesting and apparently unchallenged criticism of the academic theory of the sheelas' source. I would love to see reference to a rebuttal of their point, particularly after my conversation with Kelly.Fennel (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Reuse does not imply that they predate "Anglo-Norman" culture, just that some were in an earlier building than the one they are now in. Buildings were rebuilt all the time. And no-one I think is suggesting that Sheelas were physically carried over the sea, just the idea was, or that craftsamen were. Paul B (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think some of their early stuff (the booklet and map) were self published but the Divine Hag was published by Mercier press who do a lot of stuff related to Ireland. I know the book has a number of factual errors even if you do/don't agree with the theory. Two British figures are described as being "uniquely" on their side and the South Tawton Figure is described as being in South Taunton. The Abson figure got included as a late addition and it's really not a sheela at all. Mind you errors seem to be endemic with books on sheelas. Pryderi 13:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That Name again

In view of the fact that some of the contributors here have, in the past, derided the fact that 'Sidh' means 'fairy', I thought it appropriate to offer this:

P.W. Joyce has this to say on page 184, vol. 1, Irish Names of Places, 1901:

"Sidh [pronounced Shee] as we have seen, was originally applied to a fairy palace and it was afterwards transferred to the hill, and ultimately to the fairies themselves; but this last transition must have begun at a very early period, for we find it expressly stated in the Leabhar na hUidhre [early 12th century] , that the ignorant call the fairies Side [plural]. At the present day, the word generally signifies a fairy..."

Maoldown 09:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sídhe or Sídh (Mod.Ir., Sí) means the "fairy" mounds (actually, tombs of the ancestors). The various forms of "people of the Sídhe" (Aes Sídhe, Daoine Sídhe, Daoine Sìth, Daoine Sìdh etc.) more properly refer to the inhabitants of the mounds - whether seen as "fairies", ancestors or deities. In modern, colloquial usage (generally among those with no Gaelic), Sídhe is often used as a shorthand for the fairies/spirits, but that's not actually correct. In both SG and Irish, the word "sí/sìdh/sìth" does not ever seem to be used alone to mean "fairy/fairies". It means "fairy" as an adjective, but always seems to be used in conjunction with a noun, e.g. "daoine-sìth", "aos sí", etc. As a noun, it only seems to mean "fairy hill/mound". I don't know that there is agreement on when people started calling the spirits themselves by the name of the mounds, but it's always been my impression that it was an abbreviation that came with English usage, as even modern Irish and SG dictionaries follow the above conventions. If you want to check Joyce's assertions for yourself and your Irish is good: Lebor na hUidre
I'm not sure why you say that people here have "derided" the meaning of sídh and its related forms. Rather, the question has been whether or not "sídh" is related to the name Sheela na Gig. One thing about Irish language is that, if we are to believe that "Sheela" was a phonetic rendering of something that contained sídh, Irish speakers would not be referring to a female figure as a sídh, but rather as a bean sídhe. If the name had been recorded as "Banshee na whatever", the argument would be far more convincing. I have noted all along in my writings on the subject that the root forms of Sídh may well be relevant to the meaning of "Sheela" - if the two terms come from the same root, which we have not confirmed. But that is very different from the sort of pat explanation I've seen presented in some of the content disputes on this page and the article. Slán, - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Why can't it just be a descriptive nickname, or perhaps a euphemism, Sheila naGig(h)? If a nickname, it could have been coined by those who were familiar with the existence of the figures but did not have knowledge of the reason for their placement on churches. If a euphemism, the name may have been coined because the earlier name was believed to be unlucky. If the figures are put on churches to ward off bad luck, it could have been thought that to go around calling them by their original name (if their was one) would undo the benefit of having placed the images on churches (perhaps, for example, imprisoning them in the stone). Natrum (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

I propose we move this page to Sheela na Gig. Any objections? - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, there have been no objections, and poor RussBot has been going through and correcting double-redirects I caused (meaning them to be temporary). Unless someone objects now, I'll move this to the form we use in the article, Sheela na Gig, probably later today or tonight. I'll take care of the double-redirects this will cause. Tapadh Leibh, - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Mason's Joke

One of the theories missed out is that of the Mason's Joke. I.e. any anomalous or sexual figure is treated as as joke played by the mason who did the original sculpture. Is it worth including a section on this? I know the Kilpeck figure has had this explanation attached to it in the past. Pryderi 11:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muahaha!!

idk.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.231.115 (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Czech/Slovak

Why does it say "and/or" between Czech and Slovak republic? Either they're in both or just one surely?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.220.214 (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)