Talk:Gundestrup cauldron

Capacity

I took it that the cauldron is basically a 69 cm sphere that has had chopped off a sphere cap 27 cm tall, thus it having a volume of 133.1685783 litres... But I really haven't got any first hand reason to say it is so... Some sources approach this data claiming it had a capacity fo 28 gallons (127 liters I guess) or of 130 litres... But... Anyone out there can quote sources for this data?Undead Herle King 21:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A correction of the data entered in one part of the equations furthers complicates my calculations giving that 113.6062735 litres was its capacity, not 133... Furthermore with this correction to the formula for the sphere cap volume's and considering that indeed 21 centimeters of its height were a cylinder and 21 centimeters a sphere cap gives a volume of 116.6245587 litres... The correction being that I had calculated the radius of the base circle for the sphere cap with 27 cm (the height) as hypotenuse and the square circle's radius as a cathetus (the rest being the sphere's radius minus the height); When the hypotenuse would had to be the sphere's radius (34.5 cm)... Anyway seeing how easily I could misscalculate this I'm even more doubtful of what non-expert pages claim... Any precise data out there?Undead Herle King 21:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Related

Does User:Wiglaf's entry Pre-Roman Iron Age relate to this in any way? Wetman 10:28, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

of course, via La Tene. dab 10:47, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The region where this cauldron was found is thought to preserve the name of the Cimbri. Since the cauldron is contemporary with the Cimbri, it is itching in my fingers to type that it was a Cimbric cauldron. Too bad, my original research alarms starts ringing at the mere thought of it :o).--Wiglaf 18:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I see that I have been beaten to it already: possibly commissioned by the celtic Scordisci and fallen into the hands of Cimbri who invaded the Middle lower Danube in 120 BC. This text assumes that the Cimbri took it and that some of them brought it back.--Wiglaf 19:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I vaguely remember typing that -- I think I found it on the web somewhere :) dab (ᛏ) 21:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you know the origin of the name Cimbri, and possibly the origin of Himmer? I'd love to add a linguistic note to the names :).--Wiglaf 07:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

In spite of your categorization, I'm not even sure we know they were Germanic not Celtic. so, no. The Cimmerians/Sugambri/Cumbria connection is of course popular, but not very credible (British Israelism). If they were Celtic, at least the connection with Cumbria/Cymru may be worth a thought. I am sort of enamoured of the idea, recently, that Proto-Celtic expansion, while still connected with Urnfield, of course, was related by the apparent tumults further east, the apparent Iranian migration that pushed the Cimmerians over the Caucasus. It is not inconceivable that Germanic tribes would adopt the names of Celtic or Iranian tribes with whom they were allied, or whom they had defeated, much like the "Hittites" adopted the Assyrian Nesa as an ethnonym. So who knows, maybe the names of the Cimbri and the Cimmerians are related after all, via some complicated amalgamation due to a 8th century BC Migration period. dab (ᛏ) 07:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The reason why I recategorized them as Germanic is that I did some googling and the more reliable sites I could find (Britannica [1], Encarta [2] and Columbia [3]) all called them Germanic or German. If we identify the Germanic tribes with the Nordic Bronze Age, then the Jastorf culture could have been Germanic superstrate culture with a Celtic substrate. On the other hand, the Celts were probably a group that the Germanic tribes admired and wanted to emulate. One way of emulating them would be to claim Celtic tribal names.--Wiglaf 07:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but where would the 'emulation' begin to be 'assimilation' to the point of being Celtic? On some occasions, where they bordered on one another, and possibly mixed, Celtic and Germanic tribes would have been almost impossible to tell apart. Since we don't have any scrap of the Cimbrian language, we can't tell. I suppose the idea is that since they were allied with the Teutons, who were probably Germanic, they would have been Germanic too. It would be safer to say that they were part of a 2nd century BC "Celto-Germanic continuum". dab (ᛏ) 07:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and we have the Ambrones, who were a Cimbric subgroup with a clearly Celtic name. Perhaps the name Cimbri might give a clue. Grimm's law which probably gave Himmer had not affected the name Cimbri, and so it should be considered a Celtic name (if Grimm's law already had come into effect). I guess Celto-Germanic is a good term, but that would probably make the Jastorf culture Celto-Germanic and not Germanic.--Wiglaf 07:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Jastorf would be the kernel of "Celto-Germanic" syncretism, although I imagine in 600 BC it would still be clearly (pre-)Germanic. A real continuum would begin to form with Germanic expansion to the Rhine and into Celtic territory, I don't know, 200 BC to 100 AD? The Cimbri seem to be a perfect example of this. Since in their time, the Germanic sound shift was clearly complete, they would have been either 'true' Celts, or Germans who had 'taken over' a formerly Celtic tribe, or at least their name. Is there no Germanic etymology for Himmer? Maybe, if rumors of the Cimmerians played such a major role in the 8th century, the name may have been adopted several times. But it seems unbelievable that the Gundestrup cauldron has anything to do with the Himmer name. Or could the Germanic sound shift have remained active as long as 100 BC? I don't really think so. dab (ᛏ) 09:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I have never suggested that the cauldron is connected to the name Himmer (it was only found in Himmerland). Perhaps, I should have moved the discussion to Talk:Cimbri.--Wiglaf 09:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

yesby, but if we speculate that the cauldron was brought to Himmerland by Cimbri, and that Himmer is related to Cimbri, naturally a connection between the toponym and the cauldron is suggested. dab (ᛏ) 09:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Dab, I have tried to find an alternative etymology for Himmer, and when I could not, I asked you about it. The connection is plausible, because if we assume that speakers of Celtic and Proto-Germanic lived in close contact at this time, Grimm's law would probably have been a transparent feature. Celtic kim- would perhaps have been recognisable as Germanic him-.--Wiglaf 09:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

this is really interesting. Check out this map of "Thraco-Cimmerian" bronze finds -- with remote outposts just about reaching Jastorf. It appears that the Proto-Celts were influenced by the "Thraco-Cimmerians" just like the Proto-Germans were influenced by the Celts. dab (ᛏ) 10:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

It is of course possible that the name is related to the Cimmerians. IIRC, Croatia and Serbia take their name from Iranian tribes. Here is another interpretation from Nordisk familjebok, which analyses the name as kimme meaning "rim" and referring to the Cimbrians as the "coast people". According to Pliny the Elder, there were still Cimbrians in the northernmost Jutland (i.e. in the area of Himmerland) in the 1st century.--Wiglaf 10:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Elephants on Plate C?

The article currently states that on plate C (Right)...

"The group is surrounded by elephants and griffins similar to those on plate B.".

However I do not see how this can be true, I couldn't find a picture of plate B on Wiki, but here is one from a website [4], now anyone who compares these two plates will instantly know that the animals represented are not the same. There are Griffins on plate C alright, but those other animals are clearly not Elephants. The Elephants on plate B have many distinguishing features that make them elephants, they have large Tusks and a Trunk, for one, the animals on B do not. They also have different feet, the elephants on B have flat feet (the type you would expect on Elephants), whereas the creatures on C have long claws and paws, like some kind of predator. If I was to hazard a guess, I'd say the Plate C animals are probably some kind of dogs. For these reasons I think that that reference to Elephants on C is wrong, and should be removed. --Hibernian 13:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

X-ray fluorescence analysis (XRF)

Hello! Has there been a X-ray fluorescence analysis effected on the Gundestrup cauldron? --Bullenwächter (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, but I know that Taylor and Bergquist opted not to perform any alloy or lead isotope analysis because they thought it likely that the cauldron had been made from melted coinage (they seem to have confirmed that), and that these coins would have originated in multiple mines, making isolation of a source mine impossible. Fuzzypeg★ 22:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Silversmiths from India?

Davemon, from your recent edits you obviously haven't read the cited article, and are inserting ideas you've got from somewhere else, who knows where. Taylor doesn't in the cited articles speculate that the silversmiths were Indian. Thracian, not Indian. He also doesn't claim that the Celtic attributions of these depictions (such as the antlered figure as a depiction of Cernunnos) are wrong. Indeed, the Cernunnos attribution is very widely agreed upon, since the figure is holding both a torc and a ram-horned serpent, key features of many Cernunnos depictions. Rather, Taylor suggests that these deities are "pancultural". I note that these edits coincide with a request for guidance at WP:ORN in which I mentioned Taylor's theories, and you are trying to distance Taylor from the traditional Celtic interpretations. Please don't rewrite Taylor's theories when you clearly aren't familiar with them! Fuzzypeg★ 04:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, apologies, this was part of a huge removal of interpative bias from the article, and I may have got a little carried away. I'll elaborate on the indian origin theory separately. There are still some bias problems with the article. The Cernunnos reading of the gundestrup cauldron figure is a theory, the language used in the article needlessly naturalises this position. This is POV pushing. In describing the cauldron We can identify the horned figure as "the horned figure" without recourse to any singular cultural interpretation. That is a less biased approach. We should be separating the neutral description of the artifact from interpretation of the pictoral imagery from interpretation of the physical technologies, rather than confusingly messing them up. You'll notice that my edits co-incide with several others, including on The Sorcerer ((cave art), Herne, Cernunnos and The Horned God all of which trying to clear up very similar bias-issues. Thanks for your help. --Davémon (talk) 10:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned that your edits are removing emphasis from the Celtic interpretations of these figures, which have a huge weight of literature behind them. I myself added the Taylor material to the article, and as far as I'm aware he hasn't argued against the traditional Celtic attributions himself, although he does state that these attributions aren't definite. The most certain of these attributions is the antlered figure attributed to Cernunnos, and this is still treated by many authors as the stereotypical representation of Cernunnos. I hoped to indicate something of this figure's fame in the article, while still not making the attribution seem definite, by putting quotation marks around the name "Cernunnos". I might have a go at making this even clearer.

However Taylor is just one author (although a well-respected one) among many, and I'm a bit worried that his view is being made to dominate the whole article. He and Bergquist provide some good solid evidence regarding construction and origin of manufacture, but I wouldn't naturalise the rest of his theories without solid evidence of their widespread acceptance. As far as I know, the theory that these deities are Celtic remains strong. Fuzzypeg★ 23:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

My intention wasn't to naturalise the indian-craftsmen theory, but to remove any interpretative language from the general discussion of the object at all. Most expert sources are unwilling to definately pin down the meaning of the imagery. Hence, in my opinion, "horned figure" or "antlered figure" is preferable to "Cernunnos" when broadly discussing the object. --Davémon (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG. What is this "Indian origin" hypothesis? If this isn't Taylor's suggestion, whose is it? Thrace isn't exactly in India, now. This stuff was introduced by Fuzzypeg in October [5] If the cauldron has been made in Thrace, why does the article keep talking about India, Indian deities etc.? User:Dbachmann 13:44, 2 December 2008

Taylor says that the artisans who made the cauldron may have been ethnic Indians living in Thrace. Unfortunately I do not have the source(s) at hand to directly quote it. --Davémon (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No, Taylor says the artisans who made the cauldron were Thracians, not Indians, but that they were influenced by Indian iconography. His theory for how such influence could occur over such large geographical distances is described in the article. My intention was not to naturalise his view, and indeed Davemon's recent edits have largely been to make Taylor's theory more prominent in the article, more naturalised, and the more traditional interpretations of Celtic origin relegated to the status of superseded and disproven theory. I've partially reverted Davemon's edits twice, but I'd be happy to do a fuller revert and make sure Taylor's theories of Indian origin are fully attributed, and possibly segregated. I wouldn't treat Taylor as a fringe theorist, since he is a well-respected academic expert on the Cauldron, who has published on the subject in Antiquities, but considering that his Indian origin theories appeared in Scientific American rather than an academic journal, and I haven't been able to gauge how this theory has been received, I wouldn't want to naturalise it. Fuzzypeg★ 22:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I've done some further reverting (keeping recently added material but undoing the rearrangements that gave precedence to Taylor), and I've made further changes to clearly attribute the Indian origin theories to him. We may decide we want to further segregate his theory, but hopefully there's no longer such a pressing problem. Fuzzypeg★ 00:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

guys, I appreciate that Taylor speculated there may have been a connection with Indian iconography. Fine. Let's mention that at some point in the article body. Let's not take that as an excuse to spam the entire article with tangents about Indian iconography or Hindu deities. WP:DUE. It's an interesting hypothesis, but it's a marginal (not to say fringe) idea. The focus here lies on the connection Thrace-Gaul-Himmerland and Celtic polytheism. WP:DUE. I am not saying this because I dislike the idea, and I do think the argument would be compelling if there was any independent evidence of Indian influence on Thracian art. It's just that in all discussions of the Gundestrup cauldron I have seen, the focus is clearly on Gaul vs. Thrace. --dab (𒁳) 10:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Can we also stop using interpretative language when describing the iconography, and keep matters of cultural-identification separate from the objects description? I've reverted Fuzzypegs edits which reinstated these interpretations because the identification of the figures as supernatural entities is not entirely agreed and this interpretation doesn't need to be forced onto readers wp:npov "Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." Using the names "Kernunnos" or "Antlered God" to describe the seated figure isn't allowing for the reader to decide for themselves what the subject matter is ( a shaman, a guy in a funny hat, shiva, budda, etc. etc.) it's favouring the most popular interpretation of the iconography, and that is bias. Neutral descriptions of the figures do not favour Taylor, Olmsted or anyone else. --Davémon (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

this isn't a deep dispute, but for the record, I consider it questionable style to call "come to the talkpage" in reaction to an edit by a user who at the time of the edit had made the most recent talkpage posting.[6]. It happens too often that I am called an edit-warrior while I am busy having a monologue on talk. I am also nonplussed how you can say that "this has nothing to do with Indians" in the edit summary of an edit re-instating talk of evident Indian origin, as in probably copied from Indian work through several steps of transmission; the elephants, for example, are highly distorted, and their oddly-placed ears evidently[!] derive from decorative hats in the Indian models. wth man - I'm all for "doesn't need to be forced onto readers", but this cuts both ways. Let's find an encyclopedic discussion, and see how much space is devoted to Celtic mythology, and how much to Indian iconography, and style this article accordingly within WP:DUE. --dab (𒁳) 17:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think your input has largely been very helpful. Sorry for getting up your nose. However, rather than just reverting, we should be looking at the text and making sure it fits our NPOV-ideal and editing more delicately. Indeed, the "evident" is probably incorrect language as much as the identification of the images as gods in the titles and description of the object. Beware, popularity doesn't make neutrality! Just because a whole bunch of people believe the object is 'celtic' doesn't mean this article should be describing it in those terms. Lets keep the description of the object and the interpretation of the object separate, and make reference to it in neutral terms, not culturally ascribed ones, and then describe the theories applied to it. I think that way we can achieve good NPOV. --Davémon (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

fwiiw, I am willing to accept as reasonable the summary of Cunliffe, (1994) and Greene (1992), viz. both post-dating Taylor, and both in respectable publications, as given here, The imagery shown on the cauldron appears to come from a variety of cultures including: Celtic, Greek, Indian, and Iranian mythology. (Cunliffe: 402) There are many pictures shown on the cauldron which include what some scholars believe to be Gods, people, and animals. (Green: 109) Some of the more exotic animals depicted even include leopards. (ibid.) There is even a dolphin-rider which appears on the cauldron. (Cunliffe: 402) Scholars believe that the larger human like figures were actually depictions of divine beings or Gods due to their increased and seemingly symbolic stature. (Green: 109) Thematically speaking, the pictorial depictions on the Gundestrup cauldron appear to fit the history of Eastern influences along the Euro-Asian steppe axis. (Cunliffe: 402) "Eastern influences along the Euro-Asian steppe axis" sounds about right. This does, ultimately, connect to India, but only as the most remote region participating, besides all of Eastern Europe, Central Asia and Greater Persia. All this talk of "Indian craftsmen", "decorative hats in the Indian models", Lakshmi, Vishnu, Hariti etc., besides the obligatory Siberian shamans, seems comparatively cranky. And, no surprise there, the cranks did pick up on it.[7][8] What I conclude from this is that the Thracians were very close culturally to the Scythians (not exactly controversial. In the 2nd century BC, the journey from Thrace to the Sarmatian homeland was about 300 km by sea, or a couple of days' sail), who were, of course, Iranians. Indo-Aryan and Iranian mythology remained closely related in the Iron Age, and via Thrace, "Thraco-Cimmerian" and Celtic transmission, there has been a strong Scythian, and hence Iranian, influence on Central and even Western Europe. This is fascinating, but it is counter productive to go over board with it to the point of implausibility. --dab (𒁳) 17:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the careful separation of description and scholarly interpretation at shadowdrake, although I'd argue to describe the object first, then give interpretations. I can not comment on the accuracy of the summation of the sources. As Donald Mackenzie in "Buddhism in Pre-christian Britian" shows, alternative-thinkers were writing about yoga and buddha in the Gundestrup cauldron back long before Taylor was published (1928). Davémon (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

House Shadow Drake is interesting but hardly what I'd call scholarly. Some of their more doubtful stuff has been removed in recent years, but they used to have some very unconvincing items in their folklore section, and they wouldn't grace me with a reply when I contacted them to ask for further information...

I'm happy with how the article's heading, though, and if one of us could get our hands on the cited works of Cunliffe (1994) and Green (1992) I'm sure we could improve it even further. Fuzzypeg★ 04:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Plate B

Why is there no photo of plate B and no discussion of the female figure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.240.243 (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Observations

1. The pictured Gundestrup vessel is a reconstruction, not the original, which has never been put together (for what should be completely obvious reasons).
2. a "1928 book", and that too by a journalist, is not a source of much worth.
3. there is no consensus whatsoever as to the origin of the artwork, and Taylor's suggestion, though valid in an of itself, does not belong in the introduction to this article. It leads (as it were) the reader to assume that Taylor's suggestion is representative. While a suggestion of strong Thracian element is reasonable (pretty much everyone agrees on this), the "with influence by Indian iconography" is utterly inappropriate precision. Perhaps whoever added that had no knowledge of the mass of literature on the vessel? In addition to "India" (which is what in 100BC?), the three Gauls, Lower Danube area, Black Sea area (other than Thrace), Scythia/Samartia, Balkans have all at one time or another been suggested for the lesser elements. Even the Baltic area+Scandinavia itself (originally posited by eminence grise Sophus Müller), though a dated proposition, is not out of the question. Its not as the Gauls didn't get around (cf. Galatia)

Raven totem helmet on cauldron

The Celtic Helmet from Satu Mare, Romania (northern Dacia), an Iron Age raven totem helmet, dated around 4th century BC. A similar helmet is depicted on the Gundestrup cauldron, being worn by one of the mounted warriors (detail tagged here). See also an illustration of Brennos wearing a similar helmet.

I added an images of this 4th century BC Celtic helmet discovered in Satu Mare, Romania, which is obviously very similar with the one on the cauldron. If you look at this quality picture of the warriors on the cauldron, it is quite obvious. I didn't get the chance to put sources yet, and I'll look for some, but I don't think this is OR. I think is very relevant. We just need sources. --Codrin.B (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Codrin.B, but I've just performed a small clean-up of uncited or undue material in the article, and noticed this. Two years on we've still no scholarly citation for this comparison, so I've removed the image and caption as WP:OR. Haploidavey (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Interpretations section and its gallery

The gallery seems to offer undue weight and prominence to Taylor's interpretation. I've no argument against the source or its broad conclusions, but Taylor's comparisons and proposals are speculative. The image captions invite the reader to make comparisons, to note iconographic similarities and draw specific conclusions. I don't know if they're Taylor's conclusions; or if he referred to these specific images, but even if they are - and he did - we should not seem to be arguing for a particular viewpoint (Taylor's), or offering it undue weight. Imho, the gallery distorts the section, and should be removed. Apart from the business of due weight and proportion, the central figure on the so-called "Pashupati" seal is amenable to a whole range of modern interpretations. Few modern sources support it as an ancestral or proto-Shiva (Pashupati); the second, third and fourth images would be problematic even without those assertive, instructional captions, as they inevitably nudge the unwary reader towards Taylor's interpretation and no other. Haploidavey (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Interior Plate A

Whilst the usual interpretation is that the horned man / god is holding a serpent by the head, it strikes me that this might also be a sword belt - Balteus in Latin.

58.172.244.207 (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Ian Ison

Never seen that in a source, and why would he? Johnbod (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gundestrup cauldron. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160112064611/http://www.nms.ac.uk/national-museum-of-scotland/whats-on/celts to http://www.nms.ac.uk/national-museum-of-scotland/whats-on/celts/

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) 06:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

connections with jiroft, indus valley civilization and BMAC

garuda

guntestrup cauldron

INdus valley civilization, BMAC

jiroft

griffin

Guntestrup

Indus valley civilization

vegetal motif containing mountain tulip and pipal leaf

guntestrup

indus valley civilization

unicorn

guntestrup

indus civilization

spearing/using sword a bull/ unicorn

guntestrup

indus civilization

lord of animals

guntestrup

jiroft

indus valley civilization

female hair tied/ wrapped in cloth

guntestrup

jiroft

jiroft

indus valley civilization

indus valley civilization

head band

guntestrup

indus valley civilization

horned diety grabing snake

guntestrup

jiroft

Thracian plate

Thracian plate Letnitsa treasure

octopus star, indus valley civilization, surkotada, near BMAC

jiroft man on a horse carrying a spear

BMAC motif of egg and dart

jiroft beard and hair style

priest king indus civilization 115.135.130.182 (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but don't forget the 1,000+ year gap between the IVC & the cauldron. Many of these motifs had been widespread around Eurasia for a long time, and some, like the Master of Animals appear earlier elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

order

can anybody share some information about the possible order of the plates? i see three overview photographs with utterly contradicting plate-orders (bge, decf, bfa) but nothing about who chose for these particular orders or by what reasoning. in the article a theory by sophus müller is shared (and defied by taylor), but not which order müller proposes except the alternation of male-female-figures. anybody? Raaskal (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The cauldron was discovered disassembled, so the original order is ultimately unknowable. I don't remember too much in the literature on this - it may not even have been important to the makers. It seems as if it has been reassembled different ways in the recent past, but I don't know too much about that. Compare the Torrs Pony-cap and Horns btw - I think that has been displayed 3 different ways in recent decades. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand, those 3 different ways explain the 3 different photos. still i am curious about müller's order, -and the other orders- even when its/their academical ground is shaky. for even these are part of the - though very recent - iconographical history of the cauldron. Raaskal (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure the arguments are recorded somewhere in the literature, perhaps not in English though. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Use??

What was it used for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.92.180 (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)