Talk:Benty Grange hanging bowl

Featured articleBenty Grange hanging bowl is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 25, 2024.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 22, 2021Good article nomineeListed
December 30, 2023Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 19, 2018.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a pair of yellow "dolphin-like creatures" from a 7th-century hanging bowl finds its closest parallel in manuscript art?
Current status: Featured article

Location??

Colour photograph of folio 2r of the Durham Gospel Fragment
Folio 2r of the Durham Gospel Fragment

So where are the bits?? Add projects please. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like the helmet, at Weston Park Museum in Sheffield.[1] But they say only parts of one fitting have survived. 213.205.240.246 (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One of the escutcheons is at Sheffield; the other is at the Ashmolean. I'll add the info later today when time permits. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah.[2] So the catalogue entry from the museum in Sheffield is wrong. The British Museum refers to the Benty escutcheons (in Sheffield and Oxford) when discussing the Faversham escutcheons, eg [3]. 213.205.240.246 (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added some more info about locations; still have a ways to go with expanding the article as a whole. Interesting comparison with the BM escutcheon. The Benty Grange ones generally seem to get compared most favorably with illustrations in the Gospel Book Fragment (Durham Cathedral Library, A. II. 10.) (uploaded at right, and here). I haven't yet read all the literature, however, and it's a bit confusing at the moment. Bruce-Mitford 1974 states that "The lateral stroke of the N in the IN monograph from St John in the Durham Gospel fragment MS A II 10 is built of two similar fish motifs," which is a clear reference to folio 2r, pictured. Bruce-Mitford 2005 (posthumous) states that "The fish-like ribbon animals are closely paralleled in MS art in the Durham Gospel fragment A.II.10 (Fig. 754)," yet figure 754 shows the knotwork in folio 3v. Currently inclined to think this is an editing error, but am not sure. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Hi Usernameunique. As requested, here are my comments.

  • I think you need to explain "escutcheon" in the lead. It is very obscure in this sense and not covered in any dictionary so far as I can see.
  • Done. The OED doesn't appear to include a specific definition, oddly, despite one of its examples of "hanging bowl" in a sentence being "The two bronze hanging-bowls (believed to be lamps) with enamelled escutcheons and mounts." --Usernameunique (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest using [[File:Hanging bowl DSCF6984.jpg]] instead of the Baginton one and explaining where the escutcheon is in the caption. This image is better as it has a full view of the escutcheon.
  • That one has the benefit of being pointed right at the escutcheon, but I didn't use it because the quality of the photo is worse, and because it doesn't give as good a sense of the entire bowl, or the placement of the hooks/escutcheons. Instead, I've added to the caption of the existing image to point out the escutcheons. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are no images of the escutcheon available? The lead image does not give a good idea of it. You could crop the escutcheons out of the watercolour as separate images and use the right hand one as the lead image.
  • Agreed that images would be preferable, although I'm not too fond of using the watercolors for the lead image—the quality just isn't there. I've emailed the Weston Park Museum a number of times over the years. Tried again a few days ago; the curator is apparently on leave at the moment, but will be relayed the message upon her return. Also tried the Ashmolean Museum, no response yet. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "still contained high-status objects suggestive of a richly furnished burial, including the hanging bowl and the Benty Grange helmet". It would be more accurate to say "fragments of the hanging bowl".
  • I get your point, although here I think focusing on the bowl makes more sense. The bowl, not the escutcheons, was the high-status object, and similarly, it is the fact that the the bowl was interred, rather than that a few escutcheons were recovered, that indicates the high status of the burial. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may too have been originally placed at the bottom of the Benty Grange bowl". Unless I completely misunderstand what an escutcheon is, they were under the rim, not at the bottom. (I see that you say below that some are internally at the bottom of the vessel, but this needs clarification. )
  • This is hopefully now clarified with a new line in the "Hanging bowls" section. There are two kinds: hook escutcheons and basal escutcheons (also known as basal discs). See here, for example, or Bruce-Mitford 2005. I'd be curious to know who coined the term "escutcheon" in this context; it was around by at least 1907 (1; 2), although I'll have to go through the earlier literature to see if there's a full explanation. (Although it fits within the OED's third definition of "escutcheon," i.e., "Anything shaped like, or resembling, an escutcheon," and may have just been used because of similarities with heraldic escutcheons.) --Usernameunique (talk) 05:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The hooks project from escutcheons: bronze plates or frames that are usually circular or oval, and that are frequently elaborately decorated". Maybe further clarify that they are attached to the bowl below the rim.
  • "with examples carried over for Anglo-Saxon and Viking use". What does "carried over" mean here?
  • "The Benty Grange hanging bowl comprises two surviving escutcheons." Escutcheons do not comprise the bowl.
  • "Anglo-Saxon metalwork designs like those on the Benty Grange escutcheons". I think you need to clarify the style. You say AS and cite Irish and AS ms parallels. Is it AS art strongly influenced by Celtic (if 'Celtic' is not a forbidden word)?
  • "Bateman suggested a body once lay at its centre, flat against the original surface of the soil, of which little remained;" Little remained of what?
  • Little of the soil, if we pay attention to grammar, but clearly that's not what I intended to say. Deleted that clause, so it now reads as Bateman suggested a body once lay at its centre, flat against the original surface of the soil; what he described as the one remnant, strands of hair, is now thought to be from a cloak of fur, cowhide or something similar. The phrase "strands of hair" should make it obvious that the "one remnant" refers to the body. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The hanging bowl entered the extensive collection of Bateman." Again I would say fragments of.
  • "having seen to his father's fortune". Is "seen to" a fortune AmerEng? In UK we would say "run through".
  • In the bibliography you have 3 identical "hanging bowl" sources, which are shown differently in the citations. The 3 should be different from each other and the same as the relevant citations.

Drive-by

  • The linking is poor - I've added some, but more remain. Probably the most relevant articles were not linked. The sources seem rather elderly; I can't believe more recent books don't mention this. "Escutcheon" in this sense is not that obscure & no doubt big dictionaries cover it - Escutcheon (furniture) is the nearest we have - Oxford online "a flat piece of metal for protection and often ornamentation, around a keyhole, door handle, or light switch" - or just about anything else. The enamel is no doubt champleve, which you should say. I'm not sure what the current thinking is about the idea that hanging bowls, or their decoration, were made by British workshops surviving into an AS world, but this should probably be mentioned. Johnbod (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles and Johnbod, thanks very much for the thoughtful comments. There's a bit to digest here, so I'm going to spend some time working through it in the next couple days. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2024

they spelt "artifact" wrong Lord Of The Losers (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC) [reply]

 Not done: Artefact is the British English spelling of "artifact." The spelling is correct. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 01:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apple lD abdulwakil 203.171.101.74 (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2024 (2)

Likinaw (talk) 05:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LIKINAW Adamu

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jamedeus (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]