Jump to content

Talk:Benty Grange hanging bowl

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

[edit]
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

[edit]

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?
  • Changed to with examples still used during Anglo-Saxon and Viking times. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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

[edit]
  • 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

[edit]

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

Copy of article bearing requested change

Benty Grange hanging bowl
A circular design with yellow background showing three dolphin-like creatures, outlined in silver, each biting the tail of the one ahead of it
Reconstructed escutcheon design[note 1]
MaterialBronze, enamel
Discovered1848
Benty Grange farm, Monyash, Derbyshire, England
53°10′30″N 1°46′59″W / 53.174895°N 1.782923°W / 53.174895; -1.782923
Discovered byThomas Bateman
Present location
RegistrationJ93.1190; AN1893.276

The Benty Grange hanging bowl is a fragmentary Anglo-Saxon artifact from the seventh century AD. All that remains are parts of two escutcheons: bronze frames that are usually circular and elaborately decorated, and that sit along the outside of the rim or at the interior base of a hanging bowl. A third disintegrated soon after excavation, and no longer survives. The escutcheons were found in 1848 by the antiquary Thomas Bateman, while excavating a tumulus at the Benty Grange farm in western Derbyshire, and were presumably buried as part of an entire hanging bowl. The grave had probably been looted by the time of Bateman's excavation, but still contained high-status objects suggestive of a richly furnished burial, including the hanging bowl and the boar-crested Benty Grange helmet.

The surviving escutcheons are made of enamelled bronze and are 40 mm (1.6 in) in diameter. They show three dolphin-like creatures arranged in a circle, each biting the tail of the one ahead of it. Their bodies and the background are made of enamel, likely all yellow; the creatures' outlines and eyes are tinned or silvered, as are the borders of the escutcheons. Although three escutcheons from a hanging bowl at Faversham also contain dolphin-like creatures, the Benty Grange design is most closely paralleled by Insular manuscripts, particularly figures in the Durham Gospel Fragment and the Book of Durrow. Surviving illustrations of the third escutcheon show that it was of a different size and style, exhibiting a scroll-like pattern; it parallels the basal disc of a hanging bowl from Winchester, and may too have been originally placed at the bottom of the Benty Grange bowl.

What remains of one escutcheon belongs to Museums Sheffield and as of 2023 was in the collection of the Weston Park Museum. The other is held by the Ashmolean Museum at the University of Oxford; as of 2023 it is not on display.

Hanging bowls

[edit]
A hanging bowl seen from the side and slightly above, with two hook escutcheons visible on the outside of the rim
A 7th-century hanging bowl, with two hook escutcheons visible, found at Baginton

Hanging bowls are thin-walled bronze vessels, with three or four equidistant hooks around the rim for suspension, that are a fixture of Late Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, and Viking archaeology and art—a period spanning approximately 400 AD to 1100 AD.[1] The hooks project from escutcheons: bronze plates or frames that are usually circular or oval, that are frequently elaborately decorated, and that are riveted or soldered (or occasionally both) to the bowl.[2] Basal escutcheons, also known as basal discs, would sometimes sit at the base of the interior.[3] A 2005 catalogue of hanging bowls identified some 174 known examples, around 68 of which were relatively complete.[4] Within the British Isles, England accounted for 117, Scotland for 7, and Ireland for 17; elsewhere, Norway accounted for 26, and the remainder of Europe for 7.[4]

The purpose of hanging bowls, and their places of manufacture, is unknown.[2] They appear to have been manufactured by Celtic makers in Britain in the post-Roman period; examples were also used by Anglo-Saxons (who likely received bowls via trade) and, later, by Vikings.[5][6] One possibility is that they were originally made by populations outside the sphere of Anglo-Saxon control, such as in the Severn Valley in southwest England and the Moray Firth in Scotland, and—as the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms extended their territories—were manufactured in progressively northern places, such as Dál Riata, Strathclyde, and Pictland, with the tradition ultimately taking root in Ireland also.[6][7]

Many suggestions have been made as to the original use of hanging bowls, including as lamps or lamp reflectors,[8] votive vessels hung in churches,[9] vessels for liturgical use such as washing hands or communion vessels,[10][11] sanctuary lamps, wayside drinking vessels of the sort Edwin of Northumbria is said to have provided for travellers,[12] finger bowls,[13] scale pans for weighing wool,[14] magnetic compasses, food containers, holy water stoups, wash basins, and ceremonial vessels used in mead halls.[15][16] When they were acquired by Anglo-Saxons and Vikings, the bowls likely took on even more uses.[15] Whatever their original functional purpose, by the seventh century hanging bowls appear to have been increasingly associated with wealth and the status of their owners;[17] during the seventh and early eighths centuries hanging bowls were a common feature in richly furnished Anglo-Saxon graves.[18] By this point, the role of hanging bowls as a status symbol may have been more important than any functional purpose.[17]

Description

[edit]
INI monograph from folio 2r of the Durham Gospel Fragment, with two circular fish-like creatures forming the diagonal stroke
The INI monogram in the Durham Gospel Fragment contains similar fish-like creatures.

Two escutcheons are all that remain of the Benty Grange hanging bowl.[19] They are made of enamelled bronze and are 40 mm (1.6 in) in diameter.[19] They have the same design and plain frames, parts of which survive.[19] Both escutcheons are fragmentary; enough survives of each for the design to be reconstructed,[19] and, because of overlapping segments, for it to be certain that they represent two distinct pieces.[20] Whether they are hook or basal escutcheons is uncertain, but a contemporary watercolour by Llewellynn Jewitt suggests that a hook was present at excavation, and an iron ring, 2 millimetres in width and 16 in diameter, stuck to the back of one fragment may have been part of a suspension chain.[19] The decomposed enamel background appears uniformly yellow to the eye,[21] as it did when excavated.[22][23][24] A yellow-creatures-on-red-background colour scheme has alternatively been claimed,[25][26][27] but no evidence for such a layout has been presented.[21] As sampling of the enamel was not permitted when one of the escutcheons was analysed in 1968, the all-yellow hypothesis is not definitive.[28][note 2]

The reconstructed design shows three ribbon-style creatures resembling dolphins or fish, depicted in and arranged in a circle with each biting the tail of the one in front.[19] The bodies are defined by their outlines.[20] They are limbless, the tails curled in a circle, the jaws long and curved, and slightly ajar; the bitten tails pass under each creature's upper jaw and over its lower, but are missing where one would expect to see them passing through the gap between jaws.[19] Each creature has a small eye shaped like a pointed oval.[19] The outer borders of the discs, the plain frames, and the contours and eyes of the creatures are all tinned or silvered.[19]

Surviving records of the third escutcheon indicate that it was of a different style and size.[19][20] Drawings by Bateman and Jewitt show it with a scroll pattern and small piece of frame.[20][22][32] It appears to have been about half the size of the other two, and may have originally been placed at the bottom of the hanging bowl.[19]

The escutcheons were presumably part of an entire hanging bowl when buried.[19] Nothing else survives.[19] A mass of corroded chainwork discovered 6 feet (1.8 m) away, which survives only in illustrations by Jewitt and descriptions by Bateman,[33][34] is unlikely to be related; although a large and intricate chain was found with a cauldron from Sutton Hoo, the Benty Grange chains appear dissimilar.[35] The Benty Grange chainwork was also probably too heavy to have been used to suspend the hanging bowl.[35]

Parallels

[edit]
Folio 192v from the Book of Durrow, with illustrations of dolphin-like creatures biting each others' tails
Similar dolphin-like creatures from the Book of Durrow

The dolphin-like designs on the Benty Grange hanging bowl are paralleled by designs on other escutcheons, and even more closely by designs on medieval illuminated manuscripts.[25][36] Three escutcheons from a hanging bowl found in Faversham show creatures that also look like dolphins,[37][38][39] but with more detailed bodies;[36] a better parallel is with a disc found near the Lullingstone hanging bowl which dates to the late seventh century and is also decorated with dolphin-like creatures.[40][41] Two other sixth- or seventh-century discs, found in Chilton and Coltishall, also depict intertwined serpent-like creatures attempting to eat their own tails.[42][43] The third escutcheon from Benty Grange, meanwhile, surviving only in illustration, is most closely paralleled by the basal disc of the Winchester hanging bowl.[44][45]

Even closer parallels to the Benty Grange designs are found in manuscript illustrations.[36] Bateman remarked on this as early as 1861, noting that similar patterns were used in "several manuscripts of the [seventh] Century, for the purpose of decorating the initial letters".[24][46] Metalwork designs like those on the Benty Grange escutcheons may have inspired aspects of the manuscript art.[47][48] In particular, the mid-seventh-century Durham Gospel Fragment contains two similar fish-like motifs contained within the lateral stroke of the INI monogram that introduces the Gospel of Mark.[20][49] The Book of Durrow also contains an illustration of similarly linked yellow dolphin-like creatures.[47][48]

Date

[edit]

The Benty Grange hanging bowl is dated by most experts to the second half of the seventh century, based on its design and the associated finds from the barrow in which it was found.[44] Given the presence of a helmet and cup with silver crosses, wrote Audrey Ozanne, "[t]he straightforward interpretation of this find would seem to be that it dates from a period subsequent to the official introduction of Christianity into Mercia in 655".[50][51][52] The surviving escutcheons, too, suggest a date in the mid-seventh century, given their resemblance to the illustrations in the Durham Gospel Fragment and the Book of Durrow;[53][54] the Winchester hanging bowl's basal disc, which the third Benty Grange escutcheon resembles, has traditionally been given the same date.[26][55]

Discovery

[edit]

Location

[edit]
Green farmland on an overcast day, with a stone wall in the foreground, and somewhat dilapidated stone buildings bordered by trees in the background
Benty Grange Farm, in the parish of Monyash in the Derbyshire Dales district

The hanging bowl was discovered in a barrow on the Benty Grange farm in Derbyshire,[56] in what is now the Peak District National Park.[57] Thomas Bateman, an archaeologist and antiquarian who led the excavation,[note 3] described Benty Grange as "a high and bleak situation";[56] its barrow, which still survives, is prominently located by a major Roman road,[60] now roughly parallel to the A515 in the area,[61] possibly to display the burial to passing travellers.[62][63] The barrow is one of several tumuli in the vicinity, and may have also been designed to share the skyline with two other nearby monuments, Arbor Low stone circle and Gib Hill barrow.[62][64]

The seventh-century Peak District was a small buffer province between Mercia and Northumbria, occupied, according to the Tribal Hidage, by the Anglo-Saxon Pecsæte.[65][66][note 4] The area came under the control of the Mercian kingdom around the eighth century;[66] the Benty Grange and other rich barrows suggest that the Pecsæte may have had their own dynasty beforehand, but there is no written evidence for this.[65]

Excavation

[edit]

Bateman excavated the barrow on 3 May 1848.[56] Although he did not mention it in his account, he was probably not the first person to dig up the grave.[71] The fact that the objects were found in two clusters 6 feet (1.8 m) apart, and that other objects that normally accompany a helmet, such as a sword and shield, were absent,[72] suggests that the grave had previously been looted.[71] Given the size of the mound, an alternative (or additional) explanation is that it originally contained two burials, only one of which Bateman discovered.[73][note 5]

The barrow comprises a circular central mound approximately 15 m (50 ft) in diameter and 0.6 m (2 ft) high, an encircling fosse about 1 m (3.3 ft) wide and 0.3 m (1 ft) deep, and outer penannular earthworks around 3 m (10 ft) wide and 0.2 m (0.66 ft) high.[73] The entire structure measures approximately 23 by 22 m (75 by 72 ft).[73] Bateman suggested a body once lay at its centre, flat against the original surface of the soil;[56][75] what he described as the one remnant, strands of hair, is now thought to be from a cloak of fur, cowhide or something similar.[76] The recovered objects were found in two clusters.[71][77][78] One cluster was found in the area of the supposed hair, the other about 6 ft (1.8 m) to the west.[77][78] In the latter area Bateman described "a large mass of oxydized iron" which, when removed and washed, presented itself as a jumbled collection of chainwork, a six-pronged piece of iron resembling a hayfork, and the Benty Grange helmet.[79][80][81]

In the area of the supposed hair, Bateman described "a curious assemblage of ornaments", which were difficult to remove successfully from the hardened earth.[56][77] This included a cup identified as leather but probably of wood,[82][83] approximately 3 in (7.6 cm) in diameter at the mouth.[56][22] Its rim was edged with silver,[56] and its surface was "decorated by four wheel-shaped ornaments and two crosses of thin silver, affixed by pins of the same metal, clenched inside".[24] Also found were "a knot of very fine wire", some "thin bone variously ornamented with lozenges &c." attached to silk, but that soon decayed when exposed to air, and the Benty Grange hanging bowl.[22][32][46] As Bateman described it

The other articles found in the same situation are principally personal ornaments, of the same scroll pattern as those figured at page 25 of the Vestiges of the Antiquities of Derbyshire;[84]—of these enamels, there were two upon copper, with silver frames; and another of some composition which fell to dust almost immediately: the prevailing colour in all is yellow.[22]

Refer to caption
A contemporary watercolour by Llewellynn Jewitt depicts the surviving escutcheons, top, fragments of the third escutcheon, second-to-bottom row, and associated finds.

Bateman closed his 1848 account of the excavation by noting the "particularly corrosive nature of the soil",[85] which by 1861 he said "has generally been the case in tumuli in Derbyshire".[86] He suggested that this was the result of "a mixing or tempering with some corrosive liquid; the result of which is the presence of thin ochrey veins in the earth, and the decomposition of nearly the whole of the human remains."[86] Bateman's friend Llewellynn Jewitt, an artist and antiquarian who frequently accompanied Bateman on excavations,[87] painted four watercolours of the finds, parts of which were included in Bateman's 1848 account.[88][note 6] This was more than Jewitt produced for any other of their excavations, a mark of the importance that they assigned to the Benty Grange barrow.[88]

The hanging bowl escutcheons entered Bateman's extensive collection. On 27 October 1848 he reported his discoveries, including the helmet, cup, and hanging bowl, at a meeting of the British Archaeological Association,[90][91][92] and in 1855 they were catalogued along with other objects from the Benty Grange barrow.[93] In 1861 Bateman died at age 39,[59] and in 1876 his son, Thomas W. Bateman, loaned the collection to the town council (the Corporation of Sheffield).[94] It was displayed at the Weston Park Museum through 1893, at which point the younger Bateman, having spent his father's fortune, was forced to sell by order of chancery.[95][96] The Corporation of Sheffield purchased many of the objects that had been excavated in Yorkshire, Derbyshire, and Staffordshire, including the helmet, the cup fittings, and one of the hanging bowl escutcheons; other pieces were dispersed by Sotheby's,[96][97] and later in 1893 the second escutcheon was presented to the Ashmolean Museum at the University of Oxford by Sir John Evans.[98] As of 2021 and 2023, respectively, the escutcheons remain in the collections of the two museums.[99][98]

The Benty Grange barrow was designated a scheduled monument on 23 October 1970.[73] The list entry notes that "[a]lthough the centre of Benty Grange [barrow] has been partially disturbed by excavation, the monument is otherwise undisturbed and retains significant archaeological remains."[73] It goes on to note that further excavation would yield new information.[73] The surrounding fields were designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest in 2013, and see agricultural use.[100] The nearby farmhouse was renovated between 2012 and 2014;[101][102] as of 2023 is used as a holiday cottage.[103]

Publication

[edit]

Bateman published an article on the Benty Grange excavation in October 1848—five months after excavating the barrow—in The Journal of the British Archaeological Association.[104] The finds were included in his 1855 catalogue of his collection,[105] and shortly before his death, Bateman revised and expanded upon his 1848 account in his 1861 book Ten Years' Digging in Celtic and Saxon Grave Hills.[106] Llewellynn Jewitt commented upon the finds, including the hanging bowl, in his 1870 book Grave-Mounds and their Contents.[107]

The hanging bowl was one of the first to be discovered, and in 1898 John Romilly Allen included it among 16 examples in the first English article to discuss hanging bowls as a distinct class of artefact.[108][109] It was frequently mentioned in the literature thereafter,[36] including reconstructions by T. D. Kendrick in 1932 and 1938,[110][111] Françoise Henry in 1936,[112] Audrey Ozanne in 1962–1963,[113] George Speake in 1980,[114] and Jane Brenan in 1991.[115] Rupert Bruce-Mitford published a chapter on the Benty Grange burial in 1974, focusing on the helmet,[116] and published what he termed a definitive reconstruction of the escutcheons in 1987;[117] in his posthumous 2005 work A Corpus of Late Celtic Hanging-Bowls he added a full description of the hanging bowl, and a colour reconstruction of the escutcheons.[118]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ After Bruce-Mitford & Raven 2005, pl. 3.
  2. ^ Very few hanging bowl escutcheons have yellow rather than red enamel.[29][30] Many that appear yellow actually contain deteriorated red enamel; such enamel tends to be chalky or powdery instead of glassy, and visibly red enamel may remain underneath.[29][31] Françoise Henry stated in 1936 that the Benty Grange escutcheons were yellow-on-red,[25] as did Günther Haseloff [de] in 1990[27]—although he incorrectly attributed the two-colour theory to Rupert Bruce-Mitford.[21] Bruce-Mitford, who conducted the 1968 analysis on the escutcheon at the Weston Park Museum, wrote that "[n]o slightest trace of red can be detected in the depths or fractures of the background or the body-filling so far as these are visible".[28] Because sampling was not permitted, he termed the all-yellow colour scheme "a working hypothesis" while also noting that the bodies "are certainly yellow".[28] Otherwise, they would probably be yellow-on-red.[28]
  3. ^ Bateman excavated more than 500 barrows in his lifetime, earning him the moniker "The Barrow Knight".[58][59]
  4. ^ The Tribal Hidage is a list of territories south of the Humber, sized by hides, which were used as a measure of taxation.[67] Though the list has been variously dated between the mid-seventh and the late-eighth centuries, it may mix earlier and later calculations, and include information from as late as the tenth century;[68][69] it survives in several manuscripts, the latest of which dates to around the eleventh century.[70]
  5. ^ Llewellynn Jewitt suggested in 1870 that there had been two burials, writing that "In this mound, although a curious and unique helmet, the silver mountings of a leather drinking-cup, some highly interesting and beautiful enamelled ornaments, and other objects, as well as indications of the garments, remained, not a vestige of the body, with the exception of some of the hair, was to be seen. The lovely and delicate form of the female and the form of the stalwart warrior or noble had alike returned to their parent earth, leaving no trace behind, save the enamel of her teeth and traces of his hair alone, while the ornaments they wore and took pride in, and the surroundings of their stations, remained to tell their tale at this distant date."[74]
  6. ^ The four watercolours are now in the collection of the Weston Park Museum.[88][33][34][89]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Bruce-Mitford & Raven 2005, pp. 3, 34.
  2. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford & Raven 2005, p. 3.
  3. ^ Bruce-Mitford & Raven 2005, p. 11.
  4. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford & Raven 2005, pp. 3–5.
  5. ^ Bruce-Mitford & Raven 2005, pp. 29–30.
  6. ^ a b Webster 2012, pp. 101–102.
  7. ^ Youngs 2009, p. 228.
  8. ^ Henry 1936, pp. 211–213.
  9. ^ McRoberts 1963, pp. 304–305.
  10. ^ Liestøl 1953.
  11. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1987, p. 31.
  12. ^ Colgrave & Mynors 1969, p. 193.
  13. ^ Small, Thomas & Wilson 1973, pp. 110–111.
  14. ^ Mitchell 1923, p. 71 n.31.
  15. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford & Raven 2005, p. 30.
  16. ^ Fowler 1968, pp. 287–288.
  17. ^ a b Brenan 1991, p. 135.
  18. ^ Geake 1999.
  19. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Bruce-Mitford & Raven 2005, p. 119.
  20. ^ a b c d e Bruce-Mitford 1974, p. 250 n.5.
  21. ^ a b c Bruce-Mitford & Raven 2005, pp. 77, 119.
  22. ^ a b c d e Bateman 1848b, p. 277.
  23. ^ Bateman 1855, p. 160.
  24. ^ a b c Bateman 1861, p. 29.
  25. ^ a b c Henry 1936, p. 236.
  26. ^ a b Ozanne 1962–1963, pp. 20–22.
  27. ^ a b Haseloff 1990, p. 162.
  28. ^ a b c d Bruce-Mitford & Raven 2005, p. 77.
  29. ^ a b Brown 1981, pp. 230–231.
  30. ^ Bruce-Mitford & Raven 2005, pp. 76–77.
  31. ^ Bruce-Mitford & Raven 2005, p. 76.
  32. ^ a b Bateman 1861, pp. 29–30.
  33. ^ a b Museums Sheffield chainwork 1.
  34. ^ a b Museums Sheffield chainwork 2.
  35. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1974, p. 250 n.6.
  36. ^ a b c d Bruce-Mitford & Raven 2005, p. 120.
  37. ^ British Museum Faversham 1.
  38. ^ British Museum Faversham 2.
  39. ^ British Museum Faversham 3.
  40. ^ Bruce-Mitford & Raven 2005, pp. 72, 120, 175, 428.
  41. ^ Vierck 1970, p. 45.
  42. ^ Portable Antiquities Scheme Chilton 2017.
  43. ^ Portable Antiquities Scheme Coltishall 2017.
  44. ^ a b Ozanne 1962–1963, p. 22.
  45. ^ Winchester hanging bowl.
  46. ^ a b Bruce-Mitford 1974, pp. 224–225.
  47. ^ a b Kendrick 1938, pp. 100–101.
  48. ^ a b Haseloff 1958, pp. 87–88.
  49. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1987, p. 37.
  50. ^ Ozanne 1962–1963, p. 20.
  51. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1974, p. 242.
  52. ^ Longley 1975, p. 25.
  53. ^ Henry 1936, pp. 218, 236.
  54. ^ Brenan 1991, pp. 68, 72.
  55. ^ Bruce-Mitford & Raven 2005, pp. 132–136.
  56. ^ a b c d e f g Bateman 1861, p. 28.
  57. ^ Lester 1987, p. 34.
  58. ^ Goss 1889, p. 176.
  59. ^ a b Howarth 1899, p. v.
  60. ^ Ozanne 1962–1963, p. 35.
  61. ^ Derbyshire Historic Environment Record.
  62. ^ a b Brown 2017, p. 21.
  63. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1974, p. 224.
  64. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1974, pp. 223–224.
  65. ^ a b Yorke 1990, pp. 9–12, 102, 106, 108.
  66. ^ a b Keynes 2014, p. 312.
  67. ^ Kirby 1991, p. 9.
  68. ^ Kirby 1991, pp. 9–11.
  69. ^ Blair 2014.
  70. ^ Yorke 1990, pp. 9–10.
  71. ^ a b c Bruce-Mitford 1974, p. 229.
  72. ^ Smith 1908, p. 68.
  73. ^ a b c d e f Historic England Benty Grange.
  74. ^ Jewitt 1870, p. 211.
  75. ^ Bateman 1848b, p. 276.
  76. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1974, pp. 223, pl. 73.
  77. ^ a b c Bateman 1848b, pp. 276–277.
  78. ^ a b Bateman 1861, pp. 28–30.
  79. ^ Bateman 1848b, pp. 277–278.
  80. ^ Bateman 1861, pp. 30–32.
  81. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1974, pp. 225–227.
  82. ^ Allen 1898, pp. 46–47, 47 n.a.
  83. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1974, pp. 223, 223 n.4.
  84. ^ Bateman 1848a, p. 25.
  85. ^ Bateman 1848b, p. 279.
  86. ^ a b Bateman 1861, p. 32.
  87. ^ Goss 1889, pp. 170–171, 175–176, 249, 301.
  88. ^ a b c Museums Sheffield escutcheon watercolour.
  89. ^ Museums Sheffield helmet watercolour.
  90. ^ The Times 1848.
  91. ^ The Morning Post 1848.
  92. ^ The Ipswich Journal 1848.
  93. ^ Bateman 1855, pp. 159–160.
  94. ^ Howarth 1899, p. iii.
  95. ^ Rushforth 2004, pp. 114–115.
  96. ^ a b Howarth 1899, pp. iii–iv, 244.
  97. ^ Rushforth 2004, p. 115.
  98. ^ a b Ashmolean Museum.
  99. ^ Museums Sheffield escutcheon.
  100. ^ Natural England Benty Grange SSSI.
  101. ^ Peak District Applications 2012.
  102. ^ BentyGrange Twitter 2014.
  103. ^ Peak Venues Benty Grange.
  104. ^ Bateman 1848a.
  105. ^ Bateman 1855.
  106. ^ Bateman 1861.
  107. ^ Jewitt 1870, pp. 211, 248–257, 260–261.
  108. ^ Allen 1898, pp. 46–47.
  109. ^ Bruce-Mitford & Raven 2005, p. 8.
  110. ^ Kendrick 1932, p. 178.
  111. ^ Kendrick 1938, p. 100.
  112. ^ Henry 1936, p. 235.
  113. ^ Ozanne 1962–1963, p. 21.
  114. ^ Speake 1980, fig. 11c.
  115. ^ Brenan 1991, p. 188.
  116. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1974, pp. 223–252.
  117. ^ Bruce-Mitford 1987, pp. 35, 37.
  118. ^ Bruce-Mitford & Raven 2005, pp. 119–120, pl. 3b.

Bibliography

[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Benty Grange hanging bowl.
 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)

[edit]
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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Benty_Grange_hanging_bowl&oldid=1210837490"