Talk:Benty Grange helmet

changes

Made a number of substantive changes to improve detail in the article and added images (these could be improved if anyone has anything appropriate) Nathandbeal (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Denisgotprobs (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Benty Grange Helmet, or Benty Grange helmet?

Is there a reason the article capitalizes the "h" in helmet? Bruce-Mitford 1974 and 1978 have it as "helmet," as does the museum's website (at the bottom left of the page). Changing the title to "Benty Grange helmet" seems appropriate. Pinging some of the people who have added the most to this page: @Nathandbeal, AdamFunk, Walgamanus, and Ser Amantio di Nicolao: --Usernameunique (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Image background

I cropped out the background of the main image and made versions with several different plain backgrounds as part of a WP:DYK discussion. Since the original image is a jpg, the png is lower-resolutions. I did not properly remove the background from the transparent museum stand supporting the helmet, so the stand looks as if it is part of the helmet unless the background is black background. The DYK discussion therefore agreed that the black background was best. Kintetsubuffalo, would it be OK with you if I replaced the png currently leading the article with the higher-res black jpg? HLHJ (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Where is the stand in the photo? Where is the DYK discussion parked?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@HLHJ and Kintetsubuffalo: The DYK discussion is here. Happy with either picture personally; the black does make the helmet pop. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Kintetsubuffalo: The stand is the smooth bits, which may be more obvious at the original photo. I don't want my image edits to mislead people, but beyond that I'm not fashed. If you can't spot the stand, possibly the black-background image is also inadequate. I've posted the xcf file if anyone wants to have a go. I've edited the caption, too. HLHJ (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Horn plates

" ... plates of horn, probably softened and bent and suggested to be from bos longifrons"; the bos longifrons is linked to the genus Bos but longifrons does not appear on that page so it needs some explanation (early extinct domesticated cattle or some such)? Nedrutland (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Nedrutland. I wasn't sure either (had earmarked that as something to look into later), but now see in a 2002 article that "Bos longifrons is a now-defunct term that used to be applied to the small Iron Age cattle kept by the British before and during the Roman period. It is now accepted that all humpless domestic cattle are of a single species, Bos taurus, and that they all descend ultimately from the aurochs, Bos primigenius." The relevant part of Bruce-Mitford 1974, meanwhile, states that "The horn traces surviving on the helmet were examined at the National History Museum by the Keeper of Zoology, Dr F. C. Fraser, and experiments were carried out by softening and spreading a horn from a shorthorn breed. It was clear that a much bigger horned breed of cattle must have been involved in the construction of the helmet. This was presumably bos longifrons; and there is no need to postulate aurochs. Horn is of fibrous structure and as a protective substance has the advantage of being light and tough. Whalebone (baleen) was ruled out as the substance employed on the helmet." I'm not sure what to make of this. For now, I'll limit the link to "bos longifrons", and post a question on the bos and bos taurus talk pages. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, came from the Bos page. Bruce-Mitford's 1970s statement is very odd. He makes at least 4 mistakes in one sentence:

In Britain around the 1840s people believed that during pre-Roman Celtic times, there were three to five species of cattle in England: Bos longifrons, B. trochoceros, B. frontosus, B. brachyceros (this last, 'short-horned', soon considered a syn. of the first). According to this paradigm B. longifrons was the most common, a dwarf cow with small, peg-like horns (which we now know looked almost exactly like modern Highland Cattle). In Latin frons means forehead, not horns. B. trochoceros was reserved for skulls with 'hooped' horns. In the 1840s people believed these Celtic cows died out by 100AD or so with the introduction of "normal" cattle, Bos taurus, by the Romans. Modern Jersey/Angus-type breeds would have been introduced by the Anglo-Saxons. By the 1890s (perhaps earlier in German sources) it had generally become accepted that this taxonomic distinction was nonsense. Lastly, correct taxonomic orthography capitalises the generic name, i.e. Bos longifrons.

Cheers, Leo Breman (talk) 12:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Benty Grange helmet/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 13:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

GA Criteria
GA Criteria: 1 1.a Y 1.b Y 2 2.a Y 2.b Y 2.c Y 2.d Y (24.2% is highest, due only to both citing sources.) 3 3.a Y 3.b Y 4 4.a Y 5 5.a Y 6 6.a Y 6.b Y

• No DAB links Y
• No Dead links Y
• Images appropriately licensed Y

Prose Suggestions

• like the helmet a high-status object suggestive of a richly furnished burial. suggest which, like the helmet, was a high-status object, suggestive of a richly furnished burial.
• the help of any god being welcome on the battlefield. suggest as the help of any god would be welcome on the battlefield.
• Bruce-Mitford termed this occurrence "fortunate", for it revealed the boar's inner structure. suggest Bruce-Mitford termed this occurrence "fortunate", for it revealed the boar's inner structure.
• @Usernameunique: That is all my suggestions, passing now. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Pecsætan connection

Scholars have suggested that the Benty Grange grave may have belonged to a prince of the otherwise obscure Pecsaetan, the 'dwellers of the Peak'. Maybe this could be added somewhere in the article. I have found these two references, there may be other, more specialised ones:

• Barbara Yorke, Kings and Kingdoms of Anglo-Saxon England, p. 108
• Martin Welch, "The Archaeology of Mercia", in Michelle Brown & Carole Farr, Mercia: An Anglo-Saxon Kingdom in Europe, p. 153

– Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• I see the article has been nominated for FA. I'd have appreciated to see my suggestion acknowledged at least. Oh well. – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Ælfgar, take a look at it now and see what you think. Sorry I didn't respond to your earlier comment; I read it when you posted (and enjoyed the fact that, coincidentally, I had Yorke's book open on my screen at the time), but lost track of it before I had time to look into it. This shouldn't stop you from feeling free to contribute to the article yourself of course, but I've used the two sources you mention, in addition to another that Yorke cites (Ozanne 1962–1963; also used in Benty Grange hanging bowl).

On a separate note, thank you for translating this article into French! It's very cool to see these articles develop into different languages, let alone when someone takes the time to comprehensively approach the subject. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

This looks perfect, thank you. I'm still a bit too uneasy about my English to directly add that kind of info to an article, especially one which is undergoing a FA nomination. – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Impressive Work

Hello, all. I just wanted to say that I felt that you've done an excellent job with this article. I'm personally impressed. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Bloodofox; It's nice to know that someone enjoys reading an article that I am quite pleased with myself. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Critique of political and religious aspects

Usernameunique I am sorry that I missed this article at FAC and only came across it when it was a TFA. It is an interesting article and – so far as I know - good on the artistic aspects, but the treatment of the historical and religious background seems to me unsatisfactory.

The political background is dealt with cursorily in one sentence in the middle of the discovery section: "According to the 7th- to 9th-century Tribal Hidage, the region was governed by the Pecsæte, and so the Benty Grange barrow may memorialise a member of this Anglo-Saxon tribe, or one of its ancestors " It was occupied not governed by the Pecsæte and the qualification "or one of its ancestors" is based on a dated source which does not reflect historians' views (eg Yorke who you cite). The people in the area in the seventh century were the Pecsæte, not their ancestors.

Stenton in his classic Anglo-Saxon England regarded the Pecsæte territory as a Mercian subject province (pp. 296-97), but historians now see the territory as independent in the seventh century. Yorke describes the land of the Pecsæte in the seventh century as one of several small territories which provided a buffer between Mercia and Northumbria, and she sees Benty Grange and other rich burials as evidence for a separate Pecsæte dynasty, although possibly paying tribute to Mercia (Kings and Kingdoms, pp. 10-12, 102, 106, 108). An authoritative recent source, Simon Keynes in the 2014 edition of the Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England, p. 312, regards Pecsæte as one of the peoples who came under Mercian supremacy in the eighth century (not the seventh). These points, particularly the suggestion that the helmet is evidence for a Pecsæte dynasty, are important context for the helmet.

"The boar invokes a pagan tradition at the time a thousand years old" The source does not say this but discusses the tradition over millennia. You quote the source correctly in the first sentence of the boar section. (I assume this is an incorrect reference rather than a wrong statement.)

The main problem with the article in my view is the discussion of religion.

The reference to the Catholic Church is anachronistic. The separate Catholic church dates to the split with Orthodoxy in the eleventh century.

You say that after the Romans left "Christianity in Britain diverged into distinct and unrecognisable forms, or met the influx of Anglo-Saxons from continental Europe and was replaced with Germanic traditions that had been repressed for the last 400 years". "distinct and unrecognisable forms" is linked to Celtic Christianity: this is not in the sources or any source I am aware of and is prejudiced POV. The reference to "Germanic traditions that had been repressed for the last 400 years" appears to be a misunderstanding of the source you cite, Foster p. 27, which states that the boar figurine is Germanic, rather than a Celtic tradition which had survived 400 years of Roman rule.

The paragraph on conversion treats it as purely Gregorian, but the north was converted by Irish missionaries who followed the Celtic tradition. See for example Mayr-Harting pp. 99-100, which states the death of the pagan king of Mercia, Penda, in 656 was followed by the despatch of Irish missionaries from Northumbria to the Middle Angles, south of Pecsæte territory. It is unlikely that any missionaries reached Pecsæte territory in the earlier seventh century, but any who did would have been Celtic Christians. Your discussion is misleading and gives the impression of being prejudiced against Celtic Christianity. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• Speaking of tardy responses, Dudley Miles, thank you for taking the time to write this, and to bring it to my attention. I've been meaning to take the time to look over this, go back to my sources, and find new ones if need be; this section of the article is not my strength, and it is certainly possible that I overlooked things, or am unfamiliar with more recent scholarship. I'll try to take a look at this over the long weekend and respond in full. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll just say that the religious points above seem right to me. Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Looking again, I think my comments need modification. It is generally accepted, as you say, that the helmet has both Christian and pagan symbols. David Parsons says that the Benty Grange helmet suggests a "mixed religious culture" (Brown and Farr eds, Mercia: an Anglo-Saxon Kingdom in Europe, pp. 52-54). I may therefore have been wrong to say that it is unlikely that missionaries reached the area by the time the helmet was made, but I am not aware of any discussion of the point by historians, who just refer to Christian culture. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• If you wish, I can have a go at revising the political and religious aspects, although it will be a while before I get to it as I am away on holiday next week. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)