Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Benty Grange hanging bowl/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 December 2023 [1].

---

Benty Grange hanging bowl

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The Benty Grange hanging bowl, such that it is, could fit in the palm of your hand. Part of the spoils of an 1848 excavation of a richly furnished barrow—known for the boar-crested Benty Grange helmet found alongside—all that remains are two decorated fragments. But just enough remains to reconstruct their original design, an enigmatic motif of three dolphins (or similar) chasing each others tails.

This article was created in 2018, and brought to GA in 2021, thanks to a review by Simongraham. I've refined it since, and recently given it a close look and revision, making it ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review. Given that I walked by the tumulus last month I really ought to look at this. Nudge me if I haven't started in a few days. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• "prominently located by a major Roman road, now the A515". Actually the A515 only joins the course of the Roman road about 200 yards north west of the site (and leaves it again after 500 yards to parallel it 100 yards to the NE before leaving its course entirely after another 2 miles), so the Roman road passes quite a bit closer to the tumulus that the A515. Do you have access to the relevant OS 1:25,000 map? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks, Gog the Mild. The road (The Street (Derbyshire) it looks like) is plotted on this map. Does that look accurate to you? Assuming it's right, it looks like it would actually be a bit farther away from the barrow than the A515, but not by much—some 300 feet instead of 150 feet. But, as you say, they're different roads at that point. The sources currently used in the article say that (Ozanne 1962–1963) "The continued or revived importance of the Roman road between Derby and Buxton is illustrated by the construction of new barrows and the reuse of prehistoric barrows along its line. Benty Grange is close to the road, Hurdlow on the hills flanking it. Galley Low or Callidge Low near Brassington must have been near it, as also was the Garratt Piece, Middleton Moor, barrow." and that (Brown 2017) "This Anglian burial monument is located c.4.4km to the south-east of the Application Site boundary on a slight eminence immediately adjacent to the presumed course of the Roman road between Buxton (Ague Arnemetiae) to Derby (Derventio) known as The Street', which is followed by the A515 (according to the NRHE entry)." I think the error must have stemmed from me reading "followed" as specific rather than general.

Well, your map and my map diverge about a mile south of Benty Grange. My map has the road passing 25-30 m SW of the tumulus. I know the route of the Roman road pretty well, I walked a couple of miles of it near Minninglow only three weeks ago. I am inclined to slightly prefer the County Council's version, but there are a couple of issues which do not wholly convince me. Bung me a blank email and I'll send you a copy of the relevant bit of the OS map. This is not a section I have walked due to a lack of public footpaths in the area. I assume that the tumulus is the faintly seen circle in this Google map? [2] Or is it one of the two sets of excavations in the same field a little further south? Do you have a precise grid reference or lat & long for the mound?

Sent you an email. That faint circle is what I've been assuming is the barrow. It's almost exactly where the map displayed with the HE list entry says it is. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much for those maps, Gog the Mild. Interesting stuff. I've added the Derbyshire County Council source, and changed the wording to its barrow, which still survives, is prominently located by a major Roman road, now roughly parallel to the A515 in the area, possibly to display the burial to passing travellers. Incidentally, another map showing both tumulus and road is in Bruce-Mitford 1974 (at p. 224). It recognizes the uncertainty, denoting the road as "Roman Road (course of)". --Usernameunique (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

(Note that the arrow in the 1974 map is slightly off. Per Bruce-Mitford 2005, p. 119, the mound is at "Map ref. SK149642, near high point 1226 ft, west of the line of the Roman road". He states that "I am grateful to Clive R. Hart of the Sheffield Museum for this adjustment from the position of the discovery apparently incorrectly shown in Bruce-Mitford 1974, 224, fig. 35.")

• Separately, if you're ever back in the area, would you be interested in taking a few photos of the mound? I emailed the owner of the Benty Grange farmhouse a few years back for that very reason, but no luck. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no public access. I will have a go next time I am up that way, but it depends on whether I can find a gate and what is growing in the field. (When I wrote "I walked by the tumulus" I meant, 'within 200 m'!) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Review

• "with three or four equidistant hooks around the rim for suspension ... The hooks project from escutcheons". I am unsure that "hooks" is the best description. In the bowl pictured for example I see no "hooks", hanging rings, yes. Later you mention "a ring on the back of one fragment" And "from" the escutcheons, really? I don't see this in the bowl pictured and I don't see how it could be the case without a hole being made in either the escutcheons or the bowl.

• The hooks are not the rings, but the things around which the rings loop. See the example here. I've also clarified that the ring is not part of the escutcheon, but a small iron ring stuck to it that may have been part of suspension chains. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Is it known or speculated how the escutcheons were affixed to the bowl?

• Per Bruce-Mitford, "either by riveting or by soldering, any occasionally by both". Added. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• "and their place of manufacture". Is it agreed that "place" is singular?

• Nope, changed to "places". --Usernameunique (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Two escutcheons are all that remain of the Benty Grange hanging bowl." "the silver rim and ornaments" have been lost then?

• Those are from the cups that’s were also in the burial. You can see them in the last photo here (above the map at the end). --Usernameunique (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Apologies. I meant to delete that. That was me getting confused. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• "when the Sheffield escutcheon was analysed at the museum in 1968, however, the all-yellow hypothesis is not definitive." Perhaps a semi colon after "1968"?

• I think you missed the first word of the sentence, but I can reword if you think it's confusing: As sampling of the enamel was not permitted when the Sheffield escutcheon was analysed at the museum in 1968, however, the all-yellow hypothesis is not definitive. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Each animal has ..." Suggestion: 'creature', to leave open the possibility that they are mythological. (And again at the start of "Parallels".)

• Good point, changed throughout. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Winchester hanging bowl" is red linked, but "Lullingstone hanging bowl" isn't. Is there a reason?

• Probably because I didn't realize how notable the Lullingstone hanging bowl was when I first wrote that part of the article—or even looked at a picture of it, which would undoubtedly have disabused me of that particular form of ignorance. Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• "is prominently located by a major Roman road, now the A515". I think that the maps, and other sources, all agree that the A515 does not follow the route of the Roman road.

• Changed as noted above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• "under the fold". Should that be 'into the fold'. Or, perhaps, 'under the authority' or similar?

• Went with "into the fold". --Usernameunique (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• If "The seventh-century Peak District was a small buffer state between Mercia and Northumbria, occupied, according to the Tribal Hidage, by the Anglo-Saxon Pecsæte" then do we know why "the official introduction of Christianity into Mercia in 655" matters. I realise that the latter is a quote, but it seems strange.
• "loaned the collection to Sheffield". Is it possible to be more precise? Eg, was it to the town council?

• Also the Corporation, it would seem, at least in the legal sense. Here's what the source says about all this: IN 1876 the Corporation of Sheffield received on loan from Thos. W. Bateman, Esq., of Middleton Hall, Derbyshire, the collection of Antiquities formed by his father and grandfather, and for many years previously arranged in cases in Lomberdale House, near Youlgreave, Derbyshire, where the collection had been open to the inspection of antiquaries and other visitors interested in it. Both the objects and the cases were removed to the Public Museum in Weston Park, Sheffield, where they remained on loan until 1893, when it was arranged by the Bateman family that the collection should be sold. The objects which had been discovered in the process of barrow digging in Yorkshire, Derbyshire, and Staffordshire, under the direction of Mr. Thomas Bateman and his father, Mr. William Bateman, F.S.A., were purchased by the Corporation of Sheffield, and comprise the collection catalogued in the following pages. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• "The city purchased". Similarly.

• The Corporation of Sheffield, i.e., the town council. Added. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• "they would likely be yellow-on-red." "likely" is American English. Suggest 'probably'.

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

A lovely little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Gog the Mild. I think I've now managed to answer everything above—got myself thoroughly confused about hooks vs. rings before figuring that one out. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Take 2

That all looks good. There have been a few changes since I first looked at this, so I'll give it another skim. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "and that sit outside the rim" sounds odd. Perhaps 'beneath the rim on the outside' or 'externally beneath the rim' or 'externally on the side' or similar?

• Now: bronze frames that are usually circular and elaborately decorated, and that sit along the outside of the rim or at the interior base. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "when one of the escutcheons was analysed in 1968, however, the all-yellow hypothesis is not definitive." I am not sure that "however" is necessary.

• The however relates back to the first words in the sentence: As sampling of the enamel was not permitted when the Sheffield escutcheon was analysed at the museum in 1968, however, the all-yellow hypothesis is not definitive. Does that make more sense? --Usernameunique (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Bateman astutely remarked on this as early as 1861". While I realise that you are paraphrasing Brice-Mitford & Scott I am a little unhappy that "astutely" is PoV and/or unencyclopedic.

• Removed the word. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Perhaps a Wiktionary link for "penannular"?

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• "entered the extensive collection of Bateman." Perhaps 'entered Bateman's extensive collection'?

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "he related his discoveries". In person or in writing?

• At a meeting; clarified. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to add a final sentence to "Excavation" describing the current agricultural use of the field containing the barrow?

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• This is a surprisingly controversial issue: see here. I've gone with The surrounding fields were designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest in 2013, and see agricultural use. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Usernameunique, once you have addressed my last query, could you ping me. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again, Gog the Mild, and sorry for the delay. I've responded above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

UC

Saving a spot. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Greatly enjoyed reading this one: the prose is generally a real strength -- skilfully written, clear and authoritative. Most of the below are prose nitpicks, matters of terminology and places where I think the facts are not quite clear. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

UndercoverClassicist, thanks very much for your close and careful read. I think I have finally(!) addressed all of your comments. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy to support -- thank you for your good humour in handling what has been an intensive and, I'm sure, sometimes frustrating set of comments. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, UndercoverClassicist. And not at all—it's always a pleasure to get a review from people with intelligent things to say. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Resolved matters

that are associated with Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, and Viking archaeology and art: associated with feels a bit vague and woolly here. Now "a fixture of". --Usernameunique (talk) 06:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC) The original purpose of hanging bowls, and their place of manufacture, is unknown: this sounds like we mean that we don't know where they were originally made, but reads as if they were all made in some single location, which hasn't yet been found. Changed "place" to "places". --Usernameunique (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC) They appear to be of Celtic manufacture, with examples still used during Anglo-Saxon and Viking times: I would put some chronological information in here. Do we mean that they were all manufactured in Celtic (pre-Roman) times? Are they used throughout the Roman period at all? Butting in, since this has sat around a bit. No I don't think "we mean that they were all manufactured in Celtic (pre-Roman) times" at all, indeed probably no surviving hanging bowls are from before the Roman conquest (might be wrong there). "Celtic (pre-Roman)" is the problem; the idea at least used to be that they used Celtic ie British legacy traditions, especially enamel, for an AS market. Perhaps they were made in Hen Ogledd, or just British workshops in AS kingdoms (B-M p. 29). The Staffordshire Moorlands Pan, clearly made for a Roman market in the 2nd century AD, shows a similar mix of contexts for manufacturing and usage. The word "still" should be dropped. I haven't read much of Bruce-Mitford, but his first line says "late Celtic", meaning after the Romans had come and gone. Pre-Roman would be "Early Celtic" in the normal terminology. It's clear to me he regards the finds in AS contexts as not too old when buried (see p 4 for example); on p. 17 his "earlier bowls" start in the 5th century. Johnbod (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC) Thanks for this, John -- a great bit of digging (sorry...). It would be useful for the article to clarify the timeframe here, then. "Celtic" is a particularly tricky term, as it's not-always-simultaneously a chronological marker, a set of archaeological cultures, a set of related languages, an artistic idiom and an ethno-national classification. It might be useful to clarify the sense of "Celtic" that we mean here, and perhaps to consider an alternative or additional label (as John does, many now will contrast "British" with "English/Anglo-Saxon", though I think that would need a footnote if we were doing it in a general-audience source). UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC) Yes, thanks - one always has to be careful with "Celtic" (which isn't linked here). Expand to explain is the answer. British can introduce a further set of possible misunderstandings. Johnbod (talk) 10:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC) Apologies for letting this one sit, but thanks, UC and John, for carrying on such a helpful conversation in my absence. I've changed it to 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. I've also added B-M 2005 page 34 to the cite; it states that The bowls of our series, found in Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, or Viking contexts, range in date from c. ad 400 to c. ad 1100. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC) votive chalices hung in churches: this would be tricky as an original use if their origin predates Christianity, as we've just said. No sign that he does, imo. Christianity among the AS certainly, but the idea is presumably Roman house-churches etc (B-M p.30.) Johnbod (talk) 09:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC) Btw, "chalices" bothered me a bit, but I haven't seen the source. Johnbod (talk) 10:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC) Here's what the source says: Speaking in general, there is no evidence whatsoever for hanging bowls having been used in the churches of the Celtic lands as liturgical water-vessels or as lamps. A third possible explanation might be advanced: Celtic churches were influenced by ecclesiastical customs prevailing on the Continent, and during the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries, it was fashionable to present votive chalices to be hung up in churches. The Roman basilicas had great numbers of these votive chalices (the gifts of successive popes), and the palatine churches of Carlovingian princes also led in this fashion. There is no doubt that reports of these rich votive gifts were duly brought back by pilgrims and travelers to the Celtic lands, and manuscripts, like those emanating from the court of Charles the Bald (PI. XXIV, i), or carved ivories, like the panels of the Pola Casket (PI. XXIV, 2), showing the interiors of churches with hanging chalices and vases, would help to spread the fashion. The hanging bowls of Celtic churches may simply have been votive gifts, presented to these churches in accordance with the popular Continental fashion. In such a theory, hanging bowls would have, generally speaking, no utilitarian purpose but would simply express the piety and generosity of the donor. Such a supposition would, however, give some explanation of the enrichment of the insides of these bowls (as in the Sutton Hoo example or the Lincoln example from the River Witham), which makes the bowls more elaborate and costly as votive offerings but renders the bowls much less useful for any practical purpose. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC) It does sound like a) "Celtic" means "the Brythonic-speaking parts of the Early Medieval British Isles" (given the "pilgrims" comment, perhaps particularly Ireland and the Western Isles) and b) "Roman" means "in the city of Rome" rather than "subject to a guy called Caesar", and again refers to the same Early Medieval period. I think both should be clarified for our audience. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC) Thanks for all that typing! It seems clear that in this passage "Celtic churches" means churches of Celtic Christianity, which might not always imply use of Celtic languages, and Roman basilicas means basilicas around Rome. I don't see your point about pilgrims and Ireland and the Western Isles. Could "chalices" be changed to "vessels" perhaps? We don't I think want to imply that hanging-bowls were ever used or thought of as chalices. Johnbod (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC) The pilgrims comment was purely a guess, based on the fact that most of the likely sites that I know for pilgrimage in Celtic Britain were in that part of the world, rather than in (say) Cornwall, mid-Wales or Cumbria. Good point on the churches; I don't know enough about the topic to say whether there would have been Celtic churches in English-speaking areas. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC) In "reports of these rich votive gifts were duly brought back by pilgrims and travelers to the Celtic lands" the meaning would be clearer as "reports of these rich votive gifts were duly brought back to the Celtic lands by pilgrims and travelers". The travel is to the Continental sites he's been tallking about. Johnbod (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC) "Chalices" is now "vessels". Not the biggest fan of the newfound alliteration, but better that than creating confusion. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC) Whether they are hook or basal escutcheons is uncertain: Schoolbook punctuation would be hook- or basal-escutcheons, but that may be a bit archaic now. Is there a rule you can point me to? Happy to add if appropriate. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC) It's called suspended hyphens, but it's quite an ugly thing anyway and an edge case when you wouldn't necessarily write e.g. basal-escutcheons on its own. There might be a way to rework so that hook more clearly modifies eschutcheons, but there's not really a problem here, I don't think. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC) a ring on the back of one fragment suggests an association with the suspension chains: would rephrase: perhaps may have been used to secure a suspension chain vel. sim. An association with is a bit flowery while also being rather imprecise. Reworded and added. It was admittedly a bit misleading—the ring is stuck, and perhaps originally part of a chain, not part of the escutcheon itself. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC) As sampling of the enamel was not permitted when the Sheffield escutcheon was analysed at the museum in 1968: I would name the museum here. Reworded. The location of the escutcheons is not introduced by this point, so I've gone with a general statement in the text, and named the museum in the footnote. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC) three "ribbon-style fish or dolphin-like creatures": we should attribute the quotation: "what Soandso has called..." Reworded. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC) They are limbless, the tails curled in a circle, and the jaws both long and curved; where the tails should pass through the jaws of the animals behind, gaps appear, creating slight separations between segments of tail: separate from the copyright issues raised elsewhere, this is a bit poetic for an encyclopaedia. It's been reworded. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC) and the contours and eyes of the animals, are all tinned or silvered.: drop the comma before are. It's a cumbersome sentence, but I can't immediately see a good way to resolve it. Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC) The escutcheons were undoubtedly part of an entire hanging bowl when buried: can we cut undoubtedly? I don't think we generally assume that what we write is doubtful. This point was made above, but I do think that "undoubtedly" conveys that this is an extrapolated, rather than definitive, fact—it is not known, but there is no reason to doubt it. We could perhaps change to "presumably" if you think it worth it. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Perhaps "almost certainly", or "are believed to have been..."? "Presumably" works fine too. As you say, the reason to put an adverbial phrase here is because there's a tiny bit of doubt, so undoubtedly doesn't quite work to fill that gap. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC) "Presumably" it is. Note that Bruce-Mitford himself goes with "no doubt". --Usernameunique (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC) The mass of corroded chainwork discovered six feet away: we've generally converted imperial measurements, so should do so here as well. We could, but does saying that six feet is approximately two metres really add anything? Most people can probably figure that out, whereas the two conversions in the article (both 40 mm to 1.6 in) are perhaps more useful. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC) Never mind, I missed all the {{cvt}} (rather than {{convert}}) templates. Changed. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC) The Benty Grange chainwork was also likely too heavy: a frequent flier here would advise probably; likely in this context is a little AmerE. Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC) more developed bodies: what does that mean here: more muscular? Changed to "detailed". In other words, the Benty Grange creatures are basically line drawings defined by their outlines, whereas the Faversham creatures are more elaborate (see here). --Usernameunique (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC) The third escutcheon from Benty Grange, meanwhile, surviving only in illustration, is most closely parallelled by the basal disc of the Winchester hanging bowl.: could we give some context for when that bowl is from and what it is? Added the date. What other sort of information about the bowl are you thinking of? --Usernameunique (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Actually, just removed the date. The Winchester bowl is already covered in the "Date" section. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Happy with this; I didn't have any particular additional information in mind, unless there was something you felt worth adding. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC) There's plenty that could be added—there are several articles etc. about the bowl—but it might be best left for if the red link ever turns blue. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Happy with that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC) Despite the similarities with other escutcheon and disc designs, several manuscript illustrations are more closely related to the Benty Grange designs: I'm not seeing how this sentence goes together. More closely compared with what? What's the sense of despite here? Reworded: Even closer parallels to the Benty Grange designs are found in manuscript illustrations. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC) "shrewdly" as it turned out: if going to stay, this quote needs attribution, but I'm not sure how much value it really adds. Reworded. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Advice changing several manuscripts of the VIIth Century to seventh per MOS:CONFORM. Not a big fan of changing quoted text without noting the change, so have gone with [Seventh] Century. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC) the INI monogram: is it worth explaining what INI meant to a medieval Christian (come to think of it: what does it represent: is this INRI - Iesus Nazarei Rex Iudaeorum?) Went down a lot of rabbit holes on this one (including a very unhelpful discussion with ChatGPT) before realizing that "INI" is simply the first three letters of the first line: Initium Evangelii Jesu Christi, Filii Dei. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC) based on its design, and the associated finds: no comma needed. Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC) from the barrow: We haven't really talked about the context of deposition yet, outside the lead, and so this comes in a bit oddly. Perhaps "the barrow in which it was discovered"? Ideally, we'd want to introduce its deposition first, but we don't want to pull the whole discovery/excavation section before the date, I don't think. Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Do we know the date of the barrow? As far as I know, most are Neolithic, but we've implied that this one was post-Roman. A bit more than implied, no? 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". --Usernameunique (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC) I think I may have missed that on first read. Are the burial and the barrow definitely contemporary? Lots of Neolithic barrows were re-used for burials in later periods. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC) I haven't seen anything suggesting that they are not. If anything, the proximity to the Roman road (and resulting indication that the barrow was meant to be seen therefrom) would militate towards a later date. (Of course, the Roman road could have been following an existing route.) --Usernameunique (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC) All true. Happy here in the absence of evidence to the contrary. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC) a small buffer state: Is state, with all its Weberian and Westphalian connotations, the right word here? I've changed to "province", which is the word used by the source. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC) The area came under the fold of the Mercian kingdom: a slightly mixed metaphor (into the fold or under the wing: a fold is a place you keep sheep), but in any case worth reworking per MOS:IDIOM. Now "into the fold". --Usernameunique (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC) MOS:IDIOM would still prefer something more literal, for those who speak English as an additional language or don't have much experience of sheepfolds. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC) under the control it is. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC) 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.: this may be slightly disingenuous, given that we're in a place where there isn't a whole lot of written evidence for anything. That's true, but there's practically nothing written about the Pecsæte, whereas a number of other political entities (particularly the larger ones) in and around Mercia got at least something written about them, even if it was written later, or by sources in other kingdoms. Yorke 1990 has a good discussion of this (under the heading Sources) at pages 100–101. And page 108 is the cite for the line in question: "A separate dynasty amoung the Pecsæte might be assumed from the series of rich burials in barrows, including that at Benty Grange which produced the only other helmet found in an Anglo-Saxon burial besides that of Sutton Hoo, but the archaeological remains cannot be supplemented by any written records which would clarify their significance." --Usernameunique (talk) 06:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC) All fair enough. Perhaps we could be even bolder and say something to the effect that this [the existence of the barrows] is the only reason to suspect that the Pecsæte had their own dynasty? UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC) I almost went with "no written or other evidence for this", but, technically speaking, I think that goes beyond the source. As written, it's at least clear that the only evidence offered is the barrows. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC) The fact that the objects were found in two clusters separated by 6 ft (1.8 m): Separated by looks wrong, to my eyes, with the abbreviated units: suggest 6 ft apart. Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC) that other objects that normally accompany a helmet were absent, such as a sword and shield,: I think the relative clause should really go after helmet. Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Being so large it may alternatively or additionally have contained two burials, only one of which was discovered by Bateman: might be worth rephrasing for elegance, but if not, comma after large. I'm not sure I understand alternatively or additionally: if the latter (for three total), surely neither of them was discovered by Bateman? Reworded: Given the size of the mound, an alternative (or additional) explanation is that it originally contained two burials, only one of which Bateman discovered. Alternatively/additionally is intended to convey that the clustering could be due to the barrow being (a) looted, (b) a double burial, or (c) both looted and a double burial. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Much clearer. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC) In 1861 Bateman died at 39: this reads a little clunkily to me: died, aged 39 would feel more natural. Went with died at age 39. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC) loaned the collection to Sheffield: to Museums Sheffield? You can't loan something to a city in the abstract; some body has to take custody of it. Clarified. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC) having seen to his father's fortune: is seen to a slightly archaic synonym for spent? Less archaic than understated, I think, but have changed to "spent." --Usernameunique (talk) 05:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC) Grave-mounds and their Contents: per MOS:CONFORM, use our orthography per standard title case: Grave-Mounds and Their Contents. Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC) British Archæological Association: similarly, change the digraph to ae. That's a step too far for me. Given that it's the name of an organization, it's also arguably within at least the spirit of the MOS exception for proper names. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC) I'm not sure it is the name: looking at their website, the digraph is used only in the logo (never in text), and I'd argue that it's therefore merely a decorative part of the logo itself, rather than their own sense of their own name. It's a bit odd for Wikipedia to be claiming to be more correct than the organisation itself. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC) The relevant question, I think, is what was the name at the time in question—and the newspaper articles use the "æ". Looking at the organization's journal from the time, however, both "æ" and "ae" are used. If they're not going to be consistent, then it's no longer a step too far to drop the "æ", which I’ve just done. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC) Rupert Bruce-Mitford revisited the Benty Grange burial in 1974: MOS:IDIOM: I think we mean "wrote another book about", rather than simply "walked to". Yep, now Rupert Bruce-Mitford published a chapter on the Benty Grange burial in 1974, focusing on the helmet. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC) and published what he termed a "definitive" reconstruction: MOS:SCAREQUOTES might encourage that we simply say "what he termed a definitive reconstruction". Looking at that part of the MOS, it doesn't seem as if the quotation marks are an issue: Quotation marks, when not marking an actual quotation, may be interpreted as "scare quotes", indicating that the writer is distancing themself from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression. (emphasis added and footnote omitted). If anything, it's probably the "what he termed" part of the sentence that suggests doubt. But I think there's some value to noting that he's the one who made that statement. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC) Wasn't the best link: better is MOS:QUOTEPOV, which has Concise opinions that are not overly emotive can often be reported with attribution instead of direct quotation. Use of quotation marks around simple descriptive terms can imply something doubtful regarding the material being quoted; sarcasm or weasel words such as supposedly or so-called, might be inferred.. It then gives the example to avoid underneath as Siskel and Ebert called the film "interesting"., which seems to be almost exactly what we have here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC) That makes more sense, thanks. Dropped the quotation marks. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC) Llewellynn Jewitt suggested there were two burials in 1870: less ambiguous as suggested in 1870 that there had been two burials. Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC) Source A Corpus of Late Celtic Hanging-Bowls with An Account of the Bowls Found in Scandinavia.: decap an. Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC) Capitalisation in the Brenan ref: why is Bowls capitalised but the rest in sentence case? The other vowel in the title (as opposed to the words in the subtitle) is also capitalized. I just followed how the report styles itself. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC) Our Manual of Style would go the other way: make the formatting fit the norms of the article (as long as doing so requires only superficial changes, such as capitalisation, digraphs, ampersands and so on), not whatever happened to be the norm in the time and place where each individual source was published. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC) Done, here and for a couple other books. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• How attached are you to the term Anglo-Saxon? Within the field, there's quite a lot of movement against it now -- primarily because it is only very rarely (once?) attested in contemporary sources, whereas English and equivalent were the dominant means by which these people referred to themselves, and partly because of its appropriation by nineteenth- and twentieth-century racists. I believe "English", "Early Medieval" and combinations thereof are generally preferred.

  This is purely in America, because of contemporary political connotations! You believe wrong, and Yankee cultural imperialism should be firmly resisted. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure the "purely in America" label is quite fair; true, the debate was precipitated by the renaming of the International Society of Anglo-Saxonists to the International Society for the Study of Early Medieval England in 2019, and that initiative was mostly led (though by no means entirely followed) by the society's North American members, but the ensuing conversation has been international. The Welsh archaeologist John Hines has a good and even-handed article walking through the circumstances of the debate and its fallout, particularly in the UK (there was also a fairly large student petition to rename the eponymous faculty at Cambridge a few years ago, though I'm not sure much came of it). The most consistent and visible voice against the "Anglo-Saxon" term is Mary Rambaran-Olm, who is a Canadian trained largely in the UK: her arguments against it do reference present-day politics, but are based largely in the fact that the term is almost unattested before the sixteenth century, whereas people at the time referred to themselves and were known by others as "English". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  Just about all period terms are later inventions by historians, look at "Celtic" for heaven's sake, not to mention Byzantine, Hellenistic, Gothic, Romanesque, Renaissance.... You rightly seem to to be climbing back from "generally preferred". "English" doesn't help - an American student "boldly" converted one major article here to use "Old English" but that has no usage beyond the language. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  If I read Hines correctly, he doesn't see the term "Anglo-Saxon" as inherently objectionable, and thinks the debate over it both has come at the expense of worthwhile reforms and also counts as its most vocal supporters those who have contributed least to the field. But the more salient point, I think, is that we're in an encyclopedic rather than progressive context; the point is to state the facts as they are, rather than as they ought to be. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  Happy with this: the general approach on here when a decision is remotely a matter of taste is to defer to the first person who made the call. I'd do it differently, but I'm me and you're you -- there's nothing here to impede promotion. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• but on minimal and possibly incorrect evidence.: Could we have some sense of what that evidence is? Presumably, if it's possibly incorrect, it's also possibly correct, so I'm surprised that we're closing this hypothesis down so firmly.

• Fair point, now clarified. Basically, there's no evidence, other than the fact that red enamel is common, and yellow enamel rare. The "incorrect" part is that one of the yellow-on-red proponents cited Rupert Bruce-Mitford in support of the theory, when he said no such thing. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be worth explaining that one, if only in the footnote on "without evidence": our current framing implies that Henry and Haseloff said something like "I reckon it was yellow and red, but don't have any evidence for that", which they quite clearly didn't: the problem is that their evidence (the fact that B-M allegedly saw or reconstructed that colour scheme) never actually existed. Was that really all of their evidence, though? Often these conjectures are made by comparison with other similar objects, for example. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I've changed to "without offering evidence", but is this not already explained in the footnote? The main problem is that they just say it, without saying why. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I've not understood, clearly: from my first reading of your comment, it sounded like they did say why (because Bruce-Mitford said it, and that our priors for all-yellow decoration are pretty low, given that yellow enamel is pretty rare in the period), but that the evidence/argument is generally considered unconvincing. That's not quite the same as offering no evidence, and I think it's a little unfair to accuse Henry and Haseloff of simply making baseless assertions if they did not in fact do so. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Per Henry 1936, At present, out of all that was originally found, there remain only two half escutcheons, one in the Ashmolean Museum, the other one in Sheffield Museum. By combining them it is possible to reconstruct a pattern of three elongated beasts biting each other's tails ... They are enamelled in yellow on a red field, like several of the spiral discs, and the bronze has also been plated with silver. Per Haseloff 1990 (translated), Fragments of an escutcheon from Benty Grange, Derbyshire, show three animals arranged in a circular shape with ribbon-like, tapering bodies that end in a fish tail. These are clearly representations of dolphins, which appear in Irish art, especially book painting (Cathach of St. Columba; gospel fragment, Durham A.I.10. fol. 2r). The colors of the enamel are, in my opinion: yellow for the animal bodies and red for the background. The separating metal bars are tinned. According to R. Bruce-Mitford, there is only one enamel color, namely red. And per Ozanne 1962–1963 (probably taking her lead from Henry, who is cited in the following sentence), The Middleton Moor escutcheon is enamelled in red only, while the second attachment has both yellow and red, like the Benty Grange fragments. Henry possibly analyzed the escutcheons in person, but there is no indication either of the others did. In any event, however, none of the authors present any evidence for their assertions, and Haseloff gets a fact incorrect when he attributes an all-red theory to Bruce-Mitford. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I've reworded it slightly to try to make it more clear: A yellow-creatures-on-red-background colour scheme has alternatively been claimed, but no evidence for such a layout has been presented. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• according to the Tribal Hidage: I would introduce what this was.

• I'm a little bit reluctant here, just because there's so much to say, and so many qualifiers to add; just clicking on the link seems to better way to figure it out. But let me know if you disagree. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

MOS:NOFORCELINK would always advise some kind of explanation additional to "just click the link", but I'll have a read and a think as to whether I can suggest something that's both brief enough and correct enough. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright, in that case I've gone with a footnote. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• The nearby farm was renovated between 2012 and 2014; as of 2023 it is rented out as a holiday cottage: I'm not sure how relevant or encyclopaedic this bit is; the last part in particular could be taken as WP:PROMO. Given that none of the sources cited here really pass HQRS muster, would remove.

• As noted below, I don't think the renovation itself is particularly relevant, but the Benty Grange farm (and by extension the farmhouse, which predates the excavation) has been mentioned in pretty much every telling of the excavation since Bateman's. It's thus somewhat interesting to know the status of the farmhouse, just as it's interesting to know the status of the barrow and the surrounding fields. It's not a point I feel particularly strongly about, however. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I think I'm with User:SchroCat on this one: the farmhouse itself is interesting, but not the renovation and not the current use as a holiday cottage (it would be interesting if the barrow itself, or something more directly related to the artefact, had some current use, but this cottage is only notable by sheer proximity and the sentence with that citation does read like an advertisement.) UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the mention of it being rented out, to make it seem less like an ad. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

caeciliusinhorto

Some initial thoughts:

• "seems to show that a hook may have been present" – this double-hedging is a pet peeve of mine: what's wrong with "seems to show that a hook was present"?!

• Good point. Now: a contemporary watercolour by Llewellynn Jewitt suggests that a hook was present at excavation. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• The discussion of colour is slightly confusing: we are told that the yellow-on-red colour scheme has "also" been suggested before the all-yellow theory which it is additional to is mentioned! Either cut the "also", or mention Bruce-Mitford's all-yellow working hypothesis first.

• The first mention of color is The decomposed enamel background appears uniformly yellow to the eye, as it did when excavated. I've just added the "uniformly" to make this more clear. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• Some of the description of the dolphin design seems uncomfortably close to Bruce-Mitford's text to me:
  • "each biting the tail of the animal ahead of it" / "each biting the tail of the one ahead of it"
  • "jaws both long and curved" / "long curved jaws"
  • "where the tails should pass through the jaws of the animals behind" / "where the tail or ribbon body of an animal should logically pass through the mouth of the one behind it"

• Reworded all. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• "The mass of corroded chainwork discovered six feet away": this is a little jarring on the first mention of this chain; I would say something like "a mass of corroded chainwork was discovered six feet away..."

• Changed "The" to "A". --Usernameunique (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• "the lateral stroke of the INI monogram that introduces the Gospel of Mark": Bruce-Mitford 1974, cited for this, says that the monogram is IN and the gospel is John; I don't have access to Bruce-Mitford 1987, so I can't see if that supports the claim. (Though I see this fragment of the Durham gospel is in fact Mark and has what looks suspiciously like the monogram described by B-M)

• Well, this one is interesting. Per B-M 1974, "The lateral stroke of the N in the IN monogram from St John in the Durham Gospel fragment MS A II 10 is built of two similar fish motifs. The MS dates from about A.D. 650." Folio 2r of the Gospel Book Fragment (A. II. 10.) shows just this—but, as you say, it is the beginning of the Gospel of Mark. Meanwhile, what does folio 2r of the Durham Gospels (A. II. 17.) depict? The Gospel of John, with a big N-looking thing, decorated with fish- or dolphin-looking things. I think B-M had to have been describing the fragment: it is the only one where there is a "lateral stroke ... built of two similar fish motifs". But the similarity between them is probably the cause of the error. (And as discussed here, there appears to be another, related, error in B-M 2005.) I'll also take a look at B-M 1987 when I have access to it again next week. But for now, I think we can be confident that the article here correctly navigates the intended meaning of the sources. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Update: Bruce-Mitford 1987 does not shed any further light on this issue. It says just that the best analogy for its fish design [is] in the Northumbrian bible fragment MS Durham A.Il. 10, of c. 650. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• "fosse"/"penannular": both uncommon technical terms. Can they be glossed, linked, or replaced with something more understandable?

• fosse and penannular are both disambiguation pages with definitions. The former suggests that ditch is a viable piped link, which I've gone with. I'm not sure what to link penannular to, though. Wiktionary? --Usernameunique (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• Given that one of the fragments is (or at least recently was?) on display in Sheffield, I don't suppose there's any way of getting a decent photo of what it looks like now? If I remember next time I'm up there I'll have a go, but that's not going to be until February at the earliest.

• To be honest, I'm not sure where I got the information that it was on display; the link it was sourced to doesn't seem to have that information, and I've now removed it from the article. I've also emailed the museum a couple times about a photo, but no luck so far. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Caeciliusinhorto-public—interesting points. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto-public, just checking if the above responses are sufficient for your support. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• "A third disintegrated soon after excavation, and no longer survives. " Well, is it necessary to tell the reader something that disintegrated no longer survives?

• Well, it could have been tucked away in a box full of dust; were the excavation done today, for instance, there would presumably be better records of it. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• I also was wondering about a photo of the one on display, either taken by a visitor or if the museum would co-operate with making one of its images available through OTRS. Having taken more than a few photos as a visitor to museums, I suspect the latter would be the preferred option. The Ashmolean might also be queried. Has either a Wikipedian in residence?

• I've sent both museums emails on the subject. The Weston Park Museum was kind enough to send photos of the helmet at one point, so I'm still hopeful they might find time for the escutcheon. I sent one to them recently; I'll try following up with the Ashmolean, too. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Are the objects mentioned in "Parallels" simply of similar design, or do the sources draw the parallels with the escutcheons in question?

• The sources always say either (a) "[object in question] is similar to the Benty Grange escutcheons", or (b) "the Benty Grange escutcheons are similar to [object or objects]". --Usernameunique (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• "In 1861 Bateman died at 39" age 39?

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• "having seen to his father's fortune," perhaps "dissipated" rather than "seen to"?

• Went with "spent." You're now I think the third person who has suggested revising that line; guess it's time to wise up. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I get the same thing with cute idioms that don't work well in all ENGVARs Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• " Rupert Bruce-Mitford revisited the Benty Grange burial in 1974,[100]" Does this mean he went there?

• It wouldn't shock me, but it's now Rupert Bruce-Mitford published a chapter on the Benty Grange burial in 1974, focusing on the helmet. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Support Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Wehwalt. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: see the instructions at the top of WP:FAC; templates like tq cause template limit problems in the FAC archives, and slow down the load time for the entire FAC page. I have replaced them here as right now, the entire FAC page is not accessible to all readers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

SC

Comments to come. - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

IB

• The three location links should have some delinking to bring them in line with MOS:GEOLINK

• There are only two links, no? "Benty Grange farm, Monyash, Derbyshire, England". Are you suggesting that Derbyshire doesn't need the link? If anything, I think we could be adding a link, to Benty Grange. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not suggesting it, MOS:GEOLINK is. - SchroCat (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  MOS:GEOLINK says For geographic places specified with the name of the larger territorial unit following a comma, generally do not link the larger unit. Here, the "larger unit" is England, which is not linked. This would appear to be consistent with the example (Buffalo, New York, United States), where the city and state are linked, but not the country. (Granted, that example has only one link—"Buffalo, New York" is the full name of the article, whereas "Monyash" and "Derbyshire" are each full article names. Nevertheless, the "larger unit" remains England.) --Usernameunique (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  I read it differently, but your call. - SchroCat (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Excavation

• Is the C21st renovation of the farmhouse important? Or the fact it's now a holiday cottage?

• I don't think the renovation itself is particularly relevant, although the Benty Grange farm (and by extension the farmhouse, which predates the excavation) has been mentioned in pretty much every telling of the excavation since Bateman's. It's somewhat interesting, therefore, to know that the farmhouse is still around and kicking. The article on the helmet also mentions the same facts and went through the same FAC process. With that said, I don't feel too strongly about it (especially, perhaps, because the owners never responded for a photo of the barrow), so won't push back if you think the article better without it. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• OK, I'll accept the first bit about the farmhouse being there (I suppose knowing the environment of the archaeological site is an important point), but not so much the holiday cottage, which seems superfluous. Your call, and it won't affect my support below one bit. - SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

That's my lot. Nicely written - engaging and nice and clear. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey SchroCat, just checking to see if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? (Obviously, neither is obligatory.) Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi David, thanks for the ping. Only one of my two comments has been addressed, so I'm not going to come down off the fence on this one yet - but don't let that hold up the process if you're looking to pass this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

David Fuchs and SchroCat, apologies for the delay—had some computer issues which made editing more difficult. But SchroCat, I've responded to the remaining comment above. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm going with a guarded Support for this. On the prose side it is certainly qualifies. Both UndercoverClassicist and Johnbod are eminently more capable than I to judge the content aspect and I hope at least one of them confirms they are happy with that part too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Johnbod

• I've butted-in some above.
• I wonder if you came to regret picking an object that barely exists? You end up doing a lot of "the knee bone was presumably connected to the thigh-bone" stuff, which has perhaps understandably attracted much reviewer excitement.
• "They appear to be of Celtic manufacture, with examples still used during Anglo-Saxon and Viking times." See above - B-M does not mean "Early Celtic", before the Romans, but Celtic from the Romano-British, sub-Roman or "Late Celtic" period. Best to expand to clarify this important point. "Still" is misleading - he & others regard most of them as being made "during Anglo-Saxon and Viking times".
• "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." Any modern comment of this? Sutton Hoo similarly lacks the human remains, but I think this is just put down to natural soil chemistry.

• B-M 1974 says that "The disappearance of human remains may be due to the soil conditions observed by Bateman. The process of disintegration was no doubt advanced by the robbing of the grave." Given that B-M was very familiar with the conditions at Sutton Hoo by this point (he excavated there from 1965 to 1970), it's somewhat surprising that he doesn't discuss the possibility that it was simply the nature of the soil; it does suggest, however, that he thought Bateman's hypothesis had some potential. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• You list "Bruce-Mitford, Rupert (2005). Taylor, Robin J. (ed.). A Corpus of Late Celtic Hanging-Bowls with an Account of the Bowls Found in Scandinavia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-813410-7" As you know, Rupert Bruce-Mitford died in 1994, having started compiling his catalogue in the 1940s. Sheila Raven is credited as author of the Scandi finds section (not relevant here), and the entry authors (end of the pre-numbered pages) are these two and Jane Brenan. I don't see Taylor, Robin J. anywhere on a g-books view. I think a note explaining the situation would be good somewhere.

• That was a mistake. It was caused, most likely, by using as a starting point the citation template for Bruce-Mitford's 1997 posthumous work (on Mawgan Porth Dark Age Village), which was edited by Robin Taylor. Thanks for catching. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• I think that's all for now. Nice article, though I wish the subject was more complete. Johnbod (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I notice that the "still" in "They appear to be of Celtic manufacture, with examples still used during Anglo-Saxon and Viking times...", which is still there, and needs to go (and "Celtic" to be further expanded, was added in response to a query by Dudley M in the pre-review on the article talk (not his fault). We have a lot of "tree" detail in the article, but I think the "wood" overall picture needs stating more clearly. If such an experienced and intelligent reviewer as UC was misled, it shows there was a problem, which I don't think has been sufficiently dealt with. The page or so in Webster, Leslie, Anglo-Saxon Art, 2012, British Museum Press, ISBN 9780714128092 (pp. 101-102) might help, if you've not seen it. Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
    • That's a helpful source, thanks. How do you feel about: They appear to have been manufactured by Celtic populations in Britain in the post-Roman period, with examples also used by Anglo-Saxons (who likely received bowls via trade) and continuing until Viking times. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
      • Yes - it might be tinkered with, but that does the job. There's sometimes talk of "native" Romano-British populations, at least in the early Roman period. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
• If anyone's interested, the conversation higher up moved me to start Dragonesque brooch, an earlier type of British cultural hybrid artefact. Johnbod (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• ok, moving to Support. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, Johnbod. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• You should give the source in the image description of the reconstruction.

• The source is Carlinmack (thanks again), based on published designs. What are you suggesting? Something like "after Bruce-Mitford 2005"? --Usernameunique (talk) 04:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• It should be a full reference including the page number so that anyone interested can find the source image. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• "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." You imply that neither is on display but you should state this specifically.

• I'm not sure about the status of the Sheffield escutcheon, whereas the Ashmolean affirmatively states that theirs is not on display. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• The discussion of the date and provenance of the bowl is unclear. In the lead you say "a fragmentary Anglo-Saxon artefact from the seventh century AD". In the main text "it dates from a period subsequent to the official introduction of Christianity into Mercia in 655". This implies late seventh/early eighth rather than straight seventh century. But "They appear to be of Celtic manufacture, with examples still used during Anglo-Saxon and Viking times." This implies that it was not made in 7C Mercia but of ancient Celtic manufacture.

• I've tried to clarify this with the following: They appear to have been manufactured by Celtic populations in Britain in the post-Roman period, with examples also used by Anglo-Saxons (who likely received bowls via trade) and continuing until Viking times. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• This still seems vague. Post-Roman Britain redirects to Sub-Roman Britain, which is the fifth and sixth centuries. Is this what you mean? Vikings are irrelevant unless they also used them. The Vikings were active in Britain between the late eighth to the eleventh centuries, which is very broad. Presumably the bowls' dating can be more closely specified than that. (BTW the term "Celtic" is controversial except as applied to the language. An academic historian once objected to it in an article of mine and I replied pointing out that it was in a quote from another academic historian.) How about "They appear to have been manufactured by British craftsmen in the [[Sub-Roman Britain|post-Roman period]] (fifth and sixth centuries). Some were acquired by Anglo-Saxons, probably by trade, and used until the ... century." Dudley Miles (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Driving by - I don't think that is supported by the sources. There are 28 examples from Viking period graves in Scandinavia,(B-M, 41) never mind Britain. B-M is very cautious in giving dates, except for burials when there is other evidence, but supports a much longer range than just the fifth and sixth centuries. Your presumption that "dating can be more closely specified than that" is I think wrong. Another context where "Celtic" is not controversial is artistic style, especially in fact after the end of the "Celtic" Iron Age with the Roman conquest. That is what matters here. Btw, I don't think we should exclude the possibility that, at least after the earliest period, the A-S elite (perhaps later joined by the Vikings) were the main market for hanging bowls, perhaps commissioning them direct from the workshops. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• I was trying to clarify the wording, and where I have wrongly interpreted it I think that this shows that the wording is unclear. Your comments help to clarify. From what you, say maybe change "used by Anglo-Saxons until Viking times" to "used by Anglo-Saxons and Vikings." My reference to fifth and sixth centuries was what I assumed was meant in the article by "post Roman period" for manufacture, not usage. You appear to say that both manufacture and usage carried on much longer than what is usually meant by the post-Roman period. If dating cannot be closely specified then I suggest saying so, not giving a vague and apparently irrelevant "into viking times". As to Celtic, I was commenting on "Celtic populations", not Celtic art. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, I've said similar above (in 2 places). But vagueness seems to come with the territory (perhaps partly because B-M was only published 10 yrs after he died ...). I can't today access B-M p. 17 where he summarizes his conclusions on dating, but it covers a long stretch, as I recall. From a google search they "occur mainly in Anglo-Saxon burials of the 6th and 7th centuries AD" but were at least often "antiques" when buried. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• If the Scandinavian examples date to the Viking period, does that mean that they post-date the ones in Anglo-Saxon burials? The Viking Age is usually taken to start in 793, but that seems Anglo-centric and I do not know whether it is taken to start earlier in Scandinavia. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• See B-M p. 43 (part of Raven's bit). C10th and (slightly less common) C9th are the Scandi burial dates, where we know them. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• So Scandi examples are much later, but that might be because by 9C the Anglo-Saxons no longer buried with grave goods, not necessariy because they had stopped using hanging bowls? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• I think that's right. The remarkable (and remarkably lost, after being exhibited in 1868) Witham bowl from the River Witham in Lincs. is dated by B-M to the late 8th or early 9th century. Perhaps significantly, this doesn't seem to come from a burial. B-M pp. 208-212. Johnbod (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Two notes that are relevant to the above discussion. First, Bruce-Mitford's conclusions on dating (2005, p. 40) is as follows: The main conclusions reached in this chapter on the dating of the hanging-bowls are as follows. The origins of the series is firmly placed in the late and early sub-Roman bowl-making industry, and Brenan's proposition that there was no continuity is not accepted. It is maintained that there was no bowl-making industry in Ireland before the eighth century, although the ornamental background of at least one group of bowls, the fine-line group, was well established there during the sixth century. Hanging-bowls were used in late Roman and early sub-Roman contexts, and the Faversham (1) (Corpus no. 37), Finningley (1) and (2) bowls (Corpus nos. 109-10), and the Newham Bog (1) (Corpus no. 71), and Silch-ester (Group 2, no. 5) escutcheons are (or may be) all examples of this. A bowls are by and large confined to the fifth and sixth centuries. The B bowls and the folded rim are a seventh-century development, and the folded rim everywhere supersedes the straight in-bent rim that descended from the late Roman bowls of Irchester type. However, some A bowl traditions continue, in not clearly apparent circumstances, into the seventh and later centuries. With the exception of the Wilton bowl (Corpus no. 97) and any others that may have shared its peculiarity (riveting on of the escutcheons), A bowls and B bowls had soldered escutcheons, following the Roman tradition. Riveting of escutcheons is found later in the C bowls, and becomes thereafter universal. C bowls are dated generally to the seventh/eighth century and D and E bowls are the last in the series and date to the eighth-eleventh centuries and even possibly later. Second, there's a 1999 article (doi:10.1080/00766097.1999.11735623; not cited in B-M 2005, probably because it's posthumous) that expressly argues that hanging bowls—whatever their broader dates of manufacture and use—were only deposited in Anglo-Saxon graves in the 7th and 8th centuries. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks again for the typing. Some of this could go into our main Hanging bowl, by a professional archaeologist, but rather short. For this article, one might simplify by restricting/distinguishing between this type of hanging bowl, and other later ones. Mind you, B-M doesn't seem to commit himself as to which of his letter types the bits come from. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• (Much as I'd love to take credit for the typing, this is a very handy tool.) I've edited the line about use to clarify that Vikings were amongst those who used the bowls, and added some of the above (namely, the article by Helen Geake) about when hanging bowls were included in Anglo-Saxon graves. We could add a discussion of the different bowls types, but I think that would be better placed in the main hanging bowl article, especially because here, the bowl itself (as opposed to the escutcheons) no longer survives—likely why Bruce-Mitford does not discuss what type of bowl the Benty Grange example was. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• "wayside drinking vessels of the sort Edwin of Northumbria is said to have provided travellers". to or for travellers.

• "for" it is. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• "stuck the back of one fragment" "stuck on the back of one fragment"?

• Fixed (went with "stuck to"). --Usernameunique (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Dudley Miles (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Dudley Miles. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Further comments

• The one outstanding point I see from the discussion above is "Celtic populations". The term "Celtic" is controversial in this context and "British" would be better.

• The problem with British, as a standalone term, is that it seems much more ambiguous than Celtic. The current sentence refers to Celtic populations in Britain, and we'd be changing to British populations in Britain—a phrase that could just as well include Anglo-Saxons in it. Per Johnbod's comment above, we could perhaps go with something along the lines of native Romano-British populations, although it's somewhat clunky. Bruce-Mitford 2005 unabashedly uses the word Celtic: No one doubts that the great majority of the bowls are of Celtic manufacture. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Bruce-Mitford died in 1995 and in his time the term "Celtic" as applied to people was not controversial, which it is now among academic historians. I am now away and do not have access to my books, but in British people see: "In this sub-Roman Britain, as Anglo-Saxon culture spread across southern and eastern Britain and Gaelic through much of the north, the demonym "Briton" became restricted to the Brittonic-speaking inhabitants of what would later be called Wales, Cornwall, North West England (Cumbria), and a southern part of Scotland (Strathclyde).". Changing "They appear to have been manufactured by Celtic populations in Britain in the post-Roman period, with examples also used by Anglo-Saxons (who likely received bowls via trade) and, later, by Vikings." to "They appear to have been manufactured by Britons in the post-Roman period, with examples also used by Anglo-Saxons (who likely received bowls via trade) and, later, by Vikings." would not be unclear. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Usernameunique that an unexpanded "British" is at least as likely to be misunderstood or mislead as "Celtic". I'm not sure how "controversial" Celtic actually is - everybody agrees it is a weak term, with a lot of baggage, but it is univerally understood. I note that Leslie Webster's 2012 book has "...been argued that in the sixth century the majority of bowls were made by Celtic populations within Britain ..." and later "as the A-S kingdoms extended" the workshops seem to have retreated to modern Scotland. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Webster was an art historian using a term almost always avoided by historians of early medieval Britain. The first volume of the Oxford History of Wales by Thomas Charles-Edwards is called Wales and the Britons, meaning excluding the Anglo-Saxons, and he obviously regards it as an unproblematic usage as he used it in the book title. He writes of central Scotland being disputed between the Britons, Picts, Irish and English. Britons is used in the same sense in Barbara Yorke's Wessex in the Early Middle Ages and in the two modern academic histories of the period, The Anglo-Saxon World by Nicholas Higham and Martin Ryan, and the first volume of the Cambridge History of Britain, Early Medieval Britain by Rory Naismith (Professor of Early Medieval English History at Cambridge University, who is the reviewer I referred to above who objected to my use of "Celtic" in an article for the WikiJournal of Humanities, see comment RNN16 in [3]). The only exception I can find is the article on Celts in the Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England, which described them as various groups of peoples in Europe and Asia Minor, including Britain. We should not use a term in a sense regarded as problematic by almost all specialists on early medieval Britain. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, we know all that! Webster (who is still alive) is a historian too, and a very distinguished one! Art historians, including "specialists on early medieval Britain" (only a couple of whom seem to feature in your impressive library list) are at once perhaps more conscious of the issues around "Celtic" than general/political historians, and less at the same time scared of using the term for this period. You might recall the name of the British Museum exhibition a few years ago. The issue is - what does Randy from Boise" make of a plain "British"? As I've said several times above, unpacking and explaining these terms is best for those readers who haven't read the Oxford History of Wales etc. What that review note actually says is "Commented [RNN16]: Better to specify ‘Irish’ or ‘Irish and Welsh’. ‘Celtic’ is problematic as a collective label except from a linguistic point of view." which is certainly true. But to specify ‘Irish’ or ‘Irish and Welsh’ here is not an option, as these areas seem to be firmly where hanging bowls were not made at this period. "British" in the A-S period has its own, much less well-rehearsed, issues - when do the "British" in modern England stop being British? Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• My suggestion is: "They appear to have been manufactured by Britons in the post-Roman period, with examples also used by Anglo-Saxons (who likely received bowls via trade) and, later, by Vikings." The meaning of "Britons" here seems to me clear to anyone from the context. However, you raise a point I was not aware of. I assumed that Wales and Ireland was where the bowls were made. So were they made by native Britons in AS areas? This should be clarified in the article. Of course you raise valid points about "British", but disputing historians' usage and using a term they reject because they have not discussed the issues is OR. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• You suggested above "How about "They appear to have been manufactured by British craftsmen in the post-Roman period (fifth and sixth centuries)." Just saying. The little we know on locations (essentially find-spots rather than evidence of manufacture) is summarized below. They may have been made in areas the A-S hadn't quite got to at that point - see Webster. Later on they probably were made in Ireland. There is I think nothing in the article to encourage you to assume "that Wales and Ireland was where the bowls were made", except the mention of "Celtic" style, but it might be best to head off that idea somehow. Btw, why not Scotland? The evidence for manufacture there is far stronger than for Wales or Ireland. Since the mere mention of "Celtic" seems to immediately generate different assumptions - Iron Age for Undercover Classicist, & Wales & Ireland for Dudley, I really think as clear as possible a statement of what is meant (and not meant) is needed. Johnbod (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• I should have mentioned Dumnonia and Strathclyde as well as Wales and Ireland. I did not include Scotland as it did not exist at that period and I would be interested to know where in Scotland the bowls were made. The south-east is presumably possible before it was anglicised at an early date by the Northumbrians. Strathclyde is likely but it was not yet part of Scotland. Dal Riata covering the western seaboard of Scotland and north-east Ireland is likely. I assume Pictland is unlikely as it was a separate culture in the far north. A discussion of the areas and dates of manufacture would bypass the need to choose between Celtic and British. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  Dudley Miles, this is taken from p. 225 of Wales and the Britons by Charles-Edwards: Hanging-bowls, a form of thin copper-alloy bowl designed to be suspended from three or four hooks, provide evidence for a quite different pattern of exchange. They usually have Celtic decoration but are mainly found in Anglo-Saxon graves of the period 550–650. When they have been repaired locally in the area in which they are found, the craftsmanship of the repairs is sufficiently different from that of the original manufacture to show that they were imports from somewhere else. They were not made by Celtic craftsmen working for Anglo-Saxon employers in eastern Britain; and thus the Celtic form of decoration is the best guide to their place of origin. Unfortunately it is not known from where in Celtic Britain or Ireland they were imported into Anglo-Saxon England. This uncertainty is itself, however, a symptom of the shared material culture on either side of the Irish Sea and reaching up into the Hebrides. That shared material culture began to emerge in the fifth century, as shown by the development of one fourth-century British type of Brooch into the standard form, the pennanular brooch, class 1, in both Celtic Britain and Ireland and at very much the same date. And per Youngs 2009 p. 228 (doi:10.5871/bacad/9780197264508.003.0009), I suggest that enamelled hanging-bowls were originally made in some of the most prosperous centres of British Britain from the mid-sixth century, from the lower Severn Valley to the Moray Firth, though not in the poorer western areas that were to become bastions of medieval Celtic culture, Cornwall and highland Wales, and that the fashion for such bowls was exported to Ireland much later than the first wave of brooches and pins of c.400. My view (which is a polite term for a guess) is that we should be looking, after the domination of Rheged, the creation of Wessex and fall of Elmet in 617, at the Strathclyde, Scottish Dál Riata and Pictish areas. It is always tempting to look at Scottish Dál Riata as a west-coast gateway for the exchange of goods and ideas with the rest of Ireland, not just in the context of the Columban foundation on Iona. There had been traffic with neighbouring north Britain since prehistoric times. Was the situation in former Roman Britain in the sixth to seventh centuries analogous with the effect of the Roman invasion on the Celtic kingdoms of Britain? The latter is argued to have resulted in an earlier influx of British metalwork into Ireland, particularly the midlands and the north. Did the successful Anglo-Saxon military campaigns of the period lead to a production shift north and west, following established marriage alliances, trading and ecclesiastical connections? The bowls in the Anglo-Saxon territories represent any one or all of the following: loot, tribute, prestige gifts, marriage portions, local trade, originating with British elites. These vessels were often old, mended and frequently incomplete when buried by their finnal owners. Smiths are mobile, but so too are patrons. --03:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC) Usernameunique (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  I've added this line: 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 to the Moray Firth in Scotland, and—as the Anglo-Saxons extended their domain—were manufactured in progressively northern places, such as Dál Riata, Strathclyde, and Pictland, with the tradition ultimately taking root in Ireland also. (Fun fact: this FAC is now twice the length of the article.) --Usernameunique (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  Let's make it even longer That framing seems imply that "the Anglo-Saxons" were a single political unit (in particular, the phrase extended their domain and perhaps the phrase Anglo-Saxon control). Is that accurate? If not, would suggest something like "the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms/polities/realms/similar extended their domains...". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• How about "the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms extended their territories". Dudley Miles (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, used that wording. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• I think that the reference for the image should be in the image description as well as in the article.

• It's in the footnote: "After Bruce-Mitford & Raven 2005, pl. 3." --Usernameunique (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yes the article footnote. But the the description in c:File:Benty Grange hanging bowl escutcheon design.svg is just "Design used on 7th century Bowl." This is too vague. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Good call. I've expanded both the description and attribution. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• "141 were from Britain and Ireland, 26 from Norway, and 7 from elsewhere in Europe." There are several issues. 1. MOS forbids - if I remember correctly - starting a sentence with a number in figures. 2. Is no breakdown of the figure for Britain and Ireland available? Anglo-Saxon areas, Wales, Cornwall, Ireland? 3. Europe should be "mainland Europe".

• (You're correct about the MOS.) I've reworded to 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. I don't think Bruce-Mitford gives a more detailed breakdown (although it could be at least partially compiled from the bowl-by-bowl breakdown), though he notes that The bowls have come to light in all parts of the British Isles, from Shetland to the Isle of Wight, except for Wales, and Devon and Cornwall. Of those European (but not Norwegian) 7, meanwhile, I don't think "mainland" works, since Sweden accounts for a bowl. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Webster says, "some 150 bowls or bowl fittings are known from Britain (before 700)... most of them from England". Also 4 from Ireland. But B-M has more on this, maps at least. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• The Continental Europe article says "The Scandinavian Peninsula is sometimes also excluded as, even though it is a part of "mainland Europe"", so it covers Sweden, but this is a minor issue as "Europe" is often used - wrongly in my opinion - to exclude the UK. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• "The Benty Grange hanging bowl is typically dated to the second half of the seventh century". "typically" is an odd word in this context. Maybe "dated by most experts" Dudley Miles (talk) 12:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I wonder how many experts have actually made their own assessments, rather just following B-M. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks, Dudley Miles. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks very much for all your input, Dudley Miles. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• PS. I see that Charles-Edwards refers to "Celtic craftsmen" and this seems better than "Celtic populations". Dudley Miles (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  And better than "British Britain", which Youngs uses! Changed to "Celtic makers" so as to not gender it. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Image and source review

Image placement is OKish. File:Benty Grange hanging bowl escutcheon design.svg should probably say that the underlying design is PD. Otherwise it seems like licencing is OK. Personally I tend to think that the ALT text needs to convey the same information on appearance as the image would, not merely say what the image is. Source-wise, spot-check upon request. Why do Liestøl 1953 and the 19th century Bateman sources have no page numbers in the References section? What do "pp. 223, pl. 73.", "pp. 223, 223 n.4." and "pp. 46–47, 47 n.a." stand for? Is Thomas Bateman (antiquary) a high-quality reliable source? Same question for William Henry Goss. I see there is some inconsistency in which information is provided by which sources - some books have ICCNs and/or ISBNs and others don't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Added a PD template for the design. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Added better alt text—have deserved to be called out on that for a while. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The Bateman works are being cited as a whole (in essence, "he published X book", followed by a cite to the book). For Liestøl, the whole article is about the idea being cited (that hanging bowls may have been vessels for liturgical use). --Usernameunique (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

"pl." stands for "plate". "n." stands for "note" (as in footnote 4 or footnote a). --Usernameunique (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Bateman and Goss are being cited as contemporaneous sources, not for modern analysis, and are high quality reliable sources in that context. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Added a missing ISBN. The intention, however, is to have book cites include whatever numbers (primarily ISBNs and LCCNs) with which they were printed; depending on age, some have one, both, or neither. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for the review—particularly appreciate you taking it so quickly after it was posted. Replies above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Be warned that this isn't a field where I can instinctively recognize the relative reliability of sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: Just a courtesy ping to let you know that all comments have now been addressed. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.