Mac's basinet typology

[Mac]

A couple of months ago I began working on a basinet typology in conjunction with Doug Strong's big project. What I am presenting here is still in a rough form. I am hoping that by offering it up for discussion I can see what changes need to be made.


The system has two axes.

The vertical axis (1-6) is based on the shape of the lower and facial edges of the helmet. Lower numbers offer less coverage for the sides of the head. Higher numbers have increasingly more coverage.

The horizontal axis (a-g) is about the shape of the crown of the helmet. Rounded types are on the left. The crowns become more and more acutely pointed as one moves toward the right.

Most of the types which I have depicted and labeled represent extant helmets. Some are based on types which appears in art, but have not survived. The blank spaces may well contain valid types which I have not observed.



I hope that you will tell me weather or not you think that this is a workable foundation for a typology. If so, hope that you will tell me where it needs to be modified, expanded, or filled in.

Mac

[Konstantin the Red]

If you haven't done so already, you might examine Scottish and Irish armor art (primarily memorial brasses and Iona Tombs of the Kings 3D effigies AFAIK) for their tall-crowned bascinets (approximately column C) and how they might fit into the scheme. Not all these what you might call late-Celtic helmets are of the bascinet form -- the clogaid (if I have the term right) seems unique to these regions -- but those that are may be properly included.

[Mac]

Konstantin,

Do you have a link to any images of those Hibernian hats?

Thanks!
Mac

[Jeffrey Hedgecock]

Out of curiosity, what is the purpose and advantage of having a "typology"?

While Oakeshott did it with swords, I still have yet to understand the purpose of typologies, other than to give us, in hindsight as modern people, a way to discuss certain forms; pigeonholing and classifying things, when those who used the items never thought of them in that way.

I think part of it for me is that I can never remember what sword type XYZ or LMNOP is, but have a much easier time remembering individual pieces, when/where they were made/used, what museums they are held in, etc, which seems like more valuable information when discussing functional objects in their respective historical contexts.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. But then I'm more into the historical context than I am into artifacts strictly as objects.

Is it our nature as modern people to "classify" things? Is this something we inherited from our Victorian ancestors?

J

[Mord]

Out of curiosity, what is the purpose and advantage of having a "typology"?

While Oakeshott did it with swords, I still have yet to understand the purpose of typologies, other than to give us, in hindsight as modern people, a way to discuss certain forms; pigeonholing and classifying things, when those who used the items never thought of them in that way.

I think part of it for me is that I can never remember what sword type XYZ or LMNOP is, but have a much easier time remembering individual pieces, when/where they were made/used, what museums they are held in, etc, which seems like more valuable information when discussing functional objects in their respective historical contexts.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. But then I'm more into the historical context than I am into artifacts strictly as objects.

Is it our nature as modern people to "classify" things? Is this something we inherited from our Victorian ancestors?

J

I've had to work with a variety of typologies, usually having to do with swords, but there are other typologies of objects found, such as shield bosses. Also, there was a time, at least in the study of archaeology where a typology was considered a necessary part of analysis. M. Wheeler was well known for this approach.

For these reasons, plus the knowledge of the possiblity of exceptions and analomies (sp?), I am wary of typologies, and try to use them as a beginning point, rather than the be all and end all of a particular form of object.

Also, the usefullness of any typology is very dependant upon the size of the sample, the geographical area of said sample, and the time in which the sample existed (tho' I think with the above typology, the time period is pretty much obvious). Finally, the provenance of each object within the sample should be understood and related to reader.

Mord.

[Mac]

Jeff,

I think that a typology gives us a common ground in discussing these things. Terms like "back point" and "high point" seem to mean different things to different people. With a typology we can be reasonable sure that we are talking about the same thing.

I do see what you mean about pigeon holing. Many, basinets are are somewhere between these types. But even those can be profitably described by saying things like "its like a 2c. bit a little taller" or "it's like a 2f, but the face is cut more like a 3".

Mac

[Baron Alcyoneus]

It gets a little crazy if we start including the differences between bascinets and Italian nomenclature for salets and barbutes.

[mackenzie]

Will you be adding a date range to each typology?

[white mountain armoury]

I like it so far.
There is also the German bascinet with bretache in the Swiss museum m the name escapes me at the moment.
It does not descend below the brow line, and although very conical it has a reverse curve on the backside of the point.
I think I have a profile image of it.

[Minotaur]

Out of curiosity, what is the purpose and advantage of having a "typology"?

While Oakeshott did it with swords, I still have yet to understand the purpose of typologies, other than to give us, in hindsight as modern people, a way to discuss certain forms; pigeonholing and classifying things, when those who used the items never thought of them in that way.

I think part of it for me is that I can never remember what sword type XYZ or LMNOP is, but have a much easier time remembering individual pieces, when/where they were made/used, what museums they are held in, etc, which seems like more valuable information when discussing functional objects in their respective historical contexts.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. But then I'm more into the historical context than I am into artifacts strictly as objects.

Is it our nature as modern people to "classify" things? Is this something we inherited from our Victorian ancestors?

J

Not every one speaks the same language. Some names might not translate well. A lot of people on this forum use French words for non French armours. Just by calling them a "basinet" you have taken a lot of them out of context.

[Andeerz]

Well, this typology is handy since I now have a name for my favorite kind of bascinet: 5G. It's oh so purdy...

[lorenzo2]

Does it make a difference if a helmet had or did not have an aventail? Some of the lower ones on the figure may not have.

[Mac]

Thanks for your responses so far guys.


mackenzie,

I don't have any plans as of yet to include date ranges. I see where it would be useful, but it would be an awful lot of trouble.


white mountain,

I think I know which helmet you mean, but I'm not sure. Can you post a pic?



lorenzo2,

The system gets a little weak down in the lower left corner. The type "6e" is based on some of the helmets from Chalcis. Some of them have vervells for a camail, and some do not. We are clearly beginning to push the edges of "what is a basinet?" with this group.

Mac

[white mountain armoury]

This may be pushing the" form" as well, but its definatly a fav of mine.
Believed to be German circa 1350
<img src="http://www.whitemountainarmoury.com/ima ... om/03s.jpg">

[RalphS]

Good typology.
It's clear, has a logical lay-out, allows for a gliding scale, and has a small number of parameters which cover a large number of the observed bascinets.
The lower left corner allows for quite a few evolutionary options, and probably would need an extra parameter to make a distinction between the many helmets which would fit there.
How about A6/A7, just for the sake of discussion?:

[Vitus von Atzinger]

I think this typology will be very helpful when trying to describe a helmet that you want. I see two shapes that I have often described (badly).

I want to be able to say "Make me a Mac's Type _".

[James Arlen Gillaspie]

Ah, yes, 'White Mountain', the infamous 'backwards Phrygian'.

[Konstantin the Red]

Well, RalphS, that one shows a Claude Blair-style connection between the bascinet, which he took to be the root of every European Renaissance-era helmet, and the barbute. And I'd call that one a barbute rather than a bascinet, for its globose skull, close cheek coverage minimizing the facial opening, and lack of any kind of conical point anywhere along its prominent central crease. And just for fun -- in the shade, it would seem -- there's that celata-looking tail to its rear end. Doubtless for the comfort of the soldier in the field -- no rain down the back of the gorget. Not, of course, that such an anticlastic tail is at all unusual in a barbute!

I suppose a look at the Blair family tree of European helmets would also be part of this study.

Whether it could truly be shown that certain helmet forms evolved directly from less-emphasized predecessors I do not know. Perhaps a typological diagram is more true to the reality than an evolutionary tree with branches.

[Sean Powell]

Well I consider it useful to start with but I would also like to see accompanying information such as "3C typified by Italian artwork c 1370 as shown in the sleeping guardsment painted by J. Doe" but I suppose that is what comes from having a complete topography and not just the start of one.

I follow the transition of lower edge that seperates the type 1's all the way down to the 5's but I'm not seeing a signifigant variation in lower edge from the 5G to 6E. Is the verticality of the face edge and how close it comes to the jaw really enough to justify 6's being different then 5's given the scarcity of examples? perhaps it is too fine a distinction?

If not I'm remembering a few helms with an almost triangular face upening as the bascinet transitions more into the barbuta. Do we draw a termination line seperating the two helm types based on verticality of face opening or do we extend our topography another several rows to show a blending into barbutes and/or sallets?

Sean

[Konstantin the Red]

Konstantin, Do you have a link to any images of those Hibernian hats?

Thanks!
Mac

You had more trouble than you should have, too? Iona Abbey apparently does not yield up its secrets easily to the 'Net. Ionainfo was particularly frustrating -- click on a thumbnail and get 403'd. Heckuva note for what is clearly a tourist information site!

As I discover them, searching on variations on Iona Abbey and Grave slabs:

http://www.stoccata.org/stoccata.nsf/Pa ... E0027897DA small and poor pic of a memorial on Oransay (somewhere different from Iona).

Oransay Tombs

Four Effigies, Three w/Helmets -- The Lords of the Isles Not good enough to show detail either.

Tiring of being balked looking for The Tombs of the Kings at Iona Abbey -- now I think I would recognize the buildings of the place sailing by it -- I tried searching "cotun," those being associated with the 14th-c. Celtic high hats. That yielded rather more.

Cotun

Figure g.

Scroll about three-quarters down this page about the Templars of all people, for this drawing from a grave slab and its tall pointy hat. Interesting because this is almost a three-quarter view (or a missed try at one) and not the face-on depiction of so many of the slabs, which can only offer so much detail of profile, back, or sides. It's of a slab I've never seen before. Cotun, camail, tall helmet, sword belt and Highland & Islands late-lobate sword pommel, clear as a bell.

I don't know where they found this one, but it's a beaut. An illumination of a helmet quite like the Jerpoint Abbey effigy's in shape, but without that helmet's finial. Still a rather ungainly sort of helmet that looks like somebody had heard a bascinet described, and a barbute as well, but had never seen either:
Irish Horsemen, History & Equipment

But it does rather fall outside the bascinet type, I fear. I'll sniff around some more, though.

[Konstantin the Red]

More from MyArmoury:

Fig. f.

There are a couple of very poor quality pictures in Vol. 2 of Best Of The Hammer, pp. 150-151, illustrating an article on the development of armor in Scotland.

Finding the Site Record for Iona, Iona Abbey Museum finally got some pics. Oughtta bookmark this one.

This effigy is in very high relief. O for some profile shots of this and similar slabs! The helmet, more gracefully formed now, appears to come well down to around the angle of the jaws. Click image to enlarge a little less than 2x.

Another Ionan effigy

Effigy w/Spear, Shield with Heraldry, and late-lobate-pommel Sword This one has a more strikingly bascinetish helmet. Again, a closer look from either side of the head is wanted.

This fellow, included for thoroughness' sake as the details of his pointy helmet are perished, seems to have borne a heraldic cognizance of the Lords of the Isles on his heater shield. A ship and a rampant lion are discernible. Shield w/guige, spear, sword, lengthy dangling belt end, cotun? Possible plate armor on legs.

Sounds like for any armor hobbyist sojurning in that corner of the Hebrides, a day on tiny Oransay is worthwhile, being but little documented on the 'Net, viz.:

A visit to Oronsay Priory is recommended but only for the fit enthusiast! Oronsay is a small island off the West Coast with a population of eight in 1991. Take the ferry from Oban to Scalasaig on the Island of Colonsay. Follow the B8086 from the ferry east, turn left (south) on the B8055, a distance of about three miles - either on foot or take the post bus - to The Strand which separates the two islands. The Strand, about a mile in length, can be crossed at low tide by foot on a designated path and it is then about a mile's walk to the priory. The ruins are delightful, second only to Iona. There are over thirty medieval monuments - both carved stones and effigies - which are housed in roofed building.

From http://www.churchmonumentssociety.org/newfile10.htm

O'Cahan tomb at Dungiven Priory, Ireland These pics aren't detailed enough to be useful right off, but it's another research destination if anyone ever gets there. This one tomb has numerous be-cotuned warriors complete with helmets depicted.

Back to Iona -- hey, look! Front and side views of what appears to be the same effigy, side view at top of page and frontal view lower right. If they are, they show a central crease, with a symmetrical profile that's more like a fairly tall conical than the profiles we expect from bascinets. Pics are small, but clear, and better than nothing.

There's an effigy described for the Parish Church of Kilninian as follows:

There are eight interesting medieval slabs mostly of the Iona school 14th-15th century. Unfortunately the names of the people they commemorate are unknown. One is a full-length effigy 'of a warrior in armour 'with pointed basinet, an aventail and a knee-length aketon and carries a claymore'. He has a tasselled cushion under his head and a hound at his feet. On another slab can be seen a mirror and a pair of shears. These grave slabs are now found in the vestry at the back of the church, moved there for protection.

From here.

[Mac]

Thanks for the continued response!

White Mountain,

I had never seen a side view of that thing before. I frankly don't trust it. If the skull is real, I don't think that this is its original configuration. In any case, I will shy away from including it in my typology.


Ralph,

Thanks! It's true; the lower left could easily slide into barbuts. Although the basinet and the barbute are some sort of cousins, I am going to try to draw a line between them, and keep this a basinet typology. Perhaps someday I will do a barbute typology, and then I will have to keep out the basinets.


Konstantin,

Those evolutionary trees that Bashford Dean came up with are interesting, but they can not be taken literally. They ignore the possibility (nay, certainty) that morphological structures of man made objects can pass from branch to branch, resulting in chimeras that just can't happen phylogenetically.
Thanks for the links to the Hibernian hats. Most of them seem to be extra tall "2c"s, but at least one of them is more like the "6" series. I certainly need to think about these when I work on the typology.

Mac

[VRIN]

Mac-

I like the idea. I think that where ever you can give some academic insight and classification to a type of historical artifact discussion on that type of artifact gets easier. I think Oakshotts sword classification is really handy for talking about swords. Bascinets I think are a large enough sample to merit a classification system also. If I remember correctly Oakshotts classification had hilt, pommel, and fuller types too. It made the classification more versatile.

I would think that maybe classifications for the other furnishings/attachment methods/use of bascinets that make the "MacPherson classification" more versatile for the oddities that always seems to be out there.

Just a thought.

[Jason Grimes]

I don't know anything about bascinets, but I was thinking that adding some front or rear views might help to further distinguish the types?

[Ernst]

I have seen three additional forms represented in miniatures:

1. Phrygian points--I've seen these in at least one Czech Bible and the the c. 1400 section of the Bodleian Romance of Alexander.

2. Riveted fronts--Seemingly this is an early to mid-14th century thing.

3.Great bascinet transitions--I think one of the Osprey publications has an early 15th century example with a solid band across the chin. I suppose the deep necked/added bevor great bascinets might open up several new lines.

[Mac]

Thanks again guys!


VRIN,

Id seems like the visors have to be treated with a typology of their own. So, you might have a "type 3e basinet with a type 2a visor", or whatever...


Jason,

I am torn over the question of front and rear views. On one hand, they could clarify some differences between types. On the other, they would make the diagram denser and harder to read; or at any rate BIGGER. I like "split" front/back views, but I'm not sure if everyone finds them easy to interpret. I will post one in a couple of minutes. Tell me what you think.


Ernst,

Could you post a link to the Phrygian things? I'd like to see them. They might shed some light on the Swiss helmet posted above.

Do the riveted fronts happen on helmets which are different in any other way? If not, it might be easier to just name them by their type and note that they are riveted.

I was thinking that great basinets would be a typology unto themselves. However, the sort you are thinking of might be betwixt and between. At the moment, I'm thinking that they should be called "such and such a type, with an additional bevor plate".

Mac

[Mac]

Here is a quick sketch of what a "split" front/back view might look like for a type "3e".

I use this type of view a lot in my notebooks, but I'm not sure that everyone finds them easy to understand. What do y'all think?



Mac

[RalphS]

What do y'all think?

Crystal clear, but I can imagine it would take some getting used to for some people.

[Jason Grimes]

What do y'all think?

Crystal clear, but I can imagine it would take some getting used to for some people.

I like it too, it adds the necessary third dimension, especially if you really want to tie the type down.

[Ernst]

Mac,

We've discussed the Phrygian examples over the years, and there is always debate concerning their accuracy or basis in historical examples.

Velislav Picture Bible, NK XXIII.C.124 f.15r, c. 1340: Abraham

http://ces.mkcr.cz/cz/img/3/6/4/p2340.jpg

Romance of Alexander, MS Bodl. 264 folios 231v, 236r, 255r, c.1400

http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/ ... hp?id=9079

http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/ ... hp?id=2164

http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/ ... hp?id=2163

Folio 236r (second link) contains both visored and open-face examples on the horsemen to the left, as well as an open-face example in the arming pavillion.

[Ernst]

Perhaps you should have some standard sub-sets, like (n) for nasaled examples?

http://www.thehaca.com/Manuals/i33/port ... arly13.JPG

The same probably goes for (f) for fluted/faceted examples.

[Talbot]

I wanted to chime in here since this has been my baby for quite a while. I believe a typology will help our ability to communicate about bascinets but to my mind that is only a side benefit.

For me the need arose out of trying to organize these bascinets for publication. I have identified 181 bascinets in which I am fairly confident in relation to their authenticity. (I have about another hundred of which I am seriously dubious.) In early drafts of the manuscript I had organized them by where they were presently located, i.e which museum or collection. However I found that by organizing them by shape I was able to write better commentary and make observations about styles and trends. When you look at the bascinets that survive most of them fall fairly neatly into a handful of categories based on shape. Mac and I have been kicking the idea of a typology back and fort for some time now. At present we have two different versions of the typology-- one that includes how the visor is attached and one that does not (the one presented above.) This version is far more complete and detailed.

I hope another side benefit will be getting people to look at the bascinets that are being made now and having people notice that they do not really look like the real ones.

By the way there are also classification systems, for virtually all other types of armour from this period. I created these for the same reasons as I mentioned above. For example, every surviving leg harness fits neatly into one of four groups based on the method of construction.

[lorenzo2]

Would the topology apply to a multipart helmet such as the ones from Chacis that appear to be bascinet tops attached to a latter design side skirt? Perhaps it would only apply to the top portion?

[Baron Alcyoneus]

How about A6/A7, just for the sake of discussion?:

Italians might call that a barbute, since it covers some of the cheek, and the tail is short.


I think it might be best to use the profile of the 'base' bascinet, and use modifications (nasaled or not, reduced wrap/side plate, etc) as branches from there. The important thing, to me, is the primarily the shape of the top of the helmet. The sides might have curvature, or might not, depending on the local style/skill of the armorer. If the typology tries to cover every possible variation it will get too complex to be of use.

A person could show a single photo of what a 'real' burgeonet looks like, but if you look in Europaische Helme you will find that there are as many ways to make them as Bubba (from Forest Gump) knew how to make shrimp...

[Talbot]

Would the topology apply to a multipart helmet such as the ones from Chacis that appear to be bascinet tops attached to a latter design side skirt? Perhaps it would only apply to the top portion?

In the simpler typyoligy to which I made reference earlier they are type 3 (categorized as bascinets that have been modified into something else or created from multiple parts)