A couple of months ago, I bought the second volume of Ralph Moffat sourcebook on Medieval Arms and Armour. Fascinating to me - others may not be so interested in the textual side of things. However, I was slightly startled to discover that the author rejected the idea that a Houndscull was the same as a pig-faced bascinet, which has been the common understanding until recently even among specialists. Intrigued, I had to follow this up.

What became clear is that the helmet identification is essentially antiquarian - there is no clear tie in to earlier helmet names. Ralph Moffat in the book and a more detailed article makes a clear case for the houndscull not being a helmet at all, but a mail hood. References led me to the work of Christopher Retsch, a German authority who came to the same conclusion. This led back a few years to Nowakowski Arms and Armour of the Medieval Teutonic Order's State in Prussia where the listing of houndsculls among the mail items in Teutonic arsenals leads to a similar conclusion. While it is certainly not entirely clear what sort of head armour a houndscull was, it is hard to see how it was taken to be a visored helmet.

It is tempting to blame British antiquarian arms and armour experts deriving the English name from "hound's skull" and deciding that snouted bascinets looked like dogs' skulls. The better English derivation is actually "hound's cowl", coming through Dutch from German Hundsgugel - hound's hood. I suspect this identification would not have been made if more non-French continental material had been available. Whether Moffat and Retsch are right (and it looks that way), it is an example of how we take things for granted and pass them on. I certainly had no idea that houndscull wasn't an attested medieval identification, so often does it appear in apparently authoritive sources.

Thanks, that is a great source.