650 Effigies Analyzed (1300-1450)-Major Update!

Talbot · Post by **Talbot** » Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:35 pm

Is this one an improvement?

Talbot · Post by **Talbot** » Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:43 pm

too complicated?

Derian le Breton · Post by **Derian le Breton** » Sat Apr 25, 2009 1:30 am

Talbot wrote:
Ernst wrote:I'm all for making these charts a sticky! Good work, and better with the improvements. I think it would be interesting to compare English manuscript miniatures with a known date.
If there are English mauscripts with definate dates I think we could add that data to the set safely.

I've been working on an analysis of the <A HREF="http://image.ox.ac.uk/show?collection=b ... 4">Romance of Alexander</A> (Flemish/French - 1338-1344.)

-Derian.

RalphS · Post by **RalphS** » Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:41 am

Talbot wrote:too complicated?

Nice, I like. Any chance to skip the zeros?

Sean Powell · Post by **Sean Powell** » Sat Apr 25, 2009 7:42 am

RalphS wrote:
Talbot wrote:too complicated?
Nice, I like. Any chance to skip the zeros?

Not complicated... cluttered, but useful. It would mean you could skip the column graph showing numbers of samples per decade.

I agree with eliminating the zeros if possible. Assuming that you are graphing this in Excel using a stacked column chart with the show values option, you can eliminate the 0's by having an empty cell. I'm guessing you are using a formula similar to:

countif(1340s,"=Greathelm")

which you can probably replace with

if(countif(1340s,"=Greathelm")=0,"",countif(1340s,"=Greathelm"))

which will then give you empty cells instead of zeros. A bit brute-force but saves you from stacking multiple cells to run a single calculation.

Sean

Talbot · Post by **Talbot** » Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:42 am

Derian le Breton wrote:
Talbot wrote:
Ernst wrote:I'm all for making these charts a sticky! Good work, and better with the improvements. I think it would be interesting to compare English manuscript miniatures with a known date.
If there are English mauscripts with definate dates I think we could add that data to the set safely.
I've been working on an analysis of the <A HREF="http://image.ox.ac.uk/show?collection=b ... 4">Romance of Alexander</A> (Flemish/French - 1338-1344.)

-Derian.

For sake of consistencey could you use the same format?

Talbot · Post by **Talbot** » Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:57 am

Sean Powell wrote: I agree with eliminating the zeros if possible. Assuming that you are graphing this in Excel using a stacked column chart with the show values option, you can eliminate the 0's by having an empty cell. I'm guessing you are using a formula similar to:

countif(1340s,"=Greathelm")

which you can probably replace with

if(countif(1340s,"=Greathelm")=0,"",countif(1340s,"=Greathelm"))

which will then give you empty cells instead of zeros. A bit brute-force but saves you from stacking multiple cells to run a single calculation.

Only the Great Helm collumn has blanks. This is because I have tow head entries in some cases. The first head entry is what is on the head of the effigy proper. I have a Head 2 collumn mostly for great helms being used as pillows. In all other cases there is a data item in the head collumn.

Here is the formula:

=COUNTIFS($M:$M,"="&$S89,$B:$B,">="&T$11,$B:$B,"<="&T$12)

The options from which to choose are
Mail
CervelliÃ¨re
Bascinet
Great Bascinet

in the second collumn the options are
Great Helm
(blank)

I'm not an excel expert so there may be a way to turn off the zeros. If I can get a clue I'll do it.

My goal is for this to be useable by anyone with an interest.

One idea I had was to leave the graphs as they are but make them clickable to see a larger format graph with the data points on them.

Johannes The Bald · Post by **Johannes The Bald** » Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:57 am

Talbot,

Thanks for sharing the info. It puts it in concise and easily shown patterns.

Johannes

Talbot · Post by **Talbot** » Sat Apr 25, 2009 10:09 am

I've looked at it more closely. The zeros represent those types of helms that are not found in the decades.

Here is what the clickable pop up would look like.
http://talbotsfineaccessories.com/armou ... 0large.jpg

Talbot · Post by **Talbot** » Sat Apr 25, 2009 10:11 am

Jay Sabath wrote:Talbot,

Thanks for sharing the info. It puts it in concise and easily shown patterns.

Johannes

I was surprised by how consistent the data was. The pattern emerges easily when the data is presented in this way.

Talbot · Post by **Talbot** » Sat Apr 25, 2009 10:45 am

Kilkenny wrote:In the course of your examination, did you get the sense that each of these was a distinct work, or were there some that appeared similar enough to raise concern of "mass production"?

I ask because in looking at some effigies (and I certainly have not done any systematic review) I get the sense that I'm looking at the same thing again and again, with minor variations, such as a dog versus a lion at the feet.

Obviously, if the craftsman is making "effigy #3 with optional Dog" for Sir Bumblethorpe, it makes a difference...

In Dr. Judith Hurtig's Doctoral dissertation The Armored Gissant Before 1400 She states, "The uniformity of these alabaster tombs raises questions about shop procedures, specifically whether we must reckon wit the possibility that a shop might keep a supply of such tombs available for purchase, supplying only heraldic devices on order. It is extremely difficult to get any such information. However the evidence of wills would suggest that tombs were carved on order. In a typical will, the deceased requests burial in a certain church, He might then ask that a tomb be ordered following certain specifications. IN his will of 1371 Sir Walter Manny requests burial in the choir of the Charterhouse of London of which he was a founder. He further requests an alabaster tomb with an armored gissant 'tiele come est faite sur monsire Johan de Beauchamp a seint Paul en Londres' [like the one made for Sir John Beauchmap in St. Paul's Cathedral in London]. A similar request was made by Thomas, Lord Pynings in 1374 for an alabaster tomb bearing an armoured gissant. The Black Prince left elaborate detailed instructions for his tomb in Canterbury. A contract for an extant tomb of Ralph Greene (+1418) was drawn up between his executors, his wife and 'kervers; Thomas Prentys and Robert Sutton of Chellaston. This Alabaster tom in Lowick (Northants) corresponds in all details to the stipulations in the contract, including such an unusual detail as a bear as foot supporter. The evidence would therefore suggest that tombs were carved to order. Moreover the will of Sir Walter Manny further suggests that the uniformity of the tombs was in no way viewed in negative terms, but was something of positive value."(p. 165-6)

Sean Powell · Post by **Sean Powell** » Sat Apr 25, 2009 11:21 am

As an idea:

Talbot wrote: =COUNTIFS($M:$M,"="&$S89,$B:$B,">="&T$11,$B:$B,"<="&T$12)

I'm not an excel expert so there may be a way to turn off the zeros. If I can get a clue I'll do it.

You might try replacing that formula with:

=if( COUNTIFS($M:$M,"="&$S89,$B:$B,">="&T$11,$B:$B,"<="&T$12) =0,"", COUNTIFS($M:$M,"="&$S89,$B:$B,">="&T$11,$B:$B,"<="&T$12))

and see if the zeros go away. Hard to de-bug without seeing the rest of the code.

Talbot wrote: in the second collumn the options are
Great Helm
(blank)

try replacing the blank with the word 'none' or just a period as a space holder which will create a countable empty data set.

I'm really liking this analysis as the trends do become very clear. When someone says 'but I've seen splinted armor on an effigy and I've seen great bascinets on effigies we can say. "Yes but clearly they wern't done at the same time'. It's a VERY useful tool.

Sean[/quote]

Talbot · Post by **Talbot** » Sat Apr 25, 2009 1:17 pm

Sean Powell wrote:I'm really liking this analysis as the trends do become very clear. When someone says 'but I've seen splinted armor on an effigy and I've seen great bascinets on effigies we can say. "Yes but clearly they wern't done at the same time'. It's a VERY useful tool.

Bingo!!!!

I'm hoping to be able to find effigies that represent the "norm" for each decade to use as exemplars. It should be reasonable to do so. That will help show what goes with what.

mackenzie · Post by **mackenzie** » Sat Apr 25, 2009 1:58 pm

Hi,

Sean Powell wrote:I'm really liking this analysis as the trends do become very clear. When someone says 'but I've seen splinted armor on an effigy and I've seen great bascinets on effigies we can say. "Yes but clearly they wern't done at the same time'. It's a VERY useful tool.

I prefer statements like, "That falls out of the norm and is very unlikely that a great bascinet and splinted armour where done at the same time." I am probably just stating the obvious but we are dealing with trends and trends by definition are not definitive. Legitimate outriders may exist. They should be treated with suspicion until until proven but should not be summarily dismissed.

I am really looking forward to the results of the big project.

mackenzie

Tailoress · Post by **Tailoress** » Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:18 pm

Doug, this kind of work is invaluable for re-enactors/LH/SCA/WMA enthusiasts and we don't often get it from the academic field. Thank you for providing such a solid resource!

lorenzo2 · Post by **lorenzo2** » Sat Apr 25, 2009 5:44 pm

Talbot,

You have provided a very useful resource and it is obvious that you have gone to great lengths to make it a accurate as possible. As someone who deals with statistics I must ask how representative the sample set is of the total data set (IE does 250 effigies represent half the effigies existing, 90 percent of the effigies or some qualitative number like the large majority of existing effigies since obviously you can't know which effigies you don't know about). I must also ask how many effigies were not included because a good date could not be established. I am not trying to cast doubt on what you have done. It is just that the kind of questions you are trying to answer require a hard look at how representative the data set is of the total population in addition to a look at how representative the effigies are of what people actually wore.

As to the chart, I like the busy one with the extra information. I think the audience for this sort of thing is pretty sophisticated and could make use of it. If I were presenting it to the general public I would simplify the chart as much as possible.

I hope this is helpful

Aussie Yeoman · Post by **Aussie Yeoman** » Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:06 pm

Actually in Renee d'Anjou I believe there are some paintings which have some form of great bascinet with splinted arms and what appears to be floating elbows. See here:

http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/CadresFenetre ... imageseule

Closeup attached.

Not to derail the thread of course.

Anyhoo, one thing I think might be useful is a page where there are one or two examples of each unit of armour which you include. This would be for the benefit of those who are new to the armour circle, who are unfamiliar with the time periods/country, or those who simply don't have a clear picture in their mind of what you mean in your description. For example, your articulated gauntlets. Do you mean something that looks like a Gothic gauntlet?

You've done a terrific job, thanks for putting it out there. I look forward to the book with heaps of nice pictures in it! But even more, I'm REALLY interested in seeing the German one.

Dave

Sean Powell · Post by **Sean Powell** » Sat Apr 25, 2009 7:43 pm

Aussie Yeoman wrote:Actually in Renee d'Anjou I believe there are some paintings which have some form of great bascinet with splinted arms and what appears to be floating elbows. See here:

Dave

A YUP! Definetly familiar with those as I'm trying to make that exact suit. The picture is the Duke of Burbon. It is however French not English, an illustration not an effigy, within the life of the particpant not after his death, an articulated elbow not floating (the construction detail shows a cop-less system with merely a roundell for elbow protection and is possibly an illustration of what is worn along the rhine region) and quite possiby fictional... but other then that it fits right in.

I appologize for happening to pick those 2 elements earlier as an example. A) they may have been a subconcious pairing on my part and B) I never actually checked the graphs to see when splinted arms disappeared and when great bascinets appeared. Please don't think my example was proof of anything.

(Still loving this thread!)
Sean

Aussie Yeoman · Post by **Aussie Yeoman** » Sat Apr 25, 2009 7:50 pm

Yup. I'm aware that the armour is a life-use, non effigy. It's just that when you mentioned those two elements together, that picture sprung to mind.

You're going to have an easy time making that suit as the fancy overclothes can cover up the majority of the body, meaning you can pretty much do whatever you want. Unless you're going to recreate the other harness elements found in the book.

Sorry, I'm still not trying to derail.

Dave

Talbot · Post by **Talbot** » Sat Apr 25, 2009 11:47 pm

lorenzo2 wrote:As someone who deals with statistics I must ask how representative the sample set is of the total data set (IE does 250 effigies represent half the effigies existing, 90 percent of the effigies or some qualitative number like the large majority of existing effigies since obviously you can't know which effigies you don't know about).

I could not even hazard a guess about how many efigies exist. I have 1500 images of effigies but these are from all over Europe and I have multiple shots of the same effigy.

lorenzo2 wrote:I must also ask how many effigies were not included because a good date could not be established.

I probably have five English effigies I could not use in the data set. Many of these were due to the condition of the effigy rather than dating issues.

RandallMoffett · Post by **RandallMoffett** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:35 am

Doug,

Very interesting indeed. Some interesting information. It is funny in a way as to me from a much more limited sample group I think many English illuminations may show different trends. Perhaps some future work to look at?

Not sure the leg harness, sabatones and greaves clicked for me yet but my brain is on ovreload so I will reread it later. If the partial is a knee cop plus one or the other then shouldn't greaves and sab's of the 1300-1330s be represented?

On the torso armour why is mail listed when it also is hidden by the surcoat? Some COPs for the dates 1320s-1340s are visible no? Certainly in the 1330s and 1340s we have several where COPs are peeking out from under the surcoats. De Northwood, d'Abernoun and de Creke all clearly show the hem of the COP. I am sure I could find more if you like.

Some question. Were these effigies usually including the entire slab or just the figure?

Do you have a list of the ones used in this? I could see if I have any for you.

I think this also demonstrates some interesting things about effigies and reading them. For example in the 1320s and 1330s there are several men show in effigy w/out gauntlets at all. I have always taken that to mean they had plate gaunts as mail either is left on or you can see them removed but hanging from the wrist.

Nice work,

RPM

lorenzo2 · Post by **lorenzo2** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:09 am

Talbot,

You said "I could not even hazard a guess about how many efigies exist. I have 1500 images of effigies but these are from all over Europe and I have multiple shots of the same effigy."

I really like what you have done but if you are going to publish these charts some evaluation of data quality/quantity is needed if they are going to stand up to scrutiny. If the purpose of these is for personal and armoring community use then you have done a great service and such an evaluation is not needed if you are satisfied with the results.

I understand Toby Capwell is working on an english monuments book. Perhaps you could bring up the issue of how many knightly effigies exist with him?

RalphS · Post by **RalphS** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 11:50 am

lorenzo2 wrote:I really like what you have done but if you are going to publish these charts some evaluation of data quality/quantity is needed if they are going to stand up to scrutiny.

Data quality and quantity can be very well described without knowing the amount of all effigies (currently or ever) in existence. If nothing else is known, the total number of effigies in each box is already (for me) a very good indication. 50% of 2 samples is could very likely be a statistical fluke. 50% of 20000 samples is something with a lot more confidence. Intuitively, I'd go for the square root of the number of items in a box as an indication of uncertainty. Thus 100 samples could statistically just as well be 90 or 110, but less likely 80 or 120.

Sean Powell · Post by **Sean Powell** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:56 pm

lorenzo2 wrote:I really like what you have done but if you are going to publish these charts some evaluation of data quality/quantity is needed if they are going to stand up to scrutiny.

I'm going to simultaneously agree and disagree here. Any publication that is going to discuss % of population distribution should make some statement about Confidence Interval or P-levels or similar...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_level
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_region
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value

but I have yet to meet anyone other then a statistician who actually understands what those values mean beyond "having a Low p-level is good". Most people just wing it and if enough raw data is provided then the data can stand up to scrutiny on it's own.

Thanksfully it's not necessary to know what the total count of existing effigies any more then it is to know the total count of all coin-flips in the world.

Sean

Derian le Breton · Post by **Derian le Breton** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 1:16 pm

Sean Powell wrote:but I have yet to meet anyone other then a statistician who actually understands what those values mean beyond "having a Low p-level is good". Most people just wing it and if enough raw data is provided then the data can stand up to scrutiny on it's own.

The professor who taught me stats was very good; I understood these things pretty well a while back...

It's been a few years since I had to use them though, so off the top of my head I can't explain them in any detail.

Personally, I think that using these tools on this data set is a bad idea. I believe there are sufficient flaws in the methodology that would make in depth statistical analysis pointless. I'm not saying it's bad work by any means, but there is inherent bias all over the place, PLUS the added factors of death date vs effigy creation date, specification of what the effigy will wear in wills, fashion, et cetera. All of these things will blur the lines considerably. The data set is also rather small.

-Derian.

Derian le Breton · Post by **Derian le Breton** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 1:28 pm

Ahh, confidence level = confidence interval. That's a relatively easy concept. An x% confidence interval of [a,b] means that if you repeat the experiment over and over, x% of the time your parameter of interest will lie between a and b.

For example, if the 95% confidence interval for the diameter of a given rod is 0.9mm to 1.1mm, if I check 1000 rods, the diameter of 950 of them will lie within this range. The other 50 will be either below 0.9mm or above 1.1mm.

Stated theoretically:

Pr(a < D < b) = 0.95

Where "D" is the diameter of the rod.

Due to the central limit theorem, the confidence interval calculation is normally distributed, with a standard deviation approaching 1/sqrt(n) (assuming the experiments are independent). The more data sets you have, the more accurate your estimator will be.

-Derian.

lorenzo2 · Post by **lorenzo2** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:29 pm

"Dewey defeats Truman" If you are not familiar with the headline look it up. The data set is self selected. Consequently there will be doubt about the conclusions which can only be answered by some qualitative or quantitative estimate of how much data is out there. What if Toby Capwells book shows there are 500 additional effigies that could be included? This would cast some real doubts about the validity of the conclusions in Talbot's charts. What if all of Mr. Capwells work comes up with only a handful of additional effigies? We would could then have great confidence in the conclusions of the chart. I for one would love to see Talbots work become a standard reference like Blair's or Boccia's.

On another note, there is no reason to believe the data is normally distributed nor that it is a randomly selected subset of the population. (as Derian points out) Hence parametric tests sted may not be valid.

I have been reading the Mary Rose archological reports. They do their statistics on the items they collected, then evalute what other data there are out there, IE other reports, art work, books and manuscripts to see if the results seem to jibe. All I am suggesting is that the modern standard is to do some evaluation of data quality. I am not suggesting that an in depth analysis will provide any more useful data or be worth conducting.

Derian le Breton · Post by **Derian le Breton** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:39 pm

lorenzo2 wrote:On another note, there is no reason to believe the data is normally distributed nor that it is a randomly selected subset of the population. (as Derian points out) Hence parametric tests sted may not be valid.

Well, you can still do parametric tests on data that is not normally distributed (though it only makes sense to do them on random data.) The confidence interval can be computed for a data set with any arbitrary probability distribution.

All I am suggesting is that the modern standard is to do some evaluation of data quality. I am not suggesting that an in depth analysis will provide any more useful data or be worth conducting.

+Tasha.

I think manuscript analysis will bring some interesting things to the table (though I'm biased, since I'm working on one!

)

-Derian.

Gest · Post by **Gest** » Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:46 pm

Excellent organization and presentation is what transforms data into information. The hard part is in conceiving the possibility. Simply sterling work, Talbot.

-- Gest

RalphS · Post by **RalphS** » Mon Apr 27, 2009 2:06 am

lorenzo2 wrote:All I am suggesting is that the modern standard is to do some evaluation of data quality.

Lorenzo and others, I'm trying to learn a bit here and would like to know what the modern standard for quality evaluation is in this field.

One part would be to estimate the random errors in the sample: how different would the conclusion be if we were to collect a different sample from the same population?

Another would be to estimate the systematic errors in the sample or conclusions, which is generally more difficult and involves comparing the results against an independent "truth".

Is this along the lines of what is done in this field?

Tailoress · Post by **Tailoress** » Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:25 am

Just curious -- when you say "effigies" you mean 3-D alabaster and the like, not incised brass, right? Or did you include memorial brasses?

Kilkenny · Post by **Kilkenny** » Mon Apr 27, 2009 7:54 am

Talbot wrote:
Kilkenny wrote:In the course of your examination, did you get the sense that each of these was a distinct work, or were there some that appeared similar enough to raise concern of "mass production"?

I ask because in looking at some effigies (and I certainly have not done any systematic review) I get the sense that I'm looking at the same thing again and again, with minor variations, such as a dog versus a lion at the feet.

Obviously, if the craftsman is making "effigy #3 with optional Dog" for Sir Bumblethorpe, it makes a difference...
In Dr. Judith Hurtig's Doctoral dissertation The Armored Gissant Before 1400 She states, "The uniformity of these alabaster tombs raises questions about shop procedures, specifically whether we must reckon wit the possibility that a shop might keep a supply of such tombs available for purchase, supplying only heraldic devices on order. It is extremely difficult to get any such information. However the evidence of wills would suggest that tombs were carved on order. In a typical will, the deceased requests burial in a certain church, He might then ask that a tomb be ordered following certain specifications. IN his will of 1371 Sir Walter Manny requests burial in the choir of the Charterhouse of London of which he was a founder. He further requests an alabaster tomb with an armored gissant 'tiele come est faite sur monsire Johan de Beauchamp a seint Paul en Londres' [like the one made for Sir John Beauchmap in St. Paul's Cathedral in London]. A similar request was made by Thomas, Lord Pynings in 1374 for an alabaster tomb bearing an armoured gissant. The Black Prince left elaborate detailed instructions for his tomb in Canterbury. A contract for an extant tomb of Ralph Greene (+1418) was drawn up between his executors, his wife and 'kervers; Thomas Prentys and Robert Sutton of Chellaston. This Alabaster tom in Lowick (Northants) corresponds in all details to the stipulations in the contract, including such an unusual detail as a bear as foot supporter. The evidence would therefore suggest that tombs were carved to order. Moreover the will of Sir Walter Manny further suggests that the uniformity of the tombs was in no way viewed in negative terms, but was something of positive value."(p. 165-6)

Perhaps I am missing something, or reading more of the paper would clarify the matter more for me. Reading this, I'm getting the impression that, while there might, or might not, be a stock supply of roughed out sculptures to finish according to customers' desires, there were instances that followed the design of previous works and it was a desirable thing to "fit in".

Which leaves me knowing nothing more than I did before about whether the individual effigies accurately represented the individual for whom they were made

I really appreciate being made aware of this research. I just don't (yet) see it helping my understanding...

Mac · Post by **Mac** » Mon Apr 27, 2009 11:41 am

Doug,

Tasha's got a good point about distinguishing between 3d effigies and flat brasses. The person who gets an effigy made is wealthier than the one who can only spring for a brass. Thus, on average, the effigial guys will be wearing nicer (and probably more up to date) stuff.

On the other hand, the distinction may not be great enough to warrant separating the already small data into even smaller groups.

Besides, it would be difficult to quantify the relationship between a really nice brass in an major cathedral and a third rate wooden effigy in a Parrish church.

Mac

Mac · Post by **Mac** » Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:03 pm

Gavin,

One of the points of Dr Capwell's thesis and upcoming publication is that the effigies really did reflect the person and the armor of the deceased. (T.C. pers. comm.) In 15th c. England (the scope of his study) the effigy appears to represent the dead man's face accurately; warts and all. What's more, the rivets and hinges of the dead man's armor are sometimes not the same from, say, one greave to the other. This suggests that that the sculptor may have been working from the man's actual armor; showing it as it was, and not as it should have been.

I don't think he believes that this was always the case, but that it frequently was.

On the other hand, even if a lot of effigies were made "like Sir Thusandso's, but with our visage"; they will still be more or less "up to date" and thus valid enough for comparison.

Mac

Tailoress · Post by **Tailoress** » Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:32 pm

Mac wrote:On the other hand, even if a lot of effigies were made "like Sir Thusandso's, but with our visage"; they will still be more or less "up to date" and thus valid enough for comparison.

Mac

I was just chatting with someone about this very thing and mentioned the likelihood that even if the alabaster (or limestone, or etc.) guys worked from templates, the templates themselves would need to stay current, or the son of Lord SoForth would surely take his mournful business to the guy with the best templates, the better to exhalt the Lord (you can decide which one I mean.

). There is an article about alabasterers in English Medieval Industries, eds. John Blair and Nigel Ramsey. I don't have my copy handy to check, but I'm wondering how much information about these very questions might be provided in that article.

-Tasha