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

[Talbot]

I have conducted a statistical analysis of 250 English effigies dated between 1300 and 1430

http://talbotsfineaccessories.com/armou ... lysis.html

Is this information helpful?
Do you see any surprised or glaring errors?

Here is the German data. I will tweek it a bit today but this is the rough form.

http://talbotsfineaccessories.com/armou ... figies.htm

[Klaus the Red]

Neat. What's your margin of error for the dates? Ie, if the effigies are all dated to the death year of the decedent, how many are likely to have been commissioned X years before by the chap himself in anticipation of his own mortality, and how many might have been finished X years after he died by his heirs?

Klaus

[Milos N.]

It is quite helpful. It lets people see the trends fr every decade, as well as what works, and what does not.

What strikes me, is that there is quite a sharp change around 1340s. The common sense argument could be applied to early switch to plate legs, but slow changing to fully articulated ones. Legs are the easiest to hit, especially in mounted Vs inf. combat, so armouring them was a priority, but as the armour worked pretty well, there was no need to change it. Arms on the other hand, practically start as a full plate, some time later. Why would that be?

[Otto von Teich]

Well done Doug!

[es02]

Fantastic work Doug!

Very helpful indeed!

[white mountain armoury]

excellent !

[Villeman]

Wow, that´s great work! Thank you very much

[Sean Powell]

Doug! That's a fantastic piece of work. That you for doing this for us.

If I might critique from a numbers-geek standpoint:

1) If a category is used frequently, like maile, try to have maile be the same color in all of the graphs. It helps as you scan from graph to graph keeping track of the data. You have few enough categories that you should be able to find a unique color for each category. (Thigh armor is the only one where maile isn't blue)

2) On the thigh armor chart: Gamboised should probably stack ABOVE mail since it is introduced later. Plate lasts the longest so it should stack above everything even though it is introduced at the same time as splints and studs. Likewise Studs should stack above splints since they last longer. That mill make the chart more graphicly intuitive.

3) If articulated arms is 33% of a given decade it makes a difference if it is 1 of 3 effigies from that time period or 10 of 30. We need 1 bell curve chart in the begining showing number of effigies considered in each decade. It helps understand the reliability of the data. (Some of the data from the 1350s is a bit sketchy since I have a smaller sample of 1350s effigies from which to draw data.)

Sorry, I'm a numbers geek. I scan data and that stuff jumps out at me... sort of like spelling errrors do for good writers.

Thanks for all your work!

Sean

[d-farrell2]

awesome doug!

now to get someone to do this for Italian art

One comment/question - if possible (or realistic), could you somehow present the differences between estimated date of death and the creation of the effigy?

From the looks of things, it is pretty clear that there are definite trends- but if one was to try and use this to place an armour in a period, it would likely require some additional information on how well the effigy depicts armour of the period of creation vs period of the person's death/life/whatever. Or the assumption that the armour in the effigies represents the armour of the time it was made, rather than some previous time during the person's life. Any thoughts on this?

[Mac]

Nice!

I'm with Sean on points 1 and 2. Keep the same colors from chart to chart for comparable defensive technologies. Keep the earlier styles low in the charts and the later styles high. That will make the transitional technologies form diagonal bands in the charts. The results will be easier to understand and more pleasing to the eye.

Sean's point 3 (on statistical significance) is also a good one. I think the easiest way to address it would be to give the total effigy counts for each decade column. This would not take up much space on the diagram. Many people would ignore it, but it would be available for those who cared.

Mac

[Kenwrec Wulfe]

That is excellent!!!

Planning anything for Germany?

[Talbot]

I will be out of town next week but with my computer so I should be able to address Sean's points 1 and 2 then.

Point 3 is easy enough to do.

As my collection of effigies grows larger I will add more data.

Initially I was going to cover all of my English effigies but using the format I have it would be rather pointless because for before 1300 it would be nearly 100% mail head to toe and after 1430 it would be nearly 100% plate head to toe.

My next step would be to do the same for Germany (just for you Kenwrec) because I have a significant number of effigies form which to draw. Germany will be interesting in that there is so much variation going on there.

I do not have enough effigies from elsewhere to have a reasonable sample size.

[Kilkenny]

It is interesting. I have to ask about something that has tweaked me when looking at some effigies.

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...

I was a bit surprised by the very brief windows for studs, splints and scales.

Thank you for sharing your work.

[Sean Powell]

Oh! And you need to add 1 more chart (in your copious free time) since it is being discussed elsewhere: Plaque-belt = None, Squares, Circles, Diamonds, Other, Mixed. It would be interesting to see when certain shapes come into and pass out of vogue.

Sean

[Mord]

Interesting, and well done.

I agree with you about the date of effigy being more important than the date of death.

Is there any info on the size of the effigies? Or is there not enough info to make that statistically useful? I ask this because, well, size matters, as does postion of the effigy in the church/chapel, etc.

I've often thought of using archaeological "techniques" of examining burials to examining effigies; it's why I'm asking.

Thanks,

Mord.

[Kenwrec Wulfe]

My next step would be to do the same for Germany (just for you Kenwrec) because I have a significant number of effigies form which to draw. Germany will be interesting in that there is so much variation going on there.

That is awesome! Thank you!

[Talbot]

Is there any info on the size of the effigies? Or is there not enough info to make that statistically useful? I ask this because, well, size matters, as does postion of the effigy in the church/chapel, etc.

I've often thought of using archaeological "techniques" of examining burials to examining effigies; it's why I'm asking.

That is beyond my range of knowledge. In many cases I have only a picture to go from and no additional info.

[Talbot]

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"?

That is hard to tell. With military brasses in particular that may be more the case. We have one single example (Black Prince) where we have the surviving armour and the effigy. They are nearly identical though the surviving gauntlets have leopard gadlings and the effigy has spikes. IN shape they are quite similar.

Nicholas Hawberk's brass survives as does his funerary helm. The helm in the brass is largely hidden by his head and we cannot tell if they are the same form. They do look a bit different.

I was a bit surprised by the very brief windows for studs, splints and scales.

I think you will find a much greater range when I finish my German study.

[white mountain armoury]

definatly looking forward to germany

[Mord]

Is there any info on the size of the effigies? Or is there not enough info to make that statistically useful? I ask this because, well, size matters, as does postion of the effigy in the church/chapel, etc.

I've often thought of using archaeological "techniques" of examining burials to examining effigies; it's why I'm asking.

That is beyond my range of knowledge. In many cases I have only a picture to go from and no additional info.

Ok, Thanks.

Mord.

[Chuck Davis]

Doug, great work! could we include a chart for helm types?

[Effingham]

Doug, this is brilliant.

You absolutely rock!



Effingham

[Steven H]

Thank you so much for doing this work.

It's quite nifty.

Cheers,
Steven

[Talbot]

Here is the numbers of each type. I will add it to the page when I have ftp access. Although 250 is a reasonable sample size the numbers of each group are still small so the margin for error is still wide open. I would love more effigies from the period but would particularly welcome those from the 1330s and 1350s.

[Talbot]

Doug, great work! could we include a chart for helm types?

Chuck, I will add the bascinets soon. I have all the data but it does not reveal much yet. 1330 onward means a bascinet. We need to analyse shape and form of the bascinet to make it mean anything. That will mean refining Mac and my typologies

[Talbot]

Here are numbers of effigies that had a great helm represented in addition to the bascinet they were wearing.

[Thomas of Tadcaster]

The great helms data seems odd. The greathelm is a technology decidedly from the previous century, and can be seen in much of the 13th century period art ( I believe most of the Royal Seals from England during that period contain a great helm) yet they are not represented in effigy until the 1340's. While I can understand why they are not worn in effigies (cannot identify the person), are they just not being represented before 1340 or were they less commonly used then saw a resurgence of popularity. Seems peculiar.

[RalphS]

Excellent work!

[Blaine de Navarre]

Sir Talbot, you do rocketh mightily.

[Talbot]

1) If a category is used frequently, like maile, try to have maile be the same color in all of the graphs. It helps as you scan from graph to graph keeping track of the data. You have few enough categories that you should be able to find a unique color for each category. (Thigh armor is the only one where maile isn't blue)

2) On the thigh armor chart: Gamboised should probably stack ABOVE mail since it is introduced later. Plate lasts the longest so it should stack above everything even though it is introduced at the same time as splints and studs. Likewise Studs should stack above splints since they last longer. That mill make the chart more graphicly intuitive.

3) If articulated arms is 33% of a given decade it makes a difference if it is 1 of 3 effigies from that time period or 10 of 30. We need 1 bell curve chart in the begining showing number of effigies considered in each decade. It helps understand the reliability of the data. (Some of the data from the 1350s is a bit sketchy since I have a smaller sample of 1350s effigies from which to draw data.

All three solved

[Talbot]

The great helms data seems odd. The greathelm is a technology decidedly from the previous century, and can be seen in much of the 13th century period art ( I believe most of the Royal Seals from England during that period contain a great helm) yet they are not represented in effigy until the 1340's. While I can understand why they are not worn in effigies (cannot identify the person), are they just not being represented before 1340 or were they less commonly used then saw a resurgence of popularity. Seems peculiar.

You are 100% right. The reason they don't appear is exactly as you said--they block the wearer's face. You can safely assume that all listed as mail, and cerviliere and most listed as bascinet had great helms. Their presence here is a fashion of effigy carving rather than a reflection of what was worn. That is why I represented them seperately.

[Sean Powell]

Here are numbers of effigies that had a great helm represented in addition to the bascinet they were wearing.

Useful info but more useful if superimposed over the number of effigies in each decade. Otherwise best displayed as % of effigies with a great helm represented. Since everything else is in % then this probably should be too.

Example, there is 1 effigy from the 50's with a great helm but there are only 6 in the category so 17% have great helms. there are 4 from the 80's but that is out of 19 helms or a tad under 20%. Your graph makes it look like the 80's is 4 times s likely to have a great helm when it is nearly equal.

And I personallywould start with the # of samples per decade since it influences all other charts.

Sean

(just numbers geeking again)

[Ernst]

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.

[Talbot]

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.

[Talbot]

Example, there is 1 effigy from the 50's with a great helm but there are only 6 in the category so 17% have great helms. there are 4 from the 80's but that is out of 19 helms or a tad under 20%. Your graph makes it look like the 80's is 4 times s likely to have a great helm when it is nearly equal.

(just numbers geeking again)

I appreciate your geeking,

How does this look?