TWO DEACONS NOTRE DAME - Jaime Eguiguren · 2019. 6. 7. · (Left) Ángel de la Anunciación (Angel...

Nuria Lázaro Milla

T WO DEACONS

NOTRE DAME

T WO DEACONS

NOTRE DAME

Two Deacons Notre Dame

Publisher Jaime Eguiguren

Project Director Jaime Eguiguren

Author Nuria Lázaro Milla

Translation Laura Beratti ???????

Design and Layout Laura Eguiluz de la Rica

PhotographyJoaquín Cortés Noriega

Printing & Binding Artes Gráficas Palermo

© 2017 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any storage and retrieval system, without the prior permission in writing from the publisher.

Nuria Lázaro Milla

TWO DEACONS NOTRE DAME

ESTABLISHING THE ORIGIN —SCIENCE AT THE SERVICE OF ARTS

Inside Notre-Dame de Paris (?)

Formal and stylistic analysis

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES FROM TWO STATUES OF DEACONSCENTURY

The Limestone Sculpture Provenance Project

10

19

29

CONTENTS

6 7TWO DEACONS NOTRE DAMEDeacon 1 France, Île-de-France, Paris,

Notre-Dame Cathedral (?).

Ca. 1250.

Carved limestone with traces

of polychromy.

Height 112 cm.

8 9TWO DEACONS NOTRE DAME

DEACON 2 France, Île-de-France, Paris, Notre-Dame Cathedral (?)Ca. 1250 Carved limestone with some traces of polychrome Height 112 cm

Deacon 2 France, Île-de-France, Paris,

Notre-Dame Cathedral (?).

Ca. 1250.

Carved limestone with traces

of polychromy.

Height 112 cm.


Establishing the origin – Science at the service of Arts

In 2014, samples taken from the two sculptures the study of which is presented

in these pages were sent to the Research Reactor Center of the University of

Missouri, where they underwent instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA),

a radioactive procedure used to determine the concentrations of elements that

integrate a material. After comparing the results with more than 2,300 profiles

registered in the database of The Limestone Sculpture Provenance Project, it was

concluded that their composition coincided largely with the limestone found in

quarries and monuments of Île-de-France, a similarity percentage that increased

significantly in the comparison with fragments originated from or related to the

cathedral of Notre-Dame de Paris.

Inside Notre-Dame de Paris (?)

The excellent state of preservation of both sculptures, which still maintain

remains of polychrome, evidences that they were conceived to enrich the interior

of a temple.

Proposing that this was Paris Cathedral, as the scientific examination seems to

suggest, it is possible that their original location was in the Gothic jubé (rood

screen) or high choir; although, by the date, it is true that other possibilities, such

as the extension of the northern arm of the transept, should not be dismissed.

As far as evidence goes, the only two graphic documents that reflect the appearance

of the primitive jubé of Notre-Dame de Paris are the following:

Nuria Lázaro Milla


These are very succinct representations, because the authors focused their interest on

the architectural design and in the overall dimensions of the building. Nonetheless,

they enable us to know that the Gothic jubé of Notre-Dame de Paris was erected as a

loggia, with a wall in the eastern side that closed the access to the choir, and opened

towards the central nave by five arches finished in gables and supported by columns.

The top of the structure was covered by a balustraded gallery from where the

Holy Scriptures were read and the sermons were pronounced. In front of the jubé

was the altar where the priests celebrated mass for the faithful.

Although not shown in these images, it is known that the Gothic jubé of Notre-

Dame de Paris was covered by relieves portraying scenes of the passion, death and

resurrection of Christ. From them, only the Descent of Christ into hell (Harrowing

of Hell) can be identified, in a fragment with two naked torsos -presumably Adam

and Eve’s- and two suffering faces that emerge from the flames, preserved in the

Louvre Museum. It also included a free-standing sculpture, as it was crowned

by a crucifixion between Virgin Mary and St John. Not without difficulty, the

cross in Collier’s engraving can be observed, which is, furthermore, the only

reference of the jubé mentioned by some historians that visited the Cathedral in

the fifteenth (Guillebert de Metz, Description de la ville de Paris, 1434), sixteenth

(Gilles Corrozet, La fleur des antiquitez, singularites, et excellences de la noble et

triumphante ville et cite de Paris..., 1532), and seventeenth centuries (Jacques

du Breul, Le theatre des antiqvitez de Paris..., 1612). Collier’s view shows vertical

elements on the columns that articulated the arcade, ornaments that could be

pinnacles or figures such as those that occupy this investigation, as they rest on

chapiters.

Notre-Dame de Paris’ jubé was built in the middle of the thirteenth century

(1250-1260), contemporary to the northern front of the transept and the

beginning of the south, a work that was under the direction of architect Jean

de Chelles. Later, during the fourteenth century, the closing of the choir was

undertaken on the north, south and east sides.

The changes in the religious practices prescribed by the Council of Trent (1545-

1563) meant the disappearance of a large number of jubés in reaction against the

Protestant critics over the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. However, in the case

of Notre-Dame de Paris, the stone Gothic jubé was replaced in 1628 by another

one of wood in baroque style, according in taste with a new altar erected to the

Virgin in its south part, financed by Queen Anne of Austria. Curiously, the group

of the crucifixion was respected, until 1708, in the days of Louis XIV, when it

was replaced by an elaborate latticework.

It is important to emphasize that from different sources such as the preceding

drawing or the testimonies of travelers previously mentioned, Eugène Viollet-le

Duc rebuilt, in false, the Gothic jubé of Notre-Dame de Paris.

Recently exposed historical events invite us to consider that the sculptures left the

cathedral in 1628. Their placement in an elevated location could prevent them

from suffering damages from iconoclastic hordes during the eight religious wars

that succeeded without interruption between 1562 and 1598.

Recozs des voltes et

devis de nre dame de

paris, view number 39,

shown in Jean Pèlerin’s

De Artificiali Perspectiva

(1505)

Portraict & perspective

du dedans de l’eglise

Nostre Dame de Paris,

1587, by Jacques

Collier.

Paris, Notre-Dame Cathedral, elevation of the

choir door and side chapels (detail), Jules

Hardouin-Mansart 1699 Paris, Bibliothèque

Nationale de France.

Reconstruction of the Gothic jubé and

closing of the choir of the cathedral of Notre-

Dame de Paris (detail), Eugène Viollet-le-

Duc.

This engraving illustrates the voice “chorus”

in the Dictionnaire raisonné de l’architecture

française du XIe au XVIe siècle (Paris, Morel,

1875, vol. 3, page 233).


When drawing parallels with coeval sculptures that also decorated the Parisian

cathedral, the following examples can be presented:

(Left) Angel head(?), France, Paris, Notre-Dame Cathedral

(?), ca. 1250, limestone, 24,5 cm (9.64 in), Nueva York,

The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Origin determined by instrumental neutron activation

analysis. It could have been part of the jubé.

(Left) Angel head(?), France, Paris, Notre-Dame Cathedral

(?), ca. 1250, limestone, 30,5 cm (12 in), Durham,

Nasher Museum of Art at Duke University.

(Underneath) Origin determined by instrumental neutron

activation analysis. It could have been integrated to the

front of the north transept.

Head of theological virtue(?), France,

Paris, Notre-Dame Cathedral, ca. 1250-

1258, limestone, 33 cm (13 in), Paris,

Musée de Cluny.

From the front of the north transept,

this head was mutilated and removed

from its original location in 1793, in

the middle of the French Revolution. It

was reused on the foundations of Hôtel

Moreau, and discovered in 1977 during

the construction of the headquarters of

the Banque Française du Commerce

Exterieur


(Left) Female figure (martyr?).

(Right) Male figure with phylactery

(prophet?), France, Paris, Notre-

Dame Cathedral, ca. 1250,

limestone.

Archivolts on the right side of the

north front of the transept.

Angels, France, Paris, Notre-

Dame Cathedral, ca. 1250,

limestone.

Archivolts on the right side of

the north front of the transept.


Formal and stylistic analysis

Two deacons are erected above chapiters made of acanthus leaves, medieval

interpretation of classical Corinth, and molded hexagonal cymatium. They wear

alb or dalmatic, and, as servants of the Church, they carry cult objects in their

hands. Unfortunately, these objects are lost, but their bases seem to indicate that

they were candelabras and candlestick holders.

They are a magnificent example of the progressive interest on naturalism that

Gothic sculpture showed. Although their heavy wide pleated clothes hide the

figures’ anatomy and endow them with the typical solemnity of a column, the

contrapposto that can be observed in the feet provides some movement and

contributes to break frontality and symmetry. The illusion of a leg slightly bent,

which is more noticeable in Deacon 2, makes the feet exceed the limits of the

base, as if the statue would want to free itself from its condition, performing,

at the same time, the everyday gesture of self-supporting the body weight when

standing for a long time.

Feet detail of Deacon 2.

It is worth emphasizing the

shadow that the right toes

project when surpassing the

edge of the base.


Feet detail of Deacon 1.

Detail of the face of Deacon 2.

In the passage from conventional representation to realistic experience, the

sculptures look for the characterization of the faces through autonomous

expressions, hoping to portray the immediacy of an exact moment in time and

space. The face of Deacon 2 is still liable to a generic pattern. It is plump and

framed by voluminous curls, it looks up, and the opening of its mouth shows the

teeth in the act of singing a prayer.

On the other hand, the face of Deacon I has more individualized aspect and

gestures. The figure turns the head and widely smiles at the viewer, thus altering

the usual rictus of the face: the lips become thinner, the corners of the mouth are

pronounced, cheeks and eyebrows are raised and the almond shape of the eyes is

accentuated.

Detail of the face of Deacon 1.

Dark color traces above the shoulder

and on the right chest of the figure

can be observed. During the Middle

Ages, the sculpture articulated the

religious architecture by means of

narrative programs that made the

experience of the Christian doctrine

visible and tactile. Polychrome was

fundamental for a mostly illiterate

audience


The bloom of smiles, which reached the grotesque, in statuary from the second

third of the thirteenth century is in line with a more humanized spirituality

resulting from the Renaissance of the twelveth century, which encouraged

scholars to rediscover people and to analyze their relationship with deity

and the surroundings. Blind faith based on a terrifying eschatology gave

way to intellectual independence and impartial inquiry that permeated all

the branches of knowledge. The spirit of scientific curiosity stimulated, for

example, the production of botany treatises that enabled the training of artists

in the naturalistic representation of plants; in the same way, the heads that

laugh and mock are an eloquent proof of the new fascination on the human

nature’s physical and psychological aspects. The translation of Aristotle’s work

must have contributed to this last point since he extensively reflected on laugh

in books like the second volume of his Poetics (lost nowadays), where he assures

that this genuine human feature, always to a reasonable extent, is good exercise

for health.

(Left) Ángel de la Anunciación (Angel

of Annunciation), central portico of

the west façade of Notre-Dame de

Reims cathedral (Our Lady of Reims)

(France), ca. 1245-1255.

(Right) Ángel de la Sonrisa (Angel

of the Smile), north portico of the

west façade of Notre-Dame de

Reims cathedral (Our Lady of Reims)

(France), ca. 1245-1255.

(Left) Ángel de la Anunciación (Angel of

Annunciation), front of the west façade of

Notre-Dame de Villeneuve-l'Archevêque

church (France), c. 1240.

(Right) Virgen necia (Stubborn virgin), coming

from the archivolts of the central portico of

thewest façade on the abbey church of Saint-

Sauveur de Charroux (France), ca. 1250

The Saved (left) and the Doomed (right) in the Final Judgment, details from the tympanum

of Portal de los Príncipes (Princes Portal) of the imperial Cathedral Church of St Peter,

St Paul and St George in Bamberg (Germany), c. 1235.

The exaggerated expressions remind us the -15- physiognomic busts that five centuries

later the German sculptor Franz Xaver Messerschmidt (1736-1783) would make.


(Left) Los Elegidos (The Chosen), detail of the high choir or jubé of St Martin’s Cathedral of Mainz

(Germany), ca. 1240.

(Right) Vírgenes Prudentes (Cautious Virgins), portico of the gable end of Magdeburg Cathedral of

St Catherine and St Maurice (Germany), ca. 1250.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aubert M., “Les trois jubés de Notre-Dame de Paris”, La Revue de l’Art Ancien et Moderne, Nr. 43 (1923), pages 105-118.

Corrozet, G., La fleur des antiquitez, singularites, et excellences de la noble et triumphante ville et cite de Paris, capitalle du royaulme de France, adjoustees oultre la premiere impression plusieurs singularitez estans en ladicte ville, Paris, 1532.

DU BREUL, J., Le theatre des antiqvitez de Paris. Où est traicté de la fondation des eglises & chapelles de la cité, vniuersité, ville, & diocese de Paris: comme aussi de l'institution du Parlement, fondation de l'vniuersité & colleges & autres choses remarquables, Paris, Claude de la Tour, 1612.

De Metz, G., Description de la ville de Paris, 1434.

Erlande-Brandenburg, A., “La sculpture à Paris au milieu du XIIIe siècle”, Bulletin de la Société de l’Histoire de Paris et de l’Île de France, 1973, pages 31-41.

Erlande-Brandenburg, A., “Le jubé de Notre-Dame de París”, Bulletin de la Société Nationale des Antiquaires de France, 1975, pages 35-36.

Erlande-Brandenburg, A., Musée de Cluny. Guide, París, Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1986.

Gillerman, D., “The clôture of the Cathedral of Notre-Dame: problems of reconstruction”, Gesta, vol. 14, Nr. 1 (1975), pages 41-61.

Gómez-Moreno, C., Sculpture from Notre-Dame, Paris: a dramatic discovery, Nueva York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1979.

Jung, J. E., The gothic screen: space, sculpture and community in the cathedrals of France and Germany, ca. 1200-1400, Cambridge y Nueva York, Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Kimpel, D. and Suckale, R., L’architecture gothique en France: 1130-1270, Paris, Flammarion, 1990.

Little, Ch. T. (ed.), Set in stone: the face in medieval sculpture, Nueva York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2006.

Pèlerin, J., De Artificiali Perspectiva, Toul, P. Jacobi, 1509 (1st ed. 1505).

Raspi Serra, J., La escultura gótica en Francia y en Alemania, “Los grandes escultores” Collection, Nr. 38, vol. 2, Buenos Aires, Viscontea, 1980.

Sauerländer, W., La sculpture gothique en France: 1140-1270, Paris, Flammarion, 1972.

Viollet-Le-Duc, E., Dictionnaire raisonné de l’architecture française du XIe au XVIe siècle, vol. 3, Paris, Morel, 1875.

Williamson, P., Escultura gótica: 1140-1300, Madrid, Cátedra, 1995.


Statistical analysis of samples from two statues of deacons belonging to Jaime Eguiguren

of the Galeria de Arte y Antigüedades, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

January 31, 2014

Charles Ragland, for The Limestone Sculpture Provenance Project

SummaryThe elemental composition of samples (designated MET061 and MET062) from the two statues is similar enough to suggest

that their stone may have come from the same quarry, based on comparison with the degree of similarity of samples within

quarry reference groups in the limestone sculpture database. When the two samples are compared with over 2,300 individual

samples in this database, the elemental composition of MET061 and MET062 is most similar to samples from several quarries

and monuments in the Paris region, and the degree of similarity strongly supports an origin in that region. With regard to

reference groups of samples from specific sources, MET061 and MET062 is similar in composition to groups of samples from

several sources, but may be most similar to a reference group of samples associated with the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris.

However, given the overall similarity of samples from many monuments and quarries in the Paris area, and the possibility of

errors in determining concentrations, one should be cautious in treating any particular resemblance as a definitive indication of

provenance. When making stylistic comparisons with sculpture from this area, it would be wise to consider examples from all

the sources in this region.

MethodsSamples from two statues belonging to Jaime Eguiguren of the Galleria de Arte y Antigüedades, Buenos Aires, Argentina,

were submitted by the Limestone Sculpture Provenance Project to the University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR)

where they were given identification codes of MET061 (sample from the statue described as Deacon N° 1) and MET062

(sample from the statue described as Deacon N° 2) and were subjected to instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA)1.

(Photos are shown in Appendix A.) The resulting values for the concentrations of elements in the samples (Appendix B) were

compared statistically with a large database of limestone samples using MURRAP, a collection of computer routines provided

by MURR2.

Certain limitations of these procedures should be kept in mind3.

The Limestone Sculpture Provenance Project


A search for similar samples in the limestone databaseThe elemental compositions of MET061 and MET062 were compared with over 2,300 European samples in the limestone

sculpture database, most of which are from several regions in France, including samples analyzed at both BNL and at MURR.

In this search, similarity was determined by calculating the squared-mean Euclidean distance5 from MET061 and MET062 to

each sample in the limestone database with a MURRAP routine which uses the log of elemental concentrations. The results are

summarized in Table 2 (Appendix C) for the closest ten samples.

The lists in Table 2 strongly suggest the Paris region as the source of the stone used for the two statues in question. However, no

one specific quarry or monument source stands out, though several are from St-Denis. In cases where a sample can be confidently

attributed to a single specific source, such a list of the closest ten or twenty samples will overwhelmingly favor that source.

Continuing the search further revealed more samples from various Paris-area statues, monument, or quarries rather than from a

single source. The overall percent differences between MET061 and MET062 and the closest ten samples are small enough (25-

35% average difference) to support the Paris region as the stone source of MET061 and MET062.

Similarity to reference groups in the limestone databaseOver 60 reference groups of samples from single sites are found in the limestone database. MET061 and MET062 were found to

be most similar to the average values of the following reference groups:

• Quarry in Arcueil, a southern suburb or Paris

• Notre-Dame Cathedral, Chartres, southwest of Paris

• Notre-Dame Cathedral, Paris

• Basilica of St Denis, in a northern suburb of Paris (this is a subgroup of a larger St-Denis collection

comprising 40 similar samples)

• Sens: a collection of samples from cathedrals and churches in Sens, north of Paris in Burgundy.

• Quarry in Saint-Maximin (a modern Rocamat quarry) in Oise, northern France. Quarries from this area are

known to have supplied limestone for construction in Paris since the nineteenth century and have in modern

times supplied quality limestone world-wide.

• Priory of Saint-Martin-des-Champs, Paris.

• Abbey of Saint-Germain-des-Prés, Paris

• Abbey of Saint-Maur-des-Fossés, in a southeastern suburb of Paris

Given the possibility of as much as 10% error in the concentrations in the database, the similarities were close enough to support

the possibility of MET061 and MET062 sharing a stone source with any of these reference groups.

Cluster diagrams also show similarity of MET061 and MET062 to most of the above reference groupsFor each of the reference groups listed above, cluster diagrams were created to roughly determine the relation of MET061 and

MET062 to the individual samples in each group. An example is found in Appendix D for the reference group of samples from

the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris. If a sample has little similarity to individual samples in such a group, it will be obvious in

the cluster diagram—it will visually appear as an outsider. MET061 and MET062 were found to cluster fairly closely within all of

the reference groups listed above, though much less closely with the samples from Saint-Maur-des-Fossés and Saint-Martin-des-

Champs. These diagrams reinforced the impression that MET061 and MET062 are generally similar to stone from several Paris

area sources. Other visual representations of similarity (principal component plots) did not help to narrow the possibilities.

Elemental composition of the samplesThe concentrations of 34 elements as reported by MURR are shown in Appendix B. Elements marked with an asterisk were

not determined at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) for most of the samples in the limestone database and have been

excluded from the comparisons in this report.

Calcium concentration. The calcium concentrations of the two samples differ only slightly and are only slightly above the median

Ca concentration of samples in the limestone database. These concentrations indicate a limestone of fairly high purity, with a

calcite concentration of slightly above 91% (taking into account that some of the calcium may be bound with magnesium). The

concentration of Ca in a collection of samples from given monument or quarry usually does not vary greatly and can help in

establishing the source of a sample. However, the Ca concentration found in these two samples is similar to that of samples from

a number of sources in France and so in itself does not help narrow the search for the origin of the stone.

Cobalt concentration. The cobalt concentrations of both samples (6.2 and 2.7 ppm) are unusually high compared with other

samples in the limestone database (mean = 0.8 ppm). However, most samples in the database with such a high Co concentration

do not resemble MET061or MET062 in the concentration of most other elements, and most reference group of samples have

only a few members with such high concentrations of Co (the Senlis group is an exception).7 In the limestone database, Co is

one of the elements that tend to vary more than other elements in a collection of limestone samples from a single location, and

thus its concentration cannot usually be regarded as characteristic of samples from a given location.

Holmes (2003) found that contamination of a sample with tungsten from a drill bit used to obtain the sample can augment the

measured Co concentration, so that Co was sometimes omitted from her calculations (tungsten is not measured at MURR). For

these reasons Co has been omitted from the comparisons in this report.

The similarity of MET061 and MET062The overall similarity between two samples can be characterized by calculating the percent difference4 in concentrations for each

element and then calculating an average value to represent the overall difference between the two samples. In these terms their

concentration differences are as follows:

Average: 29% Median: 20% Maximum for a single element: 131%

This average and median difference are no greater than the percent standard deviation of some of the quarry reference groups in

the database, and less than the percent standard deviation in some of the monument reference groups. There is a pair of samples

in the database labeled as “replicate” (LHN302, LHN303) which have a greater percent difference (33% average and 144%

maximum). These comparisons support the conclusion that MET061 and MET062 may have come from the same stone source,

perhaps from the same or similar quarries.

As for the large maximum percent difference (131%) between concentrations of one element (Cs), it is not rare for samples from

the same quarry or monument to have a few elements that differ over 100% in concentration. One must also keep in mind that

the analytic error in concentrations found in the limestone database may be over 10% in some cases.


Notes

1. This INAA procedure is described at http://archaeometry.missouri.edu/naa_overview.html.

2. The limestone sculpture database is available at http://www.limestonesculptureanalysis.org. It comprises samples analyzed at Brookhaven National Laboratory over a number of years. More recent samples analyzed at MURR were included in this analysis, although many of them have not yet been added to the online database. In the report this collection of samples will be referred to as the "limestone database". The MURRAP program is available at http://archaeometry.missouri.edu/datasets/distribution/GAUSS_Download.html. The statistical techniques available in this program have been used with previous analyses of limestone sculpture and with many other types of archaeological samples and have been described in Harbottle and Holmes (1991) and Holmes and Harbottle (1994). The concentrations of elements recorded by BNL were for the oxides of the elements, a longstanding convention in geology, but were converted to elemental concentrations in parts per million (ppm) for this analysis, to conform to the manner in which the INAA results from MURR are reported. The data from BNL does not include concentrations for some of the elements determined at MURR: these elements were omitted from the comparison of MURR and BNL sample data. In cases where concentration values for an element were missing from a sample, that element was either omitted from the calculations or an appropriate replacement value was used if the sample belonged to a coherent group of samples—the replacement value was determined by a MURRAP routine designed for this purpose. The log of concentration values is used in many MURRAP calculations to compensate for the differences in magnitude between the major elements such as calcium and trace elements which are present in very small quantities.

3. The following list of assumptions and limitations is from Holmes (1997, p3): "When attempting to relate one sculpture to another or to a limestone formation on the basis of composition, several limitations intrinsic to the process must be kept in mind: - The stone source that provided the sculptor's raw material is assumed to be homogeneous. - Variation in composition of the stone within a given source is assumed to be small compared to variations among geographically and geologically different sources. - A stone source can be characterized and the natural variations in concentration to be expected from that source evaluated only if a statistically significant number of samples from that source is available for analysis and comparison. - For a sculpture the sample analyzed is assumed to be representative of its stone. This may not be the case because sampling location was chosen to minimize visible damage or because stone from only one location was tested. In such cases sampling error may be important. - The precision and accuracy of the analytic procedure can introduce an error in concentrations of the order of 5-10%, depending on the concentration variable determined; this error is usually small compared with sampling errors. - The results can be couched only in terms of statistical probabilities, not certainties."

4. The percent different is the absolute difference between the two concentrations divided by their mean, multiplied by 100. It can be

approximately compared to the percent standard deviation calculated for a group of samples to determine whether the similarity between two samples is similar in degree to the average similarity found between two samples in such a group. I say “approximately compared” because the average difference between samples in a group is not quite the same as the standard deviation of samples in a group, but it is often not dissimilar in value.

5. Euclidean distance treats the differences between concentrations of elements as a length, and is calculated in the same manner as the hypotenuse of a triangle: by taking the square root of the sum of the squares of these differences. In squared-mean Euclidean distance the average of the squared differences between all elements being compared is calculated, and the square root is not taken. When the log of concentrations is used, as it is here, the large values of certain elements, such as calcium, do not affect the average as much as they would otherwise, though they still have a greater affect on the resulting average distance than elements present in very small concentrations. In contrast, comparisons between samples based on the average percent difference gives all elements equal weight regardless of differences in relative value.

6. This probability was calculated using the Mahalanobis distances of the twelve or so elements which were most homogeneous in the each reference group, that is, those with the least variance as defined by their percent standard deviation. Elements chosen had percent standard deviations of about 30% or less. Mahalanobis distances are a modification of Euclidean distances that take into account the correlation that may exist among variables, and is considered by some statisticians to result in more accurate probability calculations of group membership. The small size of the reference groups made it inadvisable to use more elements in the calculation, and in the case of a few groups of very small size made such calculations useless. This calculation was performed with a MURRAP routine.

7. A small reference group of seven sculptural elements from the cathedral at Senlis is one of the few groups having a high Co concentration like that of MET061 and MET062. The small number of samples in the Senlis group does not permit appropriate probability calculations of group membership. When MET061 and MET062 are compared with the seven samples from Senlis in a cluster diagram, MET061 and MET062 are well outside of the Senlis group. And when MET061 and MET062 are compared with all reference group average values in terms of their overall percent difference, the Senlis group is not among the ten groups most similar to MET061 and MET062. However, when similarity is calculated using Euclidean distance, the the Senlis group is among those most similar to MET061 and MET062. For this reason it would be wise to include sculpture associated with Senlis in stylistic comparisons with MET061 and MET062.

Probability calculations give some weight to the cathedral of Notre Dame in ParisAs a final technique to determine whether MET061 and MET062 might be more similar to one or another of these reference

groups, probabilities were calculated for likelihood of “group membership”6 in each of the groups separately. This calculation

could not be reliably performed for two of the groups – Arcueil quarry and the Abbey of Saint-Germain-des-Prés – because they

do not contain enough samples. Of the other groups the probability for membership in thereference group of samples from the

Cathedral of Notre Dame of Paris group was by far the highest:

Probabilites of group membership

Reference Group MET061 MET062

Arcueil quarry N.A. N.A.

Notre Dame, Chartres 0.098 2.05

Notre Dame, Paris 24.7 15.7

St. Denis 0.005 0.800

St-Maximin quarry 0.001 1.61

Saint-Martin-des-Champs 0.001 0.000

Saint-Germain-des-Prés N.A. N.A.

Saint-Maur-des-Fossés 0.000 0.111

However, one must keep in mind that samples from other references groups, for example from St-Denis and from the quarry

at Arcueil, also show a reasonable probability of belonging to the Notre Dame de Paris reference group because of the overall

similarity of limestone from many Paris area samples. (A Senlis reference group might also be considered as a possibility because of

its comparably high values for Co, though it does not show in these lists because of the omission of Co from the calculations).7

ConclusionThe concentration data strongly suggest that the two statues may have the same or a similar stone source and that it could very

likely be in the Paris region or an area with limestone strikingly similar to Paris-area stone. Limestone samples from many quarries

and monuments in this area are often similar in composition, making it difficult to determine a more specific source unless a

sample falls very close to the average values of a given reference group. MET061 and MET062 are generally quite similar to

samples from a number of Paris area sources, including at least one quarry at St-Maximin that is not in the immediate area but

which has supplied stone to Paris.

Probability calculations give more weight to the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris as having stone from a source similar to that

which supplied stone for the two statues in question, but one must keep in mind that these probability calculations were not

possible for two of the small reference groups. The results here may guide further analysis by suggesting a number of sources

for comparison using stylistic features. A visual examination of the statues by someone familiar with the appearance of French

limestone may also narrow the possibilities, since different quarries may have supplied different types of limestone.***


Appendix B. Elemental Composition of the samples

Table 1. The concentrations of 34 elements as reported by MURR are given in parts per million. Concentrations indicated only

by a hyphen were below the detection limit for the procedure. The concentrations of elements marked by an asterisk are not

available for other samples in the limestone sculpture database that were previously analyzed at Brookhaven National Laboratory.

Element MET061 MET062Na 353.2069 451.9194Mg* 2451 4130Al* 1217.069 1816.281K 1569.966 1974.278Ca 370320.3 372041.4Sc* 0.2657 0.2539Ti* 1008.747 1841.942V* 7.7085 2.5384Cr 13.6032 12.7908Mn 47.8727 44.9945Fe 1011.464 977.1992Co 6.4324 2.7202Ni* - -Zn* 6.1979 4.6286As 0.7764 1.4595Rb 3.4069 2.7077Sr 450.9523 474.7429Zr 13.2252 11.2492Sb 0.0556 0.1077Cs 0.4019 0.083Ba 19.47 25.3642La 2.0307 1.9477Ce 3.5884 3.4319Nd 2.4718 2.8153Sm 0.4036 0.3922Eu 0.0756 0.0684Tb* 0.041 0.0435Dy* 0.2301 -Yb 0.1423 0.1272Lu 0.0119 0.0178Hf 0.2369 0.2661Ta 0.0248 0.0151Th 0.3762 0.3772U 0.6263 0.8198

Appendix A.

Figure 1: The two statues from which the samples were taken

Deacon N° 1 (sample MET061) Deacon N° 2 (sample MET063)


Appendix D. Cluster Diagram

Figure 2. A cluster diagram of the samples in the reference group of samples from the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris, showing

that MET061 and MET062 are in these terms generally similar to samples from this cathedral.

Appendix C. Similar samples in the limestone database

Table 2a. Samples most similar to MET061 in terms of squared-mean Euclidean distance5

Sample ID Distance Stone source as indicated in database or determined recently

MET060 0.0291 Paris area stone (closely resembles St. Denis stone), museum holding

LF1989 0.0296 Paris area stone: museum holding excavated from St-Martin-des-Champs

LHT504y 0.0305 Paris area stone: sample from St-Denis, XIII c. crypt

LHC127 0.0308 Paris area stone: museum holding said to be from Seine-Maritime: Villers, Haudricourt

LHF594 0.0309 Paris area stone: museum holding said to be from St. Denis

LW1198 0.0313 Paris area stone: museum holding said to be from Picardy

LF1321 0.0315 Paris area stone: museum holding excavated at Moulin de la Vièrge

LHF195 0.0315 Paris area stone: museum holding said to be from Paris: St-Bernardin

LHF283 0.0321 Paris area stone: museum holding said to be from Mantes

LHT954 0.0324 Paris area stone: sample from St-Denis: Porte des Valois

Table 2b. Samples most similar to MET062 in terms of squared-mean Euclidean distance5

Sample ID Distance Stone source as indicated in database or determined recently

LA2132 0.0243 Quarry sample: St.Maximin: Trossy, Oise

LA2133 0.0265 Quarry sample: St.Maximin: Trossy, Oise

LHA612 0.0297 Quarry sample: Arcueil

LHA794 0.0298 Quarry sample: carrière de la Fontaine des Malades: Senlis, Oise.

LHT503 0.03 Paris area stone: sample from St-Denis, XIII c. crypt

LHC127 0.03 (see table for MET061 above)

LF1280 0.0301 Paris area stone: sample from capital, Saint-Martin-des-Champs

MET060 0.0304 (see table for MET061 above)

LHM348 0.0307 Paris area stone: museum holding said to be from Notre Dame, Paris.

LHF583 0.0309 Sample from Notre Dame, Paris

More information about the source of each of these may be found by searching the limestone database by Sample ID

at http://www.limestonesculptureanalysis.com/dynamic.php?id=search or by emailing [email protected].

Jaime Eguiguren Arte y Antigüedades Posadas 1232

Buenos Aires 1011Argentina

[email protected]

TWO DEACONS NOTRE DAME - Jaime Eguiguren · 2019. 6. 7. · (Left) Ángel de la Anunciación (Angel...

Documents

Transcript of TWO DEACONS NOTRE DAME - Jaime Eguiguren · 2019. 6. 7. · (Left) Ángel de la Anunciación (Angel...