Owl

From SCA Heraldry Wiki
Revision as of 07:47, 2 September 2018 by Sofya (talk | contribs) (→‎Period:)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WARNING: Do not cite this page as a reference. This page is on this wikispace only to make the content "searchable" and easier to find. If you find the information you seek here, go to the original sources as linked below to verify the information and use them for your documentation. Revised {$revisiondate}.

See also Bird, Bird Posture.

Illustrations:

Period:

Wernigeroder Insignia
Wernigeroder Wappenbuch (Bertschi), 1475-1500, f211r Insignia Anglica, 1500s, BSB 291, f40v, Pynnre


Zacharias Sammlung
Zacharias Bartsch, 1567, f38r, demi-owl displayed, pink? Sammlung von Wappen aus Verschiedenen, 1600, BSB 307, f664r, owl rising contourney (?) wings displayed


Viking Answer Lady collection: http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/Stars/Owls.htm (15 examples, mostly German, one with wings displayed)

Modern:

#x-Illustrations:-Modern:-Pictorial Dictionary, 3rd edition:Pictorial Dictionary, 3rd edition:

#x-Illustrations:-Modern:-Vector Graphics:Vector Graphics:

  • Viking Answer Lady -[[1]]


#x-Illustrations:-Modern:-Brickbat's Armorial StashBrickbat's Armorial Stash

#x-Illustrations:-Modern:-Pennsic Traceable Art ProjectPennsic Traceable Art Project

Sources:

Academy of St. Gabriel "Medieval Heraldry Archive" - [[3]] Archive of St. Gabriel reports - [[4]] Laurel Armory Articles - [[5]]

New Heraldic Primer (Heraldry for Non-Heralds) - [[6]] Pictorial Dictionary of Heraldry (PicDic), 3rd Edition - @http://mistholme.com/pictorial-dictionary-of-heraldry (in progress) Period Armorials

Parker's Heraldry - [[7]] Riestap's Armorial Général - //http:''www.euraldic.com/lasu/bl/bl_a_aa.html

Default Posture from the Glossary of Terms:

Charge__ __Default Posture
Owl Close guardant
Conventional S.C.A. Default Postures - [[8]]
===SENA Appendix L: A Partial List of Postures and Orientations===
This is a list of postures and orientations that can be used to determine whether two charges or groups of charges conflict or whether there is a distinct change for posture/orientation.
Animate Charges
B. Birds: The postures listed within each group generally conflict, though a distinct change may be given for facing to dexter or to sinister.
* close, naiant
* displayed, migrant
* volant
* rousant, rising, striking [rousant is basically the same as rising but refers to swans]
==Precedents:==
Precedents of the SCA College of Arms - [[9]]
Morsulus Heralds Website - [[10]] (to search the LoARs and Precedents)
Restatement Wiki - [[11]] (restatements of Precedents)
Use the above links to be sure any precedents listed below haven't been superseded by newer precedents.


Definition:

March 2003 LoAR - default posture:

The owl was blazoned as affronty on the Letter of Intent but the overall posture of the owl is mostly a side view, with only the head facing forward. This close guardant posture is the default for an owl and need not be blazoned. Please advise the submitter to make some changes to the artwork. The submitter should be careful to draw the owl's body entirely in profile, rather than having the chest portion tilted slightly towards the viewer. An owl in a truly three-quarter view (also known as "trian aspect") would have had to be returned for a nonperiod heraldic posture. [Alfgeirr skytja, [[12]], A-Calontir]

March 2003 LoAR - excessive precision in blazon:

[an owl argent] The owl was originally blazoned as a snowy owl. As noted in the LoAR of January 1993, "The owls were blazoned on the LOI as snowy owls argent marked sable, which is excessive precision in medieval blazon: the black spots were so small as to be heraldically negligible, and the exact type of owl here makes no difference. [The owl was registered with an argent tincture.]" We have thus reblazoned this owl accordingly. We also note that, even if a snowy owl could be blazoned, the distinguishing black spots are not present in this emblazon. [Keja Tselebnika, [[13]], A-Ealdormere]

May 2002 LoAR - overspecifying type:

[a brown owl] The owl in the device was originally blazoned as a horned owl, but this overspecifies the type of owl. This sort of detail should be specified as an artist's note, not as a blazon detail. In Europe, the eagle owl is a large owl found over most of Europe which is brown in tincture (with darker brown spots.) Three other sorts of owl (the short-eared, Scops, and long-eared owls) are predominantly brown. It therefore seems reasonable that an owl proper could be depicted as brown. Per the Cover Letter of the October 1995 LoAR, "animals which are frequently found as brown but also commonly appear in other tinctures in the natural world may be registered as a brown {X} proper (e.g., brown hound proper, brown horse proper)." [Leofwynn Kyndheir, [[14]], A-Æthelmearc]

October 1993 - default posture:

Note that in heraldry, the owl is guardant by default, even when the rest of the posture is blazoned. (Deborah of Gryphon's Lair, October, 1993, pg. 2) http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/bruce/bird-misc.html

January 1993 - brown vs. tawny owl:

The owls were blazoned on the LOI as brown owls ...proper, but no such type of owl exists. The submitter insisted on having owls as drawn on her submission forms (brown, without spots or streaks, and without ear tufts), while we insisted on a species of owl known to period Europeans. The tawny owl (Strix aluco) meets all these requirements, according to Cerny's [Guide to Birds], pp.140-141. (Danielis Pyrsokomos, January, 1993, pg. 17) http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/bruce/bird-misc.html

September 1992 - Great Horned vs eagle owl:

The owl was submitted as a Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus) --- which, as the Latin implies, is a North American species. With no evidence that it was known to period Europeans, we have substituted the eagle owl (Bubo bubo), known through most of Western Europe; it has the same tufts of feathers on the head, and much the same brown coloration. ([Field Guide to the Birds of Britain and Europe], pp.165, 194) (Laurencia the Fletcher, September, 1992, pg. 20) http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/bruce/bird-misc.html

#x--Precedents:-Registerability:Registerability:

(Restricted, Reserved, SFPP, OOP)

November 2012 Cover Letter - SFPP displayed:

From Wreath: Blazoning Fun -- Non-Eagles Displayed We have long held that the use of any bird other than an eagle in the displayed posture is a step from period practice. The January 2000 Cover Letter stated that "with vanishingly rare exceptions the eagle is the only bird found displayed in period heraldry... http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2012/11/12-11cl.html


#x--Precedents:-Conflict:Conflict:

November 2012 Cover Letter - difference if displayed:

From Wreath: Blazoning Fun -- Non-Eagles Displayed ... The January 2000 Cover Letter stated that "with vanishingly rare exceptions the eagle is the only bird found displayed in period heraldry. Therefore any other bird displayed will arguably be visually similar to an eagle..." This visual similarity affects how much difference we can grant when considering conflict between a non-eagle displayed and an eagle displayed. In the case of a _raven displayed_, a fairly popular charge lately, versus an _eagle displayed_, there is neither a substantial nor a distinct change.

There is, however, a blazonable difference between a non-eagle displayed and an eagle displayed. It is important to remember that we register the picture, the emblazon, not the words, the blazon. The blazon must be able to accurately describe the submitted emblazon. If we cannot tell from the submitted emblazon that a displayed bird is not an eagle, it will be reblazoned as an eagle. Ravens will typically have a long straight beak, no crest on the head, and occasionally shaggy or hairy feathers. In order for a _raven displayed_ to be identified as such, it is suggested that as many non-eagle attributes as possible be used. http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2012/11/12-11cl.html

November 2003 LoAR Cover Letter - birds and SCs:

From Wreath: Birds and Substantial Difference This month we were called upon to make a number of rulings concerning difference between very different types of birds. After much thought, and discussion with Evan Wreath-designate, we have formulated the following policy. Policies concerning birds and substantial difference need to be built upon previous policies concerning birds and significant difference. An important ruling on the topic is found in the Cover Letter for the January 2000 LoAR. That ruling was entitled On Owls and Eagles, but it also spoke more generally concerning difference for birds. The pertinent summary portions of that ruling read as follows:

  • The conflict rules make a rigid distinction between the type of a charge and its posture. This works well most of the time, but less so for birds, where the type and the posture are often closely connected. In particular, with vanishingly rare exceptions the eagle is the only bird found displayed in period heraldry. Therefore any other bird displayed will arguably be visually similar to an eagle...
  • The new solution to the problem is to sacrifice some of the theoretical purity of separation of type and posture. Because only eagles among birds are attested as displayed in period, any other bird in a displayed posture will be compared to any bird in a displayed posture usuing [sic] the visual test of rule X.4.e for non-period charges. Thus there will not be a CD between an owl displayed and an eagle displayed, because they are too visually similar, but there will be a CD between an owl displayed and a penguin displayed, because there is still significant visual difference. Additionally any bird other than an eagle in a displayed posture will be considered a "weirdness" [step from standard period practice].
  • In the future I expect that I will be more likely to grant difference between different types of birds when (a) [sic] they are (a) different in period, (b) in a period posture, (c) drawn correctly, and (d) there is some visual difference (i.e., there is really no visual difference between a popinjay and a hawk).

... In order for two birds to be considered substantially different from each other, it is necessary for the following conditions to apply, analogous to the criteria listed in the January 2000 Cover Letter for significant difference between birds:

  1. The change from one type of bird to the other type of bird must "not usually [have been] used to indicate any form of cadency" in period (RfS X.2). The two types of bird must of course also have been considered different in period, or they would not even be significantly different (RfS X.4.e).
  2. Each bird, in both the new and the old submissions, must be in a posture which was period for that type of bird.
  3. Each bird, in both the new and the old submissions, must be drawn correctly.
  4. The two types of bird must have been drawn in fashions that were consistently very different from each other throughout period heraldry.

Concerning criterion 2, remember that a bird may be in a period posture without being in a default posture. Ravens are sometimes found in the rising posture in period, although their default posture is close. Swans are found in the close posture in period, although their default posture is rousant (synonymous with rising). It is vanishingly rare to find birds other than eagles in the displayed posture, while vast multitudes of eagles are found in the displayed posture. We thus re-affirm the January 2000 Cover Letter precedent (above). All birds (other than eagles) in the displayed posture are considered a "weirdness" and are not eligible for substantial difference - unless documentation is provided showing that the particular type of (non-eagle) bird is frequently found in the displayed posture in period. Here are a few generalizations concerning bird posture to be used in conjunction with criterion 2 above. In addition, see the attachment to this LoAR titled "Some birds and the postures in which they are found in period English heraldry."

  • Barring evidence to the contrary for a particular type of bird, it may be assumed that any type of bird is in a period posture when it is close.
  • If a bird is found in a rising posture in period, it is reasonable to assume that both rising wings addorsed and rising wings displayed are standard variants of that posture.
  • Period birds that are reguardant are considered a standard posture variant of period birds that are not reguardant. So, if a bird is found in the rising posture in period, it is reasonable to assume that rising reguardant is also a period posture. One cannot make the same assumption about guardant.
  • Turning any type of bird to sinister is considered a standard posture variant for all period heraldic postures, due to long-standing SCA practice. So, if a bird is found in the naiant posture in period, then for purposes of SCA heraldic rulings we will also consider the naiant to sinister posture to be period.

On examining the types of birds found in period armory, and how they were used, certain categories of bird type become apparent. These categories are:

  • Swan-shaped birds, including swans, geese, and ducks: waterfowl with long necks, rounded bills, long heavy bodies, webbed feet.
  • Crane-shaped birds, including cranes, herons, and storks: tall thin birds with long necks, long pointed beaks, medium-weight bodies, very long legs.
  • Poultry-shaped birds, including chickens, quail, partridge, and peacocks: compact rounded birds with short to medium necks, short beaks, heavy rounded bodies, medium or short legs, often with distinctive tails or head details (combs, crests).
  • "Regular-shaped" birds, including martlets, ravens and other corbies, raptors (hawks, eagles, and owls), and doves: birds with the classic "bird shape". Compact light- or medium-weight birds with small necks and beaks, short to medium legs, plain tails.

... Substantial difference relates to these categories of birds as follows:

  • Birds within a category are not substantially different from each other [SC]. They may be (but are not always) significantly different [DC] from each other based on the criteria in RfS X.4.e. Within the "regular-shaped birds" category, there is significant difference [DC] between an owl (close guardant) and a dove (close), but not substantial difference. However, in the same category, there is no difference [DC] between a falcon rising and an eagle rising.
  • Birds in different categories are given substantial difference from each other as long as they meet the general requirements for substantial difference listed above. Thus, a correctly drawn dunghill cock (close), in the "poultry-shaped" bird category, is substantially different from a "crane-shaped" heron (close), a "swan-shaped" swan close, or a "regular-shaped" martlet (close). However, a "poultry-shaped" dunghill cock volant is not substantially different from a "regular-shaped" dove volant, because, while the dove is found in the volant posture in period heraldry, the dunghill cock is not.
  • Birds that are not mentioned as part of the categories above must have their eligibility for substantial difference determined on a case by case basis. In particular, SCA-compatible birds that are not found in period heraldry, such as some New World birds, may be considered in a category with very similar Old World birds, on a case by case basis.

[[15]]

November 2003 LoAR - owl vs quail:

[Azure, three owls within a bordure argent] This does not conflict with Catalina of Tir Ysgithr, Azure, three quail and a bordure argent. Per this month's Cover Letter discussion of birds and substantial difference, owls are "regular-shaped" birds and (European) quail are "poultry-shaped" birds. There is thus substantial difference between "poultry-shaped" European quails in a period posture (the default close posture) and "regular-shaped" owls in a period posture (the default close guardant posture).

The quails in Catalina's device are the new-world California or Gambel's quails, with a comma-shaped feather topping their heads, so their eligibility for substantial difference must be determined on a case by case basis. Because the California quail resembles a European quail very closely except for the comma-shaped crest, it is as different from an owl as a European quail would be - or even more so, since an owl does not have a crest of this sort. Thus, it seems appropriate to give substantial difference between California/Gambel's quails and owls. These two pieces of armory are thus clear of conflict under RfS X.2. [Megge de Northwode, [[16]], A-Atlantia]

November 2003 - affronty vs to dexter vs to sinister:

[two owls addorsed] Some of the commentary noted the precedent stating that there is no difference between an owl turned to dexter and an owl affronty, and wondered if that meant there was no difference between an owl turned to dexter and an owl turned to sinister. The precedent in question, on the LoAR of August 1992, states, "The owl's posture has slightly changed, from statant close guardant to statant close affronty (which is guardant by definition). The 'blobbiness' of the owl's body, and the fact that the owl is guardant in all cases, leads me to conclude that there is no visual difference for turning the owl's body affronty." Conflict is not transitive: if A conflicts with B and B conflicts with C, it is not required that A must conflict with C. In this case, while there may not be a CD between an owl affronty and an owl turned to dexter, and there may not be a CD between an owl affronty and an owl turned to sinister, there is sufficient visual difference to allow a CD between an owl turned to dexter and an owl turned to sinister. One can thus meaningfully give a posture CD between respectant owls and addorsed owls, ... [Sigurd Grunewald, [[17]], A-Meridies]

March 2003 - head position:

"There is no difference in posture between these birds except for the head position, which is insufficient for posture difference by RfS X.4.h." [2003 LoAR]

April 2003 LoAR - affronty vs guardant:

[an owl contourny] Conflict with Ayslynn MacGuraran, Azure, a snowy owl affronty proper grasping in its dexter talon three roses Or, slipped and leaved vert, and in its sinister talon two of the same, within an orle Or. There is one CD for changing the field. "There is not a CD between an owl close guardant and an owl close affronty" (LoAR of October 2000). The same applies to an owl close guardant contourny (as in this submission) and an owl close affronty (as in Ayslynn's device). There is no difference for removing the small held charges. [Marko Evanovich Panfilov, [[18]], R-Outlands]

June 2002 LoAR - owl vs. falcon:

... there is another CD for changing the type of bird from an owl close to a falcon close. [Falco de Jablonec, [[19]], A-Drachenwald]


April 2002 LoAR - affronty vs close:

An owl affronty has been ruled to be equivalent to an owl close (and thus therefore, also to an owl close and contourny): "The 'blobbiness' of the owl's body, and the fact that the owl is guardant in all cases, leads me to conclude that there is no visual difference for turning the owl's body affronty" (LoAR of October 1992). Therefore there is no meaningful posture difference for turning the charges in chief (which are contourny) to this owl affronty, as the owl affronty is equivalent to an owl contourny. [Ambra Biancospina, [[20]], R-Middle]

January 2000 - falcon vs. owl:

[a falcon rising wings addorsed vs. an owl striking]. I am hereby overturning the precedent declaring that "raptors are raptors". Falcons and owls were different charges in period and have differing outlines; therefore we are allowing a CD (although not substantial difference) between them. For a fuller discussion, see the cover letter. [Wojciech Bobrowski, [[21]], A-Atlantia] http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2000/01/00-01lar.html

January 2000 - owl vs eagle:

The question arose this month of how we count conflict between owls and eagles. Past precedent is clear on this point: they are only insignificantly different ("raptors is raptors"). For the most part we are overturning this precedent, based on rule X.4.e.

The standard in this rule is that when comparing two charges both of which were used in period heraldry, we consider them significantly different if they were "considered to be separate" in period. When considering owls in their default posture of close guardant it is difficult to construct an argument based on period evidence against granting this difference. The owl is found as a heraldic charge as early as 1308 (cited in Parker's Glossary p. 434) and in constant use ever since. Eagles displayed are found from earliest heraldry, and birds of the eagle/falcon/hawk family in the close posture date at least from the reign of Edward II (who died 1327). We have no reason to believe that there was ever any confusion between owls and the eagle/falcon/hawk family.

This raises the question of how the SCA's current interpretation arose. The likely answer is found in the precedents of the tenure of Bruce Draconarius. In the LoAR of 09/92 he considered an eagle displayed vs. an owl displayed, and wrote that "The owl and the eagle are both raptors, and the main difference between them - the head posture - is specifically worth no CDs per Rule X.4.h." This was reiterated on the 3/93 letter with "[There is not a CD] for type of raptor in similar postures." In both of these rulings the birds were displayed. That this was a general ruling is made clear on the letter of 08/93, considering an owl [close] affronty vs. an eagle displayed, he wrote "There's a CD for the change in the bird's posture, but nothing for its type: eagles and owls are both raptors, and the main heraldic difference — the head posture — is specifically worth no difference under the Rules (as well as having been subsumed into the rest of the posture change)."

Note that the earlier two submissions, of 09/92 and 3/93, involved owls displayed. This is unattested in period heraldry, where owls are invariably close guardant. The conflict rules make a rigid distinction between the type of a charge and its posture. This works well most of the time, but less so for birds, where the type and the posture are often closely connected. In particular, with vanishingly rare exceptions the eagle is the only bird found displayed in period heraldry. Therefore any other bird displayed will arguably be visually similar to an eagle.

The dilemma is that, keeping the rules' rigid distinction between posture and type, either granting a difference for type between owls and eagle or not granting this difference creates undesirable effects. Granting it would encourage more owls displayed, which is certainly inauthentic style and is arguably visually over-generous. Not granting it discourages registration of owls even in their attested posture and is inconsistent with both the spirit and the letter of rule X.4.e. Laurel chose the former path as the lesser evil.

The new solution to the problem is to sacrifice some of the theoretical purity of separation of type and posture. Because only eagles among birds are attested as displayed in period, any other bird in a displayed posture will be compared to any bird in a displayed posture using the visual test of rule X.4.e for non-period charges. Thus there will not be a CD between an owl displayed and an eagle displayed, because they are too visually similar, but there will be a CD between an owl displayed and a penguin displayed, because there is still significant visual difference. Additionally any bird other than an eagle in a displayed posture will be considered a "weirdness". Henceforth owls, being distinct charges in period, are generally considered significantly different from other birds, but are subject to the preceding visual comparison if displayed. The end result of this is that there is still no difference granted for owls displayed vs. eagles displayed, but there now is a difference for type between owls close guardant and eagles/falcons/hawks close. In the future I will be more likely to grant difference between different types of birds when they are (a) different in period, (b) in a period posture, (c) drawn correctly, and (d) there is some visual difference. This also means that in the future I will be stricter about requiring that a bird be drawn with its defining attributes (i.e., a dove should have a tuft). Without the defining attributes, the bird may just be blazoned as "a bird." [[CL]] http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2000/01/00-01cl.html


August 1992 - affronty vs statant:

[An owl affronty guardant vs. an owl statant guardant] The "blobbiness" of the owl's body, and the fact that the owl is guardant in all cases, leads me to conclude that there is no visual difference for turning the owl's body affronty. [See also Gundric Fawkes, October 1992 LoAR, pg. 29] (Stanwulf the Stern, August, 1992, pg. 26) http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/bruce/bird-misc.html

#x--Precedents:-Identifiability:Identifiability:

August 2003 - winged owl head:

[a winged owl's head cabossed] Some members of the College did not find the owl's head as drawn here to be identifiable. We note that this is a very stylized depiction of an owl's head, without a clearly drawn beak or eyes. Those members of the College who were able to identify the owl's head all perceived this "winged owl's head cabossed" as a depiction of an owl flying straight out of the shield towards the viewer. While the SCA does register many winged objects, such as winged swords, they generally cannot be perceived as anything other than a winged object. When one adds wings to a bird's head cabossed, one does not perceive a winged bird's head, but one perceives an entire bird seen flying towards the viewer, which is to say, a bird volant affronty. Previous precedent notes that "The posture volant affronty has been ruled unsuitable for use in heraldry on at least two occasions ... on the grounds that it is "inherently unidentifiable"... in those case[s] the returns involved birds... [This return was of a demi-pegasus.]" (LoAR February 1998 p. 18). [Mora de Buchanan, [[22]], R-Caid]


Collected Precedents:

Tenure of Elisabeth de Rossignol (May 2005 - July 2008) - [-- Owl] The 2nd Tenure of François la Flamme (October 2004 - May 2005) - n/a The Tenure of Shauna of Carrick Point (May 2004 - August 2004) - [Armory Precedents] The Tenure of François la Flamme (August 2001 - April 2004) - [Armory Precedents] The Tenure of Elsbeth Anne Roth (June 1999 - July 2001) - [Armory Precedents] The Tenure of Jaelle of Armida (June 1996 - June 1999) - [HTML Document] The 2nd Tenure of Da'ud ibn Auda (November 1993 - June 1996) - the 1st part (Nov 1993 - June 1994) and the 2nd part(July 1994 - June 1996) The Tenure of Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme (June 1992 - October 1993) - http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/bruce/bird-misc.html The 1st Tenure of Da'ud ibn Auda (June 1990 - June 1992) - the 1st year (June 1990 - June 1991) and the 2nd year(July 1991 - June 1992) The Tenure of Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane (September 1986 - June 1990) - [Precedents] The Tenure of Baldwin of Erebor (August 1984 - August 1986) - [HTML Document] The Tenure of Wilhelm von Schlüssel (August 1979 - August 1984) - [Precedents] The Tenure of Karina of the Far West (December 1975 - June 1979) - [Precedents] The Early Days (June 1971 - June 1975) - [Precedents]

The [[23]]:

(under bird)

Retrieved from "http://scaheraldry.info/index.php?title=Owl&oldid=3677"