Dear all,

What I fail to understand, is why/where you would use the cotton
fabric (demin or no).  Would it be as a dress fabric, seems unlikely
in western Europe as it would be too heavy for fancy wear and too
coarse.  The working classes (more likely to need to wear heavy twill)
would probably choose the much cheaper wool or linen, than the
imported fabric.

I can see a heavy twill fabric being used in coverings etc in
protecting furniture or for camping.

If you using it for lining or similar to give weight, you can again
use heavy linen weight, and if it is a cost issue you can user the now
cheaper demin without people being aware.

So, is this question is purely intellectual or for a practical purpose?

YOurs wonderingly
Edith of Hedingham

I second McClintock's book (Old Irish and Highland Dress with Notes on that of
the Isle of Man).  While the book it'self it out of print it is available on CD
from several sources--I bought mine from the Celtic Croft, where it is currently
running 20$ and well worth more than the price.  I see Dunlevy used a lot as a
referance as well, but it's currently going for around 100 on amazon, so
interlibrary loan maybe.
My absolute favorite article on the subject of early Irish clothing is that of
Finnacan Dub (http://coblaith.net/EarlyGaelicDress/default.html).  There is also
(http://web.archive.org/web/20011214025553/www47.pair.com/lindo/Earlyirl.htm)
which covers some basics--mainly using McClintock as a source.  Kass McGann of
Reconstructing history also has some good articles on her website, but some were
shortened when she went commercial.
I also have a speculative summary that I wrote on 12th (or 13th) century Irish
women's clothing.

I hope that helps somewhat.
Bránn mac Finnchad


--- In SCA-Garb@yahoogroups.com, Lila Richards <lilar@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The best book I know of is the one by H McClintock - I think it's called Old
(or possibly Ancient) Scottish and Irish Dress. It's out of print, but a library
may have it. There's also Dress in Ireland by Mairead Dunleavy (or
Dunlevy)........
> I hope that's some help.
>
> Sinech.
>
>
> On 14/05/2012, at 5:12 AM, Janice Murphy wrote:
>
> > I am expanding my range and would appreciate some help with sources for
images and information on the clothing of the 10th-11th century Irish person,
man, woman and child. I have joined a Viking reenactment group and with the
support of the group would like to represent my Irish culture. My family will
join me at some point and will need clothes as well.
> > Any help would be wonderful, thank you.
> >
> > Lady Isolde the Celt

For those of us who are a bit clumsy and would like to enjoy a feast
without worrying too much about our garb ...

How did SCA period people (especially ladies) protect clothing,
especially the chest area?  Might one use an apron for this purpose
if she did not normally wear an apron?  Or a cloth large enough to
tie the corners and put over her head?

Any descriptions or pictures would be welcome.  Era and area
flexible.  (Web searches find mostly jewelry and modern aprons with
medieval pictures.)  adTHANKSvance!

In my feast bag I keep numerous large linen napkins.
I tuck one in my shirt front & spread it across my
chest. If Poirot could do it in an upmarket restaurant,
so can I :)
Ranif
(If you want a pic, here's one :-D )
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=108143295954222&l=8a5acd1f1a

On 15/05/2012 7:38 AM, Carol Botteron wrote:
> For those of us who are a bit clumsy and would like to
> enjoy a feast
> without worrying too much about our garb ...
>
> How did SCA period people (especially ladies) protect
> clothing,


-32.656072 149.840624

Which time period are you thinking? If pre-Norman conquest, then look for
Anglo-Saxon. If later than the conquest, then look under the reign of whichever
king reigned at the the time. It shouldn't be hard to find info online or in the
library.

Sinech.


On 14/05/2012, at 6:08 PM, english_lady@... wrote:

> Hi. I am new to the group. I have a question about early English accessories.
Are there any books or manuscripts with pictures of shoes, aprons, head wraps,
hoods, jewelry, etc that would be worn by a lady doing normal house work?
>
> Much of my knowledge is of later period England, and regretfully I don't know
where to begin to look.
>
> Anne Crowe
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Please explain out of scope. Out of period or that it is not western
european. It is within period and SCA gives leway to other cultures that
have had contact with western europe.
De

-----Original Message-----
Mamluk Egypt is equally out of the scope of the SCA! ;)

Sayyeda Samia al-Kaslaania
(Certainly fitting in better during Fatimid Egypt)

Let me start by saying that was tongue-in-cheek to Rashid. We study the
same place about 150 years apart from each other so, for the most part,
anything that applies to one of us applies to both of us when speaking
about the scope of the SCA. (That's why I signed with my full name, and
description of my period--an attempt to emphasis to others that I was
tongue-in-cheek).

The SCA is intended to study "pre-17th century Europe". There's a
statement somewhere in the publications that says anyone studying
something else is considered a guest of the court, and is expected to
assimilate (I always imagine the portrait of Pocahontas in a corset).
You guys are all nice enough let us play with you anyway. :)

I use out of scope for other things too, like llamas. They existed in
period, so we can't call them out "out-of-period" but they certainly
weren't a part of Western Europe.

Hope that helps,
Sayyeda al-Kaslaania


On 5/14/2012 9:51 PM, otsisto wrote:
> Please explain out of scope. Out of period or that it is not western
> european. It is within period and SCA gives leway to other cultures that
> have had contact with western europe.
> De
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Mamluk Egypt is equally out of the scope of the SCA! ;)
>
> Sayyeda Samia al-Kaslaania
> (Certainly fitting in better during Fatimid Egypt)

Alright, good gentles, we're now well off the subject of garb and
arguing/debating/discussing dates. Let's get back on to garb and save this
discussion for the weekend. Thanks!

Love and linen,
Your modly types


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hey there, folks! I haven't looked in months, now - anyone got a nice line
on recent late period Western European underwear projects? I need a new
pair of bodies, as my old has started sprouting stays, and I can always use
more body linens. I'd love to see what's going on out there. I'm
(re-)starting some projects of my own, now that summer is icumen in and I
only have four major projects at school, instead of four major projects and
six classes.

Many thanks,
Margaret Northwode


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Okay, understand.
Small note on llamas, Western Europe did know about them in late period.
Besides the Spanish report there was a printing of an article w/a picture
(their interpretation of the description) about llamas in Danish(?)
1580s(?). So for fun I have a llama badge. :)

Thank you,
De

-----Original Message-----
Let me start by saying that was tongue-in-cheek to Rashid. We study the same
place about 150 years apart from each other so, for the most part,
anything that applies to one of us applies to both of us when speaking
about the scope of the SCA. (That's why I signed with my full name, and
description of my period--an attempt to emphasis to others that I was
tongue-in-cheek).

The SCA is intended to study "pre-17th century Europe". There's a
statement somewhere in the publications that says anyone studying
something else is considered a guest of the court, and is expected to
assimilate (I always imagine the portrait of Pocahontas in a corset).
You guys are all nice enough let us play with you anyway. :)

I use out of scope for other things too, like llamas. They existed in
period, so we can't call them out "out-of-period" but they certainly
weren't a part of Western Europe.

Hope that helps,
Sayyeda al-Kaslaania

I just taught a workshop on 12th-16th c linen undergarments in the Shire of
Hartshorndale, East Kingdom (western suburbs of Philadelphia, PA
mundanely). Email me off list for notes (google docs). Did you have
specific questions? You only need separate bodies if you are making very
late period garb, 1590's or later court garb, post 1600 any class garb.
There isn't much evidence of their existence before that time period. If
you are doing any earlier period in the 16th C I would go with linen smocks
(low or high necked), fitted kirtles (the bodice is fitted and supportive
as is a 14-15th C fitted kirtle or GFD, in society parlance), and gowns of
the style contemporaneous to the decade you wish to portray. Kirtles of the
period have waist seams, but 1490-1510's the semi-circular skirt fits into
the waist, not gathered or pleated, whereas by 1530's & up, skirts are
pleated or gathered into the waist seam. Lady Joan Silverthorpe (Kimiko
Small) is a recognized expert in the society on the 1st half of the
century, her website is www.kimiko1.com. For the 2nd half of the 16th C I
would recommend joining the conversation on Elizabethan Costume on
Facebook. The group is administered by Noel Gieleghem.

Eryn
Known in the SCA as Kathryn Perry


*Hey there, folks! I haven't looked in months, now - anyone got a nice line
on recent late period Western European underwear projects? I need a new
pair of bodies, as my old has started sprouting stays, and I can always use
more body linens. I'd love to see what's going on out there. I'm
(re-)starting some projects of my own, now that summer is icumen in and I
only have four major projects at school, instead of four major projects and
six classes.

Many thanks,
Margaret Northwode*


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks for your reply, Eryn.

Yes, I am actually looking at very late period stays, even though some
usage won't be for court clothing - I have perfectly usable gowns that were
made with stays in mind, and so have very little to no oomph to their
bodies, themselves. I'm unlikely to modify them, as it would be less effort
to just make more, but I'm just as unlikely to stop using them just because
it's more period for them to be self-supporting. I've made more than a
couple of sets of stays for myself but haven't really kept an ear to the
ground as far as developments in scholarship (though I do have the
posthumous Arnold PoF as well as the non-posthumous late period one) in
many months, now. What's gone on in that field?

Margaret Northwode


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

There are some absolutely amazing wimples our there depicted in historic
paintings.  Some are fairly simple and I still can't figure out how to wear one.
Does anyone have a good link?
Mistress Cassandra of Atenveldt

Well 1200 is definately post-conquest - by about 150 years or so!  :-D

King John was on the throne in 1200.

So as for accessories, some key things to have

1) Wimple - a necessaity, no woman would have their hair undercovered
and whilst it is true that unmarried girls would not have worn a veil,
that would normally mean girls under the age of about 16!  So hair
covering is the way to go.  If you find a full wimple uncomfortable,
there are several turban sytles that work.  Or a Babette & Fillet was
very fashional for high ladies during the period.

2) Cross - All but a very small number of people in England would have
been christain and worn a cross and rosary.

3) Shoes - simple turn shoes

4) Aprons - well it's a basic design and not really changed for centuries!

5) Simple pouch - something in leather and fairly plain, for a house wife.

Please also remember that a "Lady" is going to be really unlikely to
have been doing any house work at well.  That is what you have
servants and serfs for.

A quick primer here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1200%E2%80%931300_in_fashion


Hope that helps
Edith of Hedingham

I hemmed the tunic and made Hubby pose in it. I have uploaded a couple of photos
to http://www.flickr.com/groups/scagarbphotos/ (search for patty_gale199).

In the close-up, you can also see the linen undershirt I made for him to wear
with the tunic.

Now on to hosen and braies!

The best pic Tutorial ive seen was a band wrapped around the head sort of like a
headband but worn horizontal across the forehead, then the simple was pinned to
the headband and wrapped around th head .

Sent from my iPhone

On May 16, 2012, at 11:13 AM, "cassandra_kingswear" <cclarkevilla@...>
wrote:

> There are some absolutely amazing wimples our there depicted in <snipped by
mod. trim your posts>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Also, you can google hijab and that's basically the same principle.

Kate

Sent from my iPhone

On May 16, 2012, at 11:13 AM, "cassandra_kingswear" <cclarkevilla@...>
wrote:

> There are some absolutely amazing wimples our there depicted in
<snipped by mod. trim your posts>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mistress Louise of Woodsholme has recently been exploring the use of bents (sea
grass in her case) in the effigy bodies as noted by Arnold's Costume article on
the effigy pair of bodies (do you have that?). She's blogging her progress on
LJ.
http://woodsholme.livejournal.com/
She is also very active on FB Elizabethan Costume group among other groups on
FB.

I'm not sure who else is working on pairs of bodies. There hasn't been much if
anything new on underwear, other than the back and forth discussions on if
drawers were worn or not by Elizabethan women (as compared to Italian women).

Joan


On May 15, 2012, at 7:22 AM, Heather M wrote:

> anyone got a nice line
> on recent late period Western European underwear projects?



Lady Joan Silvertoppe
A Gentlewoman's Accounts  http://www.kimiko1.com

Tudor Lady's Wardrobe pattern.
http://www.margospatterns.com/Products/TudorLady.html

Eryn,

Thank you very kindly for thinking of me in this manner. However, I am but one
of several who have a passion for the early Tudor period, and my work has been
as much a collaboration with the works of others who have done a great amount of
the research, especially recently the Tudor Tailor group of ladies, among
others.

And I also second your recommendation to those who are interested in 16th
century fashions to join the Elizabethan Costume group on FB.

Joan


Lady Joan Silvertoppe
A Gentlewoman's Accounts  http://www.kimiko1.com

Tudor Lady's Wardrobe pattern.
http://www.margospatterns.com/Products/TudorLady.html




On May 15, 2012, at 9:11 AM, Eryn Utz wrote:

> Lady Joan Silverthorpe (Kimiko
> Small) is a recognized expert in the society on the 1st half of the
> century, her website is www.kimiko1.com. For the 2nd half of the 16th C I
> would recommend joining the conversation on Elizabethan Costume on
> Facebook. The group is administered by Noel Gieleghem.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>
> Mistress Louise of Woodsholme has recently been exploring the use of bents
> (sea grass in her case) in the effigy bodies as noted by Arnold's Costume
> article on the effigy pair of bodies (do you have that?).
>
Absolutely - I joined the Costume Guild of the UK that year just to own
that issue of the journal.

> She's blogging her progress on LJ.
> http://woodsholme.livejournal.com/
> She is also very active on FB Elizabethan Costume group among other groups
> on FB.
>
Nice, I'll check her out, thanks - you know who I hate to find is hardly
posting anything garbly? The Attack Laurel. It's not that she's not working
on anything, it's just that she's not working on much and posting about it.
She's also not posting a lot on LJ. Which stinks, because I really enjoyed
reading her stuff.

> I'm not sure who else is working on pairs of bodies. There hasn't been
> much if anything new on underwear, other than the back and forth
> discussions on if drawers were worn or not by Elizabethan women (as
> compared to Italian women).
>
> Joan
>
...wow, still?

All right, guess I'll have to start something. You'd think that latest
Arnold would have really encouraged more work....

Margaret


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Er, whoops, folks, I thought I was sending that just to Lady Joan. Somewhat
more casual tone than I was really going for there, very sorry.

Margaret Northwode

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Heather M <margaret.northwode@...>wrote:

> Mistress Louise of Woodsholme has recently been exploring the use of bents
>> (sea grass in her case) in the effigy bodies as noted by Arnold's Costume
>> article on the effigy pair of bodies (do you have that?).
>>
> Absolutely - I joined the Costume Guild of the UK that year just to own
> that issue of the journal.
>
>> She's blogging her progress on LJ.
>> http://woodsholme.livejournal.com/
>> She is also very active on FB Elizabethan Costume group among other
>> groups on FB.
>>
> Nice, I'll check her out, thanks - you know who I hate to find is hardly
> posting anything garbly? The Attack Laurel. It's not that she's not working
> on anything, it's just that she's not working on much and posting about it.
> She's also not posting a lot on LJ. Which stinks, because I really enjoyed
> reading her stuff.
>
>> I'm not sure who else is working on pairs of bodies. There hasn't been
>> much if anything new on underwear, other than the back and forth
>> discussions on if drawers were worn or not by Elizabethan women (as
>> compared to Italian women).
>>
>> Joan
>>
> ...wow, still?
>
> All right, guess I'll have to start something. You'd think that latest
> Arnold would have really encouraged more work....
>
> Margaret
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

And, um, my apologies for not trimming the replies. I'm a bit more sapped
right now than I gave myself credit for.

In thread-related requests, does anyone have any body linen projects in
late period? I don't really care about region, just need the boost, you
know?

Margaret Northwode the very, very tired


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Greetings, All !

From the SCA.org home page, "The SCA is an international organization
dedicated to researching and re-creating the arts and skills of
pre-17th-century Europe."

I know that many people have difficulty remembering that the 17th century
is 1600 to 1699.
Thus, according to our official website, the SCA researches and recreates *
only* *European cultures up to December 31, 1599.
*
Some people have decided that, if their culture had contact with even one
European before 1600, then it can be included in SCA.  Personally, I
believe that this is against the stated organizational guidelines.
When I joined the SCA, we were re-creating the European Middle Ages and
Renaissance - which was officially defined as 600 to 1600.  Now, we
re-create everything up to 1600 in Europe.
While I would personally prefer to go back to the 600-1600 era, I follow
the dictates of our national organization.  To me, it would be helpful for
our national organization to clarify our collective intent, so that we are
all aware and are following the same guidelines.

I am very happy to wear earlier period European (Greek or Roman) clothing
during our hot, sticky Trimarian summer (which generally lasts 9 months of
the year.)  However, I find the non-European clothing very "jarring"
visually, even when done extremely well and authentically.  I am very
willing to find something that is comfortable to wear in Trimaris, which
existed in Europe from 600 to 1600, as long as I can leave off a few of the
under-layers which make them warmer.

Some say that, if we are re-creating pre-17th century Europe, our events
should be thought of as being set in Europe before the year 1600.  If a
non-European were to travel to Europe before 1600, they would probably have
dressed in the fashions of Europe at that time.  However, this would work
best if every event were "themed" and everyone dressed in the clothing of a
specific time period and culture - something that many of us are simply not
willing or able to do.

Another opinion that I have heard is that our events are not set in Europe,
but in our SCA Kingdoms.  Since they did not exist in period, everyone at
the event is thought to be traveling to this foreign country (in my case,
Trimaris) from their country & time period, and each attendee is proud to
represent their local culture and clothing.

If we go with the first premise, then explorers who left Europe and
experienced other cultures would have worn their normal clothing even when
they went abroad.  Was there "cross-contamination" due to that exploration
?  Probably, on both sides.  Even if the "foreigners" who came back to
Europe with those explorers wore European clothing, they might have
retained aspects of their native "flair."  In this way, many changes in
fashion certainly evolved.
Personally, the second view helps me a great deal in reconciling the
various non-European clothing I see at SCA events.

The one thing that I believe the SCA should require, is that what we wear
is based upon actual history here on earth.  Yes, we are anachronistic, but
we are not re-creating fantasy or science fiction.  The modern portrayal of
"pirates", fairies, elves, mythical creatures, "Tolkein-esque", and
Steampunk - all are inappropriate for general SCA clothing.

Dum Vivo Servio (While I live, I serve)
Rachel Cundiff, OL


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Centuries start with 1 and end in 0. Therefore the 17th century is 1601 -
1700.
If the official website states "*European cultures up to December 31, 1599."
then it needs to be corrected. When I joined there was no starting date but
there was an unofficial pamphlet being handed out that had 600 -1600.
I agree that it would be nice to have some consistency with the date in all
their publications but you still have the verbal misunderstanding that goes
around that makes it's way back into publications. Kind of like the myth
that pink is not a SCA period color, just when you think the myth has been
killed it pops it's silly head up again. Though they say Europe, they tend
to include Italy which is Mediterranean. The various countries that are not
European, somewhere it says that countries that had contact are excepted and
I think that this kind of flexibility helps in retention, and knowledge.
Most times, folks that get interested in living history type groups start
off either at Renaissance Faires or SCA (Sometime it's Ren.Faire-SCA-LH)and
then if SCA is too flexible for them they either join a reenactment group
that is more specific in their rules or stay in SCA and focus on a period of
their fancy with others of like period and place.
As for non Europeans dressing in European fashions, depends on the non
European country. There were New World folks that came over dressed in non
European clothing as an example.
SCA requires an attempt at historic type garb. Taking two towels and pinning
them at the shoulder is an attempt at a tabard, this may tic off a few but
it is acceptable attire for an event under the rule. Years ago I was the
first to wear 1490s Venetian, at that time I was told that I was wearing
fantasy garb. Sometimes it is hard to know what is historic and what is
fantasy so personally the attempt at garb is a fine rule and doesn't need
tweaking because I feel that most folks try to create "period" garb.
As for historical/fantasy "characters", pirates did exist in SCA period but
not in the clothing most show up at events in (most times the attitude is
"It's garb, I don't feel like make new garb and I think I look real kool in
it"). Elves are N. European, Fairies are European, Mediterranean,
Japanese...etc during the Middle Ages and to some extent Renaissance these
creatures were considered real but most times they were depicted wearing the
current fashion with a few ethereal accessories (attitude is usually "I have
no where else to wear this and pretend I am a (elf, fairy, troll,
gnome...etc) I want to feel pretty and special or kool looking like
Legolas.). Modern folks unless they do the research tend to go with what
inspired them to try that character. Steampuck? are you sure it is
Steampunk. Steampunk is 19th century garments. There are some folks who
dress wench and call it Steampunk when all they did was take a bodice and
sew gears on it. True Steampunk when you see it will make you think Jules
Verne era with attitude.

Delis
-----Original Message-----
Greetings, All !

From the SCA.org home page, "The SCA is an international organization
dedicated to researching and re-creating the arts and skills of
pre-17th-century Europe."

I know that many people have difficulty remembering that the 17th century is
1600 to 1699.
Thus, according to our official website, the SCA researches and recreates
*only* *European cultures up to December 31, 1599.
*
Some people have decided that, if their culture had contact with even one
European before 1600, then it can be included in SCA.  Personally, I believe
that this is against the stated organizational guidelines. When I joined the
SCA, we were re-creating the European Middle Ages and Renaissance - which
was officially defined as 600 to 1600.
snip :To me, it would be helpful for our national organization to clarify
our collective intent, so that we are all aware and are following the same
guidelines.
snip:
The one thing that I believe the SCA should require, is that what we wear is
based upon actual history here on earth.  Yes, we are anachronistic, but we
are not re-creating fantasy or science fiction.  The modern portrayal of
"pirates", fairies, elves, mythical creatures, "Tolkein-esque", and
Steampunk - all are inappropriate for general SCA clothing.

Dum Vivo Servio (While I live, I serve)
Rachel Cundiff, OL

<<snip>>
Personally, I
> believe that this is against the stated organizational guidelines.
> When I joined the SCA, we were re-creating the European Middle Ages and
> Renaissance - which was officially defined as 600 to 1600.  Now, we
> re-create everything up to 1600 in Europe.
> While I would personally prefer to go back to the 600-1600 era, I follow
> the dictates of our national organization.  To me, it would be helpful for
> our national organization to clarify our collective intent, so that we are
> all aware and are following the same guidelines.
<<snip>>

INTERnational organisation, thank-you-very-much!

With that said, you're sadly mistaken about there being an official start date.
The SCA Grand Council was asked to ponder this exact thing in 2006. They
concluded that there had never been an official start date, and it's difficult
to figure out what date *would* be the start of the middle ages.

To quote from http://grandcouncil.sca.org/gc_rpts.php?y=2006&m=April :

"The Grand Council wish to advise the Board that, after discussion, we  do not
regard the establishment of a fixed start date for the SCA as being feasible or
essential.

While there are some benefits to be gained from establishing a specific start
date, the Grand Council as a body feels that these benefits are outweighed by
the potential negatives of establishing a specific starting date for "period" 40
years into the game.
....
In particular, the problem of choosing *which* specific starting date
to use is likely to cause a good deal of dissension, to no particular
benefit.  Just within the council there are factions which would favor a
relatively late start date, such as 700 or even 800 AD (Charlemagne), while
others would prefer 410 (withdrawal of Rome from Britain), 476 (fall of Rome) 
or even 379 (Christianity becomes the official religion of Rome)."

<<snip>>
> I am very happy to wear earlier period European (Greek or Roman) clothing
> during our hot, sticky Trimarian summer (which generally lasts 9 months of
> the year.)  However, I find the non-European clothing very "jarring"
> visually, even when done extremely well and authentically.  I am very
> willing to find something that is comfortable to wear in Trimaris, which
> existed in Europe from 600 to 1600, as long as I can leave off a few of the
> under-layers which make them warmer.
<<snip>>

So, what you're saying is that while you "personally prefer to go back to the
600-1600 era", you are also willing to ignore your convictions and wear clothing
from earlier periods if it suits yourself? Or am I misunderstanding something?

<<snip>>
If a
> non-European were to travel to Europe before 1600, they would probably have
> dressed in the fashions of Europe at that time.
<<snip>>

Let's look at the big, obvious example here: the 16th century Japanese
"Tenshō embassy". The answer seems to be "both".
Description of the envoy in Japanese dress:
http://tousando.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=garb&action=print&thread=3097

European dress:
http://forums.samurai-archives.com/viewtopic.php?t=4944&sid=f72724a61f23301717d8\
e0cd2a5a2e1d
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensh%C5%8D_embassy

Later, Hasekura Tsunennaga was painted circa 1615. One portrait has him in
European dress, but the second is in Japanese (with a European, lacy collar
under his robes!)
"The Perception of the Japanese in Early Modern Spain: Not Quite "The Best
People Yet Discovered""
http://www.ehumanista.ucsb.edu/volumes/volume_11/Articles/15%20Lee.pdf (page 24)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hasekura_in_Rome.JPG
and again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HasekuraBookGerman.jpg

<<snip>>
> The one thing that I believe the SCA should require, is that what we wear
> is based upon actual history here on earth.  Yes, we are anachronistic, but
> we are not re-creating fantasy or science fiction.  The modern portrayal of
> "pirates", fairies, elves, mythical creatures, "Tolkein-esque", and
> Steampunk - all are inappropriate for general SCA clothing.
<<snip>>

The problem, there, is status quo and what is considered 'fantasy'. While in
more time-period-focused Living History groups, if you do something out of the
ordinary, you need to be able to justify it to an "authenticity officer" or
similar. But there is no such office in the SCA, so if you wear somrthing *you*
consider to be well-researched, you can't really show off that research to
anyone in charge to get it OK'd. So who can say if an outfit is based on
fantasy, or an otherwise unknown source?

Love to hear your thoughts!
Asfridhr

Okay, just a quick note regarding this topic of conversation.

1) We will all remember that we are gentle folk, here, and converse within
the polite bounds of gentle folk, here.

2) THIS list welcomes discussion of fashion that is on the screaming edge,
and just a few years beyond, the Corporate-stated boundaries for the SCA
era, because there are plenty of clothing-related issues and items that
largely remained the same for the first few years of the 17th. That said,
if pleated bumblesnarks are decidedly post-period because no one has any
trace of them until 1602, then pleated bumblesnarks are OOP and OT for this
list - which means that the *can* be discussed here, but largely only on
the weekends.

3) If an argument starts over whether or not 1601 or 1600 is the beginning
of the 17th, then, so help me all my handmade lace, I will get out an
enormous wet noodle and beat all involved until I need more wet noodles.
The first person to mention the Gregorian year shift will get a darning egg
in a very uncomfortable place, unless you're joking around, in which case
I'll just get more creative.

4) We really are keeping an eye on this conversation, y'all, and judging
from the queue, people are starting to get heated. You don't want to be on
moderation, we don't want more moderated members because it makes more work
for us, so truly, seriously, please remember that you're not talking to
ones and zeros, you're talking to people.

5) I made homemade pasta carbonara for dinner tonight, and I'm sewing up a
new, very late-period low-necked smock while I catch up on all the Grimm
that I missed because of my new premed school-attending habit.

6) There is no number six.

Margaret Northwode, modly type


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mostly, well said, but I'll argue in favor of this.we start counting with
'1', not '0'.  The first century began with '1' and ended with '100'; the
second century began with '101' and ended with 200.  So the 17th Century
would start with 1601 and end with 1700.  The 16th Century would start with
1501, and end with 1600.  Based on that, the SCA researches and recreates up
to December 31, 1600.  Yes, I know that there is very little difference
between the year 1599 and the year 1600, or the year 1601, especially with
regards to the changing of fashion.  This is about people struggling to
understand how to count decades and centuries.  This discussion is happening
on another yahoo group right now as well, or earlier this month on this
group?



And also consider that we research and recreate the Middle Ages and the
Renaissance.  The Renaissance includes the Elizabethan period, which ended
with the death of Elizabeth I in 1603, not 1599 or 1600.  Why would we
disallow the last 3 years of Elizabeth's reign as being outside of our
period?  Seems silly.or not.take your pick.





Yours in Service,



Gelleia de Horslaporte





   _____

From: SCA-Garb@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SCA-Garb@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Rachel Cundiff
<snip>

From the SCA.org home page, "The SCA is an international organization
dedicated to researching and re-creating the arts and skills of
pre-17th-century Europe."
<snipped by mod - TRIM YOUR POSTS!>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

(smippage)

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Quokkaqueen <quokkaqueen@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> T But thhe problem, there, is status quo and what is considered
> 'fantasy'....So who can say if an outfit is based on fantasy, or an
> otherwise unknown source?
>
>
(Snippage ends)

OK - Most Scadians are smart enough to know that neither Galadriel, Elorie
Hastur, Jack Sparrow or documentable fairies existed in real life, during
the middle ages. So, if the outfit you are wearing is from the movies/books
of fantasy - AND bear no resemblance whatsoever to any outfit known to have
existed, or are constructed using methods unknown before the birth of
Singer, we CAN identify what you are wearing as fantasy.  Research always
moves forward, of course,  BUT...generally, the research either confirms
(Museum of London/St. Denis effigies) what we see in the paintings, or
debunks it (same sources LOL).  It does not show us that velcro, fairy
wings and pirate hats DID exist in the time frame. We ARE a medieval
organization, and as such, it is not only in no wise unreasonable to ask
people to keep their clothing based on some idea of reality for the
pre-17th century world; it is a basic COURTESY to leave the nonperiod
pirate/movie and book-inspired costumes/elf-ears home when you come to
events.

AND..although they do not have the ability to bar you from site, your A/S
officers and experienced costumers CAN tell you what is, and is not,
appropriate to the middle ages.  That being said, unless you are ASKING us
to judge the authenticity of an item, we in courtesy should not volunteer
to do so. Accordingly, I believe that people who ARE wearing outfits
entirely based on fantasy should be HONEST and not try to sell us on its
authenticity based purely on their desire that it be accepted as such.  I
am a costumer - if you come to me and ask me, "Hey Alysoun, is this outfit
authentic for the   INSERT DATE century?" and what you are wearing is NOT,
I am going to tell you the truth, with courtesy, compassion, and hopefully
compliments on your sewing skills. If you come to me and say, I know this
outfit isn't authentic, but I think it's pretty and I love how I look in
it, *I* am going to reply, "Go YOU! You look great in that!"

> Love to hear your thoughts!
> Asfridhr
>

My two sous,
Alysoun

>
>
>



--
"Courage is the virtue of deeds... courtesy is the virtue of language."
Baron Giovanni di Fiamma


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

<<snip>>
> AND..although they do not have the ability to bar you from site, your A/S
> officers and experienced costumers CAN tell you what is, and is not,
> appropriate to the middle ages.
<<snip>>

At the same time, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Look at De's example (if I'm reading between the lines correctly) of wearing a
dress that was uncommon in the SCA but had been seen in the movie "Ever After".
It may well have been based on portraits by Albrecht Duerer, but all anyone saw
looking at it was Drew Barrymore wearing fairy wings.
(eg. http://www.everaftercostumes.com/breathe.shtml )

When I'm not being a Viking chick, I've been known to wear 16th century Korean.
Ignoring the debate over non-European personas in the SCA, it is *amazing* how
many people swear I am wearing a weird version of Japanese, and it's terribly
inappropriate that I don't take the time to blacken my teeth before the event.

Before I was a Viking chick, I was into the clothing of Finns and Livonians -
people had no idea what I was wearing, but they knew it looked *wrong* to them
because they'd only seen the locally-standard Norse apron dress outfits. And
because my peplos had an opening in the side, I must have been confused by those
tea-towel-panel apron dresses and had to be informed I was wearing
non-historical Viking.
Because the only people wearing paired brooches in northern Europe at the time
were Norse.

And that's just my own experiences - so I am a little skeptical that people do
have the ability to accurately judge if an outfit is "appropriate" or not. (But
it does give you the chance to tell someone all about the cool things you are
wearing and how they work...:])

I suspect you're thinking of more glaring examples, but it's very easy to
confuse 'this is a new interpretation' with 'this does not look normal so is
incorrect'.

~Asfridhr

Well, those of us who have spent years researching clothing actually CAN
tell you that. If you are interpreting the documentable in a new way, TELL
us, and tell us HOW and tell us WHY...you might just be surprised at how
interested and enthusiastic we'd be...but I must say the phrase "a little
knowledge" is not an accurate descriptor of the knowledge base - earned
over years of research, practical application, and still MORE research and
MORE application that so very many costumers have in the SCA. I *can* in
fact tell you the difference between an accurate Norse outfit, and one that
isn't, and I am but an Egg in these matters. It's 10000000000% OK and FINE
to not wear 100% authentic clothing EVER, actually, if that's not your bag.
BUT, if you choose that path, OWN that path...if YOU are OK with not being
overly concerned with authenticity, BE OK with it - but do not demand that
your honest, self-chosen, not authentic clothing IS authentic, if we'd all
simply assume that the way you chose to make the outfit - based only on
what floats your boat - COULD be an authentic construction. I don't know of
a single authenticity maven who would be so crass as to hunt you down and
critique your outfit - we wait to be asked. BUT.....if you are going to SAY
a piece of clothing is authentic, back it up - and do so with
documentation, not speculation. As I've said before, "I made this because
it's pretty and I like it" is 10000000000000000% VALID and FINE!   Saying,"
I made it this way because there's no way of telling if it was NEVER made
this way and since you CAN"t say it NEVER was, it's perfectly authentic,"
is NOT so valid.

If the acceptance of a garment as authentic in look/construction/whatever
*matters* to you as a costumer, then BE authentic - do the research and
base the garment on IT. If acceptance of a garment as authentic in
look/construction/whatever *does NOT matter* to you, don't waste YOUR
breath or the authenticity mavens' time demanding that a garment NOT
documentably authentic SHOULD be deemed as such.

Alysoun "some of my best friends are still wearing T-tunics over their
jeans and that'S OK BY ME" Jeuneterre

PS; Time travel is FINE and does not render a garment inaccurate.  My
persona is mid-1340s French, but I've got bliauts, norse, 13th Century, and
am working on a Tudor.  If I'm wearing a bliaut, the fact that my persona
is 200 years younger does not render the bliaut inauthentic, if I've made
it right. Now, if I want to say that in mid 14th century France, women
still wore bliauts and THAT'S what I'm wearing one, THAT is a different
kettle of fish.

On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Quokkaqueen <quokkaqueen@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> <<snip>>
> > AND..although they do not have the ability to bar you from site, your A/S
> > officers and experienced costumers CAN tell you what is, and is not,
> > appropriate to the middle ages.
> <<snip>>
>
> At the same time, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
> Look at De's example (if I'm reading between the lines correctly) of
> wearing a dress that was uncommon in the SCA but had been seen in the movie
> "Ever After". It may well have been based on portraits by Albrecht Duerer,
> but all anyone saw looking at it was Drew Barrymore wearing fairy wings.
> (eg. http://www.everaftercostumes.com/breathe.shtml )
>
> When I'm not being a Viking chick, I've been known to wear 16th century
> Korean. Ignoring the debate over non-European personas in the SCA, it is
> *amazing* how many people swear I am wearing a weird version of Japanese,
> and it's terribly inappropriate that I don't take the time to blacken my
> teeth before the event.
>
> Before I was a Viking chick, I was into the clothing of Finns and
> Livonians - people had no idea what I was wearing, but they knew it looked
> *wrong* to them because they'd only seen the locally-standard Norse apron
> dress outfits. And because my peplos had an opening in the side, I must
> have been confused by those tea-towel-panel apron dresses and had to be
> informed I was wearing non-historical Viking.
> Because the only people wearing paired brooches in northern Europe at the
> time were Norse.
>
> And that's just my own experiences - so I am a little skeptical that
> people do have the ability to accurately judge if an outfit is
> "appropriate" or not. (But it does give you the chance to tell someone all
> about the cool things you are wearing and how they work...:])
>
> I suspect you're thinking of more glaring examples, but it's very easy to
> confuse 'this is a new interpretation' with 'this does not look normal so
> is incorrect'.
>
> ~Asfridhr
>
>
>



--
"Courage is the virtue of deeds... courtesy is the virtue of language."
Baron Giovanni di Fiamma


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]