Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Frontal nudity okay in period??

Expand Messages
  • aheilvei
    ... some areas. ... This is something that is consistantly argued. On this list we have historically chosen to keep the 1600 date as the cut-off date for SCA
    Message 1 of 29 , Jun 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      > It's my understanding that SCA period goes to 1660, at least in
      some areas.
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

      This is something that is consistantly argued. On this list we have
      historically chosen to keep the 1600 date as the cut-off date for
      SCA period.

      There are posts about it in the archives from the first couple of
      years, please search for them.

      Despina
    • Talia
      Nope!! And there s a lot of us who think the cutoff date should be even earlier than that. Talia
      Message 2 of 29 , Jun 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Nope!! And there's a lot of us who think the cutoff date should be even
        earlier than that.

        Talia

        >
        > > It's my understanding that SCA period goes to 1660, at least in
        > some areas.
        > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
        >
      • Cathal@mindspring.com
        ... It s a matter of local common wisdom over statutory fact. The Governing Documents of the SCA specify pre-17th century western culture and always have.
        Message 3 of 29 , Jun 1, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          > > > It's my understanding that SCA period goes to 1660, at least in
          > > some areas.

          It's a matter of local common wisdom over statutory fact. The Governing Documents of
          the SCA specify "pre-17th century western culture" and always have. In even the most
          generous of interpretations, that means the SCA's period of focus ends at 12:00 midnight
          on 31 December, 1600 CE. That, imo, settles the 'official' end of things

          The confusion over the 1650 usage comes from the mid 1970's when a brief flirtation
          with 'cavalier' costume in some of the Kingdoms became a chronic manifestation. Things
          were a lot looser back then and no-one really wanted to bully folk on the grounds of a 50
          year deviation in costume choice. Once it became tolerated, however, it didn't take long
          for the great masses of the misinformed to assume that it was a change in Da Rules
          (tm).

          Cathal.




          Na sir 's na seachain an cath.
        • Cannoneer
          ... Yes, but if you read the entire article, it says it started in France in the 1400 s. The 17th century connection seems to be Henrietta Maria. so it seems
          Message 4 of 29 , Jun 1, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            At 03:21 PM 6/1/2004, you wrote:

            > >What do you guys think of this article? Wild! 8-o
            > >
            > >http://scatoday.net/story.php?search_id=N-20040517-195506-0003
            >
            >who cares?
            >17th century is NOT within the SCA period.
            >
            >Capt Elias

            Yes, but if you read the entire article, it says it started in France in
            the 1400's. The 17th century connection seems to be Henrietta Maria. so
            it seems that in places, it IS period.

            Hawkyns


            Roderic Hawkyns
            Master Gunner

            Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl

            Its like I always say, you get more with a kind word and a two-by-four then
            with just a two-by-four - Marcus Cole
          • Mary Taran
            ... 17th century fashion is not the topic of this list. The SCA may not be very definitive about a start date, but pre-17th century is pretty clear. Mary
            Message 5 of 29 , Jun 1, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              At 10:36 AM 6/1/2004, you wrote:

              >What do you guys think of this article? Wild! 8-o
              >
              ><http://scatoday.net/story.php?search_id=N-20040517-195506-0003>http://scatoday.net/story.php?search_id=N-20040517-195506-0003

              17th century fashion is not the topic of this list. The SCA may not be
              very definitive about a start date, but pre-17th century is pretty clear.

              Mary Taran

              ----------


              ---
              Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
              Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
              Version: 6.0.692 / Virus Database: 453 - Release Date: 5/28/2004


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • hunyddthered
              ... some areas. Can t speak for the rest of the Knowne Worlde, of course, but from a Lochac point of view, the whole 1660 s thing seems to be becuase we do a
              Message 6 of 29 , Jun 1, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Willow Polson wrote:

                > It's my understanding that SCA period goes to 1660, at least in
                some areas.

                Can't speak for the rest of the Knowne Worlde, of course, but from a
                Lochac point of view, the whole 1660's thing seems to be becuase we
                do a lot of country dances that were first recorded in the mid-
                1600s. The wisdom was that they would have been danced before this
                date, but being peasant dances were not considered worthy of writing
                down until much later (or something along those lines). Therefore,
                they were included as "period" which pushed the cut-off date back.

                I think we also mark the official end-of-period date as the death of
                Elizabeth I, which is 1603 (I think) to tie it to an era, rather
                than a date.

                Cheers,
                Hunydd
              • bex_1014
                To be honest, I think it s a sensationalist article which is taking things out of context as support for its dodgy theory. You may notice that they never
                Message 7 of 29 , Jun 1, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  To be honest, I think it's a sensationalist article which is taking
                  things out of context as support for its dodgy theory.
                  You may notice that they never define anywhere exactly what they mean
                  by "bared breast", and the only woodcut they do show has cleavage,
                  not what most people would call a breast.
                  The portrait of Agnes Sorel (1400's) has her painted as the Virgin
                  Mary, breast-feeding the infant Jesus. Her dress is clearly supposed
                  to be fully laced up over the breasts when worn normally.
                  The bodices of dresses in the 1500's show cleavage in some cases, but
                  I have never seen an illustration anywhere of a respectable woman,
                  either at rest or going about her business, with nipples showing,
                  unless she is breast-feeding. (Or naked, as in about to enter a bath
                  or something, but that's not the gist of the article.) People painted
                  in saint's poses or as legendary figures are a different matter, but
                  certainly not one that should be taken as representative of every-day
                  life. I would add, the most famous bare-breasted saint (St. Agatha) I
                  have seen has them sitting on a platter in front of her, and her
                  dress goes up to the neck. (St Agatha had her breasts removed as part
                  of the torture during her martyrdom... a rather unlikely candidate to
                  be portrayed as, I would have thought.)
                  What they did after 1600 of course, is probably entirely different...
                  Rebecca

                  --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, Willow Polson <willow@c...>
                  wrote:
                  > What do you guys think of this article? Wild! 8-o
                  >
                  > http://scatoday.net/story.php?search_id=N-20040517-195506-0003
                  >
                  > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                  > Rev. Willow Polson
                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                • Willow Polson
                  Okay, I ve been misinformed for all these years then. Forget my previous post. - Willow MacPherson
                  Message 8 of 29 , Jun 1, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Okay, I've been misinformed for all these years then. Forget my previous post.

                    - Willow MacPherson
                  • Willow Polson
                    ... Actually, the slideshow has four woodcuts, all of which show full breasts including nipples. The first woodcut is apparently an announcement of the
                    Message 9 of 29 , Jun 1, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 03:51 AM 6/2/2004 +0000, you wrote:
                      >To be honest, I think it's a sensationalist article which is taking
                      >things out of context as support for its dodgy theory.
                      >You may notice that they never define anywhere exactly what they mean
                      >by "bared breast", and the only woodcut they do show has cleavage,
                      >not what most people would call a breast.

                      Actually, the slideshow has four woodcuts, all of which show full breasts
                      including nipples. The first woodcut is apparently an announcement of the
                      coronation of William & Mary with Mary's full breasts exposed. That's what
                      I saw anyway... maybe they changed the slide show since this morning.

                      - Willow MacPherson
                    • JessicaHie@aol.com
                      .........what ever floats one boat..... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      Message 10 of 29 , Jun 2, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        .........what ever floats one boat.....


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • wodeford
                        ... a ... The first edition of Playford s The English Dancing Master dates to 1651. Jehanne de Wodeford
                        Message 11 of 29 , Jun 2, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, "hunyddthered"
                          <mel_elliott100@h...> wrote:
                          > Can't speak for the rest of the Knowne Worlde, of course, but from
                          a
                          > Lochac point of view, the whole 1660's thing seems to be becuase we
                          > do a lot of country dances that were first recorded in the mid-
                          > 1600s.

                          The first edition of Playford's "The English Dancing Master" dates to
                          1651.

                          Jehanne de Wodeford
                        • Maura Folsom
                          ... Actually, I understood that the 1650 tolerance had less to do with cavaliers than with Edwin Bearsark, who insisted on wearing kilts, period or not,
                          Message 12 of 29 , Jun 2, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            "Cathal@..." wrote:

                            > The confusion over the 1650 usage comes from the mid 1970's when a brief flirtation
                            > with 'cavalier' costume in some of the Kingdoms became a chronic manifestation. Things
                            > were a lot looser back then and no-one really wanted to bully folk on the grounds of a 50
                            > year deviation in costume choice. Once it became tolerated, however, it didn't take long
                            > for the great masses of the misinformed to assume that it was a change in Da Rules
                            > (tm).

                            Actually, I understood that the "1650 tolerance" had less to do with
                            cavaliers than with Edwin Bearsark, who insisted on wearing kilts,
                            period or not, pretty much from the Very Beginnings. At least that's
                            where it came from originally in the West.

                            I remember someone actually saying at his wake that "we can let the 1650
                            thing go now, right?"

                            Marguerie
                          • rowen_g
                            ... 1650 ... Somehow I m not surprised (having known the gentleman).... We get a fair amount of early 17th c folk around here, from the large fencing
                            Message 13 of 29 , Jun 2, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, Maura Folsom <jauncourt@v...> wrote:
                              > Actually, I understood that the "1650 tolerance" had less to do with
                              > cavaliers than with Edwin Bearsark, who insisted on wearing kilts,
                              > period or not, pretty much from the Very Beginnings. At least that's
                              > where it came from originally in the West.
                              >
                              > I remember someone actually saying at his wake that "we can let the
                              1650
                              > thing go now, right?"
                              >

                              Somehow I'm not surprised (having known the gentleman).... We get a
                              fair amount of early 17th c folk around here, from the large fencing
                              comunity, and from a number of older folk who were told "1650's ok"
                              when we joined (yes, I got it too) and tend to stick with it. I keep
                              to pre-1600 myself, but a nice 1630s outfit doesn't bother me nearly
                              as much as any number of other things.

                              Rowen
                            • Hasoferet@aol.com
                              In a message dated 6/1/2004 10:57:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, ... William n Mary were crowned 1689, though. Really post-period. I haven t actually read this
                              Message 14 of 29 , Jun 2, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                In a message dated 6/1/2004 10:57:46 PM Pacific Standard Time,
                                willow@... writes:


                                > Actually, the slideshow has four woodcuts, all of which show full breasts
                                > including nipples. The first woodcut is apparently an announcement of the
                                > coronation of William & Mary with Mary's full breasts exposed. That's what
                                > I saw anyway... maybe they changed the slide show since this morning.

                                William'n'Mary were crowned 1689, though. Really post-period. I haven't
                                actually read this article, so can't say nothin' about it, but 1600s portraits tend
                                to show a lot of nipple. Usually just one, peeking out from under the edge of
                                your chemise, but definately a lot of nipple on display. It's a cute look,
                                but not one I've seen during our period...

                                Raquel, who tends to behave badly in London's National Portrait Gallery.

                                (Not as badly as the random man who attached to her and a friend there,
                                though, to inform us that James I was 'the first known homosexual'.)

                                ((Ah, the 1600s--age of nipples on display, and men who wore sober suits with
                                Fredericks of Hollywood mules...))
                                _______________________________________________________
                                Kamatz katan le'olam!


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • bex_1014
                                These woodcuts are all post-1600 though, as far as I can see. I did note that what I wrote was intended to apply to the SCA period (before 1600). Connecting
                                Message 15 of 29 , Jun 2, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  These woodcuts are all post-1600 though, as far as I can see. I did
                                  note that what I wrote was intended to apply to the SCA period
                                  (before 1600). Connecting the fashion post-1600 with
                                  the "Agnes Sorel" picture, IMO is going too far. The AS
                                  picture in question can be seen here:
                                  http://gallery.euroweb.hu/cgi-bin/gallery/highlight.cgi?
                                  file=html/f/fouquet/madonna.html&find=Agnes+Sorel
                                  (Hope that link works. If it doesnt, go to the Web Gallery of Art and
                                  search for Agnes Sorel, by Jean Fouquet, c.1450.) It is clearly
                                  allegorical/mystical, albeit in a rather odd way. (Painting the
                                  king's mistress as the Virgin Mary???)
                                  While what the article proposes may be more accurate for the 17th
                                  century, in certain circles, I would still not think that bare
                                  breasts were common for the average woman. But that is OOP anyway, so
                                  I'll leave it.
                                  Rebecca
                                • Sharon L. Krossa
                                  ... Which, while I have no problem believing people thought this made sense at the time, is really kind of funny since kilts proper (Scottish male skirt) are
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Jun 2, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    At 12:10 PM -0500 6/2/04, Maura Folsom wrote:
                                    >Actually, I understood that the "1650 tolerance" had less to do with
                                    >cavaliers than with Edwin Bearsark, who insisted on wearing kilts,
                                    >period or not, pretty much from the Very Beginnings. At least that's
                                    >where it came from originally in the West.

                                    Which, while I have no problem believing people thought this made
                                    sense at the time, is really kind of funny since kilts proper
                                    (Scottish male skirt) are an 18th century invention, so extending
                                    period to 1650 doesn't help at all for them. Plaids worn belted, of
                                    course, (modernly often called "belted plaids" or "great kilts") are
                                    entirely period by the official definition, the first unambiguous
                                    description dating to 1594 (in Gaelic, no less, and contrasting the
                                    attire of Scottish Gaels to that of Irish Gaels -- as said,
                                    unambiguous ;-) so no extension of period is needed for them.

                                    Affrick
                                    --
                                    Sharon L. Krossa, skrossa-ml@...
                                  • Wanda Pease
                                    I always understood that the 1650 date came from an early, maybe first, printing of the Known World Handbook, and Queen Carol s Guide. Neither of these were
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Jun 2, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I always understood that the 1650 date came from an early, maybe first,
                                      printing of the Known World Handbook, and Queen Carol's Guide. Neither of
                                      these were blessed as "canon" by the Board of Directors of their day. In
                                      later years the 1650 date was pretty firmly disavowed by the BoD which
                                      caused screams of "They're changing the SCA arbitrarily!!!!!" The fact
                                      that nothing was being changed had nothing to do with it. I've seen a 1st
                                      generation copy of the original Articles of Incorporation, and they said
                                      "Pre-17th Century" very clearly. These are the ones that established the
                                      SCA so we could go and play in a Berkley (?) park.

                                      Regina
                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: Sharon L. Krossa [mailto:skrossa-ml@...]
                                      Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 8:52 PM
                                      To: Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: [Authentic_SCA] 1650 Tolerance (was: Frontal nudity okay in
                                      period??)


                                      At 12:10 PM -0500 6/2/04, Maura Folsom wrote:
                                      >Actually, I understood that the "1650 tolerance" had less to do with
                                      >cavaliers than with Edwin Bearsark, who insisted on wearing kilts,
                                      >period or not, pretty much from the Very Beginnings. At least that's
                                      >where it came from originally in the West.

                                      Which, while I have no problem believing people thought this made
                                      sense at the time, is really kind of funny since kilts proper
                                      (Scottish male skirt) are an 18th century invention, so extending
                                      period to 1650 doesn't help at all for them. Plaids worn belted, of
                                      course, (modernly often called "belted plaids" or "great kilts") are
                                      entirely period by the official definition, the first unambiguous
                                      description dating to 1594 (in Gaelic, no less, and contrasting the
                                      attire of Scottish Gaels to that of Irish Gaels -- as said,
                                      unambiguous ;-) so no extension of period is needed for them.

                                      Affrick
                                      --
                                      Sharon L. Krossa, skrossa-ml@...



                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • mastergunner1588
                                      ... I don t think I d agree with that. Number 4 certainly appears to be Elizabethan, not Jacobean. It closely resembles some of the dresses worn by
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Jun 3, 2004
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, "bex_1014"
                                        <tonkin.rebecca@s...> wrote:
                                        > These woodcuts are all post-1600 though, as far as I can see. I did
                                        > note that what I wrote was intended to apply to the SCA period
                                        > (before 1600).
                                        > Rebecca

                                        I don't think I'd agree with that. Number 4 certainly appears to be
                                        Elizabethan, not Jacobean. It closely resembles some of the dresses
                                        worn by Elizabeth. There are also a number of broadsheet wood cuts
                                        that do show similar styles that cut across a broad section of
                                        society from the Elizabethan period. (not at home or I'd post some
                                        links). Was it common? Not something that every woman would wear, I
                                        would say, but not unheard of, either.

                                        Just as a nitpick, I saw a lot of people rush to say 'not period' on
                                        the list. The article covers a lot more than just the headline, and
                                        does discuss more than just 17th C. I would hope that people on this
                                        list would not be more concerned with a modern attitude to these
                                        fashions, rather than historical accuracy, and use the 'not period'
                                        argument to dismiss the entire article.

                                        Hawkyns
                                      • Aliskye
                                        It should be noted that a number of the flyers for early events before things were codified do state before 1650 for the cut-off. regards, aliskye ... with ...
                                        Message 19 of 29 , Jun 3, 2004
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          It should be noted that a number of the flyers for early events
                                          before things were codified do state before 1650 for the cut-off.

                                          regards,

                                          aliskye

                                          --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, "rowen_g" <rowengr@h...> wrote:
                                          > --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, Maura Folsom <jauncourt@v...>
                                          wrote:
                                          > > Actually, I understood that the "1650 tolerance" had less to do
                                          with
                                          > > cavaliers than with Edwin Bearsark, who insisted on wearing
                                          kilts,
                                          > > period or not, pretty much from the Very Beginnings. At least
                                          that's
                                          > > where it came from originally in the West.
                                          > >
                                          > > I remember someone actually saying at his wake that "we can let
                                          the
                                          > 1650
                                          > > thing go now, right?"
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > Somehow I'm not surprised (having known the gentleman).... We
                                          get a
                                          > fair amount of early 17th c folk around here, from the large fencing
                                          > comunity, and from a number of older folk who were told "1650's ok"
                                          > when we joined (yes, I got it too) and tend to stick with it. I
                                          keep
                                          > to pre-1600 myself, but a nice 1630s outfit doesn't bother me nearly
                                          > as much as any number of other things.
                                          >
                                          > Rowen
                                        • Marc Carlson
                                          Not that it will alter anything, nor that it should - but when I was first introduced to the SCA (in 1979 in Ansteorra) I was taught that the ending date was
                                          Message 20 of 29 , Jun 3, 2004
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Not that it will alter anything, nor that it should - but when I was
                                            first introduced to the SCA (in 1979 in Ansteorra) I was taught that
                                            the ending date was 1600 with a slop-over date of about 50 years for
                                            people who wanted to go that far. OTOH, I was also taught that you
                                            shouldn't claim to be anything you can not prove yourself to be (i.e.
                                            Elf, Witch, Priest, Doctor, whatever). And those are more or less the
                                            guidelines I've tried to stick with for me.

                                            Marc/Diarmaid
                                          • Ealasaid nic Suibhne
                                            delurking to add: And another contributor to the problem is that there is a certain percentage of folk out there that think 17th Century means 1700 through
                                            Message 21 of 29 , Jun 3, 2004
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              delurking to add:

                                              And another contributor to the problem is that there is a certain
                                              percentage of folk out there that think "17th Century" means 1700
                                              through 1799. I've had mild arguments with several SCA people who
                                              didn't understand that the 17th Century started on January 1, 1601.

                                              Ealasaid nic Suibhne
                                              Kingdom of Atenveldt
                                              main focus of study: very early period textiles/embroidery
                                            • aheilvei
                                              Personal opinion. The horse has crumbled to dust and is fading back into the earth it s been dead a while and the continued flogging isn t doing any good.
                                              Message 22 of 29 , Jun 3, 2004
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Personal opinion.

                                                The horse has crumbled to dust and is fading back into the earth
                                                it's been dead a while and the continued flogging isn't doing any
                                                good.

                                                Personal opinion.

                                                Smiles,
                                                Despina de la gets to go home from work before 11pm for the first
                                                time this week - bubye
                                              • Dianne & Greg Stucki
                                                ... From: aheilvei To: Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 4:58 PM Subject: [Authentic_SCA] Re: 1650 Tolerance
                                                Message 23 of 29 , Jun 3, 2004
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                                  From: "aheilvei" <aheilvei@...>
                                                  To: <Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com>
                                                  Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 4:58 PM
                                                  Subject: [Authentic_SCA] Re: 1650 Tolerance (was: Frontal nudity okay in
                                                  period??)


                                                  >
                                                  > Personal opinion.
                                                  >
                                                  > The horse has crumbled to dust and is fading back into the earth
                                                  > it's been dead a while and the continued flogging isn't doing any
                                                  > good.

                                                  So it's an ex-horse? It has ceased to be?

                                                  Laurensa de la watched too much Monty Python today....
                                                  >
                                                  > Personal opinion.
                                                  >
                                                  > Smiles,
                                                  > Despina de la gets to go home from work before 11pm for the first
                                                  > time this week - bubye
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > ----------------------------------------------------
                                                  > This is the Authentic SCA eGroup
                                                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                • Sharon L. Krossa
                                                  ... and ... While I agree that the 17th century is, roughly, the 1600s, I advise against insisting on too precise exact end points for it (or other
                                                  Message 24 of 29 , Jun 3, 2004
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    At 5:28 PM -0400 6/1/04, Cathal@... wrote:
                                                    >It's a matter of local common wisdom over statutory fact. The
                                                    >Governing Documents of the SCA specify "pre-17th century western
                                                    >culture" and always have. In even the most generous of
                                                    >interpretations, that means the SCA's period of focus ends at 12:00
                                                    >midnight on 31 December, 1600 CE. That, imo, settles the 'official'
                                                    >end of things

                                                    and

                                                    At 8:17 PM +0000 6/3/04, Ealasaid nic Suibhne wrote:
                                                    >And another contributor to the problem is that there is a certain
                                                    >percentage of folk out there that think "17th Century" means 1700
                                                    >through 1799. I've had mild arguments with several SCA people who
                                                    >didn't understand that the 17th Century started on January 1, 1601.

                                                    While I agree that the 17th century is, roughly, the 1600s, I advise
                                                    against insisting on too precise "exact" end points for it (or other
                                                    centuries).

                                                    Precise hours are too exact and even precise days are not safe -- in
                                                    many SCA period cultures the calendar year did not start on 1 January
                                                    (in England, for example, it started on 25 March until the mid-18th
                                                    century) and, further, circa 1600, because some countries had adopted
                                                    the Gregorian Calendar but others had not, 1 January occurred on
                                                    different days in different parts of Europe.

                                                    Calendars and associated concepts, such as named/numbered centuries,
                                                    are socially constructed concepts and not inevitable absolutes, and
                                                    as such they tend to change and vary and they aren't always derived
                                                    logically purely from consistent first principles. So even whether
                                                    the 17th century starts with 1601 or 1600 is not clear cut and is
                                                    legitimately arguable... **

                                                    And this isn't even to get into the issue of "long" centuries as used
                                                    by historians to lump together trends that don't fit neatly into
                                                    numbered centuries!

                                                    Africa

                                                    **PS In anticipation of those who will try to argue it is not
                                                    arguable, based on appeals to logic, just contemplate the "logical"
                                                    consequences of a year numbering system where the (6th century AD)
                                                    inventor set the theoretical beginning of "Year 1" on the 1 January
                                                    after the 25 December birth of Christ but where later people, without
                                                    changing the year numbers, changed the beginning of the year to 25
                                                    March, the anniversary of the conception of Christ -- and then later
                                                    others, at different times, changed it back to 1 January (not to
                                                    mention others still changing the start of the year to yet other
                                                    dates...). Logic doesn't provide one inevitable answer, nor is actual
                                                    practice -- usage by different people and/or in different times --
                                                    consistent (as evidenced by the huge celebrations over 31 Dec 1999-1
                                                    Jan 2000 compared to 31 Dec 2000-1 Jan 2001 ;-).

                                                    PPS It occurs to me to wonder -- when did Europeans start
                                                    numbering/naming centuries, that is, using terms like "10th century",
                                                    "17th century", etc?
                                                    --
                                                    Sharon L. Krossa, skrossa-ml@...
                                                  • Karen Hall
                                                    ... As common usage, at least it was in the nineteenth century. There is quite a lot of scholarly writing on the Victorian period and cultural understandings
                                                    Message 25 of 29 , Jun 4, 2004
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      > PPS It occurs to me to wonder -- when did Europeans start
                                                      > numbering/naming centuries, that is, using terms like "10th century",
                                                      > "17th century", etc?

                                                      As common usage, at least it was in the nineteenth century. There is quite a
                                                      lot of scholarly writing on the Victorian period and cultural understandings
                                                      of history. But that's probably not relevant to this list, so anyone wanting
                                                      part of chapter one of my thesis can contact me offlist :).

                                                      Alessandra
                                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.