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

Re: [Authentic_SCA] Years covered by SCA

Expand Messages
  • Antonia Calvo
    ... Ah, this ever-awkward question. According to the SCA s governing documents, there are essentially two definitions of period . One is that we are devoted
    Message 1 of 80 , Dec 27, 2008
      Madeleine Delacroix wrote:
      > Greetings all,
      > A question has come up and since I can't get a actual answer from
      > those around me, I am going to ask here. I was under the impression
      > that the play dates were 600-1600, and yet I see Romans and Cavaliers,
      > which are pre and post those years. I don't want to tell a newcomer
      > the wrong thing, so what is it??? Or is it what they want to be within
      > reason?
      >

      Ah, this ever-awkward question.

      According to the SCA's governing documents, there are essentially two
      definitions of "period". One is that we are devoted to the "study of
      the Middle Ages and Renaissance" and the other is that we "recreate
      aspects of the life and culture of the landed nobility in Europe prior
      to 1600 CE." So, essentially, the end date quite firm (1600), but the
      start date isn't defined. The start date isn't defined by the the SCA
      Inc., but various dates have been proposed as being a reasonable start
      date for the Medieval period; in the SCA context, the most popular start
      dates proposed are probably The Fall of Rome (5th century), 600AD (for a
      nice round number), and the accession of Charlemagne in 768AD (my
      personal preference), but none of those is endorsed by the SCA as such.

      So, as for the Romans and the Cavaliers. Late Empire Romans could
      possibly fit within a *very* liberal definition of Medieval, and aren't
      prohibited by a start date as such. Cavaliers, on the other hand, are
      out of scope.

      --
      Antonia di Benedetto Calvo

      -----------------------------
      Habeo metrum - musicamque,
      hominem meam. Expectat alium quid?
      -Georgeus Gershwinus
      -----------------------------
    • Katherine Throckmorton
      I ve been thinking for awhile about why I object to New World foods at feasts. It isn t the fact that they aren t period. Its more the fact that it seems
      Message 80 of 80 , Jan 5, 2009
        I've been thinking for awhile about why I object to New World foods at
        feasts. It isn't the fact that they aren't period. Its more the fact that
        it seems that when things like potatoes, tomatoes, chocolate and turkey were
        served, they would have been a novelty. These foods would have been new and
        exotic and serving them at a feast would have made a statement. Serving
        them as a ordinary part of a feast, with no effort to get people to think
        about how 16th century people would have seen these foods has the effect of
        pulling us into the modern world, where a dish of mashed potatoes is
        commonplace.

        -Katherine


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.