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

Re: [Authentic_SCA] Re: Years covered by SCA

Expand Messages
  • Jibra'il `Attar
    ... I actually keep moving my persona further and further closer to the 1600 mark. I started off as a 1450-ish Florentine; I m currently playing a 1530-ish
    Message 1 of 80 , Dec 27, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Fionnuala:
      > You know, I've done Elizabethan circa 1570's for a long time now (over a decade) and sometimes I still get
      > the whole "Why would you want to do something SOOOOO Late Period?" thing. Or: "That's SOOOOO Late
      > Period!". And it's not always meant kindly, either.


      I actually keep moving my persona further and further closer to the
      1600 mark. I started off as a 1450-ish Florentine; I'm currently
      playing a 1530-ish Safavid Persian. Though the difficulty for me is
      that all of the documentable (ie: traveler's journals, extant
      garments) information I have on Persian garb dates to 1670 or later!
      The only thing I have from within period to work with are miniature
      paintings...which have to be taken with a grain of salt because we
      don't exactly know how much liberty the artists took with what they
      painted, especially since Persian painting tried to represent 3D in
      2D.

      But as for the "late period" debate...coming from a Kingdom that has a
      reputation of being early period*, I don't get much flack at all. Most
      are actually quite curious about my latest findings. Not that they
      would wear any of it...but they sure are an inquisitive lot.

      Jibra'il

      * It should be noted that my Kingdom has actually been accused of
      being were-fops at War. During the day, everyone is in their T-tunics
      and trousers...at night, we're all in our finest garb. Personally, I
      like the idea of a Kingdom of were-fops. There's gotta be a story in
      there somewhere....
    • 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
      • 0 Attachment
        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.