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

Re: [Authentic_SCA] wriggle room

Expand Messages
  • Cynthia J Ley
    On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 17:03:35 -0700 Janis James ... Hi all. Sorry about the earlier top post--one of my e-mail servers seems to have more
    Message 1 of 19 , Jul 7 7:54 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 17:03:35 -0700 Janis James <seja02@...>
      writes:
      >
      >
      > Researching time for items has always been interesting but often
      > not conclusive. For example: needlework, if we know a particular
      > type was done in (x) century, we should also know that it likely
      > didn't spring into use instantly, but was used and developed over
      > time and place. We don't have the extant examples to show this
      > so we can only surmise and use conjecture as to when it started.

      Hi all. Sorry about the earlier top post--one of my e-mail servers seems
      to have more problems with interjecture then the other.

      > Of course we do have a few examples - like when blackwork was
      > brought to England from Spain. However, we can't be absolutely
      > certain how and when it actually started in Spain. We just know
      > when it flourished in Spain.

      And even the first statement is not entirely correct. It's reasonably
      fair to say that someone famous made it popular (Catharine of Aragon),
      but we don't really know how far back its roots go, and it seems to have
      at least some foundation in the non-representational arts of the Moors.
      All this by way of emphasizing what Sine said. :-) A lot of times all we
      have are pieces of the puzzle, and a lot of times pieces are missing.
      Enter Ye Educated Guess.


      > In all the research I've worked on over the years I have forced
      > myself to allow a little given time at either end of the generally
      > accepted time-frame to allow for this. I suspect this is true of
      > many things through time other than just needlework. It would
      > be nice of course if we could be absolutely certain such as with
      > actual dated inventions, so I generally accept "wriggle room" unless
      > it can be proven to a set date.

      And even then, there are usually antecedents in one form or another.

      Arlys


      > Cheers, Sine
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > _________________________________________________________________
      > Internet explorer 8 lets you browse the web faster.
      > http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9655582
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >

      ____________________________________________________________
      You're never too old to date. Senior Dating. Click Here.
      http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTQbQWKw2XfL3YDIqUaNc6a8msZ4R5inJXCRhxe8ZuP8k232gYrOjm/
    • Jeff gedney
      Well, the thing is, If you can legitimately show that it is likely that a item from out of period is logically consistent with being in period, then you can
      Message 2 of 19 , Jul 7 9:11 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Well, the thing is, If you can legitimately show that it is likely that a
        item from out of period is logically consistent with being in period, then
        you can "work the fuzzy"...
        For example if you have name reference that is a church record of a burial
        of a 44 year old in 1625, then it is logical to assume that the name was
        given in period...
        (but this is not reliable, names elide and change their usage, a name given
        at birth may change to a more modern form just by vernacular usage and the
        spelling standardization that widely took place in early modern England in
        late 16th- early 17th century.

        For my money,
        if you are making the claim that a characteristically 17th century clothing
        (like a buffecoat) is "an attempt" at PRE-seventeenth century, and
        you can't document that it is preseventeenth, you fail that standard.
        I don't care how cool you think you look in it.

        > We can know by historical records and archeological finds what did
        > exist but we can we be absolutely certain about what movers and shakers
        > did NOT experiment with (including failures) given the general
        > technologies and materials available to them at the time?

        Its functionally impossible to prove that they did NOT experiment with
        clothes and such....
        For that matter it is also impossible to prove that some genius was not
        experimenting with nuclear fission, or automotive vehicles, or antigravity.

        So as far as I am able to judge, the line has to be what we can prove that
        they DID do, not what they Might have done.

        > So, good Gentles, what say you? How do each of you go about
        > determining the document-ablity of your own persona, garb, artifacts
        > and all?

        I research, use good sources, juried, where possible, with clear
        documentation that I can trace back to originals.
        I take period iconography with a grain of salt, and prefer to have that
        backed up with textual or better yet artefactual survivals...

        THEN I decide what I am going to make.
        I don't decide what I want and then try to "justify" it to period.
        That way leads to bad scholarship.

        Capt Elias
      • bronwynmgn@aol.com
        In a message dated 7/7/2009 5:51:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, marianne@historiaviva.org writes:
        Message 3 of 19 , Jul 8 3:53 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 7/7/2009 5:51:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
          marianne@... writes:

          <<Am I the only one who didn't think of the SCA cut-off date on reading
          this?
          >>

          I didn't in relation to myself, because my persona is firmly based in the
          12th century and the cut-off date is over 400 years in the future for me :-)
          I did think of the cut-off date on reading the inital post.

          <<I have certainly had this problem... I do many things just because I like
          them but I try to place most of my efforts on being Spanish from the 1470s,
          as a kind of personal challenge. Yet for many things I can't get info
          between say, 1450s and 1490s. >>

          There's not a lot of 12th century information, either. For clothing, we
          have a lot of statues and some illuminations that are more or less stylized,
          and a very few extant pieces such as coronation robes or ecclesiatical
          clothing.
          For cooking, there is one Anglo-Norman cookery collection that is close in
          time, but I'm not sure it's been published in it's entirety yet - I do have
          a photocopy of some of the recipes. Otherwise I'm limited to mostly 14th
          and 15th century sources, but I won't go further than that. I also tend to
          limit myself to Northern European sources. There's the Harpestrang cookery
          manuscript which is also 13th century, I think, and exists in several northern
          European versions (German, Norwegian I think, etc) but which is probably a
          copy of a more southerly-based text based on the ingredients used.


          Brangwayna Morgan
          Shire of Silver Rylle, East Kingdom
          Lancaster, PA
          **************Popular laptop deals plus free shipping!
          (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221917659x1201411421/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Faltfarm.media
          plex.com%2Fad%2Fck%2F12309%2D81939%2D1629%2D2)


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • bronwynmgn@aol.com
          In a message dated 7/7/2009 10:28:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, neeveofredriver@yahoo.com writes:
          Message 4 of 19 , Jul 8 4:01 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 7/7/2009 10:28:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
            neeveofredriver@... writes:

            <<So, good Gentles, what say you? How do each of you go about determining
            the document-ablity of your own persona, garb, artifacts and all? >>

            For me, it's important that it be as close as I can get it to my time
            period and country, and I like to have at least one solid point of data for what
            I'm doing. There aren't really many for cooking, so I have to go further
            afield for solid data points. For clothing, I have lots of data points, but
            not many that give me a lot of detail on construction, so I need to work with
            interpretations on those, and decide which interpretations I think are
            accurate.


            Brangwayna Morgan
            Shire of Silver Rylle, East Kingdom
            Lancaster, PA
            **************Popular laptop deals plus free shipping!
            (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221917659x1201411421/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Faltfarm.media
            plex.com%2Fad%2Fck%2F12309%2D81939%2D1629%2D2)


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • bronwynmgn@aol.com
            In a message dated 7/7/2009 10:51:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, tatsushu@gmail.com writes:
            Message 5 of 19 , Jul 8 4:11 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 7/7/2009 10:51:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
              tatsushu@... writes:

              <<For food I often look at post-cutoff sources, but I analyze them
              critically based on earlier evidence. If you find a 1640 recipe for a
              food that is mentioned (but not otherwise described) in 1590, then
              would it not be reasonable to assume that they are the same, barring
              contrary evidence?>>

              Similar yes, but quite possibly not the same. After all, we have lots of
              contemporary manuscripts which list a recipe of the same name in each, but
              the recipes themselves can be anything from slight variations of each other to
              completely different. We also have evidence that a dish can be listed by
              the same name in an earlier and a later source and have evolved significantly
              in between. So assuming that a dish named Bukenade in one source and a
              dish named Bukenade in another source are the same dish is a faulty premise.
              It may be the closest you can get, but you shouldn't fool yourself that the
              person who referred to it 50 years earlier means exactly what the person who
              wrote it down did.

              Not to mention the fact that some period recipes are so vague that it's
              very possible to make entirely different dishes from the same recipe in the
              same source. Bukenade's a good example; one recipe I have for it basically
              says to take good meat, whatever you have, boil it with beef, and add onions
              and spices. I've done chicken and beef, lamb and beef, and pork and beef, and
              a variety of different spice comibinations depending on what is usually
              used with the "other" meat I've chosen, so each result has been quite different
              from the others.


              Brangwayna Morgan
              Shire of Silver Rylle, East Kingdom
              Lancaster, PA
              **************Popular laptop deals plus free shipping!
              (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221917659x1201411421/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Faltfarm.media
              plex.com%2Fad%2Fck%2F12309%2D81939%2D1629%2D2)


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Heather Rose Jones
              ... My favorite example of this problem is how to interpret the Welsh clothing term pais . The word shows up as a description of a specific garment
              Message 6 of 19 , Jul 8 6:45 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                On Jul 8, 2009, at 4:11 AM, bronwynmgn@... wrote:

                > In a message dated 7/7/2009 10:51:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                > tatsushu@... writes:
                >
                > <<For food I often look at post-cutoff sources, but I analyze them
                > critically based on earlier evidence. If you find a 1640 recipe for a
                > food that is mentioned (but not otherwise described) in 1590, then
                > would it not be reasonable to assume that they are the same, barring
                > contrary evidence?>>
                >
                > Similar yes, but quite possibly not the same. After all, we have
                > lots of
                > contemporary manuscripts which list a recipe of the same name in
                > each, but
                > the recipes themselves can be anything from slight variations of
                > each other to
                > completely different. We also have evidence that a dish can be
                > listed by
                > the same name in an earlier and a later source and have evolved
                > significantly
                > in between. So assuming that a dish named Bukenade in one source
                > and a
                > dish named Bukenade in another source are the same dish is a faulty
                > premise.
                >

                My favorite example of this problem is how to interpret the Welsh
                clothing term "pais". The word shows up as a description of a specific
                garment continuously from the earliest written sources (the Book of
                Aneurin) to the present day. But the specific nature of the garment
                being referred to changes enormously over that time. Even if you had a
                picture of a garment in century X with an arrow pointing to it saying
                "this is a 'pais'", that wouldn't tell you what the word referred to
                in century X-1 or X+1.

                Tangwystyl
              • JL Badgley
                On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Heather Rose ... All true, but then again, this is where we get into the reasonable attempt --we get as close as we can
                Message 7 of 19 , Jul 8 7:24 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Heather Rose
                  Jones<heather.jones@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > On Jul 8, 2009, at 4:11 AM, bronwynmgn@... wrote:
                  >
                  >> In a message dated 7/7/2009 10:51:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                  >> tatsushu@... writes:
                  >>
                  >> <<For food I often look at post-cutoff sources, but I analyze them
                  >> critically based on earlier evidence. If you find a 1640 recipe for a
                  >> food that is mentioned (but not otherwise described) in 1590, then
                  >> would it not be reasonable to assume that they are the same, barring
                  >> contrary evidence?>>
                  >>
                  >> Similar yes, but quite possibly not the same. After all, we have
                  >> lots of
                  >> contemporary manuscripts which list a recipe of the same name in
                  >> each, but
                  >> the recipes themselves can be anything from slight variations of
                  >> each other to
                  >> completely different. We also have evidence that a dish can be
                  >> listed by
                  >> the same name in an earlier and a later source and have evolved
                  >> significantly
                  >> in between. So assuming that a dish named Bukenade in one source
                  >> and a
                  >> dish named Bukenade in another source are the same dish is a faulty
                  >> premise.
                  >>
                  >
                  > My favorite example of this problem is how to interpret the Welsh
                  > clothing term "pais". The word shows up as a description of a specific
                  > garment continuously from the earliest written sources (the Book of
                  > Aneurin) to the present day. But the specific nature of the garment
                  > being referred to changes enormously over that time. Even if you had a
                  > picture of a garment in century X with an arrow pointing to it saying
                  > "this is a 'pais'", that wouldn't tell you what the word referred to
                  > in century X-1 or X+1.

                  All true, but then again, this is where we get into the "reasonable
                  attempt"--we get as close as we can justify to the truth of the
                  matter, and don't ever try to adjudicate things in a vacuum.

                  -E. G. Logan
                • Chris Laning
                  ... I think you have a good point here. You mention that clothing in a certain time period seems to change by decade. You know this *because* you have
                  Message 8 of 19 , Jul 8 4:40 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Jul 7, 2009, at 2:50 PM, Marianne Perdomo wrote:

                    > I have certainly had this problem... I do many things just because
                    > I like
                    > them but I try to place most of my efforts on being Spanish from
                    > the 1470s,
                    > as a kind of personal challenge. Yet for many things I can't get info
                    > between say, 1450s and 1490s. Certainly there seems to be less useful
                    > paintings available from the 1470s. So I often try to at least
                    > determine if
                    > something was done before and after - in that case I'm quite happy
                    > to assume
                    > it didn't cease to be done in between. That's mostly for clothing
                    > which
                    > changes by decade, it seems, at least in details like sleeves,
                    > necklines,
                    > that sort of thing.


                    I think you have a good point here. You mention that clothing in a
                    certain time period seems to change "by decade." You know this
                    *because* you have studied the period, the clothing, the times before
                    and after, etc. in detail, and you have deduced that in *this*
                    particular case, *this* category of things (necklines, sleeves, etc.)
                    doesn't change that fast.

                    The more you know, the more plausible your educated guesses are going
                    to be.

                    Of course, ultimately how far you decide you want to stretch your
                    educated guesses is always going to be up to you. What I think is
                    important is that you *know* when you are extrapolating on the basis
                    of not enough information, and not kid yourself that your guesses are
                    on solid ground when they aren't.

                    I tend to agree with Capt. Elias -- I try to first study the
                    information to find out what people actually DID do, and then decide
                    what I want to do based on that. So far, that's always given me
                    plenty of ideas for projects I think are really cool.
                    ____________________________________________________________

                    O (Dame) Christian de Holacombe, OL - Shire of Windy Meads
                    + Kingdom of the West - Chris Laning <claning@...>
                    http://paternoster-row.org - http://paternosters.blogspot.com
                    ____________________________________________________________
                  • Marianne Perdomo
                    ... Actually, they do. It s very annoying! That s for 15th c. but I think it s pretty similar for 14th... Before then it s probably manageable. My impression
                    Message 9 of 19 , Jul 9 1:27 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      2009/7/9 Chris Laning wrote:

                      >
                      > I think you have a good point here. You mention that clothing in a
                      > certain time period seems to change "by decade."


                      Actually, they do. It's very annoying! That's for 15th c. but I think it's
                      pretty similar for 14th... Before then it's probably manageable.
                      My impression from my looking around at late 16th and early 17th century
                      clothing is that it does change fairly quickly, too.

                      That said I think I am going to go ahead and make myself a dress from 10-20
                      years back, because I want something from that period. And I figured it
                      could be an old dress of my persona... But when I do wear anything
                      significantly older, or further in the future, I do so knowing that my
                      persona wouldn't have done so. Just like I don't dress like my grandmother
                      (with a retro touch, maybe, but not quite like her). I just either ignore
                      the fact or think I'm just "different" on that day. Again, this is late
                      middle ages... not sure if actually makes a difference before 1250-1300.
                      A piece of jewellery I think would be different, too, but I don't know
                      whether it's because I don't know enough of its evolution, or if it really
                      was more estable, as I suppose (hints from jewelry fans/experts welcome
                      here!).


                      > You know this
                      > *because* you have studied the period, the clothing, the times before
                      > and after, etc. in detail,


                      Exactly. I also find that sometimes you're paying attention to general dress
                      shape but you don't pay so much attention to say... neckline, or sleeve
                      width.
                      I also avoid special one-offs (things which are odd and only appear in one
                      or a very few examples).


                      > The more you know, the more plausible your educated guesses are going
                      > to be.


                      Yes, ultimately, as you say it's a line you have to draw yourself, about how
                      comfortable you are with what you've found out and what you can do. To me
                      it's all about coming closer and closer :) (within economic restraints!)

                      I tend to agree with Capt. Elias -- I try to first study the
                      > information to find out what people actually DID do, and then decide
                      > what I want to do based on that. So far, that's always given me
                      > plenty of ideas for projects I think are really cool.


                      Are you talking of extant examples? I wish I could do that! :)

                      Cheers!


                      Leonor


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