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

14257Re: [SCA-Archery] Back quiver VS. Hip quiver- further study

Expand Messages
  • Carolus Eulenhorst
    Jan 29, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      I fully concur that the concept of a back quiver is quite likely and I
      find no problem with it in the game we play. However, in the interest of
      the true study of history, we need to prove via documentary sources the
      existence and use of the back quiver before saying that it is a truly
      "period" and authentic construct. To do otherwise is speculative
      history.

      One of the strengths of our organization is its ability to use
      speculative history in our game. It is also one of its liabilities in
      the academic world. Knowing the difference is important in establishing
      credibility. When we say "they must have had..." because we see the
      required materials and technologies in place but we cannot show the
      documentation we are doing ourselves a disservice. I have had professors
      tell me that they had people speak up in their classes and tell them that
      such and such must have been done because that's the way its done in the
      SCA when the written record clearly shows otherwise. This only hurts our
      standing.

      I say these things not to criticize any here as I know you to be good and
      knowledgeable people but to point out why we need to set a higher
      standard than in the past. A standard I see often used as a mark by
      those researching archery.

      In service to the dream
      Carolus von Eulenhorst
      eulenhorst@...
      Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
      Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com)

      P.S Thanks for the page of illustrations. This fully supports the point
      that the back quiver should be considered valid and suitable for SCA use.
      It does not, however, demonstrate cultural validity and the actual use
      of the back quiver by those we recreate.
      CvE

      On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:43:57 -0000 "Eadric Anstapa"
      <smills@...> writes:
      > Mac Con mac Conaill <mac_con_mac_conaill@...> said:
      >
      > > This is from a friend of mine so I take no credit in finding this
      > but if it is true does it prove back quivers are period?
      > >
      > > A painting of Elizabeth 1 as Diana by Cornelus Vroom(1566-1640).
      > > The painting clear shows a back quiver worn by Elizabeth, this
      > > painting hang in the Hatfeild House. Can be found in "The Grey
      > Goose
      > > Wing" this book can be found at your local library, page 143.
      > > Page 41 of the same book shows a bowmen of Ramesses 3rd with an
      > > elaborately decorated quiver, which is worn on the back. this was
      > > taken from a coloured relief at Medinet Habu, xxth dynasty(1192-
      > > 1160b.c.). and there are others I would just have to find them.
      > >
      >
      > I put portrtait of Elzabeth by Vroom and some other pics at
      >
      > http://www.scabrewer.com/quiver/
      >
      > I have some other pictures from books that I need to scan in and
      > add
      > to the page.
      >
      > While I'll agree that shoulder quivers do not seem to have been as
      > widely used as other quivers in most European cultures in period, I
      > think it is clear that those cultures knew about back quivers. I
      > dont think it is unreasonable to assume that some of them would
      > have
      > at least tried back quivers.
      >
      > Regards,
      >
      > --
      > HL Eadric Anstapa
      > Ansteorra
      > eadric@...

      ________________________________________________________________
      The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
      Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
      Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
    • Show all 14 messages in this topic