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

Re: [SCA-Archery] Definition of our goals (Was: fiberglass in the period division?)

Expand Messages
  • Bob & Nancy Upson
    ... Correct. The point being that one doesn t have to shoot period equipment to learn about period archery. One only needs to shoot period equipment only if
    Message 1 of 5 , May 2, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      > Personally (and I hope someone else would agree) I feel (IMHO) that
      > standing around the archery lists WHILE being "medieval re-creation"
      > ISN'T re-creating medieval archery. So the other aspects of
      > re-creating medieval archery other then (Kaz's quote) "learning how to
      > shoot period gear in a period manner" would have to be participating
      > in and learning about/researching (I always thought they were one and
      > the same at least) medieval style shoots? (With or without modern
      > gear.) Is this correct, or am I way off base here?

      Correct. The point being that one doesn't have to shoot period
      equipment to learn about period archery. One only needs to shoot
      period equipment only if one wishes to learn about shooting period
      equipment.

      Macsen
    • Chris Nogy
      ... By extension, you don t have to shoot archery at all to learn about period archery. My point is, if we are not making a connection between Arts and
      Message 2 of 5 , May 2, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        On 5/2/00 at 8:19 AM Bob & Nancy Upson wrote:
        >Correct. The point being that one doesn't have to shoot period
        >equipment to learn about period archery. One only needs to shoot
        >period equipment only if one wishes to learn about shooting period
        >equipment.
        >
        >Macsen
        >

        By extension, you don't have to shoot archery at all to learn about period archery.

        My point is, if we are not making a connection between Arts and Sciences of archery and actual performance of archery, then we don't have to know how to build bows, to make gear at all.

        If our activity within a defined medieval recreation group is the shooting of archery, by limit of the definition of the parent group, archery should fall within period practices.

        When we move into the A&S end, then we are constrained by definition to research period stuff. After all, wouldn't it be ludicrous to expect that the study of modern gear (lets even go as far as compounds) should have an official place within the A&S of the Society? Sure, if can help an individual gain knowlege, but it is not inherantly part of the Soceity view and thus remains as an individual effort. You will not be recognized as a Laurel for your research into modern bows. That is because there is no category within the SCA as it is defined to deal with the modern study of modern things.

        Why then is it any sillier to expect that in shooting, we should expect the same basic approach?

        It is a stretch to say that shooting at a hanging dead animal (a common diversion shoot in period after a day of hunting) with modern gear qualifies as medieval archery.

        Far less of a stretch to say that shooting period gear at modern targets is medieval - period archers didn't have to care what their targets were, they were just challenges to 'hit that (fill in the blank) over there.'

        Now scoring targets is a different thing entirely - has very little to do with the actual shooting.

        If we are talking about shooting archery within the SCA, and the SCA is defined as a medieval promotion and re-creation group, then our shooting should be medieval. And shooting modern style gear isn't, with the exception that it does allow us to send an arrow downrange.


        Kaz
      • Bob & Nancy Upson
        ... Quite true. ... Correct. It s not necessary to be a bowyer to be an archer any more than it s necessary to be an armorer to be a knight or to be a
        Message 3 of 5 , May 2, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          > By extension, you don't have to shoot archery at all to learn about
          > period archery.

          Quite true.

          > My point is, if we are not making a connection between Arts and
          > Sciences of archery and actual performance of archery, then we don't
          > have to know how to build bows, to make gear at all.

          Correct. It's not necessary to be a bowyer to be an archer any
          more than it's necessary to be an armorer to be a knight or to be a
          seamstress to be a dancer.

          > If our activity within a defined medieval recreation group is the
          > shooting of archery, by limit of the definition of the parent group,
          > archery should fall within period practices.

          Shooting doesn't define the entire activity but is one aspect of the
          that activity. "Archery" in general encompasses shooting,
          bowyering, fletching, studying the history of archery over time,
          during particular time periods, comparing different archery
          technologies across cultures, etc. Which subset(s) of that general
          area one chooses to actively study and practice is up to the
          individual.

          > When we move into the A&S end, then we are constrained by definition
          > to research period stuff. After all, wouldn't it be ludicrous to
          > expect that the study of modern gear (lets even go as far as

          I wouldn't expect anyone to study modern gear in the SCA except
          as it compares with its medieval antecedents.

          > Why then is it any sillier to expect that in shooting, we should
          > expect the same basic approach?

          What's silly is expecting shooting to necessarily follow that
          particular A&S paradigm. Consider alternatively an A&S
          performance paradigm -- archery is a performance sport as much
          as bowyering is a craftsman's art. The two are related but seperate
          sides of the same coin.

          > It is a stretch to say that shooting at a hanging dead animal (a
          > common diversion shoot in period after a day of hunting) with modern
          > gear qualifies as medieval archery.

          As long as the "modern" equipment is comparable in design and
          function to the period equipment it represents, why not? I can
          think of more challenging and certainly more stimulating period
          shoots but the concept is certainly valid. What paradigm better
          suits our goal of "evoking the atmosphere of pre-17th century
          western culture," shooting a handmade ELB at a mass produced
          mundane FITA target to the call of a tape recorded Marshal-in-a-
          Box or shooting at wands with a simple longbow made with modern
          materials?

          > Far less of a stretch to say that shooting period gear at modern
          > targets is medieval - period archers didn't have to care what their
          > targets were, they were just challenges to 'hit that (fill in the
          > blank) over there.'

          Then why are we (well, not me, actually ;) so obsessed with
          modern shoots in the SCA?

          > Now scoring targets is a different thing entirely - has very little to
          > do with the actual shooting.

          Doesn't it? Modern shoots, like the IKAC, are an abysmal re-
          creation of period competitons. How can the equipment be so
          important and the task itself be so unimportant? To me, that's
          simple contradictory.

          > If we are talking about shooting archery within the SCA, and the SCA
          > is defined as a medieval promotion and re-creation group, then our
          > shooting should be medieval. And shooting modern style gear isn't,
          > with the exception that it does allow us to send an arrow downrange.

          Unless it's sufficiently limited to modern gear that reasonably re-
          creates period gear and is shot in a medieval style competition.

          Macsen
        • Chris Nogy
          ... You and I are in complete agreement on this point - have been on the same side of the gate too many times to count. The extension theory works here. We
          Message 4 of 5 , May 2, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            On 5/2/00 at 1:28 PM Bob & Nancy Upson wrote:

            >Then why are we (well, not me, actually ;) so obsessed with
            >modern shoots in the SCA?
            >
            You and I are in complete agreement on this point - have been on the same side of the gate too many times to count.

            The extension theory works here. We are obsessed with modern competitions because they deliver what we have been taught to obsess on. Points for total success, feel-good points for a nice try, competition by the numbers and don't make anyone feel bad because they can't hit the preferred target.

            Most period competitions are not so complex, modern game theory wasn't even invented yet, simple rewards were given for simply completing the task at hand - hitting the target. If you couldn't, you had to feel frustrated on your won and either quit (peer pressure usually kept that from happening) or get better - no more complicated than that. Unfortunately, most of us are more fragile than that. If we cannot achieve success in hittting a target in the first 10 mintues, we walk away from the sport. We are coddled and spoon-fed from introduction with short ranges and huge targets. (I wasn't, my first experience was in a real competition - a 30 yard wand shoot - and I was using borrowed gear. I didn't win - big surprise - but the rush of using a real wood bow stuck with me from that day on.) Then we are rushed into scoring competitions, so it is practically all we know.

            But the rules not only allow that, they inspire it.

            Don't like it, no sirrreee.

            Kaz
            phbbbbttttttt on it all...
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.