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

Re: [albanach] My Dilemma

Expand Messages
  • Ed McGrath
    Dressing lowlander. The side ring knife was very common amounts the lowlanders. That might be a good alliterative. Remember, common Scots wore the lowland
    Message 1 of 40 , May 17 2:13 PM
      Dressing lowlander.

      The side ring knife was very common amounts the lowlanders. That might be a
      good alliterative. Remember, common Scots wore the lowland plaid. Get three
      yards of 60" tartan of a dull color. Don't forget your bonnet. Even James
      the V wore one

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: James Pratt <cathal@...>
      To: <albanach@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 2:24 PM
      Subject: Re: [albanach] My Dilemma

      > >
      > > It had to evolve at _some_ point, didn't it? <G> The arguement that I
      > > often hear is that because Item X didn't get noted until year 1XXX and
      > > thus it is the earliest it exsisted. A facile arguement at best.
      > > Things don't just magically appear on the scene (ok, some do - but it's
      > > extremely rare) complete and whole. Instead they ususally evolve from
      > > one point to another over time. It is possible that in the mid 1500's
      > > the dirk resembled the modern more than the ballock. I have yet to see
      > > any evidence one way or another on many such issues.
      > Then may I suggest John Wallace's _Scottish Swords and
      > Dirks: An Illustrated Reference Guide to Scottish Edged Weapons_
      > (Harrisburg, Stackpole Books, 1970 ISBN: 8117-1509-4. The
      > section on dirks gives a good evolution of the style with the proto-dirk
      > (ancestor to what we call a piper's) not being in portrait evidence until
      > c.1670. The earliest mention, see John telfer Dunbar's work <1> on
      > Scottish Highland Dress, of the designation "dirk" comes from the
      > Aberdeen Sheriff Court Records (I.390); "Man McGillmichell is jugit
      > in amerciament for the wranguse drawin of ane dowrk to Andro
      > Dempster, and briking of the dowrk at the said Androis head".
      > <1> _History of Highland Dress_ (Edinburgh, 1962, p.202)
      > (snip)
      > >
      > > Ok... I'll bite: What's a Botique Brownshirt? I'd laugh but I don't
      > > get the reference...
      > The early members of the NSDAP (Nazis) were recognized by their
      > brownshirts; as the Party became more socially acceptable, the later
      > members who were much less hardline than the Alte Kampfer also
      > affected the mode as an entry to social contacts. A "botique
      > brownshirt" has some of the nits of the Authenticity Nazi but is not
      > quite as picky...
      > Cathal.
      > "Laws are sand, customs are rock. Laws can be evaded and punishment
      > but an openly transgressed custom brings sure punishment."
      > Mark Twain
      > This is Albanach, a group devoted to the study and re-enactment of
      > Scotland c. 503-1603 AD. Post messages to albanach@egroups.com. Alter
      > your account or view the archives at www.egroups.com/list/albanach
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    • Jason Gasper
      ... My sources are less than a dozen in volume. If you have not seen such indications on a topic then the odds are that the sources I have are in error. The
      Message 40 of 40 , May 20 5:54 PM
        --- "Sharon L. Krossa" <krossa@...> wrote:
        > Am I supposed to shut up and hang my head in shame now, for having
        > talked at length on a Scottish history mailing list about various
        > aspects of Scottish history? I'm not sure why you think I am trying
        > to "drown you out" when all my intention was is to share some
        > information and engage in discussion.

        My sources are less than a dozen in volume. If you have not seen such
        indications on a topic then the odds are that the sources I have are in
        error. The best of my sources is 'Periods in Highland History' by I.F.
        Grant & Hugh Cheape. The book is a compilation of their research and
        cites many first source documents. Many of my other sources are of
        dubious value, such as a trio of Osprey book ('The Border Reivers',
        'The Jacobite Rebellions', and 'The Scottish and Welsh Wars'). I make
        no pretense of being anything but a dabbler with asperations toward
        learning more.

        Nor are you are not suppose to hang your head in shame, altho you might
        consider being a little gentler with those new or not as learned as
        yourself. A simple point of "this is where you are wrong and here is a
        book/website/reference to find more" would be more condusive for
        increasing my knowledge than several pages of monologue. Unintentional
        it might be but it is a rather intimidating technique to use such
        lengthy replies.

        > For example, please note that below where I ask you a question, about
        > the repression and destruction of records in the 18th century, this
        > is an honest question. Can you site any details? I've not heard of
        > this, but the 18th century isn't my speciality, so I'd like to know
        > more. If you don't know the details, you could just indicate where
        > you found the general assertion. It may be that you are right about
        > this, but then again, it may be you read about it in an unreliable
        > source -- by asking for details, I'm seeking more information, to
        > either learn something new or else determine if it is yet another
        > myth. I'd still like to know about this.

        My sources seemed to have some consensus as to missing or lost records
        due to English repression after the Jacobite Rebellions. In particular
        Iain Zaczek's 'Clans and Tartans of Scotland' speaks to this as being a
        prevalent problem in his research.

        > Similarly, when I indicate I'm not sure what you are getting at with
        > regard to your comment about Campbells and Argylls, I'm opening the
        > door for you to explain what you had in mind. Maybe there is
        > something I have missed or overlooked, maybe you were addressing
        > something other than what I (mistakenly) assumed you were addressing.
        > I don't know.

        My research, particularly 'Tales and Traditions of Scottish Castles' by
        Nigel Tranter, seems to indicate that throughout the 1500-1600 the
        Argylls and Campbells sought to weaken the rulership of the Isles and
        reinforce the crown, only to turn against the Crown during the Jacobite
        Rebellions. Overall the history of the two, linked as it is, seems to
        be one of bloody self interest. Not that they are the only clan to do
        such, its just that they seem the most adept at switching to whatever
        side best suits their needs at the time. The legend of the House of
        Airlie is a good example of this.

        > Also, perhaps you can suggest what I should do when someone posts
        > information that I believe to be mistaken, misleading, and/or unclear
        > and so I would like clarification/further explanation of. Should I
        > keep quiet? Should I post what I believe to be more accurate, even if
        > it takes a few screens? Scottish history is particularly "blessed"
        > with more than its fair share of misconceptions and misleading
        > notions -- I don't think you're suggesting I should let them pass
        > without comment?

        I adress this above, but that's just my opinion. A simple question as
        to the origin of one's information wouldn't be any harder. E.g: "My
        research doesn't seem to agree/seems to indicate x instead. Here's
        where I got mine, could you please tell me where you got yours?" or
        maybe "the short version is bla-couple-bla-sentences-blah and if you
        want more then let me know." would also work.

        Your monologues undeniably provide massive ammounts of information.
        Although one might argue that they would be easier to digest in smaller
        chunks. Any of the solutions I have outlined would allow you to clarify
        or correct or request without making the person you are replying to
        feel like an blithering idiot.

        > You say you think I should point out specifics and give some places
        > to start your research -- that is, in fact, what I did. For the
        > specifics, see my post. For where to start your research, see the
        > bibliography on my web site -- at the very least the bibliographies
        > of the books listed there can be used as a start to further research.

        Your bibliography is extensive and does not indicate where would be a
        place to begin on any one particular topic. I do not believe it would
        be dificult to include a spesific volume that applies to the error you
        are correcting. I included the cite of J.N.R. MacPhail's 'Highland
        Papers' v.3 spesifically so one could conceivably trace the record and
        verify if I was reading the passage correctly.

        > (If you'd like more references specific to towns and trading, just
        > ask -- I'll try to add them. I also particularly recommend the Atlas
        > of Scottish History to 1707 listed in the bibliography for
        > conveniently gathered specific data and discussion regarding trade.)

        See? How hard was that?

        > Also, if you'd like more specific information (or specific cites) for
        > anything I post, just ask. I'll do my best to answer.
        > And, of course, sometimes I'm wrong, just like anybody else. I
        > welcome corrections. I welcome challenges to my interpretations. I
        > welcome people saying "prove it" for some assertion they don't find
        > convincing. If I'm wrong or missing something, I want to know about
        > it. And certainly people shouldn't just accept what I write just
        > because I wrote it -- if I'm not providing enough to be convincing, I
        > should be pushed to backup what I claim, just like anyone else.

        Its not about "providing enough", in fact that is part of the problem.
        The sheer volume that you provide makes challenging you dificult. One
        feel the need to justify the challenge itself, thus limiting those whom
        feel that they _can_ challenge you even if they think they are right.
        As I said, I have no intention of trying to out-reference someone who
        takes such a scathing tone and throws out references in the thousands
        in their first reply . It would be pointless to compare my small
        collection to the volumes of sources listed on your webpage.

        > You know, there are various erroneous ideas about Scottish historical
        > recreation out there (especially at Ren. Fairs) that I can trace
        > directly back to myself and some gem of wisdom I shared and
        > publicized in the past that turned out to be wrong. There is no shame
        > in not knowing everything -- none of us, after all, do -- nor even in
        > sharing what we think we know, even if it turns out to be wrong -- we
        > all do this, too.

        This is reassuring to know. There are none so wise that they cannot
        error. Ignorance is always preferred over stupidity. I should know -
        Ive been both at one point or another.

        Robert McKinnin

        "I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." - Douglas Adams

        Do You Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.