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

Period Materials.

Expand Messages
  • chris carpenter
    My apologies for posting tangental, I promised myself I wouldn t interject anymore and here I am, presenting my tirade. A pet peeve of mine is the Its Not
    Message 1 of 18 , Feb 5, 2011

      My apologies for posting tangental, I promised myself I wouldn't interject anymore and here I am, presenting my tirade.
       
      A pet peeve of mine is the "Its Not Period" mindset, for its utterly impossible to state something is NOT period, only to positively confirm it IS period.  We can only prove through human documentation of various sorts and often humans themselves destroyed their own documentation.  This creates a very narrow view of what MIGHT PHYSICALLY  have been instead of  what their cultures and societies actually were. 
       
      Isn't that the ultimate goal of "Creative Anachronism"?  To explore what the culteres actually were, not simply prove you are smarter and better researched?
       
      Before I continue on whats been said in this topic, I would like to clarify, my main interests stem from oral tradition.. arts and sciences passed by word of mouth more than written down.  Recipes were 90% taught in the kitchen, one cook to the next.  In Brewing, the only compendium of recipes, "Digby's" was just past (yes, NOT) period, yet vague references to Mead are made even FAR before period.  We can claim mead was period, but we cannot claim a single recipe produced, according to "Documented" history, was period.  was the same..
       
      Do I need to mention that according to DOCUMENTED musical history, Polyphony didn't exist in period at all, but its only because the Catholic Church in a puritanical fit determined anything pleasurable was evil and literally purged all references of  music from the face of the earth.  SCA Music purists, deny polyphonys existance because it can't be proven, yet by definition it goes all the way back to early shaman practices of the cavemen.  This branches into Dance... The earliest DOCUMENTED methods of dance are Elizabethan Country dances... and this is reflected in SCA society, there are no other dances presented but dancing happened in every community no matter what culture or social level.  Ever see a Viking dance around the bardic fire?  Kinda sad, don't you think... you can't tell me they didn't.
       
      Onto this very topic and two contrasting quotes...
       
      If you want to reproduce an item as authentically as possible then 'Old
      World' woods.
      Of course, no one may have thought to check, either! If the grain
      structure and other details in these very close relatives are as similar
      as you say, only a genus-level difference might be spotted, with the
      researcher just assuming that an pine artifact found in Hamburg must be
      made
      of German or Norwegian pine!
       
      BINGO.  Although it wasn't documented, there is probablity and archeological evidence Vikings made it in as far as Minnesota before the 10th century!  To say they didn't bring goods back and use them is specious at best... and to say they didn't carry their raw materials into Europe during the invasions ignores the fact they settled in every community they overtook and changed the culture there with their own. 
       
      If you want to reproduce an item as authentically as possible then 'Old
      World' woods
      .

      If you are trying to reproduce the mindset and approach to woodworking then
      I would think that
      picking the local wood that has the qualities and characteristics that the
      project needs.

       

      This is the clue.  Frankly its now IMPOSSIBLE for you to reproduce ANYTHING to that level of authenticity.  In period, they used primary woods..  grown in stiff competition for sun with tighter grains and greater tensile strength.   In Europe the trees were forested out before 1850.  They forested out all the appropriate woods in America before the 19th century!  To brag its the RIGHT wood is simply wrong. You can't find this anymore; even if you have an indiginous wood, its not period..  not what that woodworker would have used

       
      Instead we must explore the HOW and WHY more than the phantom of literally having  the materials they had. Just because you have the right kind of wood doesn't mean you have any idea at all what that persons life was like, how their community functioned.  Woodworkers produced a product for their community, not just assembled wood.   To really understand what the woodworkers did, you need to explore that, not focus on the kind of wood. Be happy doing what they did, and try to do WHAT they did.  How many of you have actually cut down a tree you have discovered, cut it into boards, refined them to the point of assembly.. and how many just buy a board and claim its period.

       

      Sorry, Everytime I see this "Its Period" type of thread, it bothers me, for its simply going in the wrong direction. I know I am pointing at a sacred cow that will offend many of you, but thats now I feel.

       

      Donat0



       

    • Jeff
      Remember, not everyone here is SCA. And for those who are... Ya know, you re welcome to your position, and to be as creative as you wish, but it s highly
      Message 2 of 18 , Feb 5, 2011
        Remember, not everyone here is SCA.

        And for those who are... Ya know, you're welcome to your position, and to be as "creative" as you wish, but it's highly presumptuous to bust on people who are trying to take it far as they possibly can. Will it ever be perfect? Maybe not, but some are dedicated to trying, and some coming into the hobby with a desire to achieve, and they deserve encouragement and assistance.

        Jeff Johnson/Geoffrey Bourre'OL

        --- In medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com, chris carpenter <donat0@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > My apologies for posting tangental, I promised myself I wouldn't interject
        > anymore and here I am, presenting my tirade.
        >
        >
        > A pet peeve of mine is the "Its Not Period" mindset, for its utterly impossible
        > to state something is NOT period, only to positively confirm it IS period.  We
        > can only prove through human documentation of various sorts and often humans
        > themselves destroyed their own documentation.  This creates a very narrow view
        > of what MIGHT PHYSICALLY  have been instead of  what their cultures and
        > societies actually were. 
        >
        >
        > Isn't that the ultimate goal of "Creative Anachronism"?  To explore what the
        > culteres actually were, not simply prove you are smarter and better researched?
        >
        >
        > Before I continue on whats been said in this topic, I would like to clarify, my
        > main interests stem from oral tradition.. arts and sciences passed by word of
        > mouth more than written down.  Recipes were 90% taught in the kitchen, one cook
        > to the next.  In Brewing, the only compendium of recipes, "Digby's" was just
        > past (yes, NOT) period, yet vague references to Mead are made even FAR before
        > period.  We can claim mead was period, but we cannot claim a single recipe
        > produced, according to "Documented" history, was period.  was the same..
        >
        >
        > Do I need to mention that according to DOCUMENTED musical history, Polyphony
        > didn't exist in period at all, but its only because the Catholic Church in a
        > puritanical fit determined anything pleasurable was evil and literally purged
        > all references of  music from the face of the earth.  SCA Music purists,
        > deny polyphonys existance because it can't be proven, yet by definition it goes
        > all the way back to early shaman practices of the cavemen.  This branches into
        > Dance... The earliest DOCUMENTED methods of dance are Elizabethan Country
        > dances... and this is reflected in SCA society, there are no other dances
        > presented but dancing happened in every community no matter what culture or
        > social level.  Ever see a Viking dance around the bardic fire?  Kinda sad, don't
        > you think... you can't tell me they didn't.
        >
        >
        > Onto this very topic and two contrasting quotes...
        >
        > If you want to reproduce an item as authentically as possible then 'Old
        > World' woods.
        >
        > Of course, no one may have thought to check, either! If the grain
        > structure and other details in these very close relatives are as similar
        > as you say, only a genus-level difference might be spotted, with the
        > researcher just assuming that an pine artifact found in Hamburg must be
        > made
        > of German or Norwegian pine!
        >  
        > BINGO.  Although it wasn't documented, there is probablity and archeological
        > evidence Vikings made it in as far as Minnesota before the 10th century!  To say
        > they didn't bring goods back and use them is specious at best... and to say they
        > didn't carry their raw materials into Europe during the invasions ignores the
        > fact they settled in every community they overtook and changed the culture there
        > with their own. 
        >  
        > If you want to reproduce an item as authentically as possible then 'Old
        > World' woods.
        >
        > If you are trying to reproduce the mindset and approach to woodworking then
        > I would think that
        > picking the local wood that has the qualities and characteristics that the
        > project needs.
        >  
        > This is the clue.  Frankly its now IMPOSSIBLE for you to reproduce ANYTHING to
        > that level of authenticity.  In period, they used primary woods..  grown in
        > stiff competition for sun with tighter grains and greater tensile strength.   In
        > Europe the trees were forested out before 1850.  They forested out all the
        > appropriate woods in America before the 19th century!  To brag its the RIGHT
        > wood is simply wrong. You can't find this anymore; even if you have an
        > indiginous wood, its not period..  not what that woodworker would have used 
        >
        > Insteadwe must explore the HOW and WHY more than the phantom of literally
        > having  the materials they had. Just because you have the right kind of wood
        > doesn't mean you have any idea at all what that persons life was like, how their
        > community functioned.  Woodworkers produced a product for their community, not
        > just assembled wood.   To really understand what the woodworkers did, you need
        > to explore that, not focus on the kind of wood. Be happy doing what they did,
        > and try to do WHAT they did.  How many of you have actually cut down a tree you
        > have discovered, cut it into boards, refined them to the point of assembly.. and
        > how many just buy a board and claim its period.
        >
        >  
        > Sorry, Everytime I see this "Its Period" type of thread, it bothers me, for its
        > simply going in the wrong direction. I know I am pointing at a sacred cow that
        > will offend many of you, but thats now I feel.
        >
        >  
        > Donat0
        >
      • Alaxandr MacLochloinn
        To add to the other comment, I enjoy the efforts of folks who talk things to an extreme, not because I want to be harangued by the authenticity police but
        Message 3 of 18 , Feb 5, 2011

          To add to the other comment, I enjoy the efforts of folks who talk things to an extreme, not because I want to be harangued by the authenticity police but because my level of Period is probably 50% as accurate as the ultra-pure. (Totally made up that percentage, but I'm sure you know what I mean!) The better they get, the better I get.

          The more that the history buff digs up and publishes, the less junk I will produce. If I can find only a reference to a six-board chest made from dimension lumber, then mine won't be as good that. If I can see what the best looks like, made from handsawn old-world, virgin timber with period tools, I can make some compromises but still be WAAAY ahead of what I might have done otherwise.

          Have at it, if you want.  I'm following somewhere behind you!

          YIS
          A




          My apologies for posting tangental, I promised myself I wouldn't interject anymore and here I am, presenting my tirade.
           
          A pet peeve of mine is the "Its Not Period" mindset, for its utterly impossible to state something is NOT period, only to positively confirm it IS period.  We can only prove through human documentation of various sorts and often humans themselves destroyed their own documentation.  This creates a very narrow view of what MIGHT PHYSICALLY  have been instead of  what their cultures and societies actually were. 
           
          Isn't that the ultimate goal of "Creative Anachronism"?  To explore what the culteres actually were, not simply prove you are smarter and better researched?
           
          Before I continue on whats been said in this topic, I would like to clarify, my main interests stem from oral tradition.. arts and sciences passed by word of mouth more than written down.  Recipes were 90% taught in the kitchen, one cook to the next.  In Brewing, the only compendium of recipes, "Digby's" was just past (yes, NOT) period, yet vague references to Mead are made even FAR before period.  We can claim mead was period, but we cannot claim a single recipe produced, according to "Documented" history, was period.  was the same..
           
          Do I need to mention that according to DOCUMENTED musical history, Polyphony didn't exist in period at all, but its only because the Catholic Church in a puritanical fit determined anything pleasurable was evil and literally purged all references of  music from the face of the earth.  SCA Music purists, deny polyphonys existance because it can't be proven, yet by definition it goes all the way back to early shaman practices of the cavemen.  This branches into Dance... The earliest DOCUMENTED methods of dance are Elizabethan Country dances... and this is reflected in SCA society, there are no other dances presented but dancing happened in every community no matter what culture or social level.  Ever see a Viking dance around the bardic fire?  Kinda sad, don't you think... you can't tell me they didn't.
           
          Onto this very topic and two contrasting quotes...
           
          If you want to reproduce an item as authentically as possible then 'Old
          World' woods.
          Of course, no one may have thought to check, either! If the grain
          structure and other details in these very close relatives are as similar
          as you say, only a genus-level difference might be spotted, with the
          researcher just assuming that an pine artifact found in Hamburg must be
          made
          of German or Norwegian pine!
           
          BINGO.  Although it wasn't documented, there is probablity and archeological evidence Vikings made it in as far as Minnesota before the 10th century!  To say they didn't bring goods back and use them is specious at best... and to say they didn't carry their raw materials into Europe during the invasions ignores the fact they settled in every community they overtook and changed the culture there with their own. 
           
          If you want to reproduce an item as authentically as possible then 'Old
          World' woods
          .

          If you are trying to reproduce the mindset and approach to woodworking then
          I would think that
          picking the local wood that has the qualities and characteristics that the
          project needs.

           

          This is the clue.  Frankly its now IMPOSSIBLE for you to reproduce ANYTHING to that level of authenticity.  In period, they used primary woods..  grown in stiff competition for sun with tighter grains and greater tensile strength.   In Europe the trees were forested out before 1850.  They forested out all the appropriate woods in America before the 19th century!  To brag its the RIGHT wood is simply wrong. You can't find this anymore; even if you have an indiginous wood, its not period..  not what that woodworker would have used

           
          Instead we must explore the HOW and WHY more than the phantom of literally having  the materials they had. Just because you have the right kind of wood doesn't mean you have any idea at all what that persons life was like, how their community functioned.  Woodworkers produced a product for their community, not just assembled wood.   To really understand what the woodworkers did, you need to explore that, not focus on the kind of wood. Be happy doing what they did, and try to do WHAT they did.  How many of you have actually cut down a tree you have discovered, cut it into boards, refined them to the point of assembly.. and how many just buy a board and claim its period.

           

          Sorry, Everytime I see this "Its Period" type of thread, it bothers me, for its simply going in the wrong direction. I know I am pointing at a sacred cow that will offend many of you, but thats now I feel.

           

          Donat0



           


        • Bobby Bourgoin (Robert du Bourg)
          Here, Here… Bobby _____ From: medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com [mailto:medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Alaxandr MacLochloinn Sent: 5 février
          Message 4 of 18 , Feb 5, 2011

            Here, Here…

             

            Bobby

             


            From: medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com [mailto: medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Alaxandr MacLochloinn
            Sent: 5 février 2011 16:20
            To: medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [MedievalSawdust] Period Materials.

             

             


            To add to the other comment, I enjoy the efforts of folks who talk things to an extreme, not because I want to be harangued by the authenticity police but because my level of Period is probably 50% as accurate as the ultra-pure. (Totally made up that percentage, but I'm sure you know what I mean!) The better they get, the better I get.

            The more that the history buff digs up and publishes, the less junk I will produce. If I can find only a reference to a six-board chest made from dimension lumber, then mine won't be as good that. If I can see what the best looks like, made from handsawn old-world, virgin timber with period tools, I can make some compromises but still be WAAAY ahead of what I might have done otherwise.

            Have at it, if you want.  I'm following somewhere behind you!

            YIS
            A

             


            My apologies for posting tangental, I promised myself I wouldn't interject anymore and here I am, presenting my tirade.

             

            A pet peeve of mine is the "Its Not Period" mindset, for its utterly impossible to state something is NOT period, only to positively confirm it IS period.  We can only prove through human documentation of various sorts and often humans themselves destroyed their own documentation.  This creates a very narrow view of what MIGHT PHYSICALLY  have been instead of  what their cultures and societies actually were. 

             

            Isn't that the ultimate goal of "Creative Anachronism"?  To explore what the culteres actually were, not simply prove you are smarter and better researched?

             

            Before I continue on whats been said in this topic, I would like to clarify, my main interests stem from oral tradition.. arts and sciences passed by word of mouth more than written down.  Recipes were 90% taught in the kitchen, one cook to the next.  In Brewing, the only compendium of recipes, "Digby's" was just past (yes, NOT) period, yet vague references to Mead are made even FAR before period.  We can claim mead was period, but we cannot claim a single recipe produced, according to "Documented" history, was period.  was the same..

             

            Do I need to mention that according to DOCUMENTED musical history, Polyphony didn't exist in period at all, but its only because the Catholic Church in a puritanical fit determined anything pleasurable was evil and literally purged all references of  music from the face of the earth.  SCA Music purists, deny polyphonys existance because it can't be proven, yet by definition it goes all the way back to early shaman practices of the cavemen.  This branches into Dance... The earliest DOCUMENTED methods of dance are Elizabethan Country dances... and this is reflected in SCA society, there are no other dances presented but dancing happened in every community no matter what culture or social level.  Ever see a Viking dance around the bardic fire?  Kinda sad, don't you think... you can't tell me they didn't.

             

            Onto this very topic and two contrasting quotes...

             

            If you want to reproduce an item as authentically as possible then 'Old
            World' woods.

            Of course, no one may have thought to check, either! If the grain
            structure and other details in these very close relatives are as similar
            as you say, only a genus-level difference might be spotted, with the
            researcher just assuming that an pine artifact found in Hamburg must be
            made
            of German or Norwegian pine!

             

            BINGO.  Although it wasn't documented, there is probablity and archeological evidence Vikings made it in as far as Minnesota before the 10th century!  To say they didn't bring goods back and use them is specious at best... and to say they didn't carry their raw materials into Europe during the invasions ignores the fact they settled in every community they overtook and changed the culture there with their own. 

             

            If you want to reproduce an item as authentically as possible then 'Old
            World' woods
            .

            If you are trying to reproduce the mindset and approach to woodworking then
            I would think that
            picking the local wood that has the qualities and characteristics that the
            project needs.

             

            This is the clue.  Frankly its now IMPOSSIBLE for you to reproduce ANYTHING to that level of authenticity.  In period, they used primary woods..  grown in stiff competition for sun with tighter grains and greater tensile strength.   In Europe the trees were forested out before 1850.  They forested out all the appropriate woods in America before the 19th century!  To brag its the RIGHT wood is simply wrong. You can't find this anymore; even if you have an indiginous wood, its not period..  not what that woodworker would have used

             

            Instead we must explore the HOW and WHY more than the phantom of literally having  the materials they had. Just because you have the right kind of wood doesn't mean you have any idea at all what that persons life was like, how their community functioned.  Woodworkers produced a product for their community, not just assembled wood.   To really understand what the woodworkers did, you need to explore that, not focus on the kind of wood. Be happy doing what they did, and try to do WHAT they did.  How many of you have actually cut down a tree you have discovered, cut it into boards, refined them to the point of assembly.. and how many just buy a board and claim its period.

             

            Sorry, Everytime I see this "Its Period" type of thread, it bothers me, for its simply going in the wrong direction. I know I am pointing at a sacred cow that will offend many of you, but thats now I feel.

             

            Donat0

             

             

             

             

          • AqA WyrdWynd
            i agree even i f i aim alot lower on the autheticity bar have at ye with a flock of flaming yodeling hamsters !!! ... From: Jeff Subject:
            Message 5 of 18 , Feb 5, 2011
              i agree even i f i aim alot lower on the autheticity bar

              have at ye with a flock of flaming yodeling hamsters !!!



              --- On Sat, 2/5/11, Jeff <jljonsn@...> wrote:

              From: Jeff <jljonsn@...>
              Subject: [MedievalSawdust] Re: Period Materials.
              To: medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Saturday, February 5, 2011, 12:34 PM

              Remember, not everyone here is SCA.

              And for those who are... Ya know, you're welcome to your position, and to be as "creative" as you wish, but it's highly presumptuous to bust on people who are trying to take it far as they possibly can. Will it ever be perfect? Maybe not, but some are dedicated to trying, and some coming into the hobby with a desire to achieve, and they deserve encouragement and assistance.

              Jeff Johnson/Geoffrey Bourre'OL

              --- In medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com, chris carpenter <donat0@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              >
              > My apologies for posting tangental, I promised myself I wouldn't interject
              > anymore and here I am, presenting my tirade.
              >
              >
              > A pet peeve of mine is the "Its Not Period" mindset, for its utterly impossible
              > to state something is NOT period, only to positively confirm it IS period.  We
              > can only prove through human documentation of various sorts and often humans
              > themselves destroyed their own documentation.  This creates a very narrow view
              > of what MIGHT PHYSICALLY  have been instead of  what their cultures and
              > societies actually were. 
              >
              >
              > Isn't that the ultimate goal of "Creative Anachronism"?  To explore what the
              > culteres actually were, not simply prove you are smarter and better researched?
              >
              >
              > Before I continue on whats been said in this topic, I would like to clarify, my
              > main interests stem from oral tradition.. arts and sciences passed by word of
              > mouth more than written down.  Recipes were 90% taught in the kitchen, one cook
              > to the next.  In Brewing, the only compendium of recipes, "Digby's" was just
              > past (yes, NOT) period, yet vague references to Mead are made even FAR before
              > period.  We can claim mead was period, but we cannot claim a single recipe
              > produced, according to "Documented" history, was period.  was the same..
              >
              >
              > Do I need to mention that according to DOCUMENTED musical history, Polyphony
              > didn't exist in period at all, but its only because the Catholic Church in a
              > puritanical fit determined anything pleasurable was evil and literally purged
              > all references of  music from the face of the earth.  SCA Music purists,
              > deny polyphonys existance because it can't be proven, yet by definition it goes
              > all the way back to early shaman practices of the cavemen.  This branches into
              > Dance... The earliest DOCUMENTED methods of dance are Elizabethan Country
              > dances... and this is reflected in SCA society, there are no other dances
              > presented but dancing happened in every community no matter what culture or
              > social level.  Ever see a Viking dance around the bardic fire?  Kinda sad, don't
              > you think... you can't tell me they didn't.
              >
              >
              > Onto this very topic and two contrasting quotes...
              >
              > If you want to reproduce an item as authentically as possible then 'Old
              > World' woods.
              >
              > Of course, no one may have thought to check, either! If the grain
              > structure and other details in these very close relatives are as similar
              > as you say, only a genus-level difference might be spotted, with the
              > researcher just assuming that an pine artifact found in Hamburg must be
              > made
              > of German or Norwegian pine!
              >  
              > BINGO.  Although it wasn't documented, there is probablity and archeological
              > evidence Vikings made it in as far as Minnesota before the 10th century!  To say
              > they didn't bring goods back and use them is specious at best... and to say they
              > didn't carry their raw materials into Europe during the invasions ignores the
              > fact they settled in every community they overtook and changed the culture there
              > with their own. 
              >  
              > If you want to reproduce an item as authentically as possible then 'Old
              > World' woods.
              >
              > If you are trying to reproduce the mindset and approach to woodworking then
              > I would think that
              > picking the local wood that has the qualities and characteristics that the
              > project needs.
              >  
              > This is the clue.  Frankly its now IMPOSSIBLE for you to reproduce ANYTHING to
              > that level of authenticity.  In period, they used primary woods..  grown in
              > stiff competition for sun with tighter grains and greater tensile strength.   In
              > Europe the trees were forested out before 1850.  They forested out all the
              > appropriate woods in America before the 19th century!  To brag its the RIGHT
              > wood is simply wrong. You can't find this anymore; even if you have an
              > indiginous wood, its not period..  not what that woodworker would have used 
              >
              > Insteadwe must explore the HOW and WHY more than the phantom of literally
              > having  the materials they had. Just because you have the right kind of wood
              > doesn't mean you have any idea at all what that persons life was like, how their
              > community functioned.  Woodworkers produced a product for their community, not
              > just assembled wood.   To really understand what the woodworkers did, you need
              > to explore that, not focus on the kind of wood. Be happy doing what they did,
              > and try to do WHAT they did.  How many of you have actually cut down a tree you
              > have discovered, cut it into boards, refined them to the point of assembly.. and
              > how many just buy a board and claim its period.
              >
              >  
              > Sorry, Everytime I see this "Its Period" type of thread, it bothers me, for its
              > simply going in the wrong direction. I know I am pointing at a sacred cow that
              > will offend many of you, but thats now I feel.
              >
              >  
              > Donat0
              >




              ------------------------------------

              <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/medievalsawdust/Yahoo! Groups Links

              <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/medievalsawdust/

              <*> Your email settings:
                  Individual Email | Traditional

              <*> To change settings online go to:
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/medievalsawdust/join
                  (Yahoo! ID required)

              <*> To change settings via email:
                  medievalsawdust-digest@yahoogroups.com
                  medievalsawdust-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

              <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  medievalsawdust-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

              <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


            • i_odlin@hotmail.com
              ... The SR-71 Blackbird. So much for your thesis. -Iain
              Message 6 of 18 , Feb 6, 2011
                --- In medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com, chris carpenter <donat0@...> wrote:

                > its utterly impossible to state something is NOT period

                The SR-71 Blackbird.

                So much for your thesis.

                -Iain
              • Electric Wolf
                ... Iain, A lot of the concepts used in the Blackbird have been around since before period. :) *ducking and running* -- David Volk abe Mc. Nullum beneficium
                Message 7 of 18 , Feb 6, 2011
                  On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 3:38 AM, <i_odlin@...> wrote:
                  --- In medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com, chris carpenter <donat0@...> wrote:

                  > its utterly impossible to state something is NOT period

                  The SR-71 Blackbird.

                  So much for your thesis.

                  -Iain


                  Iain,
                  A lot of the concepts used in the Blackbird have been around since before period.  :)

                  *ducking and running*

                  --
                  David "Volk'abe" Mc.
                  Nullum beneficium inpune stat.
                • Jim Hart
                  my first two rules about documentation 1 Never say never. 2 Never say always
                  Message 8 of 18 , Feb 6, 2011
                    my first two rules about documentation

                    1 Never say never.

                    2 Never say always




                    On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 4:38 AM, <i_odlin@...> wrote:
                     

                    --- In medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com, chris carpenter <donat0@...> wrote:

                    > its utterly impossible to state something is NOT period

                    The SR-71 Blackbird.

                    So much for your thesis.

                    -Iain


                  • Bobby Bourgoin (Robert du Bourg)
                    You just used the word, three times, you said you wouldn’t use… lol Just kidding… _____ From: medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com
                    Message 9 of 18 , Feb 6, 2011

                      You just used the word, three times, you said you wouldn’t use… lol  Just kidding…

                       

                       


                      From: medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com [mailto: medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Jim Hart
                      Sent: 6 février 2011 06:54
                      To: medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [MedievalSawdust] Re: Period Materials.

                       

                       

                      my first two rules about documentation

                       

                      1 Never say never.

                       

                      2 Never say always

                       

                       

                       

                      On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 4:38 AM, <i_odlin@...> wrote:

                       

                      --- In medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com, chris carpenter <donat0@...> wrote:

                      > its utterly impossible to state something is NOT period

                      The SR-71 Blackbird.

                      So much for your thesis.

                      -Iain

                       

                    • terafan@greydragon.org
                      Greetings to Donat0 from Terafan, Just a quick off sawdust topics clarification. You said ... Actually, we have a fair number of period recipes for mead,
                      Message 10 of 18 , Feb 6, 2011
                        Greetings to Donat0 from Terafan,

                        Just a quick "off sawdust topics" clarification. You said
                        > ... In Brewing, the only compendium of recipes, "Digby's" was just
                        > past (yes, NOT) period, yet vague references to Mead are made even FAR
                        > before
                        > period. We can claim mead was period, but we cannot claim a single recipe
                        > produced, according to "Documented" history, was period. was the same..


                        Actually, we have a fair number of period recipes for mead, although not
                        in a "compendium" or specific collection of brewing recipes. The
                        "Tractatus de magnete et operationibus eius" is a 13th century English
                        manuscript with one of the oldest known surviving English mead recipes.

                        For more detail on this recipe, go to
                        http://www.greydragon.org/library/13thCenturyMead.html

                        This is just one example. There are many more period mead recipes.


                        The challenging part of the statement "it's not period" is how you are
                        hearing that being said. You are right, it is hard to PROVE something
                        isn't period, but unless I find reasonable evidence that it could have
                        existed I would submit that you have a hard time showing me that it IS
                        period. Just because they had beef and they had cheese doesn't mean they
                        ever made a cheeseburger. Just because uranium, steel, and lead existed
                        in the 14th century doesn't mean they were doing nuclear fission or
                        fusion.

                        You might find it easier to accept hearing "it's not period" if you hear
                        it as a challenge of "I haven't seen any evidence that something like this
                        could have existed. Can you show me the things, and explain to me the
                        line of logic, that make you believe this could have existed in period? I
                        would like to learn."

                        That is a great challenge for us as artisans, and one we should gladly be
                        willing to take up.

                        cheers,
                        Terafan

                        Master Rhys Terafan Greydragon, OL, OP terafan@...
                        Brewer, Tent and Furniture maker, and other things I can't remember...
                      • D. Young
                        I just want to say that everyone here is wrong except for me. Never assume I am wrong. Always assume I am right. Fine Armour and Historical Reproductions
                        Message 11 of 18 , Feb 6, 2011

                          I just want to say that everyone here is wrong except for me.

                          Never assume I am wrong.

                          Always assume I am right.






                          Fine Armour and Historical Reproductions

                               Custom Commissions Welcome....!

                          www.partsandtechnical.com
                          (Well Formed Munitions Catalog Coming This Spring)
                           





                          To: medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com
                          From: bobby.bourgoin@...
                          Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2011 16:44:04 -0500
                          Subject: RE: [MedievalSawdust] Period Materials.

                           

                          Here, Here…

                           

                          Bobby

                           


                          From: medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com [mailto:medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Alaxandr MacLochloinn
                          Sent: 5 février 2011 16:20
                          To: medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [MedievalSawdust] Period Materials.

                           

                           


                          To add to the other comment, I enjoy the efforts of folks who talk things to an extreme, not because I want to be harangued by the authenticity police but because my level of Period is probably 50% as accurate as the ultra-pure. (Totally made up that percentage, but I'm sure you know what I mean!) The better they get, the better I get.

                          The more that the history buff digs up and publishes, the less junk I will produce. If I can find only a reference to a six-board chest made from dimension lumber, then mine won't be as good that. If I can see what the best looks like, made from handsawn old-world, virgin timber with period tools, I can make some compromises but still be WAAAY ahead of what I might have done otherwise.

                          Have at it, if you want.  I'm following somewhere behind you!

                          YIS
                          A

                           


                          My apologies for posting tangental, I promised myself I wouldn't interject anymore and here I am, presenting my tirade.

                           

                          A pet peeve of mine is the "Its Not Period" mindset, for its utterly impossible to state something is NOT period, only to positively confirm it IS period.  We can only prove through human documentation of various sorts and often humans themselves destroyed their own documentation.  This creates a very narrow view of what MIGHT PHYSICALLY  have been instead of  what their cultures and societies actually were. 

                           

                          Isn't that the ultimate goal of "Creative Anachronism"?  To explore what the culteres actually were, not simply prove you are smarter and better researched?

                           

                          Before I continue on whats been said in this topic, I would like to clarify, my main interests stem from oral tradition.. arts and sciences passed by word of mouth more than written down.  Recipes were 90% taught in the kitchen, one cook to the next.  In Brewing, the only compendium of recipes, "Digby's" was just past (yes, NOT) period, yet vague references to Mead are made even FAR before period.  We can claim mead was period, but we cannot claim a single recipe produced, according to "Documented" history, was period.  was the same..

                           

                          Do I need to mention that according to DOCUMENTED musical history, Polyphony didn't exist in period at all, but its only because the Catholic Church in a puritanical fit determined anything pleasurable was evil and literally purged all references of  music from the face of the earth.  SCA Music purists, deny polyphonys existance because it can't be proven, yet by definition it goes all the way back to early shaman practices of the cavemen.  This branches into Dance... The earliest DOCUMENTED methods of dance are Elizabethan Country dances... and this is reflected in SCA society, there are no other dances presented but dancing happened in every community no matter what culture or social level.  Ever see a Viking dance around the bardic fire?  Kinda sad, don't you think... you can't tell me they didn't.

                           

                          Onto this very topic and two contrasting quotes...

                           

                          If you want to reproduce an item as authentically as possible then 'Old
                          World' woods.

                          Of course, no one may have thought to check, either! If the grain
                          structure and other details in these very close relatives are as similar
                          as you say, only a genus-level difference might be spotted, with the
                          researcher just assuming that an pine artifact found in Hamburg must be
                          made
                          of German or Norwegian pine!

                           

                          BINGO.  Although it wasn't documented, there is probablity and archeological evidence Vikings made it in as far as Minnesota before the 10th century!  To say they didn't bring goods back and use them is specious at best... and to say they didn't carry their raw materials into Europe during the invasions ignores the fact they settled in every community they overtook and changed the culture there with their own. 

                           

                          If you want to reproduce an item as authentically as possible then 'Old
                          World' woods
                          .

                          If you are trying to reproduce the mindset and approach to woodworking then
                          I would think that
                          picking the local wood that has the qualities and characteristics that the
                          project needs.

                           
                          This is the clue.  Frankly its now IMPOSSIBLE for you to reproduce ANYTHING to that level of authenticity.  In period, they used primary woods..  grown in stiff competition for sun with tighter grains and greater tensile strength.   In Europe the trees were forested out before 1850.  They forested out all the appropriate woods in America before the 19th century!  To brag its the RIGHT wood is simply wrong. You can't find this anymore; even if you have an indiginous wood, its not period..  not what that woodworker would have used

                           

                          Instead we must explore the HOW and WHY more than the phantom of literally having  the materials they had. Just because you have the right kind of wood doesn't mean you have any idea at all what that persons life was like, how their community functioned.  Woodworkers produced a product for their community, not just assembled wood.   To really understand what the woodworkers did, you need to explore that, not focus on the kind of wood. Be happy doing what they did, and try to do WHAT they did.  How many of you have actually cut down a tree you have discovered, cut it into boards, refined them to the point of assembly.. and how many just buy a board and claim its period.

                           
                          Sorry, Everytime I see this "Its Period" type of thread, it bothers me, for its simply going in the wrong direction. I know I am pointing at a sacred cow that will offend many of you, but thats now I feel.
                           
                          Donat0

                           

                           

                           

                           


                        • Jim Hart
                          ... This is the approach I prefer.
                          Message 12 of 18 , Feb 6, 2011

                            You might find it easier to accept hearing "it's not period" if you hear
                            it as a challenge of "I haven't seen any evidence that something like this
                            could have existed. Can you show me the things, and explain to me the
                            line of logic, that make you believe this could have existed in period? I
                            would like to learn."
                            That is a great challenge for us as artisans, and one we should gladly be
                            willing to take up.
                            cheers,
                            Terafan



                            This is the approach I prefer. 



                          • james
                            agreed
                            Message 13 of 18 , Feb 6, 2011
                              agreed

                              --- In medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com, Jim Hart <conalohairt@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > >
                              > > You might find it easier to accept hearing "it's not period" if you hear
                              > > it as a challenge of "I haven't seen any evidence that something like this
                              > > could have existed. Can you show me the things, and explain to me the
                              > > line of logic, that make you believe this could have existed in period? I
                              > > would like to learn."
                              > > That is a great challenge for us as artisans, and one we should gladly be
                              > > willing to take up.
                              > > cheers,
                              > > Terafan
                              > >
                              > >
                              >
                              > This is the approach I prefer.
                              >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              >
                            • geoffert@comcast.net
                              But first you must define period   The SR-71 Blackbird is not medievally period, but is age of aviation period. Geoffert ... From: i odlin
                              Message 14 of 18 , Feb 6, 2011

                                But first you must define "period" 

                                 

                                The SR-71 Blackbird is not medievally period, but is age of aviation period.

                                 

                                Geoffert

                                 


                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: "i odlin" <i_odlin@...>
                                To: medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com
                                Sent: Sunday, February 6, 2011 4:38:32 AM
                                Subject: [MedievalSawdust] Re: Period Materials.

                                --- In medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com, chris carpenter <donat0@...> wrote:

                                > its utterly impossible to state something is NOT period

                                The SR-71 Blackbird.

                                So much for your thesis.

                                -Iain



                                ------------------------------------

                                <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/medievalsawdust/Yahoo! Groups Links

                                <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/medievalsawdust/

                                <*> Your email settings:
                                    Individual Email | Traditional

                                <*> To change settings online go to:
                                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/medievalsawdust/join
                                    (Yahoo! ID required)

                                <*> To change settings via email:
                                    medievalsawdust-digest@yahoogroups.com
                                    medievalsawdust-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

                                <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                    medievalsawdust-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

                              • AqA WyrdWynd
                                thats period , not sca ish but its period
                                Message 15 of 18 , Feb 6, 2011
                                  thats "period", not sca ish but its period< circa 1970s

                                  have at ye with a flock of flaming yodeling hamsters !!!



                                  --- On Sun, 2/6/11, i_odlin@... <i_odlin@...> wrote:

                                  From: i_odlin@... <i_odlin@...>
                                  Subject: [MedievalSawdust] Re: Period Materials.
                                  To: medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com
                                  Date: Sunday, February 6, 2011, 4:38 AM

                                  --- In medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com, chris carpenter <donat0@...> wrote:

                                  > its utterly impossible to state something is NOT period

                                  The SR-71 Blackbird.

                                  So much for your thesis.

                                  -Iain



                                  ------------------------------------

                                  <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/medievalsawdust/Yahoo! Groups Links

                                  <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/medievalsawdust/

                                  <*> Your email settings:
                                      Individual Email | Traditional

                                  <*> To change settings online go to:
                                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/medievalsawdust/join
                                      (Yahoo! ID required)

                                  <*> To change settings via email:
                                      medievalsawdust-digest@yahoogroups.com
                                      medievalsawdust-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

                                  <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                      medievalsawdust-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                  <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


                                • AqA WyrdWynd
                                  makes sence to me have at ye with a flock of flaming yodeling hamsters !!! ... From: Jim Hart Subject: Re: [MedievalSawdust] Re: Period
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Feb 6, 2011
                                    makes sence to me

                                    have at ye with a flock of flaming yodeling hamsters !!!



                                    --- On Sun, 2/6/11, Jim Hart <conalohairt@...> wrote:

                                    From: Jim Hart <conalohairt@...>
                                    Subject: Re: [MedievalSawdust] Re: Period Materials.
                                    To: medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com
                                    Date: Sunday, February 6, 2011, 6:54 AM



                                    my first two rules about documentation

                                    1 Never say never.

                                    2 Never say always




                                    On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 4:38 AM, <i_odlin@...> wrote:
                                     

                                    --- In medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com, chris carpenter <donat0@...> wrote:

                                    > its utterly impossible to state something is NOT period

                                    The SR-71 Blackbird.

                                    So much for your thesis.

                                    -Iain





                                  • i_odlin@hotmail.com
                                    ... True. But, the plane itself hasn t. Therefore, it may be categorically stated that the SR-71 Blackbird is not period. -Iain
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Feb 7, 2011
                                      --- In medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com, Electric Wolf <elecwolf@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > <i_odlin@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > > <donat0@> wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > > > its utterly impossible to state something is NOT period
                                      > >
                                      > > The SR-71 Blackbird.
                                      >
                                      > A lot of the concepts used in the Blackbird have been around since before
                                      > period. :)

                                      True. But, the plane itself hasn't. Therefore, it may be categorically stated that the SR-71 Blackbird is not period.

                                      -Iain
                                    • i_odlin@hotmail.com
                                      ... I don t have to. He does. The obvious assumption, given the rest of the gentleman s statement and that this list is Medieval Sawdust , is that the period
                                      Message 18 of 18 , Feb 7, 2011
                                        --- In medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com, geoffert@... wrote:
                                        > But first you must define "period" 

                                        I don't have to. He does.

                                        The obvious assumption, given the rest of the gentleman's statement and that this list is "Medieval Sawdust", is that the period in question is roughly that of the Middle Ages and Renaissance; the SCA's standard definition of "period." It's up to him to broaden, narrow or amend that horizon.

                                        Saying "Everything that has ever been invented is 'period' to _some_ Period in history, especially the period in which it was invented and used" is plainly silly.

                                        He said it is impossible to say something is not period. I applied the common usage of the word "period" given the context and provided a glaringly obvious counterexample: An SR-71 Blackbird; an object utterly impossible (outside a science-fiction or science-fantasy scenario) to have been present in medieval Europe and therefore categorically and demonstrably non-period, thus refuting his statement.

                                        QED.

                                        -Iain
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.