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

[SCA-JML] Re: tv show or movie????

Expand Messages
  • Bruce Mills
    ... Well, wouldn t you say 1620 is right post period , in the larger scheme of things? I didn t say 1601 on the dot. It might even be considered *in* period,
    Message 1 of 20 , Oct 10, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, Anthony J. Bryant wrote:

      > > rather hard to document the kamishimo to SCA period - as in right post
      > > period but no records (available) to show it was *in* period.
      >
      > Akimoya-dono, how could you say such a thing? <G>
      >
      > The nagabakama the men wear at court (the LOOOOONG hakama) are post
      > period, as are the folded, starched and winged kataginu that they wear.
      > These are the two most recognizable items of samurai official wear, and
      > they didn't appear until around 1620-50. It's VERY post period. Much of
      > the other gear is period, but do NOT rely on clothing you see in Edo era
      > films, as certain trends had developed which were markedly modern and
      > not period.

      Well, wouldn't you say 1620 is "right post period", in the larger scheme of
      things? I didn't say 1601 on the dot. It might even be considered *in*
      period, if, according to some, period stretches to 1650...

      Sheesh! Nit pickers! :-}

      Akimoya
    • Anthony J. Bryant
      ... No, it s not period. The costume particularly is VERY markedly post period. The Genroku era began in 1688. You re better off using Shogun, Kagemusha, and
      Message 2 of 20 , Oct 10, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        BattleWear wrote:
        >
        > The show just finished 10 min ago, and when it ended it showed what looked
        > like clips from the next show. It looks like a really good show, now I only
        > wish I could understand Japanese :) LOL! I am trying to set it on reminder
        > on my digital cable box ) but it hasnt shown up yet for the next show, but
        > I am going to check for the next fw days, I am going to look at taping it if
        > I can, seeing as you have seen this ( or may have ) the items and clothing
        > in the show, are they period? can they be used in a SCA fashion? it has
        > given me some ideas, but of course I am STILL looking for more on the
        > Japanese tents :)

        No, it's not period. The costume particularly is VERY markedly post
        period. The Genroku era began in 1688. You're better off using Shogun,
        Kagemusha, and Ran as your garb/gear inspirational source.

        As for tents; well, I've got some more material on akunoya since I wrote
        CA #65 (if you've read it you have a good basic coverage of the Japanese
        tent). What exactly would you like to know?


        Effingham
      • Anthony J. Bryant
        ... Akimoya-dono, how could you say such a thing? The nagabakama the men wear at court (the LOOOOONG hakama) are post period, as are the folded, starched
        Message 3 of 20 , Oct 10, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Bruce Mills wrote:
          >
          > Well, since the Genroku Era is around 1688, it is post-SCA-period, but
          > there weren't many changes in styles, in men's fashions anyway. It is
          > rather hard to document the kamishimo to SCA period - as in right post
          > period but no records (available) to show it was *in* period.

          Akimoya-dono, how could you say such a thing? <G>

          The nagabakama the men wear at court (the LOOOOONG hakama) are post
          period, as are the folded, starched and winged kataginu that they wear.
          These are the two most recognizable items of samurai official wear, and
          they didn't appear until around 1620-50. It's VERY post period. Much of
          the other gear is period, but do NOT rely on clothing you see in Edo era
          films, as certain trends had developed which were markedly modern and
          not period.

          Effingham
        • Bruce Mills
          ... I never said I *agreed* with those some ... ... Yes, certainly. I never said that we should recreate non-period things. I was just saying that while the
          Message 4 of 20 , Oct 10, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, Anthony J. Bryant wrote:

            > "some" doesn't matter. Corpora says "make an attempt at pre
            > seventeenth-century costume." Deliberately recreating something that
            > didn't even appear until AFTER that cutoff is to me a complete disregard
            > of the rules.

            I never said I *agreed* with those "some"...

            > Plus the fact that their whole design is post period both in fact and in
            > concept. Nagabakama were developed for a reason, and that reason wasn't
            > something that was part of sengoku or feudal Japanese life. The thing
            > is, these garments are SYMBOLIC of the Edo period, and should not be
            > used in the SCA. They had analogues that DID exist in period, and are
            > symbolic of THAT era, and it is those that should be recreated.

            Yes, certainly. I never said that we should recreate non-period things. I
            was just saying that while the clothing protrayed in the series might get
            *close* to period, they weren't documentable *as* period, and shouldn't be
            used as a model for SCA use.

            > > Sheesh! Nit pickers! :-}
            >
            > PPPFFFFTTTHHHH!!! <G>

            At least provide a towel!

            Akimoya
          • J. Kriss White
            At 10/10/99 12:15 PM -0400, Akimoya calligraphed: Well, wouldn t you say 1620 is right post period , in the larger scheme of things? I didn t say 1601 on the
            Message 5 of 20 , Oct 10, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              At 10/10/99 12:15 PM -0400, Akimoya calligraphed:

              Well, wouldn't you say 1620 is "right post period", in the larger scheme of things? I didn't say 1601 on the dot.  It might even be considered *in* period, if, according to some, period stretches to 1650...
              Hey, it's Cavalier Era Japanese. :-)  Belongs right in there beside the fops.

              Livin' la vida meshuggah,
              Lord Daveed of Granada, mka J. Kriss White,
              Barony of Calafia, Kingdom of Caid
              email - jkrissw@...  ||  AOL IM - jkrissw  ||  ICQ #1824702
              (hobbies & interests web page: <http://members.aol.com/JkrissW/index.html>)
            • Anthony J. Bryant
              ... some doesn t matter. Corpora says make an attempt at pre seventeenth-century costume. Deliberately recreating something that didn t even appear until
              Message 6 of 20 , Oct 10, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                Bruce Mills wrote:
                >
                > Well, wouldn't you say 1620 is "right post period", in the larger scheme of
                > things? I didn't say 1601 on the dot. It might even be considered *in*
                > period, if, according to some, period stretches to 1650...

                "some" doesn't matter. Corpora says "make an attempt at pre
                seventeenth-century costume." Deliberately recreating something that
                didn't even appear until AFTER that cutoff is to me a complete disregard
                of the rules.

                Plus the fact that their whole design is post period both in fact and in
                concept. Nagabakama were developed for a reason, and that reason wasn't
                something that was part of sengoku or feudal Japanese life. The thing
                is, these garments are SYMBOLIC of the Edo period, and should not be
                used in the SCA. They had analogues that DID exist in period, and are
                symbolic of THAT era, and it is those that should be recreated.

                > Sheesh! Nit pickers! :-}

                PPPFFFFTTTHHHH!!! <G>

                Effingham
              • Anthony J. Bryant
                ... Hokey dokey! ... Hai, hai!! Effingham
                Message 7 of 20 , Oct 10, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  Bruce Mills wrote:
                  >
                  > Yes, certainly. I never said that we should recreate non-period things. I
                  > was just saying that while the clothing protrayed in the series might get
                  > *close* to period, they weren't documentable *as* period, and shouldn't be
                  > used as a model for SCA use.

                  Hokey dokey!

                  > > PPPFFFFTTTHHHH!!! <G>
                  >
                  > At least provide a towel!

                  Hai, hai!!

                  Effingham
                • Markejag@aol.com
                  Sorry so late with the replies, but I do recall a BOD statement that the ending period for the SCA was 1600 with special dispensation until 1650 to allow for
                  Message 8 of 20 , Oct 14, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Sorry so late with the replies, but I do recall a BOD statement that the
                    ending period for the SCA was 1600 with special dispensation until 1650 to
                    allow for contingencies in cultures. (I.E., those fops) There was a great
                    discussion on the rialto about this years ago, of which I am unfamiliar with,
                    and the after shocks were more to the point that if it didn't effect your
                    personnel period or style then there was no more need for discussion.

                    Calm down children and have fun doing your own thing :-)

                    Fumio
                  • Anthony J. Bryant
                    ... You are mis-remembering. The 50-year grace period was a good idea gone awry created by then Laurel King of Arms Wilhelm von Schlussel to allow the use in
                    Message 9 of 20 , Oct 14, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Markejag@... wrote:
                      >
                      > Sorry so late with the replies, but I do recall a BOD statement that the
                      > ending period for the SCA was 1600 with special dispensation until 1650 to
                      > allow for contingencies in cultures. (I.E., those fops) There was a great
                      > discussion on the rialto about this years ago, of which I am unfamiliar with,
                      > and the after shocks were more to the point that if it didn't effect your
                      > personnel period or style then there was no more need for discussion.

                      You are mis-remembering. The 50-year "grace period" was a good idea gone
                      awry created by then Laurel King of Arms Wilhelm von Schlussel to allow
                      the use in SCA heraldry of items that were first documented in the first
                      half of the 17th century under the supposition that just because it was
                      first mentioned doesn't mean it hadn't been around already for a few
                      years.

                      Unfortunately, it was wildly misused to allow things that were
                      documentedly invented (rather than just referred to) between 1600 and
                      1650, and it also spawned the misbelief that the SCA has (or at some
                      point had) a 1650 cutoff date.

                      Effingam
                    • nostrand@acm.org
                      Noble Cousins! I have some matterial about tents as well including evidence concerning where and for what they were used. The CA editor will not publish any of
                      Message 10 of 20 , Oct 21, 1999
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Noble Cousins!

                        I have some matterial about tents as well including evidence
                        concerning where and for what they were used. The CA editor
                        will not publish any of this along with other stuff of the
                        miscellany sort. I have asked and been told so. (Basically
                        Baron Edward's earlier issue blocks anything newley
                        discovered. The same thing applies to the poetry omnimbus
                        which got Japanese poetry wrong.) Sorry for grumping, but
                        this sort of thing bothers me. (Note. I have stuff more
                        recent than my 4 page article on Japanese outdoor life.
                        However, I have dispaired of having any of it appear in CA.)

                        Your Humble Servant
                        Solveig Throndardottir
                        Amateur Scholar
                      • nostrand@acm.org
                        Noble Cousins! There was a long standing dispute over whether SCA period should end at 1600 or 1650. Quite a few members still contend that the cut off should
                        Message 11 of 20 , Oct 21, 1999
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Noble Cousins!

                          There was a long standing dispute over whether SCA period should end
                          at 1600 or 1650. Quite a few members still contend that the cut off
                          should be 1650. The BoD ruled that the cut-off would be 1600. People
                          generally agree that documentaiton up to 1650 can be used.

                          Your Humble Servant
                          Solveig Throndardottir
                          Amateur Scholar
                        • Barbara Nostrand
                          Baron Edward! Greetings from Solveig! Sorry, but the A&S community now generally accepts post 1600 sources. A good example of this in dance is a book by Caesar
                          Message 12 of 20 , Oct 21, 1999
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Baron Edward!

                            Greetings from Solveig! Sorry, but the A&S community now generally
                            accepts post 1600 sources. A good example of this in dance is a
                            book by Caesar Negri which appeared around 1603. Other examples
                            can be found in cooking. The idea is that post-1600 documentation
                            can be used to document pre-1601 stuff. You need to distinguish
                            between when the stuff was extant and when it was written down.

                            As for post 1600 Japanese clothing and hair styles. I am very
                            much in agreement with you. Clothing changed significantly during
                            the Edo period. There were significant clothing and hair fads
                            and what naught. (I have a rather nice history of clothing in
                            the Edo period and a matching history of hair styles in the
                            Edo period.)

                            In Japan, by 1650 you can easily have clothing and hair that
                            was unseen before 1601.

                            Your Humble Servant
                            Solveig Throndardottir
                            Amateur Scholar

                            +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
                            | Barbara Nostrand, Ph.D. | Solveig Throndardottir, CoM |
                            | de Moivre Institute | Carolingia Statis Mentis Est |
                            | mailto:nostrand@... | mailto:bnostran@... |
                            +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
                            | Ignored domains: bestbiz.net, pop.net, hotmail.com, aibusiness.com |
                            | vdi.net, usa.net, tpnet.pl, myremarq.com |
                            | netscape.net, excite.com, bigfoot.com, public.com |
                            | com.tw, eranet.net, yahoo.com, success.net |
                            | mailcity.com, net.tw, twac.com, netcenter.com |
                            | techie.com |
                            +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
                          • Anthony J. Bryant
                            ... Regardless, the SCA cutoff is 1600. Period. (so to speak. ) The only extra allowed was a misguided Laurel ruling years ago to allow anything first
                            Message 13 of 20 , Oct 21, 1999
                            • 0 Attachment
                              nostrand@... wrote:

                              > Noble Cousins!
                              >
                              > There was a long standing dispute over whether SCA period should end
                              > at 1600 or 1650. Quite a few members still contend that the cut off
                              > should be 1650. The BoD ruled that the cut-off would be 1600. People
                              > generally agree that documentaiton up to 1650 can be used.

                              Regardless, the SCA cutoff is 1600.

                              Period. (so to speak. <g>)

                              The only "extra" allowed was a misguided Laurel ruling years ago to allow anything first
                              documented between 1600 and 1650 under the supposition that if it's first public reference was
                              then, it was POSSIBLE that it first appeared earlier, IN period.

                              People started using this to claim things that were documentedly INVENTED in 1600-1650 (OOP) were
                              allowable in the SCA under that rule.

                              I do not and will not do post period. Nor can I or will I support it.

                              Effingham
                            • Anthony J. Bryant
                              ... That s what I m talking about. This is the only acceptable use of post-period material. The trouble is when people start wanting to do post period things
                              Message 14 of 20 , Oct 22, 1999
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Barbara Nostrand wrote:

                                > Baron Edward!
                                >
                                > Greetings from Solveig! Sorry, but the A&S community now generally
                                > accepts post 1600 sources. A good example of this in dance is a
                                > book by Caesar Negri which appeared around 1603. Other examples
                                > can be found in cooking. The idea is that post-1600 documentation
                                > can be used to document pre-1601 stuff. You need to distinguish
                                > between when the stuff was extant and when it was written down.
                                >

                                That's what I'm talking about. This is the only acceptable use of
                                post-period material. The trouble is when people start wanting to do post
                                period things (the Edo style kataginu, for example) even though it's only
                                "a little" after 1600.


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