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
    • 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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.