Living History Was Re: Corpora and "period"

Deborah Sweet dssweet at
Fri Feb 24 08:51:19 PST 1995

Diarmuit Ui Dhuinn writes:

>Regarding the term "Living History" (as in the General Introduction 
>where we are regarded as part of the "LH movement"), I *strongly* 
>question its appropriateness for use in the SCA (as the organization 
>currently exists), for without the STRICT enforcement of authenticity 
>*required* by the more generally accepted LH groups, such as 
>Williamsburg, and so forth, to describe us as such is as great a 
>pretention I have seen in my association with the Society.  I am not 
>advocating an active alteration in the functioning of the Society, 
>but I *really* wish people wouldn't use the term when describing us 
>to the Media, since it's just not true.

Well, whenever I've talked with people at demos, etc., I find it 
useful to say something like: "The SCA is *like* a Living History 
group." To the best of my memory I don't think I've ever said we 
actually were a LH group, but it gives a good reference point that the 
moderns can relate to somewhat (makes us look legitimate). I'll 
sometimes continue by saying: "We're not as strict about ...." :-)

In my mind, to be a *successful* Living History group, you need the 
actual, physical presence of exactly (or within a few miles) *where* 
something happened. Which makes it pretty darn hard for anyone in the 
U.S. to do any LH European events (like Napoleanics or medieval). But 
that's just my warped opinion on LH groups.

Estrill Swet
Stillwater, OK
dssweet at 

More information about the Ansteorra mailing list