GL - Fwd: ES - FW: AL - 5x8 Card Documentation

[M. Peet]

>Greetings, from Xene.
>
>I apologize if you have received numerous copies of this post, but if you
>aren't on the Ansteorra list, I wanted to share this information from
>Mistress Gunnora.  This is the best explanation of "minimum standards" that
>I know of.
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Since four different people asked me at Candlemass for copies of my article
>on writing A&S documentation, I thought it might be good to repost the
>information so folks can get it easily.  I am always personally available 
>to
>help with documentation, whether it's suggesting resources or reviewing
>final documentation -- though it's best to ask me a few weeks before you
>need it!
>
>Permission to reprint in SCA newsletters and lists is explicitly granted.
>
>HOW TO WRITE DOCUMENTATION FOR A&S ENTRIES
>==========================================
>
>The basics of almost any documentation can and should be possible to do on
>one of those larger 5x8 index cards.
>
>The harsh reality is that no one will read more than about a paragraph of
>data anyway except in exceptional situations. Especially at a large event
>such as Kingdom A&S or LPT, the judges are spread pretty thin and most will
>not read at all, much less read a tome of research information.
>
>Many successful artisans will place a clearly marked "DOCUMENTATION 
>SUMMARY"
>section at the head of a longer piece of documentation. This is an 
>excellent
>idea. As well, it is a good idea to actually create a 5x8 index card for
>every entry with the "short form" documentation on it (in addition to the
>longer explanation), and place it right next to the item, since some folks
>are lazy and won't open your notebook containing the research.
>
>DOCUMENTATION BASICS
>---------------------------------------
>
>(1) "What is it (title, basic description)?" i.e., Reproduction of a 13th
>Century Icelandic Whalebone Ear Spoon
>
>(2) "How were similar items made in period?" Give the basics of the 
>medieval
>examples. i.e., "Earspoons were a common implement for personal hygiene 
>used
>throughout the Middle Ages, consisting of a small, spoon-shaped tool for
>scraping the ears. They could be cast in silver, or carved from wood, bone,
>antler or ivory. Some were very elaborate, including extensive 
>ornamentation
>on the handle. Some were worn as part of the day to day costume as well."
>
>(3) "How was your item made? How is it like the medieval examples? Where
>have you deviated from the medieval techniques, and why?"
>
>This is the hardest area for most people. It is very important to explain
>where you made design changes or substituted materials -- these things are
>acceptable, but you must show that you understand how the real ones are
>made, and don't allow the judges to think that you are trying to put one
>over on them
>
>i.e. "I used deer antler for this project since whalebone is obviously not
>available to the modern Ansteorran. This was soaked in cold water for two
>days, then boiled for 3 hours before working. I roughed out the shape with 
>a
>coping saw, then did close shaping whittling with a sharp penknife. Final
>shaping involved the use of wet sanding, carving with engraving tools and
>burins (using a Dremel tool for some areas as I don't possess some of the
>tools that a medieval bone carver would have used), and finally buffing 
>with
>beeswax to shine the surface."
>
>Sometimes you also need to explain the "why" of an item. For instance, a
>13th century hatbox of molded leather designed to hold a reticulated caul
>headdress, yet decorated with early Celtic designs will appear incongruous,
>unless the judge reads the documentation to find an explanation: i.e.,
>"Normally hatboxes of this period would have used Gothic design elements
>similar to those found in church architecture, however, this box was
>commissioned by Baroness Butshe Wanteditthatway, who requested the specific
>designs utilized here."
>
>DOCUMENTATION AND HONESTY
>---------------------------------------
>
>One thing to always avoid is DO NOT LIE IN YOUR DOCUMENTATION. Chances are
>very good that *someone* who looks at your entry will know enough about it
>to know if you are fibbing in your documentation, and you will come out
>looking bad.
>
>If you used a less than medieval technique or material, THAT'S OK! All the
>judges want to see is that you know what the original item was, and how it
>was made -- so for instance, if you used an acrylic white paint instead of
>making your own (toxic) lead-based pigment, say so - and say why: "Normally
>a lead-based pigment would have been used to create the white paint, but
>since lead is toxic, I elected to use the safer acrylic white."
>
>The same goes for construction. If you used a Dremel tool, a carving expert
>can see the rotary nature of the cuts. Better to say, "Although medieval
>craftsmen would have used a bit-and-brace and hand-burins, I have used a
>Dremel tool for ease in construction."
>
>  You won't lose points for a well-documented substitution, so long as you
>explain why. Tell the judges why you did and why so they know that YOU 
>know.
>But don't try to lie in your documentation to make your project look
>better - as often this technique backfires and makes YOU look worse!
>
>REFERENCES
>---------------------------------------
>
>Some events actually will specify a number of references. If so, be sure to
>actually use at least the minimum number of references required. I do not
>favor requiring X number of references, however, since different items may
>need differing amounts of references to document them adequately.
>
>For instance, if you are carving antler or bone, then MacGregor's "Bone,
>Antler, Ivory and Horn" is a pretty much one-stop reference for many items,
>though as a tertiary source it really should be supported by photos or 
>other
>sources. Sometimes a picture is literally worth a thousand words -- for
>instance, the reticulated caul hatbox entered at Gulf Wars 1997, where the
>only documentation was a museum postcard with the date and a photo of the
>item - though additional sources on medieval leatherwork would have really
>added a lot to the documentation.
>
>However, as a rule of thumb, it is best to aim for no less than three good
>sources. What is a good source? It depends on the field.
>
>Usually a primary source is the best possible source, but a primary source
>is THE ITEM ITSELF - for instance one of Queen Elizabeth's dresses is a
>primary source. Janet Arnold's book, Queen Elizabeth's Wardrobe Unlock'd is
>a secondary source, but a very good secondary source. A book review of
>Arnold's book is a tertiary source.
>
>Most of us will not have the opportunity to go to the European Museums and
>see primary sources in person. So instead we rely upon secondary sources - 
>a
>picture of the item, an archaeological report describing the item, or a
>painting by an artist of the period of the item.
>
>If you can, try to have at least one primary source or one or two good
>secondary sources. If you can't get this type of documentation, then you 
>are
>down to tertiary sources. For instance, MacGregor's "Bone, Antler, Ivory 
>and
>Horn" book is a tertiary source -- he has compiled the information from
>archaeological reports about the items he describes. When using a tertiary
>source, try to corroborate the evidence using other sources as well, such 
>as
>a photo from a museum catalog, or additional secondary and/or tertiary
>sources that agree with your first source.
>
>The terms primary, secondary and tertiary confuse many people. It's pretty
>simple to understand. Think of a saint's relic: a primary relic is an 
>actual
>part of the saint - Saint Acutiaria's finger bone. A secondary relic is
>something that the saint has touched, for example the clothing worn by St.
>Winifred, or the Pieces of the True Cross. A tertiary relic is something
>associated with the saint but which has never touched the saint, for
>instance, a modern painting of the saint that weeps tears of myrrh.
>
>It gets a little more confusing when you talk about academic sources. A
>period painting of an object is a secondary source for the object, but the
>painting is a primary source for the techniques of painting. So a source 
>can
>be primary in one context, and secondary in another.
>
>To summarize the discussion of sources, do the best you can. Get the best
>sources you can find, and corroborate your sources by finding other sources
>that also verify the point you are making.
>
>DOCUMENTATION STYLE
>---------------------------------------
>
>The other thing that scares people about documentation is the Fear of
>Documentation Style stricken into their hearts while doing research papers
>in school. Really, putting down a bibliographical reference or a footnote 
>is
>simple. All should have the same basic elements:
>
>AUTHOR. ARTICLE TITLE. BOOK TITLE. PLACE OF PUBLICATION. PUBLISHING 
>COMPANY.
>DATE OF PUBLICATION. PAGE ON WHICH THE INFO IS FOUND.
>
>The exact punctuation and presentation of this material doesn't matter, so
>long as it's all present. The idea is to make it possible for the 
>interested
>reader to track down your sources and read more about your topic.
>
>Still, it is a good idea to use a Style Guide to make sure that you are
>getting all the data down that you need, and that you are presenting the
>documentation consistently. I recommend that you get a style guide (you can
>buy them cheap as used books from Half Price Books or from College
>bookstores, and now you can even find the info on the Web) and always use
>it. Some common style guides are:
>
>* Kate Turabian. "A Manual of Style" (a subset of the Chicago Manual of
>Style)
>
>* Chicago Manual of Style (used widely by newspapers and book publishers)
>
>* The Modern Language Association (MLA) Manual of Style (used widely in the
>humanities)
>
>* The American Psychology Association (APA) Style Guide (used widely in the
>sciences)
>
>ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION
>---------------------------------------
>
>The most valuable additional documentation that you can add would be
>pictures of the medieval examples that inspired the current work. People
>will almost always look at pictures.
>
>If you have done additional in-depth documentation, go ahead and write it 
>up
>and include it. Place at the top of the first page a clearly marked
>"DOCUMENTATION SUMMARY" section, and keep that to one good-sized paragraph.
>Follow that then with "ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION" and then continue with the
>rest of your paper. Everybody will at least glance at the summary info, and
>those who have a real interest will be more likely to read the whole thing.
>
>Additional supporting materials, such as xerox copies etc. can be added at
>the back.
>
>If you put together 5 or more pages of documentation, seriously consider
>converting your long-form documentation into an article for Tournaments
>Illuminated. One thing we expect of Laurel candidates is that they have
>proved themselves to be teachers -- and a T.I. article teaches thousands of
>people across the Known World. If you have a really long piece of research,
>consider Compleat Anachronist instead.
>
>PRESENTATION OF DOCUMENTATION
>---------------------------------------
>
>As has already been mentioned, it is a good idea to place the bare-bones
>documentation basics on a 5x8 index card and place that right next to your
>A&S entry.
>
>The written information is best kept together in a ring binder. Some of the
>best documentation I've seen is placed inside the clear acrylic sleeves, 
>and
>the sections are separated by tabs for easy reference. A notebook like this
>can be quite valuable, as you don't have to reinvent the wheel (or your
>documentation) for every A&S event you enter. Keep all your A&S
>Documentation, you can never tell when you might need it again.
>
>Provide a table of contents at the front, and number or label the dividing
>tabs so that people can find the specific documentation that they want.
>
>If you have a whole ringbinder full of many many documentation articles, 
>you
>may want to use a two notebook system, -- a larger notebook in which to
>store your entire collection of documentation, and a smaller notebook
>containing only the documentation for the work(s) being displayed at the
>current event. Otherwise you may need to clearly divide the notebook into
>sections "Works Being Shown Today" and "Past Documentation."
>
>CONCLUSION
>---------------------------------------
>
>The most important rule of thumb is: don't confuse, bore, or attempt to
>bamboozle the judges. The KISS principle applies to documentation (Keep It
>Simple, Stupid) - get the basics explained up front, show what you did and
>how you did it honestly, and document the information by showing your
>sources. Documentation isn't really all that hard, and can be quite fun if
>you approach it with the proper attitude.
>
>::GUNNORA::
>
>Gunnora Hallakarve, OL
>
>============================================================================
>
>To be removed from the Ansteorra Laurels' mailing list, please send a
>message to Majordomo at Ansteorra.ORG with the message body of "unsubscribe
>ansteorra-laurels".
>
>============================================================================
>Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.