[NR] re: Historical accuracy was .

[Marc Carlson]

<Bear/Terry Decker>
>I've found over the years that the people who make accusations
>tend to be guilty of the evils they find in others.  The targets are
>most often stubborn, opinionated people, "who just don't play the
>game (their way)."

I can't speak for the former, but there's a good case for the
latter


>
Enough about them.  Let's turn our attention to the more
>interesting subject of historical accuracy.

Okie dokie.  - Oh, one thing first: The standard disclaimer:
Nothing I'm going to say in the following discussion should be
construed as suggesting anything about how the SCA operates, or
should operate, or how anyone but me should do things.

Now where was I


>My major SCA interests these days are culinary and I am
>specifically interested in the historical accuracy of the dishes I
>prepare to the extent that when I prepare a feast, I try to work
>from sources contemporary to a specific time and place and
>prepare dishes as close to the instructions as possible


Seems completely reasonable to me.  I know that for me, the trick
is finding materials that are either absolutely correct, or can
adequately reflect the accurate materials.

>My latest foray into historical accurate feasts was last year's
>Protectorate.  The food was accurate, but, alas, the service was
>not particularly historically correct for the Elizabethan court.

I find that, for my era, people seem to be reluctant to share
plates and drinking vessels.

>I'm not an "authenticity maven," flapping around croaking "Not
>period.  Not period."  But, I'm occasionally mistaken for one,
>when I discuss historical context and quality of sources


I sympathize completely.  I've been trying to work on a
reputation of "don't ask, don't tell" (don't ask me if it's
accurate, and I won't tell you. OTOH, if you do ask
).

>
because there seems to be a pervasive idea that if something is
>"period," then it is "historically accurate" for all times and places,
>which isn't the case


Tell me about it.  Diarmaid's Period is early 1300s, and there
are some "Period" things that just aren't period for him.

>
and many people (including some that should know better)
>think that any source is a good source.

Hey, if it's print, it's true - didn't you know that ?   I've
been spending more time lately trying to convince people that
just because it's on the 'Net doesn't make it so either (for that
matter, just because it's on a webpage I wrote doesn't make it
so.  I have to rewrite several pages as soon as possible to
reflect changes in information --- just as soon as I get the
time).

>It is a certainty that there are more people interested in historical
>accuracy than you and I, so I ask you and them;  How do you
>define historical accuracy?

That's a toughie.  Historical accuracy is -for me- the journey
towards reproducing a particular time and place in history as it
actually was, according to the best in current academic
understanding.  Ideally, I'd like to be able to do it that there
would be no discernible difference between what I'm doing and
what they did then.  And someday, maybe I'll actually manage it
:)

>What are the qualities of good research for historical accuracy?

At the very least, a person should be able to know the
differences between different schools of thought, and have enough
of an understanding that when new information is introduced it
can be weighed critically and judged on its own merits.  A good
researcher should be able to adapt to new information that
contradicts what they have previously understood.

For example, I have always maintained that medieval shoes can be
made without a Last, which led me to question the long-standing
tradition that shoes have 'always' been made on lasts.  After a
few years of research, and weighing the evidence, I'm willing to
accept that most shoes probably were made on lasts by at least
1300, and probably for some time before that.  That still doesn't
mean that they all were (since they can still be made without
them).

Another example, I've spent the last week trying to explain to a
friend of mine, whose understanding of such things is based
solely on what he picks up off the History and Discovery channels
that the "European" mummies found in China weren't European, and
for that matter "Kennewick Man" wasn't "Caucasian". (If anyone
wants either of these explained further, I'll be happy to do so,
but the details aren't really relevant for this message).

>How do we improve our historical accuracy within the SCA?

Not my department.  Thank you for asking though :)

>And how do we interest others in historical accuracy?

Maybe we could pay them?

Marc/Diarmaid
(BTW, the reason I sign my name this way is that Diarmaid doesn't
know diddly about these things)