[Ravensfort] Repost - 5 x 8 documentation

L T ldeerslayer at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 13 17:59:20 PDT 2001


Barbara,

here is the other post i promised you

L



>
> 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
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
> http://auctions.yahoo.com/


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/



More information about the Ravensfort mailing list