[Ravensfort] viking garb

[jacinth]

"Olivia G. Rodrigues" <ladyoliviar at lycos.com> wrote:
>All I know is that I'm a member of the Society for CREATIVE 
Anachronism...not the Society for Compulsive Analism.  

This may have been tossed this off innocently enough, but this is 
statement is patently insulting to members who approach research
(or any aspect of the SCA) seriously.  You may not have intended a 
slight, but each time I hear this a small part of me dies inside, 
and I just want to say...

<rant>

You touched on a nerve here.  After sitting on this all day, I would like to 
address this in a rational manner.  I have heard this argument before, and it 
really fails to acknowledge the facts that we should be here to learn, that 
some people have more of a desire to learn than others, there exist members
that have different interests and expertise, and also that we belong to a 
society that contains kingdoms that have regionally different standards from 
our own.  Too often it is fobbed off as justification for not even attempting 
to do the right thing, even in the face of factual and doable information.  
I provided the article as edification.  You may take what you like from it 
and leave the rest, if that is your desire.  That does not give you free 
license to grouse or be insulting because other people have more stringent 
standards than you (please realize, terms like "garb snob", "authenticity 
nazi", and "compulsive analism" are just as hurtful as someone criticizing 
your garb because you made your hose out of spandex).  I may not complain 
that others cannot financially meet some level of authenticity, but that 
does not mean I think that we should not strive to better ourselves as 
allowable... or at the very least acknowledge that there is room for 
improvement (and believe me, there is always room for that).  

For all we know, she might also play with some of the viking reenactment 
groups (it is known to happen), and her experience bleeds over from that.  
I thought that the article had a lot of good factual information with 
references (not to mention pictures!!) for those interested in whipping 
something together for the event.  As with all sources, take them with a 
grain of salt, and take a deep breath if you disagree.  The only complaints 
I want to hear are the picking apart the academic arguments... not the 
emotional ones (and I do recognize that there is a certain amount of 
emotion to "how dare anyone point out that what I am doing is not 
documentably correct", nobody likes criticism) which lead to ad hominem 
attacks that really have no place on this list.

</rant>

That being said....

On the academic side, you can always argue that the archeological record 
can be interpreted in different ways.  This is a valid argument.  As Mistress 
Fionna pointed out, it is hard to tell similar bast fibers apart unless it is 
done chemically (yes, somewhere I have read this, too)... and frankly, I'd 
have to say much of the existing textile analysis is pretty thin, considering 
that in the past most archeologists were more interested in the larger finds 
than little scraps of fabric that invariably got brushed off or ignored in 
deference to the obvious "big find".  (I seem to recall an anecdotal account 
of Howard Carter using fabric remains in Tut's tomb for padding the pottery 
for shipment.)   I have an understanding from the articles and books I have 
read that there is still a lot of textile evidence that has _never_ been 
analyzed, let alone catalogued... and as someone interested in textiles in a 
historical context it is very frustrating to know that the tiny bit of evidence 
you need to document something may be sitting in a box or envelope in a 
storage room of some museum and has never been properly examined 
because it was not deemed important enough.  If you also take into account 
that it requires special conditions for textile fragments to survive to modern 
times, then I think you might begin to understand that what we do have 
documented is a very small sampling of the whole record; the recorded finds 
we have are statistically skewed, and seem to leave great gaping holes in 
our understanding of what was truly the norm.  In this light, it is harder to 
say "they never did that" when it is quite possible that there might exist 
evidence that hasn't been published.  [Before you jump to conclusions, I am 
not espousing the belief that "just because there isn't evidence doesn't 
mean they didn't do it".  I am a firm believer in sticking to what there is 
proof for... although there have been cases where hypotheses have been 
disproven!!  Just look at all the naalbinding that has been reclassified from 
finds initally designated as knitting samples, once properly analyzed by 
someone with a good knowledge of textile structure.]

As far as applying the info to SCA in our kingdom, when someone argues that 
they "only" used this and that... consider what we have to work with.  Then 
in our particular context you may make the argument that it is okay to use 
fabric X because it is similar in hand and texture to fabric Y (provide small 
samples, if you have to prove the point)...  however we only have 
documented evidence that they used Y, but not X.  While not technically 
referenced, we still can achieve an authentic "look", feel and drape, which 
is certainly good enough for SCA daily use (think 10-foot rule).  If you can't 
afford to do what has been documented, then by all means don't buy that... 
but at least attempt to make it look correct and show that you understand 
that it isn't documentably correct.  Then you can use the good stuff for 
important projects, like high-level A&S competition.... even in competition, 
sometimes it is okay to substitute X for Y, if you can _support_ the 
argument that it is similar to Y, state that you don't have access or funds 
for X, and you acknowledge that your documentation only supports the use 
of Y (demonstrate that you didn't make all this up just so you could enter 
your item).  This presupposes that you admit all this... even though you can 
omit it, it is the honorable thing to do, even if the judge may not be 
cognizant of the switch -- however, I personally would rather own up to it, 
rather than be caught in a lie of omission (which can be more embarrassing).

There is a lot more to this than meets the eye; I'm keeping this short (ha!), 
because I am sure I have lost a lot of people by this point.  I am happy to 
discuss fibers, as I am sure Fionna is, too!  Do the best you can with what 
you have!!

Regards,
-Jacinth-

Disclaimer:  The above statement is based on my personal experience and
research.  Your milage may vary.  I welcome constructive criticism, and
you may disagree with my statements.  Unsubstantiated flames will be 
deleted.  And yes, you might have guessed... I am by your terms "anal".