[Ravensfort] viking garb
jacinth
jacinth at mail.ev1.net
Tue Feb 3 15:28:08 PST 2004
"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".
More information about the Ravensfort
mailing list