[Ravensfort] viking garb

Olivia G. Rodrigues ladyoliviar at lycos.com
Wed Feb 4 09:36:36 PST 2004


My dear Jacinth,

Please consider me properly chastised and I send deep apologies.  My posting was not intended to be insulting and yes, I realize you are one of our most dedicated to authenticity but...you are not anal.  Not in the sense that you go around checking fiber content and stitching length or dye techniques. 

I admire and apppreciate the wisdome and knowledge that some of the SCAdians thirst for and absorb.  The anal I refer to are the ones that can't help but give comment and advise to everyone and sundry, without being asked.  Letting others know you have the knowledge and will make it available is much nicer than giving said knowledge in the manner the "period police" seem to do.  I've personally overheard instruction in play given in nice, polite, helpful ways (M'lord, I congratulate you on your ambitions!  Might I be of service to guide you on the protocol?)  as well as the "Who told YOU that was okay?" approach.  

Again, my deepest and most sincere apologies and I DO appreciate the varying degrees of our very diverse family and their level of interests.  

Olivia

---
Carpe Diem Ex Illo Vitae Opprime!


--------- Original Message ---------

DATE: Tue,  3 Feb 2004 17:28:08
From: "jacinth" <jacinth at mail.ev1.net>
To: ony of Ravensfort  <ravensfort at ansteorra.org>
Cc: 

>"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".
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ravensfort mailing list
>Ravensfort at ansteorra.org
>http://www.ansteorra.org/mailman/listinfo/ravensfort
>



____________________________________________________________
Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail!
http://login.mail.lycos.com/r/referral?aid=27005



More information about the Ravensfort mailing list