SC - the length and breadth of Period - long and wide, of course

[James F. Johnson]

ChannonM at aol.com wrote:

> Agreed. On a personal note, I have been openly discouraged from submitting
> Apician recipes to A&S because its "not period". When I looked at the copora,
> it only states pre-17C. No date is set on the other end. Now, doing cave man
> stuff may be rediculous, but Imperial Roman, as in 1-4th C (what Apicius is
> purported to be from) what is non period in that. Even so, it has spurred me

Actually, the SCA _Website_ states "pre-17th-century European history,"
while the actual articles of incorporation state:

	a) Research and education in the field of pre-17th-Century Western 	
Culture.

	b) Generally, to engage in research, publish material of relevance
and 		interest to the field of pre-17th-Century Western Culture...

The By-Laws restate:

	The Society shall be dedicated primarily to the promotion of research
and 	re-creation in the field of pre-17th-century Western culture...

On the topic that we should broaden the scope of the SCA, I say it's far
to broad already, mostly because the definitions are already vague and
they draw us away from historic recreation. Neither of those definitions
would exclude Apicius. "History" would, but "culture" would not exclude
the 'caveman.'

The difference to me between "European History" and "Western Culture" is
significant because of my background in history, anthropology, and
archaeology. Most people assume that 'history' is 'anything that
happened before/long ago.' Close, but no cigar. By definition, history
is the _written_ record of past events, and includes those events in a
general sense. But the key word is _written_. Hence, 'cavemen' are
excluded (art not being equated with written language.) By the webpage
statement, this limits the Society to events from 1700 CE back to more
or less the earliest form of writing in Europe, whenever that is. And
technically, if one region of Europe had a written record while a
neighbouring region did not, the neighbouring region would be excluded
until some form of written record developed locally, or was introduced.
So in any given early year, you would have only parts of Europe included
in the Societies time frame. An example would be several of the early
"Celtic" groups existing in Western Europe. Only the two main groups in
northern modern day Italy and in Aquitaine had a written language
(according to the Romans). So these two groups become historic and in
the sphere of the Society, while the ever more so popular and 'better'
know groups in Brittaignie and the British Isles are pre- or
proto-historic, and not included in the Society's activities.

_Culture_ both is broader and narrower than _history_. The problem being
that culture changes, and the definition of a specific culture can be
both broad and narrow. To create a "Western" culture, you have to get
very broad in your definition. While Merovingian Franks and East Roman
Imperials (Byzantines) are contemporary and exist in Europe, side by
side, they would not resemble each other, and one of the definitions of
culture is that it shares characteristics. What do 9th Century
Barvarians share with, say, a Spanish courtier of the court of Philip
and Mary of Spain and England? Technically, there really isn't a Western
culture, but a collection of cultures sharing a few common traits.
Perhaps the most common might be the Church, which is ironic considering
the Societies stance on proscribing religion. Again, ironic that some of
the earliest written (historic) accounts are from Church missionaries
and scholars. 

Comparing "Western" vs "European" gets a little confusing. It would be
easier to define European as happening on the continent of Europe, but
that would exclude the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Is "Western" simple
European, including that culture exported from Europe? Or are we taking
about Western Europe versus Eastern Europe, or the Occident versus the
Orient, including the Near, Middle, and Far East? Again, you start to
exclude Jerusalem, and the New World. We could limit the scope of the
SCA to events in Europe, including those Europeans who travel outside of
Europe, and those non-Europeans who travel to Europe. That would cover
Jerusalem and the New World. Sort of. Again, one must check the actually
meaning of that statement. The exception made about travellers only
includes the travellers. So you could be a Templar in the Middle East
_from_ Europe, or a Nipponese _in_ Europe from, or a conquistador in the
New World, or one of the Aztecs who travelled to Europe. It still
excludes the Aztecs in the New World, or the Arabs in the Middle East. 

So why not include them as well? Same question would be why have time
limits at all, asked incrementally. Why not just make the SCA all
history and pre-history from arbitrarily 1900 CE and earlier. (Wait a
few years, we could make it 2000 CE). Why favour the France of Charles
VI over the China of Sun Yat-sen? Basically, and we've already started
this from our Incorporation, the broader the time and geographic scope,
the less historical we are and the more fantastic we become. Individuals
may be historic, especially if they ignore most of the other member's
activities, but already we have cultures coming into contact that never
did, which _does_ make the SCA a fantasy organization, not historic.

Now, while I like to study divers cultures, and recreate some of them, I
dislike trying to do them all in one heterogeneous lump. I'd much rather
attend an equal number of small event focused on a more defined time and
place, where voluntary attendance included appearing in persona for that
time and place, with an equal number of larger 'come as you are' events.
Alternate between focus and breadth of scholarship. 

I'm not against learning other culture, such as the Aztec, but I just
can't see the SCA as the venue for it. Aztec culture forms such a small
part of the historic events the SCA is supposed to be based on. Would it
not be better to either organize an event outside the official scope of
the SCA and focus the who event on Aztec culture _in_ it's own context,
not in relation to European history.

In the scope of the SCA as it defines itself already, I _can_ show up at
an event as a Cro-Magnon, and sit around making Solutrean points and
knock microliths off a core. Perhaps not as well, but I'd enjoy the
practice. Or can I?

_Corpora_ as opposed to the Articles of Incorporation or By-Laws, refer
to an event as:

A. SOCIETY EVENTS DEFINED. The term "Society event" refers to
tournaments, feasts, and other activities whereby participants can
display the results of their researches into period culture and
technology in an environment which evokes the atmosphere of the Middle
Ages and Renaissance.

Farther down, it defines appropriate behaviour for attendees as:

D. REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTICIPANTS. Anyone may attend Society events
provided he or she wears an attempt at pre-17th century dress, conforms
to the provisions of the By-Laws and Corpora, complies with any other
requirements (such as site fees or waivers) which may be imposed by the
Society, and behaves as a lady or gentleman.

You can have fun debating where or not being a Roman Repubicist at a
Society event interferes with 'the atmosphere of the Middle Ages and
Renaissance' and if they behave accurate for their persona, are the
behaving as 'a lady or gentleman."
I'm not going to argue that, as some aspects fo medieval and Renaissance
society are based on Roman antecedents, so it's not wholly disjointed.
But Aztecs are peripheral to a peripheral event (the Conquest of the New
World) to late European Renaissance history. One is making a stretch
over the boundaries to begin with. How farther do you want to move the
boundaries, and then, if so, why not farther. 

And to return to the Periodness of Apicius, whether or not he lived and
wrote within the limits of the time of the Middle Ages and the
Renaissance becomes decidedly moot if scholars of Period time read
Apicius and referred to that information. The act of citing Apicius then
becomes not a mundane scholarly activity, but a recreation of historic
(and documentable) scholarly research.
Take this idea to a grand scale: The Bible was originally written in
pre-Period era, about per-Period people and events. Shall we toss out
the whole existence of the Church, it's activities and it's influence on
the Middle Ages and the Renaissance merely because the foundational
document is "not Period?" This means no illumination of Books of Hours,
no devotional music. 

Seumas
============================================================================

To be removed from the SCA-Cooks mailing list, please send a message to
Majordomo at Ansteorra.ORG with the message body of "unsubscribe SCA-Cooks".

============================================================================