1599 good 1652 bad
Kjrsten Henriksen
a medieval ~and renaissance~ recreation group, and that the
renaissance lasted a little longer in England than it did on the
continent...
but the real reasons are
Sir Kenelm Digbies Closet opened, published postumasly 165?
Playford, English dancing master , ist edition 1651
John Dowland, died 1626
W. shakespeare
anything else you'd really miss if we got hard-nosed about 1600?
malice
k...@statsci.com
Ferret
>The reason i was given for using 1651 as a cut of was that the SCA was
>a medieval ~and renaissance~ recreation group, and that the
>renaissance lasted a little longer in England than it did on the
>continent...
Although many scholars maintain that a renaissance in the arts occured in
the 17th century, most will agree that intellectualy the "dark ages" lasted
until the 18th century, the true renaissance begining with "The age of
enlightenment". U.S. citizens should know this as their "revolution" was a
direct result of it and the begining of the end for fuedalism in the world.
No I don't think we should allow "our period" another 100 years. I just
wanted to clarify that I wasn't using the renaissance as my cut-off date for
1650. I was going by the Knowne World Handbook (pg14).
-Ferret-
Aryk Nusbacher
>anything else you'd really miss if we got hard-nosed about 1600?
Penicillin
The Marx Brothers
Wallpaper
The camel's-hair polo coat
Gilbert and Sullivan
Rudyard Kipling
Neuschwanstein Castle, Lola Montez, and other playthings of King Ludwig
Gin & Tonic
The foundation of King's College, Toronto, by King George IV
The emancipation of French Jewry by Napoleon Bonaparte
The Hellfire Club
The premiership of Horace Walpole
The War of Jenkins' Ear
Freemasonry
Queen Anne's War
The War of Austrian Succession
The minuet
Christopher Wren
The Great Fire of London
Pipes with decent-sized bowls
Nell Gwynn
Getting your own mug in a tavern instead of sharing one (in England)
"Tumbledown Dick" jokes about Richard Cromwell
Prince Rupert of the Rhine
"Humpty Dumpty" jokes about Charles I
Cyrano de Bergerac
The Three Musketeers
Tatted lace
Tea
Hot chocolate
Coffee
Latakia tobacco
The Douai Bible
Mass-market knitted wool socks
The Devils of Loudun
The Authorised Version of the Bible
Just a few things.
Aryk Nusbacher
Ferret
>From: nusb...@epas.utoronto.ca (Aryk Nusbacher)
>Subject: Re: 1599 good 1652 bad
>Date: 2 Apr 1994 02:25:57 GMT
>In article <KJH.94Ma...@herb.statsci.com> k...@statsci.com (Kjrsten Henriksen) writes:
>>anything else you'd really miss if we got hard-nosed about 1600?
>Freemasonry
I think the masons would argue with this since they trace their origins to
the pyramids of egypt!
>Tea
An Arab monopoly for the most part but available in europe.
>Hot chocolate
>Coffee
>Latakia tobacco
Not sure about these but the Americas were being exploited ever since 1492!
Also these non-european products did exist in the medieval world in their
respective countries (Japan, Americas, China, India, Middle East etc..)
I think oriental personas would laugh if you told them tea wasn't period.
-Ferret-
Geoff Guth
>Although many scholars maintain that a renaissance in the arts occured in
>the 17th century, most will agree that intellectualy the "dark ages" lasted
>until the 18th century, the true renaissance begining with "The age of
>enlightenment". U.S. citizens should know this as their "revolution" was a
>direct result of it and the begining of the end for fuedalism in the world.
>No I don't think we should allow "our period" another 100 years. I just
>wanted to clarify that I wasn't using the renaissance as my cut-off date for
>1650. I was going by the Knowne World Handbook (pg14).
All of which should serve to prove what any historian will tell you, that
the dates of the renaissance (or any historical era) are really tough, if
not impossible to pin down.
Minor quibble: I wouldn't really call 18th century England or colonial
America feudal. Especially in England, but throughout Europe, the true
feudal system was pretty much on the way out centuries before.
Richard of Salisbury,
Who, as a dancer, is willing to give up Playford as long as I get to keep
Caroso, Negri, Ebreo, Domenico, etc.
Bruce Mills
>In article <2nil3l$4...@alpha.epas.utoronto.ca> nusb...@epas.utoronto.ca (Aryk Nusbacher) writes:
>>From: nusb...@epas.utoronto.ca (Aryk Nusbacher)
>>Subject: Re: 1599 good 1652 bad
>>Date: 2 Apr 1994 02:25:57 GMT
>
>>In article <KJH.94Ma...@herb.statsci.com> k...@statsci.com (Kjrsten Henriksen) writes:
>
>>>anything else you'd really miss if we got hard-nosed about 1600?
>
>An Arab monopoly for the most part but available in europe.
>
>
>respective countries (Japan, Americas, China, India, Middle East etc..)
>I think oriental personas would laugh if you told them tea wasn't period.
>-Ferret-
HA HA HA HA HA!
Akimoya
Ferret
>>>Freemasonry
>>I think the masons would argue with this since they trace their origins to
>>the pyramids of egypt!
>And to Solomon's Temple and to the Knights Templars. King Alfred was
>a direct descendant of the god Wotan. Making up an origin doesn't
>make it true. Freemasonry, as opposed to the trade of laying stone,
>has its origins in the Enlightenment.
I could argue this but I'm sworn to secrecy.
>>>Tea
>You couldn't go into a tea shop in London or Paris and buy it, could you?
>>>Hot chocolate
>>>Coffee
>>>Latakia tobacco
>Fact remains, though, that coffee-houses,
>chocolate-houses and tobacconists were a thing of the 17th century.
Does that before McDonalds nobody had a hamburger?
>The question was about what _I_ would miss.
The point of alot of jokes ?
-Ferret-
I'm here to play, when it becomes work I'll get a job at a museum.
David Friedman
>>anything else you'd really miss if we got hard-nosed about 1600?
Someone answers:
>>Tea
> >An Arab monopoly for the most part but available in europe.
So far as I know, tea was not available in Europe prior to 1600. If you
have evidence to the contrary, I would be interested to see it.
I also do not know of any pre-1600 references to the use or sale of tea by
the Arabs. Coffee was in use in the Islamic world well before 1600,
although it is late period, and I presume the Mongols, some of whom became
Muslim, would have had tea--but I cannot think of any references to the
Arabs having it. My impression is that tea came into use in Europe as a
result of direct contacts with China.
David/Cariadoc
DD...@Cornell.Edu
David Friedman
>Hot chocolate
>Coffee
>Latakia tobacco
>
> >Not sure about these but the Americas were being exploited ever since 1492!
I do not think that what we call hot chocolate existed anywhere in the
world before 1600. There were drinks made from cocoa beans in the New World
and, I think, in Spain just before 1600, but they seem to have been very
different.
Coffee was in use in the Islamic world well before 1600 but not in England
and, I think, not anywhere in Europe (unless you count the European bit of
the Ottoman Empire).
Tobacco was, I am fairly sure, being used in England at the very end of our
period, but I have no idea what it was like.
--
David/Cariadoc
DD...@Cornell.Edu
Ferret
>>>Tea
>> >An Arab monopoly for the most part but available in europe.
>So far as I know, tea was not available in Europe prior to 1600. If you
>have evidence to the contrary, I would be interested to see it.
>I also do not know of any pre-1600 references to the use or sale of tea by
>the Arabs. Coffee was in use in the Islamic world well before 1600,
>although it is late period, and I presume the Mongols, some of whom became
>Muslim, would have had tea--but I cannot think of any references to the
>Arabs having it. My impression is that tea came into use in Europe as a
>result of direct contacts with China.
Considering that Marco Polo died in 1324, contact with China is well
established prior to 1600. Also the "silk road" was a millenium old trade
route for oriental products and the Arabs (various) held control of the
connection to europe via Venice.
-Ferret-
F.L. Watkins
Let's face it, the use of any term such as "Dark Ages," "Middle
Ages," "Renaissance" or even (and perhaps especially) "Modern"
is rife with trouble. Even the professionals are constantly
debating and redefining the terms, until they have virtually
no meaning. Add to that fact the fact that what might be
termed a renaissance happened at least twice (early 11th
century after millineium scares died out and then the 13th
century) before the big renaissance that started in Italy.
Add to that the fact that the renaissance (and probably the
other ages as well) began and ended at different times in
different areas (and are totally irrelevant for still
other areas).
Saying that the SCA encompasses oh, say, the Middle Ages and
the Renaissance is a fine general term. But it says less
than nothing (because nothing, at least, would not be
controversial). I think that the By-Laws made the best
of a bad situation when they specified pre-17th century
as the cut-off date and made western Europe (which is a
fairly well-defined location) the location. In other
words, the rules of the game have been defined. If you
want to play in some other era--or, conversely, con-
centrate more fully on a single era within the multi-
era SCA timeline--then you are free to seek out any
of a number of other organizations devoted to a narrower
field of history. Or participate in a time-line organization
(always a great time to exchange tips on reenacting).
For my money (and I guess that definitely includes sending
in my membership to the SCA), I think that 1600 is as good
a cut-off as any, although I wouldn't be upset by 1650. I
definitely think that post-period citations that are
*appropriate* should not be discarded, but the "If theyda
had it theyda used it" philosophy is not appropriate. I
also definitely think that a beginning time would be
appropriate (in the Middle Kingdom, more than ten years
ago during the reign of Finnvarr & Caellyn, we imposed
a beginning date for the MidRealm as 500 C.E.; this
has, unfortunately, not been maintained and has been
largely forgotten).
Yrs, Folo
--
Damin de Folo - F.L. Watkins - Fo...@Prairienet.edu
Baron Wurm Wald (MK), SCA - Commander Baldwin's, NWTA
Contrary to rumors, I don't live in the past - I just visit
Craig Martin Levin
>Considering that Marco Polo died in 1324, contact with China is well
>established prior to 1600. Also the "silk road" was a millenium old trade
>route for oriental products and the Arabs (various) held control of the
>connection to europe via Venice.
Ah, but he brought little back but gemstones. For the most
part, Occidentals went only to get spices and silk. The
others went for souls. In the records that I have of the
Portuguese journeys to the Orient, they never bring
back tea or coffee, but oy! is there pepper and nutmeg and
cinnamon and silk!
If the Occidentals wanted tea, I daresay they'd have brought
it back in their ships. But they did not. Tea only becomes a
beverage in the Occident after the Age of Exploration was
over; I would figure the 1630's at the earliest.
Also, recall that the Persians and Turks probably would not
be willing to haul large, watertight chests of leaves when
they could make equal profits lugging (comparatively)
lightweight bolts of cloth and leather spice bags.
--
Craig Levin Pedro de Alcazar
Ohio U. Dernehealde, Shire of Middle Marches
cle...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu Midrealm
"No land uninhabitable, no sea unnavigable"-Robert Thorne, 1527
Ferret
In article <CnnH1...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu> you write:
> Also, recall that the Persians and Turks probably would not
> be willing to haul large, watertight chests of leaves when
> they could make equal profits lugging (comparatively)
> lightweight bolts of cloth and leather spice bags.
I dare say that merchants bring more than the "major wares". They bring
customs, stories, drugs, habits and language. I didn't imply that tea was
anything major merely that it was probably a medicinal import and suggest a
search of medical sources (marijuana and opium {possibly the "lotus" of
Homer} were known to the Romans why not later peoples).
Just because things aren't popular, in widespread use or not mentioned doesn'
t mean it didn't exist. There is little mention of how to wipe your ass but
it is assumed that minimal cleanliness occured. Inference is a totally
legitimate scientific practice.
-Frettchen von Rheinpfalz-
Craig Martin Levin
>I dare say that merchants bring more than the "major wares". They bring
>customs, stories, drugs, habits and language. I didn't imply that tea was
>anything major merely that it was probably a medicinal import and suggest a
>search of medical sources (marijuana and opium {possibly the "lotus" of
>Homer} were known to the Romans why not later peoples).
It's possible, but from what I know of the medical texts,
tea was not used. However, I'm a scholar of maritime
history, not medical history. Anyone who does herbals,
could you please check this one out?
I agree on cultural transfer; however, not everything in a
society is transferred. Otherwise, all the cultures of
Eurasia would not exist; you'd see one big culture bloc,
stretching from Japan to Iberia. Alas for us Occidentals,
tea drinking isn't one of the things that made it from
Cathay through the Persians and Turks to Europe.
>Just because things aren't popular, in widespread use or not mentioned doesn'
>t mean it didn't exist. There is little mention of how to wipe your ass but
>it is assumed that minimal cleanliness occured. Inference is a totally
>legitimate scientific practice.
Agreed, but, I'm not going to take an inference of "it may
have existed among the few traders who went to the Orient
and returned alive to Europe" and apply it to everyone who
lived in the Middle Ages.
Aryk Nusbacher
Nusbacher:
>>Fact remains, though, that coffee-houses,
>>chocolate-houses and tobacconists were a thing of the 17th century.
Ferret:
>Does that before McDonalds nobody had a hamburger?
Nope.
It means that someone from Britain or France didn't go down to the
coffee-house for coffee and a smoke until after 1600.
Nusbacher
>>The question was about what _I_ would miss.
Ferret:
>The point of alot of jokes ?
Whatever
Aryk Nusbacher
Aryk Nusbacher
>David Friedman writes:
>>My impression is that tea came into use in Europe as a
>>result of direct contacts with China.
Ferret replies:
>Considering that Marco Polo died in 1324, contact with China is well
>established prior to 1600. Also the "silk road" was a millenium old trade
>route for oriental products and the Arabs (various) held control of the
>connection to europe via Venice.
Tea did not become a viable commodity for trade with Europe until it
could be shipped in bulk by sea. Before that, the China trade
specialised in commodities that could bring more money for the weight
shipped. Why ship tea at x weight of gold per y weight of tea, when
silk would fetch (say) 10 x per y; in an environment which severely
limited the quantity that could be shipped in a given year?
The fact of the matter is that tea was not imported to England or
France in quantity until the 17th century.
The presence of a trading route does not mean that all Chinese
commodities were available in all of Europe.
Aryk Nusbacher
Ferret
>>Just because things aren't popular, in widespread use or not mentioned doesn'
>>t mean it didn't exist. There is little mention of how to wipe your ass but
>>it is assumed that minimal cleanliness occured. Inference is a totally
>>legitimate scientific practice.
> Agreed, but, I'm not going to take an inference of "it may
> have existed among the few traders who went to the Orient
> and returned alive to Europe" and apply it to everyone who
> lived in the Middle Ages.
Who was implying anything was applied to everyone?
(There may have been variations even in ass wiping. (ie: left or right hand))
THE POINT > many things can be infered to have existed by various sources
and methods (reading only readily available sources is not research). If one
wants to play (like I do) then anything barely credible goes, however, if
you want to talk serious anthropological theory (like I do) then be prepared
to come to no concrete conclusions.
-Frettchen von Rheinpfalz-
Ferret
>>Considering that Marco Polo died in 1324, contact with China is well
>>established prior to 1600. Also the "silk road" was a millenium old trade
>>route for oriental products and the Arabs (various) held control of the
>>connection to europe via Venice.
>Tea did not become a viable commodity for trade with Europe until it
>could be shipped in bulk by sea. Before that, the China trade
>specialised in commodities that could bring more money for the weight
>shipped. Why ship tea at x weight of gold per y weight of tea, when
>silk would fetch (say) 10 x per y; in an environment which severely
>limited the quantity that could be shipped in a given year?
>The fact of the matter is that tea was not imported to England or
>France in quantity until the 17th century.
>The presence of a trading route does not mean that all Chinese
>commodities were available in all of Europe.
>I would agree that "in bulk" there would perhaps be records of
transactions, however it is easier to postulate that small quantities traded
by individual merchants would be very probable but any surviving evidence
would be lacking. I am sure that the slinky and the hula-hoopa will survive
in documents some where but the spud-gun, being a relatively minor fad toy (
in the media), would probably not be easily documented. Historicaly I would
have to agree with your hypothesis but anthropologicaly I maintain my theory
as well.
-Ferret-
>Aryk Nusbacher
Mary Shafer
Cretan, in Oxford in 1637. London's first real coffeehouse opened in
1652, owned by Daniel Edwards.
No reference to tea appears in European literature before 1588. The
Portugese probably came across it in their trading with China, they
did little about it. The Dutch introduced the tea-drinking habit to
seventeenth-century Europe. The first teas used in England appear to
have come directly from Java. The _Gazette_, for Tuesday, 2 September
1658, carried the announcement of the death of Oliver Cromwell. There
also appeared what is now known to be the earliest advertisement for
_tea_, in a promotion for "The Sultaness Head, Cophee House, in
Sweetings Rents near the Royal Exchange".
The above is from "The Afternoon Tea Book" by Michael Smith.
--
Mary Shafer DoD #362 KotFR
SR-71 Chief Engineer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
sha...@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA
"A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all." Unknown US fighter pilot
Ferret
>The discussion was what one might miss if the SCA enforced its 1600
>cutoff. My post included a somewhat whimsical response to Malice's
>question.
It started as comment on the end of the SCA period, 1600 or 1650
>One might infer that people wiped their bums before 1600 in spite of a
>lack of evidence to that effect. This does not, however, mean that
>one can with the same assurance infer that in spite of a similar lack
>of evidence western Europeans drank tea before 1600; or that they ate
>croissants; or took snuff; or smoked dope.
Without proper artifacts it can be argued any way one wants. The way I like
to argue it is that a) sticklers for accuracy are doomed to failure any
where. b) It all lends itself to be poked fun at. I have yet to see any
original theorems here (that is how science is conducted). You cannot
disprove that my hypothesis is true or not. Give me some hard data and I
might ammend my theorem but till then were just pushing letters on a screen.
I am taking the whole matter lightly (It doesn't affect my GPA)
-Ferret-
Aryk Nusbacher
>Just because things aren't popular, in widespread use or not mentioned doesn'
>t mean it didn't exist. There is little mention of how to wipe your ass but
>it is assumed that minimal cleanliness occured. Inference is a totally
>legitimate scientific practice.
What's your point?
If your point is that it is possible that tea might have been known to
somebody in Western Europe before 1600, then yes, that is not an
inconceivable thing. And if I hear hoofbeats in central Toronto, I
infer that I hear horses, not that I hear zebras.
The discussion was what one might miss if the SCA enforced its 1600
cutoff. My post included a somewhat whimsical response to Malice's
question.
One might infer that people wiped their bums before 1600 in spite of a
lack of evidence to that effect. This does not, however, mean that
one can with the same assurance infer that in spite of a similar lack
of evidence western Europeans drank tea before 1600; or that they ate
croissants; or took snuff; or smoked dope.
If you are afraid that I am out to keep you from sipping a cuppa char
at SCA events; you may rest easy. I have no such agenda. You have my
blessing to drink tea, coffee, or chocolate; or smoke Latakia tobacco.
Aryk Nusbacher
"No, you came here for an argument." -J. Cleese
Ferret
>No reference to tea appears in European literature before 1588.
and much more in an excellent bit of research (read her post).
So coffee is within the SCA period. More substantiation for my claim.
Thanks Mary,
-Ferret-
Phyllis Gilmore
DD...@cornell.edu (David Friedman) wrote:
>
Your Grace,
I'm curious--I assume that there were some tissanes (is that the right
word?) and such made from other, local things. Beers and wines and
the like are obvious, but I was thinking of lighter beverages, either
for cooling off or for warming the soul on a cold dreary night. What
sorts of things might the average European have chosen? (Aside from
the medicinal ones, unless those would still be relevent.)
Philippa
Greg Rose
>Without proper artifacts it can be argued any way one wants. The way I like
>to argue it is that a) sticklers for accuracy are doomed to failure any
>where. b) It all lends itself to be poked fun at. I have yet to see any
>original theorems here (that is how science is conducted). You cannot
^^^^^^^^^^
>disprove that my hypothesis is true or not. Give me some hard data and I
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>might ammend my theorem but till then were just pushing letters on a screen.
>I am taking the whole matter lightly (It doesn't affect my GPA)
If you seriously mean the underlined sentence, then your hypothesis is
_in principle_ unscientific. Without falsification criteria, no hypothesis
is scientific. I think you need a dose of Popper (Karl, not the kind you
can get a Grateful Dead concerts) and Lakatos. And if you were in a
upper level historical methods course, it surely would affect your
GPA -- trust me on this one, I've taught many of them.
Greg/Hossein
David Friedman
> to argue it is that a) sticklers for accuracy are doomed to failure any
> where. b) It all lends itself to be poked fun at.
Translation: Anything that cannot be done perfectly should not be done, and
making fun of people who are doing things imperfectly is easier than doing
anything oneself.
The application of the principle is considerably broader than the
particular example. Nothing in medicine, for example, can be established
with certainty. Hence the appropriate response to all medical research is
to poke fun at it. Nothing ... .
--
David/Cariadoc
DD...@Cornell.Edu
"If you don't have anything to say, don't say anything."
Bambi's Mother, Usenet Edition
Ferret
^^^^^^^^^^
>>disprove that my hypothesis is true or not. Give me some hard data and I
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>might ammend my theorem but till then were just pushing letters on a screen.
>>I am taking the whole matter lightly (It doesn't affect my GPA)
>If you seriously mean the underlined sentence, then your hypothesis is
>_in principle_ unscientific. Without falsification criteria, no hypothesis
>is scientific. I think you need a dose of Popper (Karl, not the kind you
>can get a Grateful Dead concerts) and Lakatos. And if you were in a
>upper level historical methods course, it surely would affect your
>GPA -- trust me on this one, I've taught many of them.
A hypothesis has been put forward. I would appreciate a valid analysis with
falsification of data or logic. Try science not philosophy.
-Ferret-
Ferret
>From: DD...@cornell.edu (David Friedman)
>Subject: Re: 1599 good 1652 bad
>> The way I like
>> to argue it is that a) sticklers for accuracy are doomed to failure any
>> where. b) It all lends itself to be poked fun at.
>Translation: Anything that cannot be done perfectly should not be done, and
>making fun of people who are doing things imperfectly is easier than doing
>anything oneself.
My statement is the exact opposite ! I maintain that nothing can be done
perfectly and therefore those who make authorative comments on accuracy are
to be laughed at.
-Ferret-
>The application of the principle is considerably broader than the
>particular example. Nothing in medicine, for example, can be established
>with certainty. Hence the appropriate response to all medical research is
>to poke fun at it. Nothing ... .
Any Doctor who thinks he knows everything should not only be laughed at but
avoided at all costs.
-Ferret-
Andrea Marie Habura
I'm not sure what you mean by "a valid analysis with falsification of data
or logic". It's tough to analyze any hypothesis by falsifying data.
Hossein's point is well taken, although I'm a scientist rather than a
historian. A hypothesis needs to carry, in a sense, the seeds of its own
destruction: a way for the hypothesis to be disproved. Any statement
that cannot be disproved isn't a hypothesis in the scientific sense, although
it can still be useful.
I'm going to set up a historical statement here: "Clovis I slept with a
plush stuffed brontosaurus when he was a child." In truth, there is no way
to absolutely disprove this statement. Even if one were to build a time
machine, go back, and observe Clovis for 24 hours a day, seven days a week,
from the time he was born to adulthood, and never saw him with a stuffed
brontosaurus, that isn't actual disproof: the observer's presence may have
embarrased Clovis into not sleeping with the toy.
So, what we're forced to do is inference from surviving evidence. This
can be from many sources, not just popular 20th c. histories. Do any
chroniclers, contemporary with Clovis or otherwise, mention him sleeping
with a stuffed toy? Does *any* chronicler from the time mention stuffed
animals at all? Is there any evidence (illuminatons, mentions of old
bones, or whatnot) that folk contemporary with Clovis knew about dinosaurs?
If the answers are all "no", then we have to remove the "Clovis' childhood
toy" statement to the "not bloody likely" bin. Yes, it is remotely possible
that the idea is correct. But when all the surviving evidence points the
other way, I don't think it's responsible to say, a la Judy Tenuta, "It
could happen".
Let's flip this around, and talk about tie-dye. What evidence is there that
20th c. Americans practiced tie-dye, and if they did, what materials did
they use? Even assuming that no textiles survived--only written accounts--
we have:
Photos of people wearing tie-dyed clothing, frequently identified as such
(fashion magazines, news reportage) [I suppose "written accounts" up there
should include film and printed photographs]
Appearances in novels (the novel _Sure of You_, by Armistead Maupin,
contains a scene in which one character is teaching another to tie-dye.
The scene is intended to say something about the teaching character, but
the directions given would allow some understanding of the process to anyone
who knows what textiles, dye, and rubber bands are).
Catalogs of companies selling materials for tie-dye.
Announcements of activities including tie-dye (a frat at my college holds
a tie-dye party every year).
References in political commentary to tie-dye as a shorthand for a "sixties-
hippie" mindset and range of values.
And, let's face it, tie-dye is not considered a definition of our culture.
Even a relatively minor art has left many traces in the historical record.
Even granting that our culture is information-intensive, and that the vast
majority of written records will vanish, the odds of all references to
tie-dye vanishing from the record are very small.
Since this is the case, the complete absence of even oblique references to
an art or an object in the record of a particular time is reason to think
that it didn't exist, even if it "could" have. Of course, new evidence
turns up all the time, and existing evidence is reinterpreted. That's why
we have historians. But it strikes me that saying "it could've happened
so I say it did" is a real slap in the face to people who are doing the
honest legwork that good historical research demands.
I personally divide my activities into three categories:
"This happened. Here's the proof."
"This may be OK, but I can't prove it. This is why I think it's reasonable."
"I'm pretty sure this didn't happen. I am doing this for reasons other
than historical research."
An example of 1) is a particular couching pattern in 13th c. goldwork
embroideries; the proof is the actual item, showing the couching pattern,
using the same thread count ground, diameter of gold thread, and spacing
of the couching. 2) might be use of a particular shape of bezant, based on
existing bezant molds that show different shapes, reference to a bezant in
my desired shape in a Great Inventory of the same period, and a picture
of something of identical shape in art of the period. 2.5) might be
a meat pie I baked to eat an an event, using a modern recipe; I'm not
learning anything new, but I do know that meat pies were eaten, based on
sources like that in 2). 3) is camping in a modern tent.
Like I've said before, this is how I do *my* thing. I don't tell other
people how to do their things. It just galls me to hear someone say
"it could've happened so I'm doing it and it's real historical research."
Alison MacDermot
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's time for another "Good Idea, Bad Idea".
Good Idea: Walking directly behind the King in a procession.
Bad Idea: Walking directly behind the Kings' horse in a procession.
thomas wrentmore barnes
>established prior to 1600. Also the "silk road" was a millenium old trade
>route for oriental products and the Arabs (various) held control of the
>connection to europe via Venice.
Hogwash! Utter bunk!
Just because they knew about it in China doesn't mean that they
know about it in Europe. Consider that Marco Polo's book was considered
to be a curiousity - a source of amazing tales - rather than a practical
book on how to make the inventions that he saw.
Yes there has been indirect contact between China and Europe via
the silk road ever since the time of the Roman Empire, broken only by up
heaval in Western Europe during the Germanic Migrations.
No it doesn't mean that the Europeans drank tea made from the
leaves of the tea plant.
If tea had gotten to Europe in Period it would have been listed
in period recipies and period household inventories along with the
pepper, and galingale, and ginger, and all the other spices that were
imported from the Orient. Since it isn't and there are no references,
either as recipies or in literature to Western Europeans drinking tea
made from the leaf of the tea plant in Period it is safe to assume that
it probably isn't Period for Europe.
I am not sure on this but I think that the introduction of tea
into Western Europe can be dated to the 17th c. I believe that it was
popularized by an English Duchess, but I am not sure. I will have to
check my books.
Lothar
Michael McKay
the drift). I have a more detailed question. I'll accept that "javaneese"
tea did not show up in noticable form until late or past our period. What
about the general concept of "boiling water with some kinds of plants" to
form what we call generically, "tea". I don't like orange-peko tea (Liptons
most popular flavor). But I do very much like spearmint leaves boiled in water
(and pepermint even more). There are many other things that are used, which we
currently lump together as "tea". Now let me ask the question again:
"Is tea period?" (may be called "tincture" herbally speaking).
Sean MacKay Caer Darth; Darkwood; Mists; West
Ferret
>This I find to be unsupported by any evidence that I have read. I believe that
>traders bring only their primary wares into a culture and spend the rest of
>the time blending into the local culture. There is ample evidence of far
>reaching trade routes in every period but the evidence suggests the new ideas
>only appear when an army of occupation returns home.
Excellent theory ! I have only one fly to throw in the ointment, The
culture of England (mostly a history of conquering invaders) has been
changed so much by the imported cultures that little remains of the original
culture especially the language. And in the current U.S. for one thing Sushi
has become a mainstream food item but due to imigration not conquest.
oops! make that two flies (or is it flew?)
-Ferret-
Ferret
>From: hab...@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu (Andrea Marie Habura)
>Subject: Re: 1599 good 1652 bad
>On Ferret's hypothesis:
>I'm not sure what you mean by "a valid analysis with falsification of data
>or logic". It's tough to analyze any hypothesis by falsifying data.
>Hossein's point is well taken, although I'm a scientist rather than a
>historian. A hypothesis needs to carry, in a sense, the seeds of its own
>destruction: a way for the hypothesis to be disproved. Any statement
>that cannot be disproved isn't a hypothesis in the scientific sense, although
>it can still be useful.
I meant: "disprove my data that there were well established trade between
europe and asia, that europeans knew of steeping plants in boiling water to
make beverages, and that inductively tea drinking in the middle ages is a
very good possibility."
>I personally divide my activities into three categories:
>"This happened. Here's the proof."
>"This may be OK, but I can't prove it. This is why I think it's reasonable."
>"I'm pretty sure this didn't happen. I am doing this for reasons other
>than historical research."
A hypothesis need not have the seeds of its own detruction either. That is
what testing of the hypothesis is for. I have given several reasons for my
hypothesis and data to support it. I am glad that a few have given equally
valid opposing theories but analogies to ridiculous stories and arguments
like "I don't believe it" do not constitute an scientific argument.
Had Clovis I been found entombed with a stuffed purple dinosaur we would
conclude that it was a very personal item and would lend to the hypothesis
that he slept with one, however we would not call it "Barney". That's
Science!
-Frettchen von Rheinpfalz-
Craig Martin Levin
>In article <2npogg$7...@usenet.pa.dec.com> has...@oleum.zso.dec.com (Nigel Haslock) writes:
>
>>traders bring only their primary wares into a culture and spend the rest of
>>the time blending into the local culture. There is ample evidence of far
>>reaching trade routes in every period but the evidence suggests the new ideas
>>only appear when an army of occupation returns home.
>
>Excellent theory ! I have only one fly to throw in the ointment, The
>culture of England (mostly a history of conquering invaders) has been
>changed so much by the imported cultures that little remains of the original
>culture especially the language. And in the current U.S. for one thing Sushi
>has become a mainstream food item but due to imigration not conquest.
>oops! make that two flies (or is it flew?)
What flies? The Normans and whatever predecessors that they had,
from the Beaker People to the Saxons, were armies of occupation,
forcing their culture on to the land. See also the example of Rome,
which has variations of its language being spoken in the
ex-provinces still spoken 15 centuries after the fall of the empire.
If you don't believe me-look at Spanish, French, and Portuguese!
But the conquerors didn't bring _everything_ with them. Otherwise,
Celtic _cerveza_ would have vanished, among other fine things, and
England would have had the same muddle of a government that France
had until that realm got its act together.
As for immigration, most immigrations on the scale that the US gets
have been invasions up until now.
--
Craig Levin Pedro de Alcazar
Ohio University History Department Shire of Dernehealde
cle...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu Midrealm
David Friedman
> word?) and such made from other, local things. Beers and wines and
> the like are obvious, but I was thinking of lighter beverages, either
> for cooling off or for warming the soul on a cold dreary night. What
> sorts of things might the average European have chosen?
> Philippa
A good question, to which I cannot give very much of an answer. I believe
there were both almond based and barley based drinks, but I do not know
much about either.
My 13th c. Andalusian cookbook has a whole chapter of drinks that are
basically syrups diluted with water. Sekanjabin is the best known. They are
accompanied by medical comments. I think it is clear that Sekanjabin was
used as a drink as well as a medicine (from references elsewhere--not to
mention modern practice), but I am not sure how many of the others were.
--
David/Cariadoc
DD...@Cornell.Edu
JIM DAVIS 919-541-3757
Ferret responds to someone:
>>Minor quibble: I wouldn't really call 18th century England or colonial
>>America feudal. Especially in England, but throughout Europe, the true
>>feudal system was pretty much on the way out centuries before.
>The plantation system in the Southern United States were based on the
>european feudal system, which gives a date of 1865 as the end of the feudal
>system in the U.S. .... and 1919 in Russia, but that's another story...-
Ferret, you have said a great many silly things of late, most of which I
attribute to youth, however, I would in this instance be interested in how an
economic system based on the exchange of the use of land in return for military
service or scutage is in any way similiar to an economic system based on the use
of slave labor. Aside from the fact that they are both agrarian based, I can
think of none. Assuming for a moment that we ignore that the two are wholly
unrelated, 1865 didn't really change the landscape all that much. Those who were
once slaves became tenant farmers which in many cases was worse than being a
slave. That being the case, the end of the fuedal system in the US didn't come
about until approx 1940.
Richard du Guesclin
Elvegast, Windmaster's Hill, Atlantia
davi...@epamail.epa.gov
meg
>
> >I would agree that "in bulk" there would perhaps be records of
> transactions, however it is easier to postulate that small quantities traded
> by individual merchants would be very probable but any surviving evidence
> would be lacking. I am sure that the slinky and the hula-hoopa will survive
> in documents some where but the spud-gun, being a relatively minor fad toy (
> in the media), would probably not be easily documented. Historicaly I would
> have to agree with your hypothesis but anthropologicaly I maintain my theory
> as well.
> -Ferret-
>
Megan here. I disagree. THe Archie McPhee Catalog has listed spud guns
among its excellent products for years now.
Megan, warrented in list legal spud gun and pea shooter forms.
:-)
==
In 1994: Linda Anfuso
In the Current Middle Ages: Megan ni Laine de Belle Rive
In the SCA, Inc: sustaining member # 33644
YYY YYY
m...@tinhat.stonemarche.org | YYYYY |
|____n____|
Ferret
>Ferret, you have said a great many silly things of late, most of which I
>attribute to youth, however, I would in this instance be interested in how an
>economic system based on the exchange of the use of land in return for military
>service or scutage is in any way similiar to an economic system based on the use
>of slave labor. Aside from the fact that they are both agrarian based, I can
>think of none. Assuming for a moment that we ignore that the two are wholly
>unrelated, 1865 didn't really change the landscape all that much. Those who were
>once slaves became tenant farmers which in many cases was worse than being a
>slave. That being the case, the end of the fuedal system in the US didn't come
>about until approx 1940.
According to Robert Doyle, Professor of American Studies University of
Pennsylvania and author of several books, states that the Southern colonies
were settled mainly by Anglicans from England during Cromwell's control and
that the leige lord (fuedal) system continued until the Civil War in 1865.
The parallels are landed; barons=plantation owners, serfs=overseers, slaves=
slaves. During the reconstruction property was taken from the plantaion
owners and was (supposed to have been) distributed to the now free slaves.
The plan was fraught with corruption but it did manage to redistribute the
land and change the economic system to wage-labor.
BTW slavery was very common in the middle ages and the peasants were viewed
as property of their lord and a part of the land. Both scenarios are
examples of chattel property ergo "slave".
I understand that the words of the educated seem "silly" to the uneducated
and perhaps I assume to much knowledge on behalf of some readers of my posts.
-Ferret-
Barbara Nostrand
Lord Sean writes:
: about the general concept of "boiling water with some kinds of plants" to
: form what we call generically, "tea". I don't like orange-peko tea (Liptons
: most popular flavor). But I do very much like spearmint leaves boiled in water
: (and pepermint even more). There are many other things that are used, which we
How about sekanjabin (sp) a documentable mint drink from Al Islam .. a recepe
for which can be obtained from Duke Carriadoc.
Note! This does not justify throwing just anything in water unless you
seriously want to go out in the woods and start brewing oak chips. At which
point I seriously suggest that you consult Epicius (sp). While there are
connections between culinary and herbalist arts they are not necessarily
identical. Incidentally, it was recently discovered that the Roman cure
for anemia really does work. The Romans would put a sword in water to
disolve iron oxide into the water. It was thought that the human body could
not absorb iron in this manner until about 10 years ago.
Your Humble Servant
Solveig Throndardottir
Totally Ignorant
meg
>
> >>Just because things aren't popular, in widespread use or not mentioned does
Megan adds: This is the most unlikely thread I thought I'd ever pick up
off the floor, but, I couldn't resist.
Don't Middle Eastern cultures eat only with the right hand because the
left is used for bodily cleaning?
I can't find my copy of the Babe's Book, but I believe sonething similar
is mentioned in there as well.
william thomas powers
I meant: "disprove my data that there were well established trade between
europe and asia, that europeans knew of steeping plants in boiling water to
make beverages, and that inductively tea drinking in the middle ages is a
very good possibility."
tree was believed to be extinct up until our century when it was discovered
in a chinese garden. Now " there were well established trade between
europe and asia, ..." Europeans were quite good about spreading new found
plants, (look at tulips, roses, apples grapes...) therefor "inductively"
the Ginko was naturalized in Europe during the Medieval period-and nobody
noticed it until 600 years later when it was re-introduced. I think not!
It is pleasant to play "what if" but if Tea was imported at great cost and
hardship from the east; don't you think someone would list it in the spice
inventories or brag about serving it to "His excellacy the X"?
Wilum, who drinks the stuff without trying to justify it. Oolong anyone?
Ferret
>In article <dnb105.13...@psu.edu>, Ferret <dnb...@psu.edu> wrote:
>>According to Robert Doyle, Professor of American Studies University of
>>Pennsylvania and author of several books, states that the Southern colonies
>>were settled mainly by Anglicans from England during Cromwell's control and
>>that the leige lord (fuedal) system continued until the Civil War in 1865.
> I dobt it. Where do you find the whole fealty and homage
> ceremonies between large landholders and small landholders?
> Do you see, even in the Civil War, the large landholders
> calling up their vassals for castle guard and the 40 days
> service? No. You like this author, have confused manorialism
> and the feudal system.
I doubt very much wether you are more educated than Prof.Doyle nor have more
documentation to support your views than he. By your analogy a Catholic
wedding and an Amish marriage have nothing in common. I doubt wether
medieval slaves and peasants had any choice in the matter (esp. the formar).
However if you read anything you would realize that "castles" were
replaced by "forts" in america. As far as fealty all there is to the
feudal system then the "pledge to the flag" and entering military service
out of patriotism mean that the U.S. is a feudal system.
>>The parallels are landed; barons=plantation owners, serfs=overseers, slaves=
>>slaves. During the reconstruction property was taken from the plantaion
>>owners and was (supposed to have been) distributed to the now free slaves.
>>The plan was fraught with corruption but it did manage to redistribute the
>>land and change the economic system to wage-labor.
> Wage labor? No. Sharecropping, which is quite different,
> and, in fact, sounds a lot more manorial than the plantation
> system. The rural prole is free, in that there is no deed
> owning him and his offspring, but he is bound to the land by
> custom and renders his rent in good and services (in the
> case of the 'cropper, goods, in the case of the peasant,
> services and goods).
I suggest again that you study the anti-bellum south and the reconstruction
carefully. I suppose you believe that the "Emancipation Proclamation" freed
all the slaves in the U.S. north and south.
>>BTW slavery was very common in the middle ages and the peasants were viewed
>>as property of their lord and a part of the land. Both scenarios are
>>examples of chattel property ergo "slave".
> I would not go so far as that. A slave could be sold away
> from the land. A serf could not be alienated from his
> holding, and, while called unfree, still possessed some
> customary rights. Slaves, which were about, though rare, and
> banned in fact from England by the 1200's, had no such
> rights.
Look up Chattel Property! Animals had rights too! does that make them free
men?
>>I understand that the words of the educated seem "silly" to the uneducated
>>and perhaps I assume to much knowledge on behalf of some readers of my
>>posts.
> Let's lay it on the table here. Yakov is a lawyer, and
> knows more about the history of the law than anyone I've
> ever seen. Cariadoc is a man whose scholarship, mundanely,
> is as impressive as all get out, and is descended from a
> mighty scholar. I'm not up there with them, but I'm a grad
> student in the history dept. at my school, and a member of
> Phi Alpha Theta, and I'm writing my thesis on the Cinque
> Ports in between bouts of Rialto reading. Let's not call
> anyone uneducated here.
I do not argue that Yaakov knows more about law than I, nor that Duke Sir
Cariadoc is a learned man (what the hell does his ancestry have to do with
education though?) As a Grad Student you have enough resources available to
you to research this or ask a few Professors about it, before attacking the
position of a very respected professor. I at least admit that I don't know
everything and rely on the more learned for the basis of a lot of my
statements.
-Frettchen von Rheinpfalz-
"These things I believe I take as truth, however faced with evidence to
the contrary I will drop my ideas like a hot potato" -Tolstoy (or was it
some other guy?)
Ferret
>From: pow...@cis.ohio-state.edu (william thomas powers)
>Subject: Re: 1599 good 1652 bad
>Frettchen writes:
>I meant: "disprove my data that there were well established trade between
>europe and asia, that europeans knew of steeping plants in boiling water to
>make beverages, and that inductively tea drinking in the middle ages is a
>very good possibility."
>It is pleasant to play "what if" but if Tea was imported at great cost and
>hardship from the east; don't you think someone would list it in the spice
>inventories or brag about serving it to "His excellacy the X"?
Finally an excellent response to my contrived theory! I have been convinced
that tea was not consumed in Europe during the middle ages by this excellent
and clear post, Thank You. I still say the methodology was correct just my
values of probability needed to be put in question, which you did quite
well.
-Frettchen von Rheinpfalz-
Terry Nutter
Frettchen writes:
>> Let's lay it on the table here. Yakov is a lawyer, and
>> knows more about the history of the law than anyone I've
>> ever seen. Cariadoc is a man whose scholarship, mundanely,
>> is as impressive as all get out, and is descended from a
>> mighty scholar. I'm not up there with them, but I'm a grad
>> student in the history dept. at my school, and a member of
>> Phi Alpha Theta, and I'm writing my thesis on the Cinque
>> Ports in between bouts of Rialto reading. Let's not call
>> anyone uneducated here.
>I do not argue that Yaakov knows more about law than I, nor that Duke Sir
>Cariadoc is a learned man (what the hell does his ancestry have to do with
>education though?) As a Grad Student you have enough resources available to
>you to research this or ask a few Professors about it, before attacking the
>position of a very respected professor. I at least admit that I don't know
>everything and rely on the more learned for the basis of a lot of my
>statements.
Frettchen, in addition to these, you have lectured a PhD who not only
has taught history, but has published articles in _Speculum_ and a book
with Oxford University Press (Dr. Gregory F. Rose, also known as Hossein)
on historical and scientific method.
He doesn't _have_ to ask a professor. He _is_ one, with qualifications
as good in general as the author you cited, and _immensely_ better in
some of the areas under discussion.
I mention this, because you have taken a _very_ shrill attitude toward
a number of people whose scholarly qualifications are far better than
yours, and seem to be doing so on the basis of a relatively thin exposure
to the scholarly corpus. I am not an historian, but I hold advanced
degrees in two fields, and am employed as a faculty member (and researcher
in a scientific field) at a research university. In terms of your comments
on scientific method, sorry, you're just wrong. If you are thoughtful
in your responses to criticism, people will tend to be gentle in their
corrections. If, on the other hand, you ridicule people that many of us
_know_ to have far better qualifications than you, on evidence that we
can recognize to be thin, people will pound on you for a while, then give
you up as a lost cause.
It might be sensible, before attacking people with expertise in the field
of feudalism on the subject of whether various systems can be called feudal,
to check with an expert _in medieval history_ (_not_ in American history),
who also has expertise _in political economy_ -- which is what you need to
_know_ whether a system can reasonably be described as feudal.
Likewise, before you lecture on scientific method, it would be wise to
check with someone with expertise in that. (And BTW, many of them _are_
philosophers. It's one of the things philosophers study.)
The principle generalizes.
-- Angharad/Terry
Mark Schuldenfrei
As a Grad Student you have enough resources available to
you to research this or ask a few Professors about it, before attacking the
position of a very respected professor. I at least admit that I don't know
everything and rely on the more learned for the basis of a lot of my
statements.
Frettchen, you seem to be interested in making every argumentation error in
the book. Last was ad hominem, and this is argument from authority.
(Irony alert)
Egads, what do they teach these people in school, these days. Back in the
good old days of our period, no student would have dared to speak out
until he understood rhetoric.
(Entering Irony free zone)
Is it my imagination, or is this disputation rapidly heading for the "You're
a dolt", "No, you're a dolt" zone as well?
Tibor (undereducated, but hopefully not a dolt)
(PS from a rhetorical perspective, I'd say Pedro is ahead on points)
--
Mark Schuldenfrei (sch...@math.harvard.edu)
Pleas excuse spelling errors or terseness: I am typing one-handed while my
left wrist heals.
Nigel Haslock
Greetings from Fiacha,
In article <dnb105.11...@psu.edu>, dnb...@psu.edu (Ferret) writes:
|>
|> In article <CnnH1...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu> you write:
|> > Also, recall that the Persians and Turks probably would not
|> > be willing to haul large, watertight chests of leaves when
|> > they could make equal profits lugging (comparatively)
|> > lightweight bolts of cloth and leather spice bags.
I suspect that you are looking at this incorrectly. My understanding of the
orient is that tea is transported in highly compressed bricks. If tea were to
have travelled the Silk Road, it would have shown up as bricks, not loose
leaves. The bricks were intended to travel and be virtually indestructable
so that they would retain their value.
|>
|> I dare say that merchants bring more than the "major wares". They bring
|> customs, stories, drugs, habits and language. I didn't imply that tea was
|> anything major merely that it was probably a medicinal import and suggest a
|> search of medical sources (marijuana and opium {possibly the "lotus" of
|> Homer} were known to the Romans why not later peoples).
This I find to be unsupported by any evidence that I have read. I believe that
traders bring only their primary wares into a culture and spend the rest of
the time blending into the local culture. There is ample evidence of far
reaching trade routes in every period but the evidence suggests the new ideas
only appear when an army of occupation returns home.
Fiacha
thomas wrentmore barnes
>
>According to Robert Doyle, Professor of American Studies University of
>Pennsylvania and author of several books, states that the Southern colonies
>were settled mainly by Anglicans from England during Cromwell's control and
>that the leige lord (fuedal) system continued until the Civil War in 1865.
>The parallels are landed; barons=plantation owners, serfs=overseers, slaves=
>slaves. During the reconstruction property was taken from the plantaion
>owners and was (supposed to have been) distributed to the now free slaves.
>The plan was fraught with corruption but it did manage to redistribute the
>land and change the economic system to wage-labor.
>BTW slavery was very common in the middle ages and the peasants were viewed
>as property of their lord and a part of the land. Both scenarios are
>examples of chattel property ergo "slave".
"Any ass can write a book, and most do".
That the author is a professor of American Studies is painfully
obvious. He doesn't know beans about the Middle Ages.
First of all, while I would agree that the culture of the
Southern U.S. until the middle of this century was largely agrarian and
that some of the farm land was controlled by landlords and worked by
sharecroppers, it was in no way feudalism.
Feudalism refers to to the system by which an overlord gave a
vassal the right to administer an area of land and reap the profits from
it in exchange for military service and other set feudal duties. A
vassal could not freely sell the land that had been granted to him, and,
in theory, he could have his vassalage revoked by his lord. Later, the
requirement that military service be rendered was commuted to a set
payment.
This process could be repeated, as a vassal in turn took other
men as vassals with the same arrangements. This meant that Feudalism
was, essentially, a military hierarchy with formalized rights and duties
expected of both the lord and the vassals. It could also be complex
since many men became vassals to more than one lord, or lord over one
man who was was lord over another man who was lord over the first man.
(whew!)
This in no way describes any administrative or military pattern
that ever existed in the United States. In the South land could be
bought and sold freely, and there was no heirarchy of lords and vassals
who expected military service.
Secondly, the Southern United States never really had a system
of Manorialism. Manorialism was the system by which a lord gave land to
a tenant to work in exchange for a share of the crop. The tenant was
also expect to work on the lord's personal land, and render aid in
maintaining the lord's property on the manor. Also, the lord was
expected to defend the tenant from outside threats and to administer
justice as necessary to keep the peace.
Gradually these rights became fossilized and many tenants were
bound to the land. This was, in theory, a good thing for the tenant,
since he couldn't be dispossessed from his land, but in practice it
meant that many men became, essentially, slaves who couldn't leave the
land that they worked. Both the free and unfree tenants were also
expected to patronize the industrial and agricultural equipment provided
by their lord, which allowed the lord to have a monopoly on certain
basic services. The tenants also had to give payment (usually in kind)
for the right to use other property owned by the lord and had to pay the
lord a fine when they got married or died.
In the later middle ages these rights and duties were relaxed as
the lords gradually came to expect payment in coin rather than in kind.
In the Southern United States while there was slavery. It was a
different type of slavery than in the Middle Ages. Slaves were much less
common in the U.S. than they were in the Middle Ages. (It is estimated
that 25% of the U.S. population was slave before the Civil War. In the
Southern states the proportion was approximately 40%. This contrasts
with the Medieval landscape where fully 90% or so of the population was
in some way bound to the land.
Secondly, American Slavery was absolute. While I am not
disputing the fact that there were always slaves in the Middle Ages,
they tended to be pretty rare. The comparable form of agrian servitude
was serfdom which was in no way comparable. Serfs had set rights as well
as set duties and maintained a certain amount of freedom in what they
did and when they did it. They also weren't as vulnerable to being
physically abused by their lord. They could not be sold off of their
land or away from their families.
Thirdly, American share-cropping was allegedly, a voluntary
economic arrangement. When people found something better, they moved.
Fourth, the American landlords didn't require their
sharecroppers to use their agricultural and industrial services.
I think that the author's premise is just wrong. If he'd
bothered to look at the differences rather than trying to bind the two
systems together with a tortuous hypothesis he would have noticed the
difference.
Lothar
Greg Rose
>According to Robert Doyle, Professor of American Studies University of
>Pennsylvania and author of several books, states that the Southern colonies
>were settled mainly by Anglicans from England during Cromwell's control and
>that the leige lord (fuedal) system continued until the Civil War in 1865.
>The parallels are landed; barons=plantation owners, serfs=overseers, slaves=
>slaves. During the reconstruction property was taken from the plantaion
>owners and was (supposed to have been) distributed to the now free slaves.
>The plan was fraught with corruption but it did manage to redistribute the
>land and change the economic system to wage-labor.
>BTW slavery was very common in the middle ages and the peasants were viewed
>as property of their lord and a part of the land. Both scenarios are
>examples of chattel property ergo "slave".
By the time of the Cromwellian Commonwealth, the political economy of
England hadn't been feudal for two hundred years (the Wars of the Roses
were possible precisely because the political economy of English
warfare was no longer feudal levy but rather paid retainer). Dr. Doyle's
heuristic device is meant to point out that the ante-Bellum American
south's aristocracy had an ideology which idealized that aristocracy as the
heir to the English cavaliers; that ideology, by the way, was false --
the vast majority of the planter aristocracy had no genealogical
connection whatsoever to the English nobility of the Stuart or any other
period. In two colonies, royal charters explicitly granted the
proprietors the right to establish pseudo-feudal systems based on
idealizations of a feudal systems which had long before perished in
England. In both these cases -- Maryland and the Carolinas -- this
experiment was a grostesque failure, since a feudal system presupposes
a monopoly on arable land and settlers in the American colonies found
such a surplus of arable land that they were able to easily evade the
system which the proprietors sought to establish. By the early 1680s
any pretense at such a system was abandonned.
I cannot believe that Dr. Doyle made any such statement about Anglican
exiles during the Commonwealth settling the southern colonies. Only
Maryland and Virginia existed as colonies during the Commonwealth
period (1649-1660). The Carolinas colony was not established until
well after the charter was granted in 1663 (after the Stuarts had been
restored to the throne). Georgia was established in 1732. Florida was
ceded to Britain by Spain in 1763 in the wake of the Seven Years' War.
Furthermore, your view of the prevalence of slavery and the status of
serfs in the medieval European political economy amply demonstrates
that you are unfamiliar with the work of Bloc, Duby, Postan, and
Bolton -- those scholars who have made significant inquiries into
precisely these subjects.
Your views on land distribution and tenure patterns in the Reconstruction
South are pure fantasy. You've obviously never studied the political
economy of share-cropping.
>I understand that the words of the educated seem "silly" to the uneducated
>and perhaps I assume to much knowledge on behalf of some readers of my posts.
OK, you asked for it. If your postings had half the education and
knowledge you claim to assume on behalf of your readers, you might
have claim to the "expertise" of a mediocre undergraduate history
major. You might find it more to your profit to spend more time
actually learning some history instead of pontificating on the shortcomings
of those who know hugely more than you.
Dr. Gregory Rose (Hossein Ali Qomi)
Craig Martin Levin
>I doubt very much wether you are more educated than Prof.Doyle nor have more
>documentation to support your views than he. By your analogy a Catholic
>wedding and an Amish marriage have nothing in common. I doubt wether
>medieval slaves and peasants had any choice in the matter (esp. the formar).
>However if you read anything you would realize that "castles" were
>replaced by "forts" in america. As far as fealty all there is to the
>feudal system then the "pledge to the flag" and entering military service
>out of patriotism mean that the U.S. is a feudal system.
Um, no. Castles were private fortresses/dwellings. In
America, barring the occasional zany like Koresh, most forts
are owned by the state, and manned by volunteers who are
being paid money, as opposed to being garrisoned by sworn
vassals who serve in return for a plot of land that they can
be supported by.
Fealty goes much deeper than a pledge of allegiance. I do
not get a plot of land from Clinton in return for my pledge
to the flag. Entering the Army as _anything_ means that I am
a patriot (usually), not a vassal of my CO. No land promise,
chain of overlordship, no rights of low justice, nothing.
Ask Hossein for his explanation of feudalism-he has a fine
summary.
>I suggest again that you study the anti-bellum south and the reconstruction
>carefully. I suppose you believe that the "Emancipation Proclamation" freed
>all the slaves in the U.S. north and south.
Nope. That's the 13th Amend.'s doing. I suppose I _might_ be
able to find a parallel between American slavery and the
_latifundia_ system of Rome, but that's not my field.
>Look up Chattel Property! Animals had rights too! does that make them free
>men?
Serfs were not chattel property as we moderns understand the
term. The Germans term them Halbfrei-not free, but not
slaves.
>I do not argue that Yaakov knows more about law than I, nor that Duke Sir
>Cariadoc is a learned man (what the hell does his ancestry have to do with
>education though?) As a Grad Student you have enough resources available to
>you to research this or ask a few Professors about it, before attacking the
>position of a very respected professor. I at least admit that I don't know
>everything and rely on the more learned for the basis of a lot of my
>statements.
Let's just say that I do have the references at hand, and that
I do not enjoy playing the game of Prof. Trump Card.
Ferret
> "Any ass can write a book, and most do".
This would indicate that there is no way of documenting anything and now you
go on citing authors who may be "asses" to support your side.Since
you don't say where these items come from we will assume that you are the
author.
> First of all, while I would agree that the culture of the
>Southern U.S. until the middle of this century was largely agrarian and
>that some of the farm land was controlled by landlords and worked by
>sharecroppers, it was in no way feudalism.
Now the 75% of the population in the south, being slaves, are going to be
called sharecroppers to justify this lunacy.
>Feudalism refers to to the system by which an overlord gave a
>vassal the right to administer an area of land and reap the profits from
>it in exchange for military service and other set feudal duties. A
>vassal could not freely sell the land that had been granted to him, and,
>in theory, he could have his vassalage revoked by his lord. Later, the
>requirement that military service be rendered was commuted to a set
>payment.
And serving in the CSA wasn't a military obligation, why do you think alot
of plantaion owners were called Colonel?
Barons aand their underlings were a minority with special priviledges just
as the overseers were. And what is this about slavery being rare in the
middle ages. I suggect you read the Doomsday Book and count how many people
held slaves.
> Secondly, the Southern United States never really had a system
>of Manorialism.
I said that the Southern Plantation system was directly descended from the
English liege lord system and that it began in the early 1600's with
the Anglican settlement of the Virginia Colony and ended in 1865. This was
to reinforce that "feudalism" in the general sense ended in the United
States in 1865.
-Frettchen von Rheinpfalz-
Ferret
>OK, you asked for it. If your postings had half the education and
>knowledge you claim to assume on behalf of your readers, you might
>have claim to the "expertise" of a mediocre undergraduate history
>major. You might find it more to your profit to spend more time
>actually learning some history instead of pontificating on the shortcomings
>of those who know hugely more than you.
You need not continue flaming, I think you want to establish this stuff in
stone and if you got real honest instead of egotistical you would admit that
none of this stuff is set in stone. I am intellegent enough to be flexible
and accept different views from various "authorities" but the way you hold
steadfastly to a single position as "gospel" demonstrates your arrogance and
ignorance regardless of any piece of paper you have from a college.
Please look up confirmation bias!
-Ferret-
Phyllis Gilmore
>In article <2nurh9$m...@alpha.epas.utoronto.ca> nusb...@epas.utoronto.ca (Aryk
Nusbacher) writes:
>
>
>>Example: You remarked that you could substantiate the claims of some
>>Freemasons to very ancient origins; but that you were prevented by
>>(presumably Masonic) oaths of secrecy. The readers, and your
>>interlocutors, did not lampoon this statement, though they could have
>>done so.
>
>They should have!
. . .
>I will continue to "poke fun" at backyard
>historians and myself. Those who believe they know everything should ignore
>me unless they really want to made fools of.
>-Frettchen von Rheinpfalz-
I think you meant "backyard historiams <like> myself." I have little
claim on historical knowledge, yet even I know enough to laugh AT you,
not WITH you. You are doing a fine job of making a fool of yourself,
are you not, by your own definition?
And Aryk, you are no ass--unless by that one means a sturdy individual
made to work too hard.
Philippa
thomas wrentmore barnes
>>(not that I'm disagreeing mind you); baron=bill gates, serfs=managers,
>>slaves=programmers. :-) The fact that barons and plantation owners both owned
>>land is the only connection between the 2 systems.
>
>Microsoft is a wage-labor arrangement and not a chattel arrangement
>
Bingo. Share-cropping is wage-labor arrangement. If you're a
share-cropper, you rent a person's land to use for your own purposes. In
exchange for renting the land you pay the owner of the land in kind. If
he doesn't like you, he can refuse to rent to you. If you don't like
him, you can rent land from somebody else.
Understand of course, that I realize that the political and
economic realities of share-cropping forced a lot of people to keep on
share-cropping under the thumb of the same land-lord in spite of their
wishes. However, once the Black sharecroppers had the opportunity to get
out of share-cropping many of them did. There were many attempts by
black to settle in Kansas, and in other states, that were only foiled by
rampant discrimination in the 1870's. There was also a migration of
blacks to the North in the 1920's once it became obvious that there was
less discrimination and better opportunity in the Northern cities.
>The punitive damages against the south were SUPPOSED to distribute land to
>the freedmen but carpetbaggers and corruption made sure that this didn't
>occur.
Carpetbaggers were Northern speculators and businessmen who came
South after the war. In many cases they were the people who were trying
to redistribute land. In some cases they were opportunists, in other
cases they were legitimate businessmen and "relief workers". They were
hated by the South because they cooperated with the slaves.
Yes, the "40 acres and a mule" policy of the radical
reconstructionists never was implemented, but it was hardly due to
corruption. I would argue that letting the Southern elites keep their
land was the only way to peacefully reintegrate the Southern states into
the United States.
Quite frankly, post-bellum 19th c. history is my weak point
though. I don't know enough about the reconstruction era to argue you on
this point.
Lothar
Ferret
> Bingo. Share-cropping is wage-labor arrangement. If you're a
>share-cropper, you rent a person's land to use for your own purposes. In
>exchange for renting the land you pay the owner of the land in kind. If
>he doesn't like you, he can refuse to rent to you. If you don't like
>him, you can rent land from somebody else.
Share-cropping which came about AFTER the Civil War (U.S.) put an end to the
plantation system. Let's see American slaves became wage-laborers which
means the prior system wasn't a wage-labor system. Ok so far I'm half right.
Now the plantation system is very similar to the Merovingian Manorial system
including the slavery and freedman status I postulate that the Plantation
system is derived from a medieval manorial form.
-Ferret-
Craig Martin Levin
>Thank you for correcting me, my data is in error and my theory needs
>modification. However the Merovingian Manorial System (Geary,P. Before
>France and Germany. 1988 pgs 163&164) and the Southern US Plantation system
>are so parrallel that it I am forced to use it to lend credence to my still
>un tested statement that the plantation system is a descendant of "a" form
>of the medieval labor and slave economy.
It can't be a descendant. The economic changes that happened
between the Merovingian period and the settlement of the
South wiped out the M. system. You might be able to make a
case for a very far fetched analogy, as the M. case had
serfs in the majority and the Southern case had slaves in
the minority. Most Southerners were yeoman farmers, which
cannot be said of most Merovingians. The role of the Church
in the Merovingian system was a large one, as a major
landholder (and, hence, a military force), whereas the South
had separation of Church and State.
Nigel Haslock
I can accept the extension that culture changes when a conquering army comes to
stay.
I would question that sushi is a mainstream food item in the US. I see no sushi
in the supermarkets I frequent. I see no sushi at restaurants or fast food
sellers. I can find sushi at ethnic restaurants and markets but this is not the
same as 'mainstream'. There is a better case for claiming Mexican food as
having become US mainstream but I could equally make a case for a Mexican army
of occupation (an army of wetbacks but an army none the less).
Next, I would claim that the american interest in things Japanese is a
consequence of the US occupation of Japan at the end of the second world war.
Thus I claim that you have extended and supported my thesis rather than finding
flaws in it.
My Thanks,
Fiacha
Dennis O'Connor
has...@oleum.zso.dec.com (Nigel Haslock) writes:
] I would question that sushi is a mainstream food item in the US. I see no
] sushi in the supermarkets I frequent. I see no sushi at restaurants or
] fast food sellers. I can find sushi at ethnic restaurants and markets
] but this is not the same as 'mainstream'. There is a better case for
You should come to Phoenix AZ : there's at least two cahins of
japanese fast-food restuarants ( Tokyo Bowl and Kyoto Bowl )
and at least Kyoto Bowl seels sushi, as of last Saturday.
] Next, I would claim that the american interest in things Japanese is a
] consequence of the US occupation of Japan at the end of the second world war.
Could be. A gneral interest in things-oriental might have come from
the Chinese immigrants who came here en-masse in the late 19th C.
The continent of North America isn't a good thing to look at when
trying to understand how cultures influenced each other in Period :
the majority of modern mainstream North American culture descends
from the culture of the peoples who immigrated here over the last
300 or so years. The native traditions that evolved here have
nearly vanished. This just didn't happen much in Medieval times.
--
Dennis O'Connor doco...@sedona.intel.com
Intel i960(R) Microprocessor Division Solely responsible for what I do.
"In spite of the cost of living, it's still popular."
Ferret
> (Ferret) writes:
> > (Nigel Haslock) writes:
>|>
>|> >This I find to be unsupported by any evidence that I have read. I believe that
>|> >traders bring only their primary wares into a culture and spend the rest of
>|> >the time blending into the local culture. There is ample evidence of far
>|> >reaching trade routes in every period but the evidence suggests the new ideas
>|> >only appear when an army of occupation returns home.
>|>
>|> Excellent theory ! I have only one fly to throw in the ointment, The
>|> culture of England (mostly a history of conquering invaders) has been
>|> changed so much by the imported cultures that little remains of the original
>|> culture especially the language. And in the current U.S. for one thing Sushi
>|> has become a mainstream food item but due to imigration not conquest.
>|> oops! make that two flies (or is it flew?)
>|> -Ferret-
>|>
>I can accept the extension that culture changes when a conquering army comes to
>stay.
Thank you.
>I would question that sushi is a mainstream food item in the US. I see no sushi
>in the supermarkets I frequent. I see no sushi at restaurants or fast food
>sellers. I can find sushi at ethnic restaurants and markets but this is not the
>same as 'mainstream'.
Sushi by its nature doesn't have much of a shelf life, the fact that you
know what it is and where to get (ethnic restaurants and markets)
demonstrates that it is not rare. That it has become "popular" in the last
15 years rules out the W.W. II theory.
>Next, I would claim that the american interest in things Japanese is a
>consequence of the US occupation of Japan at the end of the second world war.
>Thus I claim that you have extended and supported my thesis rather than finding
>flaws in it.
I believe an analysis of the Sushi (yecht) and Mexican foods (wheh)
demonstrate that cross cultural food stuffs exist whenever there
is contact between cultures. Thus support of my postulation rather than
invalidating it.
-Frettchen-
Ferret
System ?
thomas wrentmore barnes
>
>> "Any ass can write a book, and most do".
>
>This would indicate that there is no way of documenting anything and now you
>go on citing authors who may be "asses" to support your side.Since
>you don't say where these items come from we will assume that you are the
>author.
>
Basically, backing and filling to document everything I have
learned from my courses on medieval history and my own reading would
require too much effort for it to be worth it.
Why don't you go look it up for yourself?
You'll discover that I'm right.
>
>> First of all, while I would agree that the culture of the
>>Southern U.S. until the middle of this century was largely agrarian and
>>that some of the farm land was controlled by landlords and worked by
>>sharecroppers, it was in no way feudalism.
>
>Now the 75% of the population in the south, being slaves, are going to be
>called sharecroppers to justify this lunacy.
>
Never 75% as a whole of the population. Goo look at the 1860's
census figures for confirmation. Only in some very heavily
slave-dependent states was the slave population in the majority, and
even then the population wasn't 75%. In some border states the
slave population was nearer 10%. It varied by state and by time period.
You just can't generalize this number.
>>Feudalism refers to to the system by which an overlord gave a
>>vassal the right to administer an area of land and reap the profits from
>>it in exchange for military service and other set feudal duties.
>
>And serving in the CSA wasn't a military obligation, why do you think alot
>of plantaion owners were called Colonel?
>
Forgive me for saying so, but your understanding of the
Ante-bellum and Reconstruction Era of the United States is just as
lamentable as your understanding of medieval land tenure systems.
The term "colonel" as an honorific was adopted in the late 19th
c. In some ways it was a joke since many men served in the C.S. army at
a rank of less than a colonel. Yes, the landed elite tended to end up as
the officer corps of the C.S. Army. Likewise, the elite of the Union
states tended to end up as the officer corps of the U.S. army. Of course
there were exceptions. Phil Sheridan and U.S. Grant spring to mind.
Go look at the system of conscription in the Confederate Army
from 1862-5. You will find that many men were not serving voluntrily.
They were conscripted. They didn't take voluntary vows to serve in the
military for a set number of days in exchange for the right to control
and administer land.
As a result of the C.S. conscription policy, many men deserted,
and in some areas where the C.S. cause was not popular there was,
effectively, no government control to enforce conscription.
Trying to call conscription "feudalism" is like trying to call a
sword a rifle musket.
>Barons aand their underlings were a minority with special priviledges just
>as the overseers were. And what is this about slavery being rare in the
>middle ages. I suggect you read the Doomsday Book and count how many people
>held slaves.
A tiny minority of Southern plantation owners held the vast
majority of the slaves. The rest of the white population had very few or
no slaves and had little to do with slavery, except for deriving a great
deal of moral satisfaction from the fact that they weren't slaves
themselves.
I'm not arguing that there weren't slaves in the middle ages,
I'm just arguing that the American system of slavery was very different
from medieval slavery. Also, medieval slavery tended to die out over
time. It was less expensive to have serfs than to have slaves. Slaves
WERE common in the Migration Era and in the Early Middle Ages. There are
references in several of the Germanic law codes about the fines for
killing slaves and the punishment of slaves who misbehave. It is obvious
that slaves were a part of medieval culture, but I don't think that the
self-sustaining plantation operated solely by slaves was a medieval
phenomanon after the Roman colonii died out.
Yes, manors were self-sufficient, but serfs were not slaves.
They had a pretty crummy life, but they had some rights unlike the Black
slaves of the U.S.
>> Secondly, the Southern United States never really had a system
>>of Manorialism.
>
>I said that the Southern Plantation system was directly descended from the
>English liege lord system and that it began in the early 1600's with
>the Anglican settlement of the Virginia Colony and ended in 1865. This was
>to reinforce that "feudalism" in the general sense ended in the United
>States in 1865.
>
The Southern Plantation System was directly descended from the
English PLANTATION system originally started around the Jamestown colony
by English using indentured servants. While the plantation system might
have had some roots in manorialism it didn't have a whole lot to do with
manorialism.
If you'll remember, indentured servants were originally
contracted to work for a set number of years for room and board in
exchange for passage to the New World and the promise of land of their
own at the end of their term of service. This was in many ways similar
to an apprenticeship, which traditionally lasted 7 years.
However, conditions in the Jamestown colony were so horrific
that few indentured servants lived to see the end of their term. Then,
they were likely to become landlords themselves, and use other
indentured servants to work for them. It was only when the supply of
indentured servants dried up and conditions got better that it made
economic sense for the planters to buy slaves. (Indentured servants were
cheaper in the short term, but expensive if they lived. Slaves were
expensive in the short term, but cheaper in the long haul. If they
lived.)
The system of indentured servants only has similarities to
manorialism in that the the indentured servants voluntarily traded their
freedom and their labor for (the promise of) land. However, it is unlike
manorialism in that the indentured servant didn't work their own land,
wasn't tied to the land, weren't forced to use their lord's monopolies,
and retained the rights of free citizens while they were indentured.
Finally two minor nits. First of all, if you keep on using the
term "feudalism" to mean "manorialism" then you'll just be demonstrating
your ignorance.
Secondly, Anglican refers to the Church of England, as in "the
Anglican Church". The English founded Jamestown and lived there. They
were mostly Anglicans, at least at church on Sunday.
Lothar
Aryk Nusbacher
>Excellent theory ! I have only one fly to throw in the ointment, The
>culture of England (mostly a history of conquering invaders) ...
blah blah blah, sushi, blah blah ...
You have made it clear that you are drawing people out on the subject
of historicity and source analysis only in order to mock them. You
have made it clear that you enjoy making fun of people who are
interested in historical authenticity, which you've said is something
of a chimaera. As such I am not especially interested in discussing
this sort of thing with you. I would, however, point out to those who
are reading, that there is a difference between arguing for the sake
of argument, and making fun of people.
Arguing for the sake of argument can be an interesting intellectual
exercise. Arguing about what level of inference is acceptable for
historians, for anthropologists, and for historical hobbyists, can be
challenging and stimulating.
Pretending to discuss inference and analysis, only to turn around and
tell one's interlocutors that they are fools and ought to be made fun
of, is unpleasant, and a waste of others' time.
Example: You remarked that you could substantiate the claims of some
Freemasons to very ancient origins; but that you were prevented by
(presumably Masonic) oaths of secrecy. The readers, and your
interlocutors, did not lampoon this statement, though they could have
done so. Then, a few articles later, after spinning out a lengthy
discussion in which you played the earnest researcher, you told your
interlocutors that they were fools for being interested in historical
accuracy -- that you had made asses of them by cleverly tricking them
into a discussion in which they revealed their foolishness.
The reader is asked to note the difference in behaviour; remember it;
and not to respond.
Aryk Nusbacher
thomas wrentmore barnes
>heuristic device is meant to point out that the ante-Bellum American
>south's aristocracy had an ideology which idealized that aristocracy as the
>heir to the English cavaliers; that ideology, by the way, was false --
>the vast majority of the planter aristocracy had no genealogical
>connection whatsoever to the English nobility of the Stuart or any other
>period.
That I'll believe. Mark Twain half-jokingly once said "Sir
Walter Scott was responsible for the Civil War" in reference to the
19th c. American emphasis on "honor" and "gentlemanly behavior" which
was exemplified by Scott's view of medieval chivalry. If you understand
the "code of honor" which pervaded the U.S. at the time you go a long
way to understanding why people in Boston could give a damn that
Mississippi wanted to secede.
>OK, you asked for it. If your postings had half the education and
>knowledge you claim to assume on behalf of your readers, you might
>have claim to the "expertise" of a mediocre undergraduate history
>major.
No, no Hossien. I'M a mediocre undergraduate history major. This
guy doesn't have even have that level of understanding. Hell, at least I
recognized some of the names of the authors on your list.
Lothar
Ferret
>You have made it clear that you are drawing people out on the subject
>of historicity and source analysis only in order to mock them. You
>have made it clear that you enjoy making fun of people who are
>interested in historical authenticity, which you've said is something
>of a chimaera. As such I am not especially interested in discussing
>this sort of thing with you. I would, however, point out to those who
>are reading, that there is a difference between arguing for the sake
>of argument, and making fun of people.
>Arguing for the sake of argument can be an interesting intellectual
>exercise. Arguing about what level of inference is acceptable for
>historians, for anthropologists, and for historical hobbyists, can be
>challenging and stimulating.
>Example: You remarked that you could substantiate the claims of some
>Freemasons to very ancient origins; but that you were prevented by
>(presumably Masonic) oaths of secrecy. The readers, and your
>interlocutors, did not lampoon this statement, though they could have
>done so.
They should have! It was a useless reference to lampoon any one who uses a
single authority as unshakable fact! Yes, I tend to lampoon the whole "
everything has to be authentic" crowd who seem to have no problem
lampooning the "I'm just here to have fun" crowd. I have used the same
methods that the "authenticity" crowd uses to backup my obviously odd
statements to demonstrate that finding someone "in authority" to back your
statements is easy but doesn't "prove" something. On the other hand I have
made some quite valid statements that were reinterpreted by others just to
get an arguement going. I'm sure if I said the Sun rises in the east quite a
few would argue the semantics of the common phrase. There are a few however
who had very good information and arguements and I have attempted to keep
them private discusions. I will continue to "poke fun" at backyard
Andrea Marie Habura
again. Trade contact between America and Japan is a hundred years old
in its modern incarnation, and there has been immigration from Japan
to the US for at least eighty years. Nonetheless, sushi did not become
popular until the last quarter of that span of contact, and not all
Japanese foods and other items have hit mainstream. Same does for
American infiltration into Japanese culture. (Big Macs do exist in
Japan. How about Twinkies? California burgers? Or, for that matter,
enchiladas?) Jews have been in the U.S. since before it was a country;
is the matzo ball eaten outside of the Askenazi Jewish community?
The U.S. is also unusual in that the new fashions in food are usually
brought in by actual *immigrants*, who come here and stay, adapting their
own cooking techniques to the native foodstuffs. We're not talking
about that in medieval Europe, for the most part. Trading for silk is
perfectly understandable; it is a beautiful, soft, luxurious version
of a staple, namely cloth. Trading for more unusual stuff is less
predictable. Why was ginger imported to Europe when curry powder (to the
best of my knowledge--correct me if I'm wrong, food folks) wasn't?
We don't know. Why didn't coffee become popular in most of Europe until
the seventeenth century, when it had already been in use in Turkey
for two centuries? Why do I, a 20th c. American with a catholic palate,
not like jackfruit, despite the fact that it's big in the Phillippines,
which my country has been involved with for 150 years?
Translation: There's a lot more to know about trade and consumption
patterns than mere cultutral contact. And I think you need to look
at your theory again.
Alison MacDermot
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's time for another "Good Idea, Bad Idea."
Good idea: Eating a feast made by a cook whose hero is Kenhelm Digby.
Bad idea: Eating a feast made by a cook whose hero is Lucrezia Borgia.
Ferret
>dnb...@psu.edu (Ferret) writes:
>] Upon what or from whence was derived the Southern United States Plantation
>] System ?
>Who cares : it's not Period. This is rec.ord.sca, after all
Since Virginia was founded in 1584 by Sir Walter Raleigh The origins are
very period.
-Ferret-
Dennis O'Connor
dnb...@psu.edu (Ferret) writes:
] Upon what or from whence was derived the Southern United States Plantation
] System ?
Who cares ? It's not Period, and it's not Western European.
This _is_ rec.org.sca, after all.
thomas wrentmore barnes
>Upon what or from whence was derived the Southern United States Plantation
>System ?
From the system of land-distribution and labor that was set up
in the Jamestown/Virginia colony around the Chesapeake Bay in the early
17th c. heavily influenced by Spanish models in South and Central
America. These might have been influenced by Spanish or English
plantation systems that grew up in the 16th c. (lots of land under teh
control of one landlord growing a cash crop - in England it was wool, in
the Canary Islands it was sugar.) It had nothing to do with the manorial
system that broke down and died in the 15th c. (at least in Western
Europe.) The Spanish model (which is, admittedly, Period) in the New
World is a better model for the Southern U.S. plantation system. There,
the Spanish enslaved the local Indians and used them to grow sugar cane
and to mine gold, copper, and silver. These were "cash crops" that
required extensive labor to produce, not food stuffs that were grown on
medieval manors.
In the Jamestown colony, initially indentured servants did the
work
because conditions were so bad that the indentured servants were likely
to die before they ever could make a claim to the land that was owed to
them. When conditions got better and land got scarcer, slaves started to
be used because they didn't have to be paid in land at the end of their
indenture and made economic sense because they were now likely to live
long enough to pay fo the costs of buying them. The first slave-ship in
the English colonies was a Dutch ship that appeared in Jamestown
sometime in the 1620's. After that, slavery was a Southern institution
that was mostly used as agricultural labor for tobacco cultivation. It
was on the wane as the land that had been used to grow tobacco was
depleted, until Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin.
This device revolutionized production of the sort of cotton that
grew best in the South. Cotton quickly became a staple crop. Since it
required lots of labor to grow, and, especially, pick cotton slavery was
revitalized.
Lothar (reciting what he learned in his Early American History
course).
Mary Shafer
Nigel> I would question that sushi is a mainstream food item in the
Nigel> US. I see no sushi in the supermarkets I frequent.
Different regions, different streams, I guess. At least two
supermarket chains sell sushi here in the California High Desert.
We do not have many Japanese or Japanese-Americans in the area.
--
Mary Shafer DoD #362 KotFR
SR-71 Chief Engineer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
sha...@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA
"A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all." Unknown US fighter pilot
Mark Schuldenfrei
Ferret quotes Dennis O'Connor as saying:
Who cares : it's not Period. This is rec.ord.sca, after all
Dennis actually said:
Who cares ? It's not Period, and it's not Western European.
This _is_ rec.org.sca, after all.
So Ferret could respond with what would otherwise be a ridiculous answer.
Since Virginia was founded in 1584 by Sir Walter Raleigh The origins are
very period.
Very weaselly, Ferret. Third rhetorical error. First ad hominem, then
argument by authority. Now, forgery. Let us not forget falsely calling in
legal protections as a gigantic bluff. Next we can expect gratuitous
vulgarity, quotation out of context, false accusations of personal attacks,
threats and appeals to nonexisting authorities and finally sulking in
silence. I move we procede straight to your sulking in silence.
Is there a second?
Tibor (Immanent death of Usenet Predicted)
Ferret
>Folks, watch this very carefully.
>Ferret quotes Dennis O'Connor as saying:
> Who cares : it's not Period. This is rec.ord.sca, after all
>Dennis actually said:
> Who cares ? It's not Period, and it's not Western European.
> This _is_ rec.org.sca, after all.
>So Ferret could respond with what would otherwise be a ridiculous answer.
> Since Virginia was founded in 1584 by Sir Walter Raleigh The origins are
> very period.
If you had read THE FIRST POST from D O'C you will notice that I quote
it exactly. His Second post added the part about Western Europe.
I attribute neither your statement nor D's second post as contrived.
But you seem to have know problem attempting to slander others based upon a
lack of the facts.
-Ferret-
Dennis O'Connor
sch...@zariski.harvard.edu (Mark Schuldenfrei) writes:
] Folks, watch this very carefully.
]
] Ferret quotes Dennis O'Connor as saying:
] Who cares : it's not Period. This is rec.ord.sca, after all
]
] Dennis actually said:
] Who cares ? It's not Period, and it's not Western European.
] This _is_ rec.org.sca, after all.
]
] So Ferret could respond with what would otherwise be a ridiculous answer.
] Since Virginia was founded in 1584 by Sir Walter Raleigh The origins are
] very period.
]
] Very weaselly, Ferret. Third rhetorical error. First ad hominem, then
Well, Tibor, for all Ferret's mistakes this isn't one of them.
What you see here is the Magic of USENET at it's finest : you
_can_ "unsay" things, kind of ! Here's what happened :
I posted a message. After posting, it of course shows up in the
USENET queue, so I read it. Oops : it has a typo ( "rec.ord.sca" ).
Well, I just happen to feel like correcting the typo, so I
redo the message, adding (as I thought of it) some more stuff,
send the _new_ message out, and _cancel_ the old message.
Cancelling works by sending out a control message that races out
after the original message and tells the USENET software across
the world "pretend this message never existed, erase it, and don't
send it to anyone else". Only the author of a message (or a
USENET forgery wizard) can cancel it.
Anyway, as we moderns know, nothing happens instantaneously
when large distances are involved. So Ferret apparently got and
replied to the _original_ before the cancel method got to it.
For proof, you could examine the "References" line in Ferret's
post (assuming it has one) and you'd probably see tht it refered
to a message that, as far as you can tell, never existed.
The cancel facility is a useful one for correcting mistakes, be
they typos, important word (like "not") ommissions, accidental
transmission, or lapses in judgement. I recommend to anyone : it's
better than sending out an "oops, I really meant to say" message
because it saves disk space and, if done soon enough after the
original, transmission bandwidth _and_ other reader's time. I
probably use it to correct messages once or twice a week, actually.
HOW TO: I use GNU-emacs' "gnus" reader. In gnus, I re-do messages by
1. following-up w/ included text my own message (the "F" command),
wacking all the attribution junk ( the "] " I use, normally a ">",
and the "so-and-so writes" line, and any extra signatures ). I
correct the post in the editor and post the new post.
2. I _then_ cancel the erroneous original ( using the GNUS "C"
command ).
It's easy, it's fun, and it makes for a better USENET.
Enjoy !
Krenn
>On 6 Apr 1994 22:49:59 GMT, has...@oleum.zso.dec.com (Nigel Haslock) said:
>
>Nigel> I would question that sushi is a mainstream food item in the
>Nigel> US. I see no sushi in the supermarkets I frequent.
>
>Different regions, different streams, I guess. At least two
>supermarket chains sell sushi here in the California High Desert.
(I beg indulgence as I veer wildly off topic, my lords and ladies....)
Aha... you have hit the nail on the head, m'lord... California! We've had a very
popular series of Wrangler commercials up in this area (mostly on Seattle
stations) that go something like this...
If Californians were to come up here, how would they make it?
> Hopefully, by walking.
Aha. And once they get here, what should they do?
> (buy the car)
Oh! So that's will help them up here?
> Couldn't hurt.
Anything else?
> Up here, only the bears eat sushi.
I don't know about you, but I get a real chuckle out of these... :)
---
Vlad_K-Fuchida - BT3056 MUSE, 321st ComGuard Grenadiers | PGP Public
MagLev - Shadowrun MUSH, Constructor | key available
Silver Samurai - UVic Oggsquad (Summer INL hopefuls) | via finger
Krenn - Shire of Ramsgaard, Kingdom of An Tir, SCA |---------------
GE: d- -p+ c++++ l u+ e+ m--- s++/ n h* f+ g+ w+ t++ r++ y+
Greg Rose
>Thank you for correcting me, my data is in error and my theory needs
>modification. However the Merovingian Manorial System (Geary,P. Before
>France and Germany. 1988 pgs 163&164) and the Southern US Plantation system
>are so parrallel that it I am forced to use it to lend credence to my still
>un tested statement that the plantation system is a descendant of "a" form
>of the medieval labor and slave economy.
The similarity of the two systems is the existence of slavery. That's
all. The Merovingian royal fisc, which is what is discussed by Geary
in the pages you cite, was a direct outgrowth of the Roman imperial
fisc in Gallia. It was a slave-based agricultural economy. It is not
feudal, although Carolingian policy of using the royal fisc to reward
_vassi_ is part of the origin of the feudal system. The immense
organizational and administrative differences between late Roman and
feudal agricultural economies is well discussed in J. Percival,
"Seignurial Aspects of Late Roman Estate Management," _English Historical
Review_ 84 (1969), 449-473. While somewhat date, Fustel de Coulanges'
_L'alleu et le domaine rural pendant l'epoque merovingienne_ (Paris,
1889) is still useful.
I also point out that the Merovingian agricultural economy was overwhelmingly
subsistence-oriented. The Southern slave agricultural economy was
overwhlemingly cash-crop-oriented. These are difference which matter.
I know Pat Geary. I'll ask him about your theory. I'm really interested
in what he'll have to say about how you use his evidence.
Hossein/Greg
Mark Schuldenfrei
>] Folks, watch this very carefully.
>]
>] Ferret quotes Dennis O'Connor as saying:
>] Who cares : it's not Period. This is rec.ord.sca, after all
>]
>] Dennis actually said:
>] Who cares ? It's not Period, and it's not Western European.
>] This _is_ rec.org.sca, after all.
>]
>] So Ferret could respond with what would otherwise be a ridiculous answer.
>] Since Virginia was founded in 1584 by Sir Walter Raleigh The origins are
>] very period.
>]
>] Very weaselly, Ferret. Third rhetorical error. First ad hominem, then
>] argument by authority. Now, forgery. [...]
>
>Well, Tibor, for all Ferret's mistakes this isn't one of them.
>What you see here is the Magic of USENET at it's finest : you
>_can_ "unsay" things, kind of ! Here's what happened :
I withdraw my comment about the forgery, then.
Tibor
U.J|rgen hman
>David Friedman writes:
>>>>Tea
>>> >An Arab monopoly for the most part but available in europe.
>>So far as I know, tea was not available in Europe prior to 1600. If you
>>have evidence to the contrary, I would be interested to see it.
>>I also do not know of any pre-1600 references to the use or sale of tea by
>>the Arabs. Coffee was in use in the Islamic world well before 1600,
>>although it is late period, and I presume the Mongols, some of whom became
>>Muslim, would have had tea--but I cannot think of any references to the
>>Arabs having it. My impression is that tea came into use in Europe as a
>>result of direct contacts with China.
>Considering that Marco Polo died in 1324, contact with China is well
>established prior to 1600. Also the "silk road" was a millenium old trade
>route for oriental products and the Arabs (various) held control of the
>connection to europe via Venice.
>-Ferret-
Greetings....
You forgot the more northern traderoutes. Before Marco Polo went to china, the
Scandinavians traded with both Byzans and Bagdad and the Magyars.
Besides that a lot of things found it's way into Europe through Nordic hands
via what's currently known as Russia.
Ulf Mjoedtunga
Frostheim(the northernmost point of the known world), Nordmark, Drachenwald.
Bettina Helms
> fortunes of the Turks - during the 15th and 16th centuries they made a
> pretty good try at getting their hands on all of eastern Europe, and
> many of their descendants settled in and stayed. That's *one* reason,
> among many, for the tragic situation in what we used to call Yugoslavia:
> the local Muslims are descendants of Turks who wouldn't go home - and
> the local non-Muslims are still trying to make them go home.
DF> I don't think that is correct. I discussed the situation with a
DF> visiting scholar from Yugoslavia. His view was that the Bosnian Muslims
DF> were people who had converted under the Turks--plus some who had chosen
DF> to list themselves as Muslims in modern times because they did not like
DF> any of the other alternatives.
Your scholar friend is probably more correct than I am. :-)
... *** Edited for television ***
* Origin: The Writer's Block, Jacksonville FL * 904/399-8854 (1:112/38.0)
Honour Horne-Jaruk
> > I'm curious--I assume that there were some tissanes (is that the right
> > word?) and such made from other, local things. Beers and wines and
> > the like are obvious, but I was thinking of lighter beverages, either
> > for cooling off or for warming the soul on a cold dreary night. What
> > sorts of things might the average European have chosen?
> > Philippa
> A good question, to which I cannot give very much of an answer. I believe
> there were both almond based and barley based drinks, but I do not know
> much about either.
> My 13th c. Andalusian cookbook has a whole chapter of drinks that are
> basically syrups diluted with water. Sekanjabin is the best known. They are
> accompanied by medical comments. I think it is clear that Sekanjabin was
> used as a drink as well as a medicine (from references elsewhere--not to
> mention modern practice), but I am not sure how many of the others were.
> David/Cariadoc
> DD...@Cornell.Edu
Respected friends:
First, check out meieval herbals. Remember, these folks had no
medications as we understand them; they didn't have digitalis, they had an
infusion of foxglove; they didn't have Salicylic acid, they had an infusion
of willowbark...
With the average American taking four _different_ OTC or prescription
medicines daily, it's easy to see where they were getting a significant part
of their non-alcoholic fluids from.
However- there's another avenue. With work, it's possible to come up
with alcohol-free tastealikes for many Renaissaunce drinks. Birch beer, ginger
beer, and homebrewed ales can be produced with a far lower alcohol content
than we now consider ideal, and certainly smell better that way! (I'm allergic
to ethanol, can't tell you how they taste.) Barley water and switchel are
excellent drinks, as good as ever they were- but they don't give you sugar
shock and they don't `fizz'. If we could just get over our ludicrous
compulsion to have every single attender like every single offering at every
single feast, we'd have a lot more good stuff being served and a far more
accurate range of options.
Frankly, I don't care if it was five or fifteen whacky Arabs who got
their hands on tea before 1600, and were silly enough to drink it. NOBODY
had enough of it to serve it iced, with lemon and sugar, as the main drink
at a feast for 200. (Not even Japanese in Japan, as if they would have.)
If you, in whatever association you have with the Society, are not doing your
best to make the Society less inauthentic- well, New England Roleplaying
Association owns its own land and you're perfectly welcome to drink Coke and
wear lime-and-pink checked Spandex there.
I joined to play history, not Walt Disney. There is no good reason for
anyone to do things specifically against the bylaws in a group that is going
through Hell trying to get its own Directorate to obey the bylaws.
-Has anyone else realized that the BoD could, at this point, make a
legal case that present SCA practice is so different from the bylaws that
they had good and sufficient reason to believe, and act on the belief, that
common usage had superceeded the bylaws?
Irritatedly yours-
Honour (who isn't feeling at all
Friendly today) and Alizaunde (Who was told `fall of Rome to death of Queen
Elizabeth 1 twenty-one years ago, and has never yet seen any _good_ reason
to want that changed...)
Ferret
> I joined to play history, not Walt Disney. There is no good reason for
>anyone to do things specifically against the bylaws in a group that is going
>through Hell trying to get its own Directorate to obey the bylaws.
> -Has anyone else realized that the BoD could, at this point, make a
>legal case that present SCA practice is so different from the bylaws that
>they had good and sufficient reason to believe, and act on the belief, that
>common usage had superceeded the bylaws?
Is the keyword here PLAY ? I doubt we are talking Doctorate Level Research.
As to authenticity, if you want genuine historical authenticity I suggest
you look into a good university and within eight years maybe you could work
in museum, I doubt you would start as a curator and some of the displays in
the museum may annoy you.
Lighten up, you used the word PLAY and alot of people associate the word
CREATIVE with the SCA. Maybe the extremly purist and the extremely liberal
balance each other out so everyone else can have fun pretending it isn't the
20th century for a few hours. IMHO those without any imagination are more
annoying than those with to much.
-Ferret-
Craig Martin Levin
>Is the keyword here PLAY ? I doubt we are talking Doctorate Level Research.
>As to authenticity, if you want genuine historical authenticity I suggest
>you look into a good university and within eight years maybe you could work
>in museum, I doubt you would start as a curator and some of the displays in
>the museum may annoy you.
Actually, the keyword, as far as our governing doc's are
concerned, is recreation. Not recreation as in playing
volleyball, but as in recreating, say, an elbow cop or a
gown. For what we do, the average level of research that
SCAfolk do can be downright scanty.
>Lighten up, you used the word PLAY and alot of people associate the word
>CREATIVE with the SCA. Maybe the extremly purist and the extremely liberal
>balance each other out so everyone else can have fun pretending it isn't the
>20th century for a few hours. IMHO those without any imagination are more
>annoying than those with to much.
Say, rather, that the imagination of the dedicated
authenticity person is channeled differently that that of
others. Rather than making it up as they go along, they've
put their creative juices to work in libraries and museums,
looking for period items and descriptions of period
practices. IMO, the research that I do, whether it's for SCA
purposes or for my grad studies, is play, in a sense: I'm
doing something that's fun for me.
But I'm getting rather sententious here. We were founded to
have fun, but everyone's vision of fun is different from
that of everyone elses. But we need limits on what the
SCA covers, and what limits what we do. <Hint for people on
SCA-Reform: Landmarks!>
--
Craig Levin Lord Pedro de Alcazar
Ohio University History Department Shire of Dernehealde
cle...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu Midrealm
Honos meus ultrum pretium est. <-New, improved and grammatical!
Jacquetta
(Honour Horne-Jaruk) writes:
> > I'm curious--I assume that there were some tissanes (is that the right
> > word?) and such made from other, local things. Beers and wines and
> > the like are obvious, but I was thinking of lighter beverages, either
> > for cooling off or for warming the soul on a cold dreary night. What
> > sorts of things might the average European have chosen?
> > Philippa
I Found an interesting mention of a "sage-flavored Liquid" in "A Medieval Home
Companion" translated and edited by Tania Bayard. Its a translation of a 15
cent translation of a 14cent tretise by an elderly parisian merchant to his 15
year old bride on housewifery.
"To make a cask of sage-flavored ligquid, take 2 lbs sage, clip off the stems
and put leaves in the cask...."
"To make sage flavored drinks at table in winter, have a ewer of sage water and
pour it over white wine in a goblet...."
Frankly, I'm not too sure about a sage-water drink...
Jacquetta
Ferret
> Ferret <dnb...@psu.edu> wrote:
>>Is the keyword here PLAY ? I doubt we are talking Doctorate Level Research.
> For what we do, the average level of research that
> SCAfolk do can be downright scanty.
I hope (considering your stance) you meant SCARY. I would agree but still
quite amatuer. I'm not trying to minimize but compared to scholorly research
is a bit of a stretch. There are people who have dedicated years to subjects
that wouldn't get a thread started here. Very few of has have the time or
inclination to do more than read a couple of books and try to make garb that
isn't too laughable. I select a couple of fields of interest to research
that have nothing to do with the SCA. My SCA Saxon doesn't care if the
Picts were tatooed or painted, but my mundane self does. Should I insult the
celtic recreators because I don't agree with their beliefs? No, I know that
I could be wrong and more importantly their SENSE of reality is what is
important and I have no right to ruin their fun. However the same ideas by a
colegue outside the SCA will be debated.
>>Lighten up, you used the word PLAY and alot of people associate the word
>>CREATIVE with the SCA. IMHO those without any imagination are more
>>annoying than those with to much.
> Say, rather, that the imagination of the dedicated
> authenticity person is channeled differently that that of
> others.
I would more likely say that the creativity, imagination and knowledge of an
archeologist developing a different interpretation of artifacts and prior
research is different than reading someone else work and taking it as
gospel to produce artifact reproductions.
-Frettchen von Rheinpfalz-
Robin Carroll-Mann
>In article <LaNkkc...@bregeuf.stonemarche.org>, u...@bregeuf.stonemarche.org
>(Honour Horne-Jaruk) writes:
>
>> > I'm curious--I assume that there were some tissanes (is that the right
>> > word?) and such made from other, local things. Beers and wines and
>> > the like are obvious, but I was thinking of lighter beverages, either
>> > for cooling off or for warming the soul on a cold dreary night. What
>> > sorts of things might the average European have chosen?
>> > Philippa
>
>I Found an interesting mention of a "sage-flavored Liquid" in "A Medieval Home
>Companion" translated and edited by Tania Bayard. Its a translation of a 15
In the "Libro de Guisados" (Spanish, 16th century) there is a recipe for
Clarea, wine spiced with honey, ginger, cinnamon, and cloves. The non-
alcoholic version appears immediately afterwards "Clarea de Aqua" (Clarea from
Water). It contains the same spices and honey mixed into boiling water, then
strained. I haven't gotten the proportions right yet (death by cinnamon!) but
when done properly, I suspect it would resemble mulled cider.
Brighid ni Chiarain
Barony of Settmour Swamp, East Kingdom
mka Robin Carroll-Mann (rcm...@delphi.com)
Harold Kraus Jr
>>>America feudal. Especially in England, but throughout Europe, the true
>>>feudal system was pretty much on the way out centuries before.
>>The plantation system in the Southern United States were based on the
>>european feudal system, which gives a date of 1865 as the end of the feudal
>>system in the U.S. .... and 1919 in Russia, but that's another story...-
>Ferret, you have said a great many silly things of late, most of which I
>attribute to youth, however, I would in this instance be interested in how an
>economic system based on the exchange of the use of land in return for military
>service or scutage is in any way similiar to an economic system based on the us
>of slave labor. Aside from the fact that they are both agrarian based, I can
>think of none. Assuming for a moment that we ignore that the two are wholly
>unrelated, 1865 didn't really change the landscape all that much. Those who we
>once slaves became tenant farmers which in many cases was worse than being a
>slave. That being the case, the end of the fuedal system in the US didn't come
>about until approx 1940.
Perhaps, it would be better to say that there were "some" elements
of feudalism in the Pre-war South, don't know much about the claim.
Personally, I see more feudalism in the Democratic Party's system of
'patronage'; i.e., small political entities having a (too often self-)
appointed spokesperson/leader/representative who the then froms coalitions
with more of the same upwards through various levels of the hierarchy
of the Party which is a bazzare of political factions held together
by a fealty like two-way bond. This bond is not an exchange of scutage
for land. This bond is an exchange of political support (votes) in
exchange for a share of the government's spending.
Harald Isenross, Spinning Winds, Calontir, har...@ksu.ksu.edu
David Friedman
with Hydromel or Oxymel? The former is honey dissolved in water, the latter
honey and vinegar dissolved in water--the classical equivalent of
sekanjabin.
Platina, writing in the late 15th century, mentions both. It is hard to
tell in context whether he actually drank them or merely knew of them from
classical references. The OED references show oxymel as a medical drink
from fairly early in our period, but none of the examples mentioned for
either make them sound like what you would get at a feast.
Elizabeth and I designed a feast from Platina (with help from Martino,
Platina's source) for the local group, and we and others (especially
Niccola, who is a wonderfully useful lady to have in a kitchen) cooked it
today. I wanted something to drink besides water, so I made up some oxymel,
and it seemed to be reasonably popular (three of the four tables sent their
pitchers back for refills).
Does anyone have either more information on the drinks in period, or more
experience with them in the Society? The honey water drink that someone
mentioned earlier in this thread sounds like a hydromel variant. On the
other hand, some references to hydromel make it sound as though it was what
people in the renaissance thought mead was called in classical antiquity.
Kenelm Digby has a (good) "hydromel as I made it weak for the queen mother"
recipe, which is essentially a dry, very low alcohol mead.
--
David/Cariadoc
DD...@Cornell.Edu
Honour Horne-Jaruk
> In article <LaNkkc...@bregeuf.stonemarche.org> u...@bregeuf.stonemarche.org
> > I joined to play history, not Walt Disney.
> Is the keyword here PLAY ? I doubt we are talking Doctorate Level Research.
> As to authenticity, if you want genuine historical authenticity I suggest
> you look into a good university and within eight years maybe you could work
> in museum, I doubt you would start as a curator and some of the displays in
> the museum may annoy you.
> Lighten up, you used the word PLAY and alot of people associate the word
> CREATIVE with the SCA. Maybe the extremly purist and the extremely liberal
> balance each other out so everyone else can have fun pretending it isn't the
> 20th century for a few hours. IMHO those without any imagination are more
> annoying than those with to much.
> -Ferret-
Respected friend:
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it...
Badly." - one of my favorite baronial-meeting buttons.
If someone is capable of doing doctorate-level research, and has the
time to do doctorate-level research, then yes, I am talking about doctorate
level research; and if not, not.
I want genuine historical authenticity to the maximum extent I can get
it, without breaking laws (like sanitation, religious tolerance, and
handicapped accessability statutes). I started at an extremely good state
college- The GI bill doesn't help much at universities- and got a degree in
Living History. I also apprenticed for more than a year as a blacksmith
under the Mastersmith at Saugus Ironworks National Historic Site, took classes
and a practicum totalling two years under the weaver who designed and
implemented the Lowell Historic District's weaving exibits and programs,
took an intensive embroidery course under one of the greatest embroidery
instructors presently living... I passed eight years a long, long time ago.
And I have, and do, corrected inaccuracies in museum exhibits. For some curious
reason the curators react with interest and gratitude. It seems they would
rather fix something wrong than leave it wrong and make excuses for doing so.
It's an interesting attitude; maybe you could find someone who has it.
I am lightened up. I don't walk up to total strangers and accuse them
of ignorance, snobbishness, extremism and unimaginativeness... all in only
six sentences, and without asking for clarification or explanation first.
(Not even at a Virtual walk.)
I use the word play very specifically- as in play a _GAME_. The SCA is a game,
which, like any other game, has rules. I ask of the SCA only what I ask of any
other game, from checkers to Little League; that the participants obey the
rules.
A lot of people probably do associate the word `creative' with the
SCA. But the word has more than one meaning, even in a cheap dictionary.
Using non-lethal ingredients to duplicate the deadly midieval cosmetic
Ceruse is Creative Anachronism, and it's a good thing. Having a man dressed as
a Battlestar Galactica cyborg march in your coronation procession is
`creative' anachronism, and a cheap joke at the expense of everyone who worked
and dreamed to make the Middle ages step this bit closer to present time. I
gladly aid and abet the former, and gladly will do without the latter. I can
tell the difference.
A lack of imagination is a bad thing? I quite agree. Where does that
place someone who presents himself as incapable of imagining anyone whose view
is different from his own having education, or egalitarian principles, or
moderation, or imaginativeness?
I joined twenty-one years and four months ago. I looked, long and hard,
at what the `purists' had given the Society of AS VII, and what the `liberals'
had done in the same seven years. I voted with my feet. I've never been sorry.
In Service to the Society-
Honour Horne-Jaruk/Alizaunde, Demoiselle de Bregeuf
Ferret
>From: u...@bregeuf.stonemarche.org (Honour Horne-Jaruk)
>Subject: Re: Ferret's response to my `moderate snit'
>Date: Mon, 18 Apr 94 22:44:43 EDT
>dnb...@psu.edu (Ferret) writes:
>> In article <LaNkkc...@bregeuf.stonemarche.org> u...@bregeuf.stonemarche.org
>> > I joined to play history, not Walt Disney.
>> Is the keyword here PLAY ? I doubt we are talking Doctorate Level Research.
>> As to authenticity, if you want genuine historical authenticity I suggest
>> you look into a good university and within eight years maybe you could work
>> in museum, I doubt you would start as a curator and some of the displays in
>> the museum may annoy you.
>> Lighten up, you used the word PLAY and alot of people associate the word
>> CREATIVE with the SCA. Maybe the extremly purist and the extremely liberal
>> balance each other out so everyone else can have fun pretending it isn't the
>> 20th century for a few hours. IMHO those without any imagination are more
>> annoying than those with to much.
>> -Ferret-
> Respected friend:
> "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it...
>Badly." - one of my favorite baronial-meeting buttons.
"Those who live in the past become devoured by the present" Lancaster saying
> If someone is capable of doing doctorate-level research, and has the
>time to do doctorate-level research, then yes, I am talking about doctorate
>level research; and if not, not.
Then you are talking Grad School NOT SCA. If you can do it fine ! but don't
try and make the SCA into somekind of total realism thing.
>(accolades deleted FVR)
> I am lightened up. I don't walk up to total strangers and accuse them
>of ignorance, snobbishness, extremism and unimaginativeness... all in only
>six sentences, and without asking for clarification or explanation first.
>(Not even at a Virtual walk.)
Seems the realists and the creativists bash each other quite well on
Rialto are the attitudes (expressed or not) different at events ?
>I use the word play very specifically- as in play a _GAME_.The SCA is a
>game,which, like any other game, has rules. I ask of the SCA only what I
>ask of any other game, from checkers to Little League; that the
>participants obey the rules.
The "rules" state 1600 A.D. as the end date, yet people complain that
something past 15?? is no good and others say 16?? is O.K. I maintain that
to argue about such stuff is as much a breach of "rules" as anything else.
I don't know where in the rules it says anything I wear, say, or do has to
be documented as being "period". It seems that if I don't like something
all I have to do is yell "show me the documentation our I'll have you
thrown out". Maybe that guy who looks like a Klingon is his best attempt at
Mongol garb. If he has a sword and not a phaser what's your problem ?
If I don't want to play with the other kids I can stay home. I don't have
the power or right to play God.
>Using non-lethal ingredients to duplicate the deadly midieval cosmetic
>Ceruse is Creative Anachronism, and it's a good thing. Having a man dressed
>as a Battlestar Galactica cyborg march in your coronation procession is
>`creative' anachronism, and a cheap joke at the expense of everyone who
>worked and dreamed to make the Middle ages step this bit closer to present
>time. I gladly aid and abet the former, and gladly will do without the
>latter. I can tell the difference.
Your perceptions are yours and if enough people agree with you you might
change things, however, I have never seen any of this nonscence occur and if
it did an "out of place" persona would be calmly and patiently consulted as
to the exact nature of the situation.
What you do in your own "camp" is by your rules. However what occurs in my
camp is none of your business. In open areas the autocrat's rules abide if
the autocrat allows a "gallactic warrior" then you have to abide by his
rules.
> A lack of imagination is a bad thing? I quite agree. Where does that
>place someone who presents himself as incapable of imagining anyone whose
>view is different from his own having education, or egalitarian
>principles, or moderation, or imaginativeness?
It leaves them boasting their prowess to try and make others feel inferior
inorder to coerce then into submition to their views.
A good Idea stands by its own merits. It doesn't need any outside authority.
-Ferret-
Jennifer Geard
--
==/==\==/==\==/==\==/==\==/==\==/==\==/==\==/==\==/==\==/==\==/==\==/==\==
Jennifer Geard blood...@sloth.equinox.gen.nz
Christchurch, New Zealand
Jennifer Geard
keyboard?
Cariadoc:
>On the subject of period non-alcoholic drinks--has anyone else experimented
>with Hydromel or Oxymel? The former is honey dissolved in water, the latter
>honey and vinegar dissolved in water--the classical equivalent of
>sekanjabin.
Pour some cider vinegar in the bottom of a mug, almost fill with boiling
water, and stir in a generous teaspoon of honey. My family drink. I thought
we were eccentric nutcases until I found another family who make up a syrup of
the honey and cider vinegar and keep it in the fridge at all times. Both
families attribute quasi-medicinal effects to the drink.
It's an acquired taste -- sweet and very tart -- and I guess you build up an
immunity to the taste of vinegar. Can be drunk hot or cold, but we usually
drink it hot.
Pagan le Chaunster
Craig Martin Levin
>"Those who live in the past become devoured by the present" Lancaster saying
Whatever. We're all in this, I always thought, because we
like the Middle Ages - a tidy chunk of the past.
>Then you are talking Grad School NOT SCA. If you can do it fine ! but don't
>try and make the SCA into somekind of total realism thing.
No, I think the gentle lady was speaking of a practice I
call research. If I want to know something about clothes
from the Middle Ages, I can get pictures of artifacts from
an encyclopaedia or a specialized textbook on the subject.
Food? We've seen on this very Rialto how many old cookbooks
are still out there. If nothing else, that's what a Minister
of Arts and a Minister of Sciences ought to be doing for
their local group - small classes on period practices, that
kind of thing. Now, you might argue that you're in a bad way
financially. I am, I know that. But I see no reason for me
to wear Klingon battle armor, when for about $6-$7 the local
seamstress can make a nice T-tunic, which is great if you're
a lower class person or a Merovingian. You can get a length
of rope from a hardware store. Join the local crafts guilds
to make stuff. That kind of thing.
Realism is possible, if you're willing to put the all out
into doing it. Me, I try within my financial, time and
knowledge limits to be as realistic as possible.
>The "rules" state 1600 A.D. as the end date, yet people complain that
>something past 15?? is no good and others say 16?? is O.K. I maintain that
>to argue about such stuff is as much a breach of "rules" as anything else.
>I don't know where in the rules it says anything I wear, say, or do has to
>be documented as being "period". It seems that if I don't like something
>all I have to do is yell "show me the documentation our I'll have you
>thrown out". Maybe that guy who looks like a Klingon is his best attempt at
>Mongol garb. If he has a sword and not a phaser what's your problem ?
Look at the much-abused bylaws. There's something there
about an attempt at pre-17th century garb. It's in all of
our recruiting literature, including the annoyingly trite
Known World Handbook.
The guy who looks like a Klingon isn't getting the point.
Some things are Klingon, some things are Mongolian. The two,
to my mind, are not identical.
>If I don't want to play with the other kids I can stay home. I don't have
>the power or right to play God.
Ah, but do you want to play rugby at an American football
game? That's what the guy in the Klingon suit is doing.
Sure, he's in exotic clothes, but he's not doing anything
medieval in them, and doing something medieval in them just
doesn't go with the costume.
>What you do in your own "camp" is by your rules. However what occurs in my
>camp is none of your business. In open areas the autocrat's rules abide if
>the autocrat allows a "gallactic warrior" then you have to abide by his
>rules.
Even autocrats have to follow the rules. Even if they stink.
But until we can get those nasty surcharges revoked, or that
phrase about pre-17th century garb yanked, the autocrat has
agreed to obey and enforce those rules.
--
Craig Levin Senhor Pedro de Alcazar
Ohio University History Department Shire of Dernehealde
cle...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu Midrealm
Honos meus ultra pretium
Ferret
>In article <dnb105.4...@psu.edu>, Ferret <dnb...@psu.edu> wrote:
> Realism is possible, if you're willing to put the all out
> into doing it. Me, I try within my financial, time and
> knowledge limits to be as realistic as possible.
Well my attempts at chain mail are using brass rings because I got the rings
for free. If anyone doesn't like it they are more than welcome to provide
iron rings or a complete set of garb (I got alot of my garb as gifts) I have
yet to be called on my wierd mail but my argument is that brass is a period
item and if I were rich instead of poor I would wear a solid gold mail for
processions not war.
>>The "rules" state 1600 A.D. as the end date
>>I don't know where in the rules it says anything I wear, say, or do has to
>>be documented as being "period". It seems that if I don't like something
>>all I have to do is yell "show me the documentation
> Look at the much-abused bylaws. There's something there
> about an attempt at pre-17th century garb. It's in all of
> our recruiting literature, including the annoyingly trite
> Known World Handbook.
Right! even our "rules" are so ambiguos that they are mere suggestions.
Or is the Literature and TWH just propaganda to get you to join something
completely different?
> The guy who looks like a Klingon isn't getting the point.
> Some things are Klingon, some things are Mongolian. The two,
> to my mind, are not identical.
According to the "rules" put down by Roddenburry (?) the Klingons garb IS
mongolian and the designers for even the "movies" had to research Mongolian
documents to make changes from the tradition S.T. Klingon garb.
>>If I don't want to play with the other kids I can stay home. I don't have
>>the power or right to play God.
> Ah, but do you want to play rugby at an American football
> game? That's what the guy in the Klingon suit is doing.
> Sure, he's in exotic clothes, but he's not doing anything
> medieval in them, and doing something medieval in them just
> doesn't go with the costume.
Unfortunately for this analogy there doesn't seem to be "one game" or "one
set of rules" or this discussion wouldn't even be taking place and there
would be no "improperly" attired personas.
> Even autocrats have to follow the rules. Even if they stink.
> But until we can get those nasty surcharges revoked, or that
> phrase about pre-17th century garb yanked, the autocrat has
> agreed to obey and enforce those rules.
If you get the "17th" phrase "yanked" to please your side there will be an
equally valid attack to put it back. You can't please everybody unless you
want to narrow down the membership to only a few people who agree.
Had I wanted to be a museum piece I wouldn't have joined the SCA. I joined
because the people in my shire treated each other (and me) like family and
when I'm at an event it takes me back to when I was a child playing Ivanhoe
in the woods (the nieghborhood girls didn't wear bodices though) I am here
to play and if I can find documents to make something I will and if it just
seems to blend into the atmosphere I do it until someone tells me it looks
stupid. I accept plastic armour and wooden swords why not funky leather
armour and steins of gatorade ?
-Ferret-
Craig Martin Levin
>Well my attempts at chain mail are using brass rings because I got the rings
>for free. If anyone doesn't like it they are more than welcome to provide
>iron rings or a complete set of garb (I got alot of my garb as gifts) I have
>yet to be called on my wierd mail but my argument is that brass is a period
>item and if I were rich instead of poor I would wear a solid gold mail for
>processions not war.
Much as it might not be a period practice (most "show armor" I've
seen is made out of the normal stuff, and then decorated, and little
of it is mail), I'm sure it looks very nice. I'm a believer in
working with what you have, but always trying to do better.
>Right! even our "rules" are so ambiguos that they are mere suggestions.
>Or is the Literature and TWH just propaganda to get you to join something
>completely different?
No, pre 17th century is fairly plain to anyone with a bare knowledge
of dates. It means pre 1600, and even the 1650's fanatics admit that
that's what it means. Just because they press for extension of the
period (which is an issue I do not personally agree with), does not
mean that the rule sounds ambiguous. I ask for Tibor, the keeper of
the online Corpora, to please cite the chapter and verse.
>According to the "rules" put down by Roddenburry (?) the Klingons garb IS
>mongolian and the designers for even the "movies" had to research Mongolian
>documents to make changes from the tradition S.T. Klingon garb.
My memory of the Klingon garments in the movies leads me to deduce
that Gene Roddenberry and Co. might have based it on Mongol stuff,
but it doesn't look like period Mongol to me.
>Unfortunately for this analogy there doesn't seem to be "one game" or "one
>set of rules" or this discussion wouldn't even be taking place and there
>would be no "improperly" attired personas.
True. There's a discussion out there about "landmarks" of the
SCA-the sort of triggers that say to most SCAfolk that go off either
as "SCA" or "not-SCA".
>If you get the "17th" phrase "yanked" to please your side there will be an
>equally valid attack to put it back. You can't please everybody unless you
>want to narrow down the membership to only a few people who agree.
I like the 17th phrase. My feeling is that there ought to be
standards that all ought to aspire to, that are better than that.
>Had I wanted to be a museum piece I wouldn't have joined the SCA. I joined
>because the people in my shire treated each other (and me) like family and
>when I'm at an event it takes me back to when I was a child playing Ivanhoe
>in the woods (the nieghborhood girls didn't wear bodices though) I am here
>to play and if I can find documents to make something I will and if it just
>seems to blend into the atmosphere I do it until someone tells me it looks
>stupid. I accept plastic armour and wooden swords why not funky leather
>armour and steins of gatorade ?
As is heard often on rec.arts.sf.written: "Tastes vary." What blends
into the atmosphere for you may be glaringly OOP for me. Granted, we
can't make everyone happy, but we could do better than this.
Ferret
(Have deleted most of my prior rant so I don't get e-mail complaints from
people who recieve the Digest)
>True. There's a discussion out there about "landmarks" of the
>SCA-the sort of triggers that say to most SCAfolk that go off either
>as "SCA" or "not-SCA".
(Rant O' Ferret Deleted)
>I like the 17th phrase. My feeling is that there ought to be
>standards that all ought to aspire to, that are better than that.
(RoF del)
>As is heard often on rec.arts.sf.written: "Tastes vary." What blends
>into the atmosphere for you may be glaringly OOP for me. Granted, we
>can't make everyone happy, but we could do better than this.
There is an old saying though that I believe in :
If it works don't fix it !
The fact that the SCA has grown over 25 years demonsrates that whatever it
is, it is working (current dictators (BoD) excepted). I no more want the
purists removed from my fantasy world (yes I think pretending to live in the
middle ages is fantasy) nor do I want the careless about realism ones. I can
accept them both. However when it comes to choosing sides I would have to
concede that the "educational" claims of the SCA seem to be taken to
seriously, when we are considered a University then I'll by the purist
philosophy. Until then I welcome anyone into my humble camp (sometimes just
a tapestry on the ground) for a bowl of bowl of carion and mug of warm wine
or water, but bring your own cheese (mine seems to melt and smell bad) and
clothing is optional (can't argue THAT garb).
Out of Service but still dreaming,
-Frettchen von Rheinpfalz-
Mark Schuldenfrei
of dates. It means pre 1600, and even the 1650's fanatics admit that
that's what it means. Just because they press for extension of the
period (which is an issue I do not personally agree with), does not
mean that the rule sounds ambiguous. I ask for Tibor, the keeper of
the online Corpora, to please cite the chapter and verse.
Articles of Incorporation:
II
This corporation is a nonprofit public benefit corporation and is not
organized for the private gain of any person. It is organized under
the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law for charitable purposes.
The purposes for which this corporation is formed include:
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; to
present activities and events which re-create the environment of
said era, such as, but not limited to, tournaments, jousts, fairs,
dances, classes, et cetera; to acquire authentic or reproduced
replicas of chattels representative of said era; and to collect
a library.
Bylaws:
III. OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSES
The Society shall be dedicated primarily to the promotion of research and
recreation in the field of pre-17th-century Western culture, as stated
in greater detail in Article II of the Society's Articles of
Incorporation.
Corpora:
II. SOCIETY EVENTS
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. However, the
responsible officers may exempt attendees at business meetings and
informal classes from the requirement to wear pre-17th century dress.
Tibor
--
Mark Schuldenfrei (sch...@math.harvard.edu)
Please excuse spelling errors or terseness: I am typing one-handed while my
left wrist heals.
Ferret
>Subject: Re: Ferret's response to my `moderate snit'
>Date: 22 Apr 94 13:08:20 EDT
>Articles of Incorporation:
> II
The Articles of Incorporation use the word "include" this means there are
more purposes than defined in a) and/or b). If those were the sole purpose
it would have read "are".
The By-Laws state "primarily for the promotion of" research. This means
there are at least secondary dedications otherwise it would have read " for
the promotion of" research. This also means we "promote" research NOT we do
research otherwise it would read "for research".
The Corpora refers to "an attempt at pre 17th Centuty" the word attempt is a
very ambiguous word and is upto interpretation.
Now for a few questions.
What are the secondary objectives ?
What is the promotion of research ?
What is an attempt ?
Why aren't these stipulated in the documents afore mentioned ?
-Frettchen von Rheinpfalz-
Chris Croughton
cle...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu "Craig Martin Levin" writes:
>In article <dnb105.20...@psu.edu>, Ferret <dnb...@psu.edu> wrote:
>
>>Right! even our "rules" are so ambiguos that they are mere suggestions.
>>Or is the Literature and TWH just propaganda to get you to join something
>>completely different?
>
>No, pre 17th century is fairly plain to anyone with a bare knowledge
>of dates. It means pre 1600, and even the 1650's fanatics admit that
>that's what it means.
The "pre 17th century" phrase is not the ambiguous part. What is
ambiguous is the word "attempt" - if I dress up in piece of old curtain
(as we used to as kids), that is an "attempt at mediaeval garb". If I
put on something that looks (to me) like armour, that's an 'attempt'.
If I wear a pair of brown cotton pyjama trousers to an event (as I have
done), that's an 'attempt'. To which of these would you object, and
why?
Now, if your Klingon at the event is also using the head prothetics, and
has tinted skin, and is carrying a phaser (sorry - a disrupter, phasers
are for UFP use only), then it would indeed seem as though the person
was in the wrong place and time. Anyone who seriously thinks that those
things are mediaeval has problems. However, if the person thinks that
the armour is similar to that seen in 'mediaeval' movies, it may still
class as an 'attempt' at garb.
>My memory of the Klingon garments in the movies leads me to deduce
>that Gene Roddenberry and Co. might have based it on Mongol stuff,
>but it doesn't look like period Mongol to me.
Well, I've thought the same about several movies - *they* may think that
it's mediaeval dress, but...
>True. There's a discussion out there about "landmarks" of the
>SCA-the sort of triggers that say to most SCAfolk that go off either
>as "SCA" or "not-SCA".
Ah - one of the defining marks of the SCA to many people is "lots of
different styles and periods, all mixed up; and not using real weapons".
>I like the 17th phrase. My feeling is that there ought to be
>standards that all ought to aspire to, that are better than that.
You imply that there aren't those unwritten 'standards' - you are
entitled to your feeling that there should be some, but unless we all
agree on them, they won't exist and neither you nor anyone else has any
right to require other people to acknowledge them.
>As is heard often on rec.arts.sf.written: "Tastes vary." What blends
>into the atmosphere for you may be glaringly OOP for me. Granted, we
>can't make everyone happy, but we could do better than this.
Yes, you could. You could do as some British recreation societies do,
and severely limit your place and time of interest (one of them being
limited to a 20 mile area and a 10-year period). I've seen people on
the Rialto discuss exactly that - they don't like things after 1200 or
whatever. However, that's *not* the SCA that I joined, however worthy
an amition it might be in other ways.
***********************************************************************
* ch...@keris.demon.co.uk * *
* chr...@cix.compulink.co.uk * FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life) *
* 10001...@compuserve.com * *
***********************************************************************
Craig Martin Levin
>Like PLASTIC and FREON CANS are "real period", or do fighters get a special
>dispensation from the "SCA Pope" ?
Dunno. I thought Freon cans had been illegalized. I know
they are in my kingdom. Besides, I'm making fencing
armor-out of period materials-leather and brass. I've seen
the discussion about plastic for the heavies, and I've seen
plenty of them saying that they'd like to have metal armor,
instead of the plastic.
>Who gets to say that YOUR opinions are any better than anyone else's
>perceptions ?
Nobody. He asked for them, though, and I gave them. There
you go.
>>Indeed. But I still can politick around and press for a clearer
>>definition of "attempt", can't I?
>You can also petition to have the letter M stricken from the English
>language ! Your free to your own opinions, but don't be suprised by a large
>opposition.
You exaggerate, sir. I'm not asking for something even half
so foolish. I just think we ought to define our terms
better. It makes the whole thing much clearer when we know
what we're talking about, and cuts down a lot of unecessary
rancor.
Let me analogize. I go into a library with a friend who
doesn't know the Library of Congress system.
"So," I ask, "how can I help you?"
"Well, I've got this thing for Profesor R. to do.", he
replies, "R. is a physics prof." This is your answer; the
range is way too broad for us to tell the wheat from the
chaff.
"Man, there's thousands of books on physics here. We'll be
here until June! What's he really want you to do?", I
reply.
"I've got an assignment to do on the moons of Jupiter.", he
replies. This <alas for the library at the hypothetical
school> is too limited, like those English groups that
restrict themselves to a town and a decade.
"How about we compromise?", I reply, "The library has
nothing about the moons of Jupiter specifically, but it has
a couple general atlases of the Solar System, with maps and
descriptions of everything from Mercury to Pluto, with the
moons of Jupiter detailed in one chapter." This is my
answer. We have a clear definition. But it's not impossible
for people to reach, and it's not so large that it fails to
define anything.
Again, this is my opinion. I'm not going to march up to you,
or anyone else, and start tearing your garb off. That's not
my style, and I'd help protect anyone who was being treated
in such a manner. I might, though, offer you some polite and
friendly advice on what you might try next; or, if you're a
garb junkie, I might stand in awe of your tailoring and
researching skills.
Ferret
>Chris Croughton <ch...@keris.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>The "pre 17th century" phrase is not the ambiguous part. What is
>>ambiguous is the word "attempt" - if I dress up in piece of old curtain
>>(as we used to as kids), that is an "attempt at mediaeval garb". If I
>>put on something that looks (to me) like armour, that's an 'attempt'.
>>If I wear a pair of brown cotton pyjama trousers to an event (as I have
>>done), that's an 'attempt'. To which of these would you object, and
>>why?
The following has been edited to conserve space (FvR):
>A: Depends on what else you've got on besides the curtain.
>B: Dpends eon what you call armor. Clearly, a mailshirt is in, but
>some other things are out. I can't call any easy to describe
>examples of non-armor stuff that newbies think of as armor to mind,
>though.
Like PLASTIC and FREON CANS are "real period", or do fighters get a special
dispensation from the "SCA Pope" ?
>C: Depends on what you've got besides the PJ pants.
>D: If you've got all of the above, and it's an unusually cheesy
>example of B,
>E: If all of the above and a good example of B, no prob.. I usu. go
>with the ten-foot look rule, myself.
Who gets to say that YOUR opinions are any better than anyone else's
perceptions ?
>>You imply that there aren't those unwritten 'standards' - you are
>>entitled to your feeling that there should be some, but unless we all
>>agree on them, they won't exist and neither you nor anyone else has any
>>right to require other people to acknowledge them.
>Indeed. But I still can politick around and press for a clearer
>definition of "attempt", can't I?
You can also petition to have the letter M stricken from the English
language ! Your free to your own opinions, but don't be suprised by a large
opposition.
-Frettchen von Rheinpfalz-
Craig Martin Levin
Chris Croughton <ch...@keris.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The "pre 17th century" phrase is not the ambiguous part. What is
>ambiguous is the word "attempt" - if I dress up in piece of old curtain
>(as we used to as kids), that is an "attempt at mediaeval garb". If I
>put on something that looks (to me) like armour, that's an 'attempt'.
>If I wear a pair of brown cotton pyjama trousers to an event (as I have
>done), that's an 'attempt'. To which of these would you object, and
>why?
A: Depends on what else you've got on besides the curtain.
B: Dpends eon what you call armor. Clearly, a mailshirt is in, but
some other things are out. I can't call any easy to describe
examples of non-armor stuff that newbies think of as armor to mind,
though.
C: Depends on what you've got besides the PJ pants. If a PJ top, I'd
suggest you lie down. If a T-tunic and belt, and you're also wearing
shoes or sandals, I'd have no beef.
D: If you've got all of the above, and it's an unusually cheesy
example of B, I'd think it to be mildly objectionable, because while
you're trying, you've got a long way to go.
E: If all of the above and a good example of B, no prob.. I usu. go
with the ten-foot look rule, myself.
>Now, if your Klingon at the event is also using the head prothetics, and
>has tinted skin, and is carrying a phaser (sorry - a disrupter, phasers
>are for UFP use only), then it would indeed seem as though the person
>was in the wrong place and time. Anyone who seriously thinks that those
>things are mediaeval has problems. However, if the person thinks that
>the armour is similar to that seen in 'mediaeval' movies, it may still
>class as an 'attempt' at garb.
I'd also hope that the person gets a little informal and kindly
advice about better garb.
>Well, I've thought the same about several movies - *they* may think that
>it's mediaeval dress, but...
But, oy, what a difference. I'm saddened that those movies provide
most of the avg. mundane's view on the Middle Ages. That's why I
take the SCA's educational mission so seriously.
>You imply that there aren't those unwritten 'standards' - you are
>entitled to your feeling that there should be some, but unless we all
>agree on them, they won't exist and neither you nor anyone else has any
>right to require other people to acknowledge them.
Indeed. But I still can politick around and press for a clearer
definition of "attempt", can't I?
>Yes, you could. You could do as some British recreation societies do,
>and severely limit your place and time of interest (one of them being
>limited to a 20 mile area and a 10-year period). I've seen people on
>the Rialto discuss exactly that - they don't like things after 1200 or
>whatever. However, that's *not* the SCA that I joined, however worthy
>an amition it might be in other ways.
It's not the one I joined either. I think that we could approach the
person-to-person level that many American Civil War units can do,
though. From what I gather, they've managed to be authentic-looking
without being anal.
Ferret
> Again, this is my opinion. I'm not going to march up to you,
> or anyone else, and start tearing your garb off. That's not
> my style, and I'd help protect anyone who was being treated
> in such a manner. I might, though, offer you some polite and
> friendly advice on what you might try next; or, if you're a
> garb junkie, I might stand in awe of your tailoring and
> researching skills.
Well that style seems to work best, and I wouldn't wear a FREON can helm in
combat but I could and would wear one for "show". I don't like rules and
think the SCA has grown and is what it is without a whole lot of rules. I
think tate changing it into something definitive by exact rules instead of
ambiguous suggestions would turn it in to something that it isn't and I for
one like it more or less the way it is, was and hopefuly will be.
-Ferret-
Mike.Andrews
cle...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Craig Martin Levin) writes:
>In article <767116...@keris.demon.co.uk>,
>
>It's not the one I joined either. I think that we could approach the
>person-to-person level that many American Civil War units can do,
>though. From what I gather, they've managed to be authentic-looking
>without being anal.
>
>--
>Craig Levin Senhor Pedro de Alcazar
>Ohio University History Department Shire of Dernehealde
>cle...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu Midrealm
>Honos meus ultra pretium
According to Baron Gregory von Lucida, who has been a
member of one U.S. Civil War reenactment group, they
get pretty anal about costume and equipment.
--
Pray for the repose of the soul of Katherine Conway Godfrey
Michael Fenwick of Fotheringhay, O.L. (Mike Andrews)
Barony of Namron, Kingdom of Ansteorra
Michael Chance
>Right! even our "rules" are so ambiguos that they are mere suggestions.
>Or is the Literature and TWH just propaganda to get you to join something
>completely different?
Ah, the Question(tm)! I've often asked something similar for a number
of years now, with less than satisfactory responses. The variation
that I tend to use is:
"Is the SCA a historically based Medieval and Renaissance era
re-creationist group, or is it a medievally based fantasy role playing
group?"
To my mind, if we are the former, then those who continue to
participate while making not the slightest attempt at being
historically accurate (not perfect, mind you, just attempting within
their own means) should be strongly encourage to go play somewhere
else, like LARP. If we are the latter, then the SCA, through its
governing documents and statements to the public, has been
perpetrating a fraud for over 25 years.
Perhaps this is a question for the new Grand Council to ponder...
Mikjal Annarbjorn
--
Michael A. Chance St. Louis, Missouri, USA "At play in the fields
Work: mc3...@sw1sta.sbc.com of St. Vidicon"
Play: ab...@freenet.hsc.colorado.edu
mch...@nyx.cs.du.edu