NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/org/sca/17209

Text File | 1992-12-31 | 2.9 KB | 57 lines

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Path: sparky!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews!admin!siena!mittle
From: [e-mail] (Josh Mittleman)
Subject: Re: Heraldic questions...
Sender: [e-mail] (NNTP News Poster)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:19:05 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
References:  <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: siena.watson.ibm.com
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Lines: 43

Greetings from Arval!

Tadhg wrote:

> I define "western culture" to include those areas that were part of the
> western half of the Roman empire...

I guess if you start with the assumption that this is all the College is
supposed to care about, and that the College is free to pick and choose
those parts of medieval heraldry that the SCA should be allowed to use,
then the rest of your argument follows.  On the other hand, your
justification for these positions seems to be nothing more than "This is
what we are doing, therefore we may do nothing else."

> You persist in asserting that any practice is of equal value to any other
> practice. Not so. Some practices are crucial, others are eccentric; a
> minority of 49% is still a minority.

By that standard, we would allow nothing at all: We might be able to list
four or five heraldic usages found in a majority of the period evidence.
Obviously that is not our standard.  Can you find hundreds of period
examples of "a millrind" or "a pall" or a winged beast or a field divided
of blue and green?  I doubt it, yet those are freely accepted without the
slightest qualm.  In fact, the choice of what is and isn't allowed in SCA
armory is only very slightly based in period evidence at all.

Several times in this discussion you have argued that the most important
feature of the College's re-creation of period armory is "a consistent
system"; indeed, you have asserted that it even more important than
actually re-creating medieval heraldic style.  What evidence do you have
that medieval armory at any time and at any place in our period was ever "a
consistent system"?  In fact, it was not: It was a hodge-podge of centuries
of development, importation from other cultures, and local anomalies.  It
was unregulated at most times and in most places, and even in those few
places where there was a regulating authority, we have virtually no
evidence as to how and why new armory was designed.  It is certainly true
that in any given place at any particular time some practices were more
common than others, and as you are fond of reminding me Laurel believes
that our armory ought to be based exclusively on "common practices"
(whatever that means).  Where does this insistence in "consistency" arise?

===========================================================================
Arval Benicoeur                                       [e-mail]