greetings from bela!
as i sit here on vacation, kayaking in sw florida (sorry, had to rub it in), i've been considering the various similiar threads that have recently been consuming the archive.
It appears to me that one of the major variables that arise continually in historical reenactment/rec-reation , is the methodology of historical extrapolation.
different people are willing to accept various levels of extrapolation, varying from "if it isn't supported by weighty primary documentation, it doesn't have a place", to "i can justify anything with a good story and 20/20 hindsite".
I believe that extrapolation is a basic and necessary tool of historical research, as long as it doesn't reach the point of samuri-conquistador absurdity...
How much extrapolation are you willing to accept, and at what point to you discount it?
bela (11thc squire to a 15c knight)
------------------
lord bela ot kaffa,
squire to Baron Sir Fum,
member of House Kaffa
resident of the Eastern Kingdom and Bhakail
historical extrapolation
-
bela of kaffa
- Contrarian
- Posts: 4241
- Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Eastern kingdom, house Kaffa, barony of Bhakail, Philadelphia
- Contact:
-
Russ Mitchell
- Archive Member
- Posts: 11800
- Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: HQ, Garden Gnome Liberation Front
- Contact:
Extrapolation is one of those necessary things. One should accept extrapolation up to the point where it contradicts what we know to be true. that is, most of our sources are not truly positive determinants, but negative: we can use sources to say "we know they DIDN'T do this, or look like this," but it is much more rare to find sources that say that something explicitly WAS one way, if you are being correct methodologically, and not basing what you're doing on a single source out of context.
And to have the context, one must do the research, and talk to others who also have...
And to have the context, one must do the research, and talk to others who also have...
Bela
"as long as it doesn't reach the point of samuri-conquistador absurdity"
Oddly enough the Portugese (during the age of exploration) manned forts with Japanese mercinaries along the coast of Africa, and India, on their sea route to Japan. They tended to survive the "fever coasts" more readily than Europeans
On the other hand this was not a thriving long term community
"as long as it doesn't reach the point of samuri-conquistador absurdity"
Oddly enough the Portugese (during the age of exploration) manned forts with Japanese mercinaries along the coast of Africa, and India, on their sea route to Japan. They tended to survive the "fever coasts" more readily than Europeans
On the other hand this was not a thriving long term community
-
Armourkris
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1412
- Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: vancouver, BC.
does that mean my genari japanese fighting persona-ish thing can be a conquistidore?
now THAT could confuse people........
uhm, anyways, i think extrapolation is ir-replaceble, simple due to the sheer lask of knowledge we have. i mean, we can lok at this or that portrait of some noble dude, and look at teh peasent in the back ground, but how do we know that all peasents dresse dlike that, if i werent for('ll admit, a stupidly simple) exrapolation, we'd have to say they did.
but ya just cant research things that far into the past without either a time machine or extrapolation.
------------------
What, drawn, and talk of peace! I hate the word, As I hate hell, all Montagues, and thee:
now THAT could confuse people........
uhm, anyways, i think extrapolation is ir-replaceble, simple due to the sheer lask of knowledge we have. i mean, we can lok at this or that portrait of some noble dude, and look at teh peasent in the back ground, but how do we know that all peasents dresse dlike that, if i werent for('ll admit, a stupidly simple) exrapolation, we'd have to say they did.
but ya just cant research things that far into the past without either a time machine or extrapolation.
------------------
What, drawn, and talk of peace! I hate the word, As I hate hell, all Montagues, and thee:
-
chef de chambre
- Archive Member
- Posts: 28806
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Nashua, N.H. U.S.
- Contact:
Hi Tybolt and all,
While extrapolation can be a useful tool, lack of hard documentation is over-exaggerated by most people who wish to use it. There are mountains of documentation there on all sorts of topics, from household goods, to what people wore and ate, and there are tons (at least for the later middle ages) of pictures of what peasants and middle class people looked like. The evidence is there - you just have to make the effort to go look for it. Unfortunately - most often in the SCA, from what I have observed, extrapolation is not used as a useful tool, it is used as an excuse by someone wo does not care to do the research on a subject, or as an excuse to claim a bit of equipment might be "period", when the bulk of evidence shows that possibility unlikely to the extreme.
If you are just playing "dress up", as Torvald recently called it, then you don't need poor excuses to cover blatently inauthentic bits of equipment. As soon as you make the claim that something is Historically Accurate, then you have placed your kit into an area with a known set of standards of what constitutes documentation. If what you are doing or have does not measure up, then it is your fault for making the claim, not the Academic communities fault for having the standards. Most often what happens is the claim is made without any real basis, someone who understands what constitutes documentation examines the item or kit in question, and says that it does not, and here is the reason why - and the fellow who claimed accuracy or authenticity either has hurt feelings, or goes off in a huff.
Be honest with yourself. Are you useing "extrapolation" to cover a piece of gear you know bloody likely is in no way, shape, or form documentable - just to make yourself feel authentic? Or are you using it in the context the Academic community uses it, to fill in a gap with a likely but difficult to document explanation. Do you then admit the extrapolation is speculation? In most of the cases I have seen, the person does not admit to speculation - they claim authenticity.
Keep in mind, that while it is difficult to document things the farther back you go, and it is true we can never know everything regarding a specific period - the farther forward you go there is an almost logorithimacal explosion of evidence. You can get away with saying there ain't much for the 5th century AD, but by the year 1400, there are mountains of evidence, and your assertion will be laughed at, and rightfully so.
If you want something to be authentic, then do the research to find out the knowledge. You might not have a lot of books, but that is what interlibrary loans are for, and most libraries in the country are on the system. If you claim something is authentic, and you can't document it, don't be surprised or hurt if somebody disabuses you of the notion.
Use extrapolation as a proper tool - not a poor excuse.
------------------
Bob R.
While extrapolation can be a useful tool, lack of hard documentation is over-exaggerated by most people who wish to use it. There are mountains of documentation there on all sorts of topics, from household goods, to what people wore and ate, and there are tons (at least for the later middle ages) of pictures of what peasants and middle class people looked like. The evidence is there - you just have to make the effort to go look for it. Unfortunately - most often in the SCA, from what I have observed, extrapolation is not used as a useful tool, it is used as an excuse by someone wo does not care to do the research on a subject, or as an excuse to claim a bit of equipment might be "period", when the bulk of evidence shows that possibility unlikely to the extreme.
If you are just playing "dress up", as Torvald recently called it, then you don't need poor excuses to cover blatently inauthentic bits of equipment. As soon as you make the claim that something is Historically Accurate, then you have placed your kit into an area with a known set of standards of what constitutes documentation. If what you are doing or have does not measure up, then it is your fault for making the claim, not the Academic communities fault for having the standards. Most often what happens is the claim is made without any real basis, someone who understands what constitutes documentation examines the item or kit in question, and says that it does not, and here is the reason why - and the fellow who claimed accuracy or authenticity either has hurt feelings, or goes off in a huff.
Be honest with yourself. Are you useing "extrapolation" to cover a piece of gear you know bloody likely is in no way, shape, or form documentable - just to make yourself feel authentic? Or are you using it in the context the Academic community uses it, to fill in a gap with a likely but difficult to document explanation. Do you then admit the extrapolation is speculation? In most of the cases I have seen, the person does not admit to speculation - they claim authenticity.
Keep in mind, that while it is difficult to document things the farther back you go, and it is true we can never know everything regarding a specific period - the farther forward you go there is an almost logorithimacal explosion of evidence. You can get away with saying there ain't much for the 5th century AD, but by the year 1400, there are mountains of evidence, and your assertion will be laughed at, and rightfully so.
If you want something to be authentic, then do the research to find out the knowledge. You might not have a lot of books, but that is what interlibrary loans are for, and most libraries in the country are on the system. If you claim something is authentic, and you can't document it, don't be surprised or hurt if somebody disabuses you of the notion.
Use extrapolation as a proper tool - not a poor excuse.
------------------
Bob R.