🚀 go-pugleaf

Greetings to all, especially David Tallan, from Vajk!

I've been without Net access for a few days, so this
is late.

David wrote, in response to my comments on his post:

David >>>  All I can say is that it must have been pretty
David >>>  esoteric not to have shown up in the _hundreds_ of
David >>>  manuscript illuminations of fighters I've seen.
Vajk  >> This is not true, although it seems that only serious
Vajk  >> researchers know it.  It is common sense that if
Vajk  >> something was common it was approximately proportionally
Vajk  >> reproduced in the art and literature of the time.

David responds:

David > However, it is important to look at the CONTEXT.

Yes, that is VERY important.  So we agree here.

David continues:
      > It seems most reasonable to me that...

Now, this is exactly what I was cautioning against.  The
fact that something seems reasonable is NOT a valid reason
for accepting it without question.  Common sense and reason
are usually based on the data at hand.  The problem comes
when the data that is NOT at hand changes the way the
whole thing is viewed. On the SURFACE, many things seem
reasonable, but it is only when ALL the pertinent data are
known that we can really draw logical or rational conclusions.
Or, rather, we can do it at any stage, but must be careful
not to draw conclusions which are unwarranted by the 
information at hand.

Unfortunately, this is much of the problem with the lack of
authenticity in the SCA.  Much is proposed as authentic,
when in fact it is based on a superficial analysis of the
little data the proponents had at hand.

I don't mind too much if someone is not wearing authentic
garb, or practicing the arts and sciences in a way that is
not authentic.  Contrary to some belief (probably because I DO
like research), I am as much into the "flavor" and 
"atmosphere" as anything else in the SCA.

However, I do object when someone states that a thing is
authentic when they have not done sufficient research to
warrant that conclusion.  There is nothing wrong with
saying that you don't know if something is authentic or not!

My comments were not aimed directly at David.  He simply
provided a good example of what I wrote about.  Many people
do it, even I!  But that does not mean that we should just
go ahead and accept it!

David later wrote:

   > Arew [sic] you seriously trying to suggest that the
   > artist would make the armour and equipment appropriate
   > to his time and place, but suddenly diverge and paint
   > people with sword and shield when most people were really
   > using two swords.  I beg your pardon but I think not!

No, I wasn't trying to say that.  I'm not even saying that
you are right or wrong in your conclusions.  I am simply
sounding a note of caution about the way those conclusions
were arrived at (at least so far as what you wrote here).

Vajk