The Argument for “Sheep to Shawl”

There is a discussion currently in regards to how authentic you have to be in regards to making something in the SCA.

The term is called the “Sheep to Shawl” Discussion and it basicly talks about how “Period Encompassing” your project must be when considered by the Laurelette. It brings up certain questions where you put yourself in the medieval period and have to investigate what items would be owned by that individual and what would they have done if they were made by them. Some individuals want you to document everything done in the process of the wool coming off the sheep, dying the wool, turning it to thread, knitting the material, all the way to the point where you have a finished garment. This is a nice process to know but an impractical economy. It may have started that way in the early days but eventually people specialize in skillsets. Some folks have more than others but no one individual did everything for themselves. Someone who was really good at making cups and bowls may have traded for other goods. It’s broken down further today, the farmer who grows the grapes is not part of the sales process or the bottling and labeling.

So here’s an example: A young lady is working on an embroidery project. It’s a decorative design on a coat done in a style representing the lady’s personae ethnicity. Her personae is of Celtic descent so she is doing a Celtic design embroidery representing a bird.

And the question now is “How far do they have to go?”. Let’s treat this as if it was modern day: We’d go to the store, buy the embroidery needle, the thread and quite possibly backing material. We’d sit with a beer, maybe some popcorn and watch X-files while stabbing ourselves multiple times until the embroidery piece was done and cleaned of blood. That is a perfectly legitimate progression for a medieval person as well (well all but the X-files but you get my point)

The girl in the Modern scenario didn’t make the needles and didn’t make the thread. The medieval girl can do pretty much the same. She probably didn’t make the needle, she traded or bought it. It’s possible she could make the thread herself and the backing material may be more of the same kind of fabric she’s doing the embroidery pattern on. She may also use a different cloth, a salvaged piece for the backing and bought the thread from a local spinner. That’s it. Guess what, that’s completely period.

The belief that you have to do everything from scratch, is not only unreasonable, it’s ludicrous. If you were making a meal, would you make the pot and stir it with a new wooden spoon? No, you would have things you would specialize in and trade those services in either barter or money. The young lady in our example might be a midwife or a servant or maybe royalty. In any of those cases, she wouldn’t go down to the blacksmith and insist on making the needles needed. She’d barter or buy needles that are already made.

The field she is trained/learned in, may require her to make a few of her own tools but for everything else, it was purchased.

So, my research should include the fact that the lady’s career doesn’t include blacksmithing but that the needle was purchased with money she obtained from the royal coffers or selling goods and purchased with money received. I can now go on to say “Here’s some documentation on the kinds of needles available at that time period” and go into a small amount of details about style/length/materials, etc just to give the reader an idea about the tool. At no point should I have to explain how the needle was made. The young lady wouldn’t know or care, all she wants is a needle.

You want to set the stage before your documentation is layed out:

A. The girl is employed in a different field, thus she doesn’t know how to make the product and thus barters/pays for it.
B. The girl is needing the tools and can describe the use of such tools but not their production.
C. The girl can also purchase the materials used (thread) and give a brief description of the source of the thread (wool) and that it has been spun by someone else into thread for her use. She may not be familiar with the thread process or the coloring process.

When we now get to the embroidery on the shirt, now we want to start showing the research details. Examples of this kind of embroidery shown on other garments, the type of stitch used, the choice of material the embroidery is applied to; is all good information. It’s related to the project directly.

So the important part is focusing on the main project and not the peripheral incidentals involved in the creation:

1) Original source (picture of item, recipe or directions in a book)
2) Your redaction (translation of how that thing was made)
3) Tools ( a brief list and description of their use)
4) Your process (your understanding of the redaction and it’s process)
5) Problems you ran into during creation and how you dealt with it.
6) Things you would have changed if you did the process again
7) Bibliography of sources

THE RUSSIAN JUDGE:
.
So you may run into this individual because they want to probe the depth of your knowledge in the matter. Interest is good but thinking they should mark you down because you didn’t know the exact metal your needle was made with is unfair. Your response should be “My personae is a (state your career) who would not have known the composition of the tool” They can’t mark you down for that. If they do, it should be brought to the other judges or A&S coordinators attention.

Give me your thoughts on this subject. Tell me situations where the judging was far too focused on the peripheral aspects of your project and not the main product.