Posted as a comment in pearl's journal, but I want to keep it and discuss it.

[mrsbrown]

mr_bassman read an interesting bit out of a book last night, which I'm going to keep using 'cos it works for me.

It suggested that rather than label things "authentic" (or "period" as the SCA does) that we could instead call what we do, "historically informed".

This has the benefit of getting rid of the expectation that historical perfection is possible, but nevertheless maintains it as a goal.

Comments

[lurextoga.livejournal.com]

ah yes. That's good and constructive actually. It feels achievable.

[http://users.livejournal.com/raven_/]

I really like that, as a goal. It's a movable goal, but one with good intentions.

[doushkasmum.livejournal.com]

I like that.

[pseudicide.livejournal.com]

I like it.

[damned-colonial.livejournal.com]

I like it too. What's the book?

[mr-bassman.livejournal.com]

"Johan Sebastian Bach - The solo Lute Works" Edited for Guitar by Frank Koonce, 2nd Edition, Preface to the Second Edition. Page iii

I like it, too!

[celsa.livejournal.com]

I enjoy the scope for misquoting: "Historically Misinformed". "Historically Deformed". "Historically Reformed". etc

*flees*

[basal-surge.livejournal.com]

I tend to avoid exchanging new jargon for old, but then, I'm a bit jaded on the whole authenticity thing because I specialise in a period of history where artefact resolution accuracy is greater than plus/minus 50 years, and clothing resolution accuracy is between 100 to 500 years plus/minus, due to the paucity of material. I always find it odd that you get many viking age re-enactor groups lecturing on why you can't have knife in style x with jewellery in style Y (the styles may be 50-60 years removed from each other in time/2-300km in space), while standing there doing the lecturing in a style of trousers from Thorsberg Mose, which are out of period by 400 years or more for viking, but are used because there are no known surviving viking age trousers.

[celsa.livejournal.com]

On reflection, the term 'historically informed' is not the same as 'historically accurate', 'authentic' or 'period'.

A person can make something that is in some ways historically accurate but is on other ways inaccurate. If the maker of the item can tell you all about how it is inaccurate, why they made it inaccurately and how to make an accurate one, I'd say that the knowledge is there. The information has been found and considered, and although a compromise has been made, the item is historically informed. Not necessarily a historical replica.

Classic examples: Lead-free pottery glazes that resemble the authentic ones as far as possible without being toxic.

Someone mistakenly making inaccurate objects without knowing they are inaccurate happens, and is a likely side-effect of people who know that what they are making is inaccurate, but modify for a reason. This can be overcome by a little research, even if it is as basic as asking the maker of the item about it's level of authenticity.

Now, someone who has been in the SCA for a while and has accrued a goodly selection of accurate gear could simply bring someone to the society decked out in picture-perfect garb and all the accoutrements without that person learning a single historical factoid. Their turn-out would be perfect - not a thing to harsh anyone's medieval groove, but if the SCA is at least partly about knowledge, then surely it's better for people to dive into creating things and learn as they go, errors and all?

So I believe that the term 'historically informed' describes a spectrum or a scale, requiring a further qualifier, for example; 'somewhat' or 'highly'.