From: odlin@reed.edu (Iain Odlin)
Subject: Re: Heraldic Questions...
Organization: The Stuffed Animal Trauma Team  (We're Trained Professionals)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:21:59 GMT

In article <727688802.F00001@ocitor.fidonet> Tim@f4229.n124.z1.fidonet.org (Tim) writes:
>
> Count the number of SCA devices that (a) use purpure as a field, (b) use
> purpure for a charge, (c) have a charge oriented to sinister, (d) use a
> bend sinister versus a bend, (e) have an ordinary overlying the
> corresponding line of division, (f) have different types of charge on
> either side of an ordinary, (g) put wings (especially bat wings) on
> ordinarily non-winged creatures, etc., etc., and compare those numbers to
> similar armory (of you can find it) in Papworth, or Lyon, or Rietstap, or
> Siebemacher. To a considerable extent, the exceptions are taking over even
> as we speak; I think a very good case could be made that the trends in our
> armory depart significantly from those present in Real Armory, especially
> Real Medieval Armory, and to that extent we are in retreat.

  Apologies, Tadhg, for "butting in my long nose," but I have some points of
  interest.

  First, an observation:  There's a very real reason why devices in the SCA
  have a large number of 'uncommon' period practices applied to them:  They're
  easier to pass that way.  *Because* there were relatively few period uses of
  your examples, they have a correspondingly lower number of mundane conflicts.
  If you want SCA heraldry to reflect the real armoury of the period, the
  only way to do this is to loosen the mundane conflict rules.

  And second:  I have been watching the "But <X> was done in period armoury"
  debates with much interest but with little to say.  But, while I was reading
  through some back issues of TOURNAMENTS ILLUSTRATED last night, I ran across
  an article that held a quote I thought might be relevant, thus:

  "Tournaments Illustrated", Fall 1991, Issue 100, page 9, 'Things we know that
  Just Aren't So', _From the Laurel Sovereign of Arms_, by Master Da'ud ibn 
  Auda:

    "Another fallacy I hear occasionally is that we don't allow 'Japanese,'
    'Arabic,' 'Eastern European,' etc, heraldry.  This is simply not true.
    There are some specific parts of every heraldic system (including British!)
    whuch we have chosen not to allow in the interests of creating for our-
    selves a reasonably consistent system of heraldry."

  Sounds quite simple (and it is).  But there's a large problem in there (as
  some see it).  We have the heraldry of *all* countries in period being gov-
  erned by the SAME set of rules.

  The solution is simple:  Set up independent Colleges for each type of Her-
  aldry!  You want to register your 11th century Japanese persona's Red-on-
  Black armoury; No Prob!  Talk to the Japanese Herald's College!  [The example
  is made-up, so I may not be correct, but I'm sure you can all think of 
  examples of your own.  Islamic "four-layered" charges, perhaps...]

  The 'solution' is proposed about half tongue-in-cheek.  Yes, it'd be (A)
  expensive, (B) difficult and (C) a whole lot of other adjectives, but it
  is -- so far -- the only real way I see of addressing (if not solving) the
  problem.

  I'd love to hear feedback on this.  Enjoy.
-- 
 --------------------------------- Iain Odlin ---------------------------------
                  10 Crosby Street, Level 3, Portland ME 04103
                                 odlin@reed.edu
 ------ If you can't learn to do it well, learn to enjoy doing it badly. ------