Cunnan - User contributions [en]

Fibre Guild

2005-08-08T04:08:13Z

Taryn: Basic guild page

The Fibre Guild is a craft [[guild]] that exists within the [[Kingdom]] of [[Lochac]] in the [[Society for Creative Anachronism]].

The aim of the guild is to advance the study and practice of pre-1600AD [[fibrearts]] in [[Lochac]] and in the [[Known World]].

Website is: http://www.sca.org.au/fibre/

User:Taryn

2005-08-08T04:05:48Z

Taryn: Spelling of "broderer's"

Slightly-less-newbie from Rowany (previously of the College of St-Augustine).

SCA-ish funky stuff:
* Held the office of [[Arts and sciences officer]] for approximately two years (during 2004 and 2005).
* Received [[AoA]] at [[Rowany Festival]] 2005.
* Received the [[Sword of Chivalry]] at [[Rowany Festival]] 2005.
* Won the brewing contest at the feast of St-Augustine for 2004 and 2005

Guilds I am a member of (those with * I am not a very actuve member of):
* [[Royal Guild of Defence]]
* [[Fibre Guild]]
* [[Brewers, Vintners and Imbibers Guild]] (AKA [[Brewer's Guild]])
* [[Garden Guild]]*
* [[Equestrian Guild]]* (though I was the first in Lochac to be authorised (beginner) since the most recent re-establishment of this guild)

Guilds I should probably join but haven't yet:
* [[Worshipful_Company_of_Broiderers|Broderer's Guild]]
* [[Tailor's Guild]]
* [[Merchant's Guild]]

The last due to being the (somewhat newish) owner of a fairly regular fixture at Lochac events: [[Rennaissance Fence]].

Here's my contributions page...
http://www.sca.org.au/cunnan/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Taryn

You can email me on cunnan@taryneast.org

User:Taryn

2005-08-08T04:04:16Z

Taryn:

Slightly-less-newbie from Rowany (previously of the College of St-Augustine).

SCA-ish funky stuff:
* Held the office of [[Arts and sciences officer]] for approximately two years (during 2004 and 2005).
* Received [[AoA]] at [[Rowany Festival]] 2005.
* Received the [[Sword of Chivalry]] at [[Rowany Festival]] 2005.
* Won the brewing contest at the feast of St-Augustine for 2004 and 2005

Guilds I am a member of (those with * I am not a very actuve member of):
* [[Royal Guild of Defence]]
* [[Fibre Guild]]
* [[Brewers, Vintners and Imbibers Guild]] (AKA [[Brewer's Guild]])
* [[Garden Guild]]*
* [[Equestrian Guild]]* (though I was the first in Lochac to be authorised (beginner) since the most recent re-establishment of this guild)

Guilds I should probably join but haven't yet:
* [[Worshipful_Company_of_Broiderers|Broiderer's Guild]]
* [[Tailor's Guild]]
* [[Merchant's Guild]]

The last due to being the (somewhat newish) owner of a fairly regular fixture at Lochac events: [[Rennaissance Fence]].

Here's my contributions page...
http://www.sca.org.au/cunnan/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Taryn

You can email me on cunnan@taryneast.org

User:Taryn

2005-08-08T04:03:48Z

Taryn:

Slightly-less-newbie from Rowany (previously of the College of St-Augustine).

SCA-ish funky stuff:
* Held the office of [[Arts and sciences officer]] for approximately two years (during 2004 and 2005).
* Received [[AoA]] at [[Rowany Festival]] 2005.
* Received the [[Sword of Chivalry]] at [[Rowany Festival]] 2005.
* Won the brewing contest at the feast of St-Augustine for 2004 and 2005

Guilds I am a member of (those with * I am not a very actuve member of):
* [[Royal Guild of Defence]]
* [[Fibre Guild]]
* [[Brewers, Vintners and Imbibers Guild]] (AKA [[Brewer's Guild]])
* [[Garden Guild]]*
* [[Equestrian Guild]]* (though I was the first in Lochac to be authorised (beginner) since the most recent re-establishment of this guild)

Guilds I should probably join but haven't yet:
* [[Broderer's Guild|Worshipful_Company_of_Broiderers]]
* [[Tailor's Guild]]
* [[Merchant's Guild]]

The last due to being the (somewhat newish) owner of a fairly regular fixture at Lochac events: [[Rennaissance Fence]].

Here's my contributions page...
http://www.sca.org.au/cunnan/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Taryn

You can email me on cunnan@taryneast.org

User:Taryn

2005-08-08T04:03:28Z

Taryn: Link update for guilds

Slightly-less-newbie from Rowany (previously of the College of St-Augustine).

SCA-ish funky stuff:
* Held the office of [[Arts and sciences officer]] for approximately two years (during 2004 and 2005).
* Received [[AoA]] at [[Rowany Festival]] 2005.
* Received the [[Sword of Chivalry]] at [[Rowany Festival]] 2005.
* Won the brewing contest at the feast of St-Augustine for 2004 and 2005

Guilds I am a member of (those with * I am not a very actuve member of):
* [[Royal Guild of Defence]]
* [[Fibre Guild]]
* [[Brewers, Vintners and Imbibers Guild]] (AKA [[Brewer's Guild]])
* [[Garden Guild]]*
* [[Equestrian Guild]]* (though I was the first in Lochac to be authorised (beginner) since the most recent re-establishment of this guild)

Guilds I should probably join but haven't yet:
* [Broderer's Guild|Worshipful_Company_of_Broiderers]
* [[Tailor's Guild]]
* [[Merchant's Guild]]

The last due to being the (somewhat newish) owner of a fairly regular fixture at Lochac events: [[Rennaissance Fence]].

Here's my contributions page...
http://www.sca.org.au/cunnan/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Taryn

You can email me on cunnan@taryneast.org

User:Taryn

2005-08-08T04:00:19Z

Taryn: Added a list of guilds - curious if the pages exist

Slightly-less-newbie from Rowany (previously of the College of St-Augustine).

SCA-ish funky stuff:
* Held the office of [[Arts and sciences officer]] for approximately two years (during 2004 and 2005).
* Received [[AoA]] at [[Rowany Festival]] 2005.
* Received the [[Sword of Chivalry]] at [[Rowany Festival]] 2005.
* Won the brewing contest at the feast of St-Augustine for 2004 and 2005

Guilds I am a member of (those with * I am not a very actuve member of):
* [[Guild of defence]]
* [[Fibre Guild]]
* [[Guild of Brewers, Vintners and Imbibers]] (AKA [[Brewer's Guild]])
* [[Garden Guild]]*
* [[Equestrian Guild]]* (though I was the first in Lochac to be authorised (beginner) since the most recent re-establishment of this guild)

Guilds I should probably join but haven't yet:
* [[Broderer's Guild]] (or however you spell it)
* [[Tailor's Guild]] (likewise - I have this idea it might be "Taylor's")
* [[Merchant's Guild]]

The last due to being the (somewhat newish) owner of a fairly regular fixture at Lochac events: [[Rennaissance Fence]].

Here's my contributions page...
http://www.sca.org.au/cunnan/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Taryn

You can email me on cunnan@taryneast.org

Russhewses of Fruyt (recipe)

2004-08-09T06:59:45Z

Taryn: spellfixes: drian, smal and ingreients Grammarfix: course -> coarse

Trobar clus

2004-07-28T06:48:28Z

Taryn: Grammarfix: missing space added

'''Trobar clus''', or closed form, was the style of poetry used by [[troubadour]]s for their more discerning audiences, and it was only truly appreciated by an elite few. It was developed extensively by [[Marcabru]], but by 1200 its inaccessibility led to its disappearance.

''See Also'':
*[[trobar leu]]
*[[trobar ric]]

Troubadour

2004-07-28T06:46:13Z

Taryn: Spellfix: the -> they

Exeter Book

2004-07-28T06:43:25Z

Taryn: Spellfix: Mudane -> Mundane

The '''Exeter Book''' is a collection of [[Anglo-Saxon Poetry]], including a number of [[riddles]]. The earliest history of the book remains obscure, but we do know that it was bequeathed to the library of Exeter Cathedral by Leofric, Exeter's first [[Bishop]], in 1072. The manuscript itself has been [[paleography|paleographically]] dated to the [[10th Century]], though it is thought to have been copied from a collection compiled as early as the [[8th Century]]. The manuscript has taken a battering over the years, having been scarred by cuts, mug stains and in some places fire, which have rendered portions unreadable.

==The Riddles==

There are 95 riddles contained in The Exeter Book, although some of these are incomplete, and others are yet to be solved.

Although there are several riddles translated directly from popular versions in [[Latin]], the riddles seem to be mainly of [[Anglo-Saxon]] origin. They can be divided into three classes of riddles: Religious, Obscene ([[Exeter Riddle 25]]) and Mundane. The obscene riddles seem to describe something distasteful, but are in fact innocent. The mundane riddles may describe natural, domestic or military objects.

==Other Poems==

The first poems of the Exeter Book tend to be longer religious ones, while later poems tend to be shorter, and cover both religious and secular themes. Notable poems include ''The Phoenix'', ''Deor'' and ''The Ruin''.

Talk:Gusset

2004-07-23T04:32:32Z

Taryn: question on confusing description

"In heraldry, a gusset is a charge in the shape of a tierce, with a wedge taken out of the top section" - the picture of a tierce seems to be different to this. Do you mean a pall? if not - can you pleas put an explanation of the difference between a tierce and a pall on one (or both) of those pages? [[User:Taryn|taryn]]

Talk:Pall

2004-07-23T04:30:05Z

Taryn: question on confusing wording

"In heraldry, the bend is an ordinary in the shape of a letter Y" - is this a bend or a pall?

Gussets

2004-07-23T04:15:02Z

Taryn: added explanation of bias-cut. Probably needs cleanup.

A '''gusset''' is a small piece of [[fabric]] inserted at a place of strain to allow free movement and flexibility without the (non-stretchy) fabric ripping. Most commonly found under the arms, but can also be found in other places (eg modern [[underwear]] and lycra pants, period [[socks]] at the heel, etc).

The medieval gusset is normally a square of fabric about 8-12cm wide (on average, this can differ - use whatever suits). Turn it diagonally (so that it is a diamond shape) and sew it into the underarm area of your tunic - it will stretch now when you pull your arm on funny angles.

The way a gusset of this sort works is due to the fact that the diamond-shape is cut "on the [[bias]]" - ie the grain of the fabric is running at an angle to the lines of strain/pressure. This means that the threads of the fabric are not pulled tightly against one another (as they would be if the grain of the fabric were running in the same direction as the strain lines), but instead are free to move - which gives the slight amount of stretch that allows freedom of arm-movement.

Oldtimer

2004-07-22T06:20:08Z

Taryn: Spellfix: oldtimes->oldtimers

An '''oldtimer''' is someone who has been around and involved long enough that others think of them as part of the establishment. Interestingly, they themselves may not think of themselves as oldtimers and may take exception at being referred to as such. Also, people who have been around even longer may not yet consider them oldtimers.

== See also ==
* [[Dinosaur]] -- an oldtimer's oldtimer.
* [[Newbie]] -- a soon-to-be oldtimer.

Beeswax

2004-07-22T06:15:12Z

Taryn: Spellfix: maleable->malleable

[[Beeswax]] is a hard resinious substance that [[bees]] make from the [[honey]] they collect. It is malleable and soft above 25 degrees celsius. It takes 7 parts of honey to make 1 part wax, so there's a large amount of work involved for the bees.

The wax burns slow and clear and smells nice, so it has been the choice of [[candle]]s throughout the ages. It stops water, so is a good [[waterproofing|water sealant]], and hardens [[leather]] nicely.

St Augustine

2004-07-22T06:10:36Z

Taryn: linkfix - oops only put single brackets

St Augustine was the eldest son of [[St Monica]]. He was born in 354 AD in Tagaste (part of modern Algeria) and died 75 years later in Hippo Regius, where he served as bishop. It is for the latter location that St Augustine is often referred to as Augustine of Hippo.

St.Augustine is best known for his writings, especially the work entitled "Confessions".

His feast day is the 28th of August.

-----

Related: The [[College of St Augustine]]

St Augustine

2004-07-22T06:09:42Z

Taryn: Added link to college

List of Saints' Feastdays

2004-07-22T06:08:05Z

Taryn: added patron-ity ??(word?) of St-Aug

==January==
# Circumcision of the Lord
#
#
#
#
# The [[Epiphany]] of the Lord.
==February==
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# Saint Scholastica
#
#
#
# Saint Valentine
==March==
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# Saint Benedict
#
#
#
# The Crucifixion.
#
# The Resurrection of Christ
==April==
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# Saint Guthlac confessor.
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# Saint Alfegius
#
#
#
# Saint George
#
# Saint Mark the Evangelist
#
#
# Saint Vitalis martyr.
==May==
# The Apostles Philip and James
#
#
# [[St Monica]] (Patron Saint of Alcoholics)
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# Saint Augustine the bishop

==June==
#
# Saint Peter the martyr
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# Saint Barnabas the apostle
#
#
#
# Saints Vitus and Modestus
#
#
#
#
#
#
# Saint Alban
# Saint Aetheldritha the virgin
# Nativity of Saint John the Baptist
# Saints John and Paul
#
#
# Martyrdom of the apostles Peter and Paul
==July==
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# [[Translation]] of Saint Benedict
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# Saint Mary Magdalene
#
# Saint Christina the virgin
# Saint James the apostle
#
#
# Saint Samson the confessor
# Saint Beatrice

==August==
#
# Saint Stephen the martyr
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# The Assumption of Saint Mary the virgin
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# [[St Bartholomew]] the apostle
#
#
# Saint Rufus martyr
# [[St Augustine]] the doctor (patron saint of brewers)
# The Beheading of Saint John the baptist
# Saint Felix
#

==September==
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# Nativity of Saint Mary the virgin
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# Saint Matthew the apostle
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# Saint Michael the archangel
# Saint Jerome presbiter
==October==
#
#
#
# [[St Francis of Assisi]]
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# Saint Luke the evangelist
# Saint Frideswide the virgin
#
# [[St Ursula]]
#
#
#
#
#
#
# Simon and Jude apostles
#
==November==
# Feast of All Saints
#
#
#
#
# Saint Leonard the confessor
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# [[Edmund the Martyr]]
#
# [[St Cecilia]] (Patron saint of [[Music]])
#

==December==
#
#
#
#
#
# Saint Nicholas bishop
#
# The Conception of Saint Mary
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# The Nativity of Our Lord

==Endnotes==
*Remember that some [[medieval]] calenders got dates of [[saint]]s' feast days wrong, or debated the date between different [[church]] sections.
*There is often more than one saint that goes by the same name. For instance, there are at least four medieval [[St Bartholomew]]s. They do not necessarily use the same feast day.
*Local areas would celebrate only the saints' feast days relevant to them - they might celebrate the well known saints of their country, and also a few local saints, and saints relevant ot their landscape and specialities (eg [[farming]] saints, saints of [[sailor]]s, [[vinter]]s, etc) and also saints relevant to their personal circumstances (female saints for a convent, saints of chastity for a person who had taken a vow of chastity, etc). There was a big push in the [[12th century]] to introduce Saint [[Thomas Beckett]] to [[Europe]] (from [[England]]) - gifts of [[clothing]] with [[embroidery|embroideries]] of his martyrdom were sent to many European churches as a publicity campaign.
*Books of saints' days existed in medieval times. One [[12th century]] example online is the [[http://www.abdn.ac.uk/stalbanspsalter/english/index.shtml|St Albans psalter]], also with an [[http://www.abdn.ac.uk/stalbanspsalter/english/essays/calendar.shtml#feastdays|essay]] about the saints' days within.

Calligraphy

2004-07-22T06:02:57Z

Taryn: A reword

Calligraphy is the art of beautiful writing.

Within the SCA, [[scribe]]s produce [[scroll]]s by calligraphing the text and then decorating it with [[illumination]].

Calligraphy comes in many ''hands'' (roughly analogous to fonts on your computer). Some examples, in rough chronological order:
* Roman capitals - these look like the carved letters on ancient monuments, or like the capital letters in a modern serif font.
* Uncial - the curvy capitals you find in many [[Celtic]] works.
* Carolingian minuscule - contemporary with Charlemagne (hence the name), this hand looks very similar to the printed letters taught to schoolchildren.
* Gothic - also variously called blackletter or Old English, this family of hands is characterized by evenly (and closely) spaced vertical lines with serifs on both ends. Often hard to read, but beautiful nevertheless.
* Bastard (The French form is called Batarde) - a more relaxed version of gothic, with more curves; often highly flourished.
* Humanist minuscule - the Italian [[Renaissance]] revival of Carolingian minuscule, this hand is the ancestor of modern serif fonts like Palantino and Garamond. Manuscripts written in Humanist often look printed.
* Italic - the more relaxed version of Humanist minuscule. Despite the modern connotation of the name, italic in [[period]] is not necessarily slanted (oblique).

Calligraphy

2004-07-22T05:56:59Z

Taryn: Clarifying Bastard hand

Calligraphy is the art of beautiful writing.

Within the SCA, [[scribe]]s produce [[scroll]]s by calligraphing the text and then decorating it with [[illumination]].

Calligraphy comes in many ''hands'' (roughly analogous to fonts on your computer). Some examples, in rough chronological order:
* Roman capitals - these look like the carved letters on ancient monuments, or like the capital letters in a modern serif font.
* Uncial - the curvy capitals you find in many [[Celtic]] works.
* Carolingian minuscule - contemporary with Charlemagne (hence the name), this hand looks very similar to the printed letters taught to schoolchildren.
* Gothic - also variously called blackletter or Old English, this family of hands is characterized by evenly (and closely) spaced vertical lines with serifs on both ends. Often hard to read, but beautiful nevertheless.
* Bastard (AKA anglicanum??(not sure of sp) or the French form: Batarde) - a more relaxed version of gothic, with more curves; often highly flourished.
* Humanist minuscule - the Italian [[Renaissance]] revival of Carolingian minuscule, this hand is the ancestor of modern serif fonts like Palantino and Garamond. Manuscripts written in Humanist often look printed.
* Italic - the more relaxed version of Humanist minuscule. Despite the modern connotation of the name, italic in [[period]] is not necessarily slanted (oblique).

Talk:Honey

2004-07-13T02:16:22Z

Taryn: Some honey questions...

Would it be possible for the person who claimed medicinal qualities to discuss what they are?

Also - does anyone know if creamed honey is in period?

[[User:Taryn|taryn]]

Honey

2004-07-13T02:15:08Z

Taryn: explanation of honey sugarsand glucose cutting

'''Honey''' is a product produced by [[bee]]s (as stored food) from the nectar of flowers. Next to water, it is the main ingredient in [[mead]]. It is also an excellent sugar substitute for medieval [[recipes]], containing mainly a combination of glucose and fructose - along with the complex honey flavours. Note: many supermarket honeys are actualy "cut" with extra glucose - which makes it more runny (useful for spreading), but less flavoursome.

It also has many [[medicine|medicinal]] properties which modern doctors are now rediscovering. A classic throat soothing drink is lemon and honey, but it is also used for healing wounds and for treating eczema.

Honey is also a documentable [[SCA name]]. One such person with this name is Lady [[Honey of the Forest]], past [[seneschal]] of the [[Canton of Krae Glas]].

Mead brewing

2004-07-13T02:12:17Z

Taryn: typos

[[Mead]] is a fermented drink made from [[honey]]. Brewing mead is one of the easiest and most rewarding of the brewing arts (if you like to drink mead, that is).

In either case, if you wish to get started with basic mead, there's a step-by-step guide here:
http://www.taryneast.org/hobbies/mead.shtml

This should get you started if you've never brewed before or if you've only brewed beer. For those in the latter category, mead-making is very different to beer-making - for one thing, while a beer could be done in 4-6 weeks, mead really should be left for a *minimum* of 6 months. Any less than that and you end up with the rocket-fuel specials or honey-water horribles.

To see a description of the various types of mead, go back to the [[mead]] page, but the basic recipe consists of just honey, water, yeast and time.

The main variations depend on added ingredients. If you add herbs or spices you get [[metheglin]], if you add fruit you get [[melomel]].

== Honey: where, what type? ==
The biggest issue generally facing a prospective mead-maker is what type/where to get your honey. Really, as with most things, it's a matter of taste. If you're making a basic mead, the taste of the honey is the most important thing (as it's really the only thing in your mead that gives it taste). Go to the honey-making places and do all their free tasting (yum). Try the different varieties and see what *you* like best (presumably you'll be drinking most of your mead so you'd better like it).

A few things to be aware of are:
# supermarket honey is generally cut with glucose - some of them up to 30-50% (or so I'm told) - and that means sweet but no flavour.
# if it has a nasty aftertase, it'll be horrible in mead - go for something smooth.

Raw honey, straight from an apiarist is my preference - it's often the cheapest too - especially if you can buy in bulk. Don't forget, honey doesn't go "off" so you can buy yourself a 27kg food-safe bucket full and stick it under a table somewhere and use it for years as long as you keep in covered. If it's a good honey, it's generally worth it, and you might have a store of honey to offer other mead-makers if there's another drought/worldwide shortage (like there has been recently).

How to find someone that sells honey in bulk? there are several ways to go about this:
# join the local brewers guild and ask.
# look at the supermarket honeys and see where they came from then go on the internet and look if these companies do bulk honey
# look in the phone book under "bee products" or "honey" or "apiarists", or do an internet search for any of these terms. :)

== Yeast ==
Do not, I repeat *DO NOT* use beer yeast in mead. yes, there's a recipe below which does - but that's meant to be an ultra-fast brew and not a "pinnacle of the meads" type of recipe.

The best yeast to use depends on what type of mead you are aiming at. You can make mead sweet, dry or... in between. So you can choose yeast that:
# ferments out every last iota of sugar = dry mead = a champagne yeast or "dry white wine" yeast
# is very gentle and doesn't ferment much at all = sweet mead = something like "white labs"s "sweet mead yeast"
# something in the middle that will depend on how much honey you put in.

Personally, I prefer option 3 - as that way I myself can determine the sweetness of the mead by how much honey I use. I'll give you some ideas of yeast I use - but don't take this as read - there are many very good yeasts out there.

I use: Lalvin EC1118 or Gervin Wine yeast #3 (depending on what's in stock at the local shop). These are both a type of yeast labelled S. cerevisiae (bayanus), so I guess they're both the same type of yeast from different companies. As I said, though - there are many types and if you are really getting so good at mead-making that you are worried about what type of yeast you use - you probably are better at it than me and can find all the yeast-debate websites that are out there.

== Where do I get: yeast/demijohn...? ==
At a brew shop - look online or in the phone book for "homebrew wine". WRT demijohns - don't get the beer ones - your mead is goign t sit in them for 6months to a year, beer only sits in them for 4-6weeks. you don't want plasticy-tasting mead, so invest in a glass one if you can - it's worth it in the long-run. The 1-gallon ones don't cost that much more for glass and they're the best for beginning mead - by the time you're sure you want to go the whole hog you can have saved up enough for the 5/10-gallon ones.

== Honey: How much to use? ==

Three main factors determine approximately how much honey you should use:
# how sweet/dry you'd like your mead
# if you will be using a specialty yeast (eg champagne)
# if you will be adding other sugar-carrying ingredients (eg grapes)

tackling these in reverse order:
3. if you're making a pyment or melomel, I can't help you - the amount of variation is very wide and you really have to consult the individual recipe you are using, or, if you aren't using a recipe, make a guess based on what percentage of the mel will be "mead" and what will be "your-fruit wine" and use the honey-ratios (below) for the mead bit and a "your-fruit" wine recipe for the other

2. it's another guessing game depending on how sweet/dry you want it to end up. I've experimented with all three and to give a basic idea - if you're using champagne yeast add a kilo or two, if you're using sweet yeast, take one away... however - that assumes you want a medium mead. Maybe you want it dry as a desert or sickly-sweet... really it's a guesing game. Just remember, though - you can always add more honey if it's not sweet enough... but you can't take it out again if it's too cloying. So if in doubt, add the lower amount and add some more later. It'll make the ferment a little longer, but if that will make the end result drinkable, then it's worth it!

1. ok, I've never made a really dry mead as I personally can't stand the stuff, so I can't reliably comment on the amount of honey to use.
I generally make sack meads - which means they're quite sweet - but not sickly. Based on this I'd give the following *VERY* approximate guide:

kg honey per imperial gallon:
# dry mead - 7.5kg
# medium - 8-9kg
# sweet - 10-12kg

Be aware that when you get to about 12kg of honey, you are running dangerously close to creating a [[stuck ferment]], so a beginner would be safer with about 10kg for a sweet mead - and maybe adding more later if they felt the need.

Another complicating factor can be the "strength" of the honey itself. When I switched from supermarket honey to the real stuff, I noticed a *huge* difference in how strong/sweet the mead I made was. Pure honey is much stronger in flavour - though I'm not sure what the concentration-difference (if any) of the sugars is between pure honey and honey-glucose supermarket mixes.

== Safety ==

* '''Sterilise only with brewing sterilisers''' - you don't want to have to drink bleach, so don't use it to sterilise your bottles!
* '''Don't bottle too early''' - yeast produces CO2 while it still lives. if you bottle too early, the gas may build up inside the bottle and the bottle can explode, this is know as the [[glass grenade]] effect and is very dangerous.

== Controversies ==

=== To sterilise or not to sterilise ===
I've heard arguments both for and against sterilisation. Sure, they didn't do it in period. Sure, some batches may have been lost. Sure, the initial burst of yeast-activity generally kills off most competition.

For me, it came down to personal laziness.... sterilising everything takes time, smells bad and is actually bad for you - especially when the metabisulphate sets off your migraine (like it does for me). I've been brewing for two years since I stopped sterilising (5 years all up so far) and I haven't lost a batch yet... that doesn't mean I won't ever, but I've put out at least 21 gallons in that time without losing anything yet and I think that's a good enough ratio for myself.
However, if you have a messy kitchen or you're just beginning or just don't trust fate as much - feel free - many people do sterilise and most people swear by it. I do sterilise in some cirumstances - eg where I'm using second-hand bottles that haven't been washed out and the dregs may have gone vinegary... not good. My advice is to read all your options and decide based on your own abilities.

However - if you choose to sterilise, make sure you use common sense and *BE CAREFUL*.
# metabisulphate must always be used out in the open or at least with the windows open and try real hard not to inhale the stuff - it's nasty!
# don't use anything apart from proper brewers steriliser. Bleach is not good for you when you finally have to drink the stuff!
# read the instructions on the packet/bottle. Especially as regards the dilution-strength and whether to rinse the bottles out afterwards or not.

=== To boil or not to boil ===
Another case of personal preference. People have always told me to boil the honey, they tell me I should spend ages bent over the pot scooping scum off and desperately trying to pull it off the stove before it boils over.
This is probably do-able if you have only a gallon, but it becomes a chore when you do five 1-gallon pots-worth for your 5-gallon demi-john.

The argument for boiling is that the "scum" you pull out would otherwise make the mead cloudy and ick.

My feeling is that, sure, in period, this was great advice - your honey would normally be full of pollen, bee-bits and random chunks of suspended beeswax. However, these days your local supermarket honey is pasteurised and homogenised as well as filtered, so highly unlikely to be of the random "raw" quality of the 1500's. I get my honey "raw" from an apiarist and even they filter it very finely out before handing it over.

The main argument against boiling is that boiling "boils off" the volatile components of the honey - and destroys natural enzymes and "wholesome goodness" (that I have so far been unable to find anyone to fully describe to me).

Personally I'm not so certain of either argument, and therefore I go with my gut-instinct for laziness... again.

If you're making show-quality mead, maybe you'd like to be certain that it'll be clear and go with boiling - but then maybe you'll be worried that you'll boil off the more complex flavours... I personally don't boil. If my mead ever goes cloudy because of it (hasn't yet) I'll throw in some dolomite - which is the usual way to clear suspension hazes anyway.

=== To stop the ferment or not ===
Stopping a ferment is absolutely *NO WAY* in period. Besides which, the longer you leave your mead, the nicer it will taste. i personally never bottle before a year, even if the ferment finished in 6 months. the only reason I can tell to stop your mead early is if you've absolutely, positively got ot have your mead by xyz time. However if you're on a tight schedule i'd much rather recommend you make some nice [[cider]] or [[perry]] or something instead - and leave that mead a few months more and take it to the following year's festival :)

== Recipies ==

* [[Basic sweet mead]]
* [[Syr Michael of York Mead]]

[[Category:Brewing]]

Mead brewing

2004-07-13T02:09:03Z

Taryn: typos

[[Mead]] is a fermented drink made from [[honey]]. Brewing mead is one of the easiest and most rewarding of the brewing arts (if you like to drink mead, that is).

In either case, if you wish to get started with basic mead, there's a step-by-step guide here:
http://www.taryneast.org/hobbies/mead.shtml

This should get you started if you've never brewed before or if you've only brewed beer. For those in the latter category, mead-making is very different to beer-making - for one thing, while a beer could be done in 4-6 weeks, mead really should be left for a *minimum* of 6 months. Any less than that and you end up with the rocket-fuel specials or honey-water horribles.

To see a description of the various types of mead, go back to the [[mead]] page, but the basic recipe consists of just honey, water, yeast and time.

The main variations depend on added ingredients. If you add herbs or spices you get [[metheglin]], if you add fruit you get [[melomel]].

== Honey: where, what type? ==
The biggest issue generally facing a prospective mead-maker is what type/where to get your honey. Really, as with most things, it's a matter of taste. If you're making a basic mead, the taste of the honey is the most important thing (as it's really the only thing in your mead that gives it taste). Go to the honey-making places and do all their free tasting (yum). Try the different varieties and see what *you* like best (presumably you'll be drinking most of your mead so you'd better like it).

A few things to be aware of are:
# supermarket honey is generally cut with glucose - some of them up to 30-50% (or so I'm told) - and that means sweet but no flavour.
# if it has a nasty aftertase, it'll be horrible in mead - go for something smooth.

Raw honey, straight from an apiarist is my preference - it's often the cheapest too - especially if you can buy in bulk. Don't forget, honey doesn't go "off" so you can buy yourself a 27kg food-safe bucket full and stick it under a table somewhere and use it for years as long as you keep in covered. If it's a good honey, it's generally worth it, and you might have a store of honey to offer other mead-makers if there's another drought/worldwide shortage (like there has been recently).

How to find someone that sells honey in bulk? there are several ways to go about this:
# join the local brewers guild and ask.
# look at the supermarket honeys and see where they came from then go on the internet and look if these companies do bulk honey
# look in the phone book under "bee products" or "honey" or "apiarists", or do an internet search for any of these terms. :)

== Yeast ==
Do not, I repeat *DO NOT* use beer yeast in mead. yes, there's a recipe below which does - but that's meant to be an ultra-fast brew and not a "pinnacle of the meads" type of recipe.

The best yeast to use depends on what type of mead you are aiming at. You can make mead sweet, dry or... in between. So you can choose yeast that:
# ferments out every last iota of sugar = dry mead = a champagne yeast or "dry white wine" yeast
# is very gentle and doesn't ferment much at all = sweet mead = something like "white labs"s "sweet mead yeast"
# something in the middle that will depend on how much honey you put in.

Personally, I prefer option 3 - as that way I myself can determine the sweetness of the mead by how much honey I use. I'll give you some ideas of yeast I use - but don't take this as read - there are many very good yeasts out there.

I use: Lalvin EC1118 or Gervin Wine yeast #3 (depending on what's in stock at the local shop). These are both a type of yeast labelled S. cerevisiae (bayanus), so I guess they're both the same type of yeast from different companies. As I said, though - there are many types and if you are really getting so good at mead-making that you are worried about what type of yeast you use - you probably are better at it than me and can find all the yeast-debate websites that are out there.

== Where do I get: yeast/demijohn...? ==
At a brew shop - look online or in the phone book for "homebrew wine". WRT demijohns - don't get the beer ones - your mead is goign t sit in them for 6months to a year, beer only sits in them for 4-6weeks. you don't want plasticy-tasting mead, so invest in a glass one if you can - it's worth it in the long-run. The 1-gallon ones don't cost that much more for glass and they're the best for beginning mead - by the time you're sure you want to go the whole hog you can have saved up enough for the 5/10-gallon ones.

== Honey: How much to use? ==

Three main factors determine approximately how much honey you should use:
# how sweet/dry you'd like your mead
# if you will be using a specialty yeast (eg champagne)
# if you will be adding other sugar-carrying ingredients (eg grapes)

tackling these in reverse order:
3. if you're making a pyment or melomel, I can't help you - the amount of variation is very wide and you really have to consult the individual recipe you are using, or, if you aren't using a recipe, make a guess based on what percentage of the mel will be "mead" and what will be "your-fruit wine" and use the honey-ratios (below) for the mead bit and a "your-fruit" wine recipe for the other

2. it's another guessing game depending on how sweet/dry you want it to end up. I've experimented with all three and to give a basic idea - if you're using champagne yeast add a kilo or two, if you're using sweet yeast, take one away... however - that assumes you want a medium mead. Maybe you want it dry as a desert or sickly-sweet... really it's a guesing game. Just remember, though - you can always add more honey if it's not sweet enough... but you can't take it out again if it's too cloying. So if in doubt, add the lower amount and add some more later. It'll make the ferment a little longer, but if that will make the end result drinkable, then it's worth it!

1. ok, I've never made a really dry mead as I personally can't stand the stuff, so I can't reliably comment on the amount of honey to use.
I generally make sack meads - which means they're quite sweet - but not sickly. Based on this I'd give the following *VERY* approximate guide:

kg honey per imperial gallon:
# dry mead - 7.5kg
# medium - 8-9kg
# sweet - 10-12kg

Be aware that when you get to about 12kg of honey, you are running dangerously close to creating a [[stuck ferment]], so a beginner would be safer with about 10kg for a sweet mead - and maybe adding more later if they felt the need.

Another complicating factor can be the "strength" of the honey itself. When I switched from supermarket honey to the real stuff, I noticed a *huge* difference in how strong/sweet the mead I made was. Pure honey is much stronger in flavour - though I'm not sure what the concentration-difference (if any) of the sugars is between pure honey and honey-glucose supermarket mixes.

== Safety ==

* '''Sterilise only with brewing sterilisers''' - you don't want to have to drink bleach, so don't use it to sterilise your bottles!
* '''Don't bottle too early''' - yeast produces CO2 while it still lives. if you bottle too early, the gas may build up inside the bottle and the bottle can explode, this is know as the [[glass grenade]] effect and is very dangerous.

== Controversies ==

=== To sterilise or not to sterilise ===
I've heard arguments both for and against sterilisation. Sure, they didn't do it in period. Sure, some batches may have been lost. Sure, the initial burst of yeast-activity generally kills off most competition.

For me, it came down to personal laziness.... sterilising everything takes time, smells bad and is actually bad for you - especially when the metabisulphate sets off your migraine (like it does for me). I've been brewing for two years since I stopped sterilising (5 years all up so far) and I haven't lost a batch yet... that doesn't mean I won't ever, but I've put out at least 21 gallons in that time without losing anything yet and I think that's a good enough ratio for myself.
However, if you have a messy kitchen or you're just beginning or just don't trust fate as much - feel free - many people do sterilise and most people swear by it. I do sterilise in some cirumstances - eg where I'm using second-hand bottles that haven't been washed out and the dregs may have gone vinegary... not good. My advice is to read all your options and decide based on your own abilities.

However - if you choose to sterilise, make sure you use common sense and *BE CAREFUL*.
# metabisulphate must always be used out in the open or at least with the windows open and try real hard not to inhale the stuff - it's nasty!
# don't use anything apart from proper brewers steriliser. Bleach is not good for you when you finally have to drink the stuff!
# read the instructions on the packet/bottle. Especially as regards the dilution-strength and whether to rinse the bottles out afterwards or not.

=== To boil or not to boil ===
Another case of personal preference. People have always told me to boil the honey, they tell me I should spend ages bent over the pot scooping scum off and desperately trying to pull it off the stove before it boils over.
This is probably do-able if you have only a gallon, but it becomes a chore when you do five 1-gallon pots-worth for your 5-gallon demi-john.

The argument for boiling is that the "scum' you pull out would otherwise make the mead cloudy and ick.

My feeling is that, sure, in period, this was great advice - your honey would normally be full of pollen, bee-bits and random bits of suspended beeswax. However, these days your local supermarket honey is pasteurised and homogenised as well as filtered, so highly unlikely to be of the random "raw" quality of the 1600's. I get my honey "raw" from an apiarist and even they filter it very finely out before handing it over.

The main argument against boiling is that boiling "boils off" the volatile components of the honey - and destroys natural enzymes any "wholesome goodness" stuff (that I have so far been unable to find anyone to fully describe to me).

Personally I'm not so certain of either argument, and therefore i go with my gut-instinct for laziness... again.

If you're making show-quality mead, maybe you'd like to be certain that it'll be clear and go with boiling - but then maybe you'll be worried that you'll boil off the more complex flavours... i personally don't boil. If my mead ever goes cloudy because of it 9hasn't yet) I'll throw in some dolomite - which is the usual way to clear suspension hazes anyway.

=== To stop the ferment or not ===
Stopping a ferment is absolutely *NO WAY* in period. Besides which, the longer you leave your mead, the nicer it will taste. i personally never bottle before a year, even if the ferment finished in 6 months. the only reason I can tell to stop your mead early is if you've absolutely, positively got ot have your mead by xyz time. However if you're on a tight schedule i'd much rather recommend you make some nice [[cider]] or [[perry]] or something instead - and leave that mead a few months more and take it to the following year's festival :)

== Recipies ==

* [[Basic sweet mead]]
* [[Syr Michael of York Mead]]

[[Category:Brewing]]

Mead brewing

2004-07-13T02:05:58Z

Taryn: spellfixes/typos

[[Mead]] is a fermented drink made from [[honey]]. Brewing mead is one of the easiest and most rewarding of the brewing arts (if you like to drink mead, that is).

In either case, if you wish to get started with basic mead, there's a step-by-step guide here:
http://www.taryneast.org/hobbies/mead.shtml

This should get you started if you've never brewed before or if you've only brewed beer. For those in the latter category, mead-making is very different to beer-making - for one thing, while a beer could be done in 4-6 weeks, mead really should be left for a *minimum* of 6 months. Any less than that and you end up with the rocket-fuel specials or honey-water horribles.

To see a description of the various types of mead, go back to the [[mead]] page, but the basic recipe consists of just honey, water, yeast and time.

The main variations depend on added ingredients. If you add herbs or spices you get [[metheglin]], if you add fruit you get [[melomel]].

== Honey: where, what type? ==
The biggest issue generally facing a prospective mead-maker is what type/where to get your honey. Really, as with most things, it's a matter of taste. If you're making a basic mead, the taste of the honey is the most important thing (as it's really the only thing in your mead that gives it taste). Go to the honey-making places and do all their free tasting (yum). Try the different varieties and see what *you* like best (presumably you'll be drinking most of your mead so you'd better like it).

A few things to be aware of are:
# supermarket honey is generally cut with glucose - some of them up to 30-50% (or so I'm told) - and that means sweet but no flavour.
# if it has a nasty aftertase, it'll be horrible in mead - go for something smooth.

Raw honey, straight from an apiarist is my preference - it's often the cheapest too - especially if you can buy in bulk. Don't forget, honey doesn't go "off" so you can buy yourself a 27kg food-safe bucket full and stick it under a table somewhere and use it for years as long as you keep in covered. If it's a good honey, it's generally worth it, and you might have a store of honey to offer other mead-makers if there's another drought/worldwide shortage (like there has been recently).

How to find someone that sells honey in bulk? there are several ways to go about this:
# join the local brewers guild and ask.
# look at the supermarket honeys and see where they came from then go on the internet and look if these companies do bulk honey
# look in the phone book under "bee products" or "honey" or "apiarists", or do an internet search for any of these terms. :)

== Yeast ==
Do not, I repeat *DO NOT* use beer yeast in mead. yes, there's a recipe below which does - but that's meant to be an ultra-fast brew and not a "pinnacle of the meads" type of recipe.

The best yeast to use depends on what type of mead you are aiming at. You can make mead sweet, dry or... in between. So you can choose yeast that:
# ferments out every last iota of sugar = dry mead = a champagne yeast or "dry white wine" yeast
# is very gentle and doesn't ferment much at all = sweet mead = something like "white labs"s "sweet mead yeast"
# something in the middle that will depend on how much honey you put in.

Personally, I prefer option 3 - as that way I myself can determine the sweetness of the mead by how much honey I use. I'll give you some ideas of yeast I use - but don't take this as read - there are many very good yeasts out there.

I use: Lalvin EC1118 or Gervin Wine yeast #3 (depending on what's in stock at the local shop). These are both a type of yeast labelled S. cerevisiae (bayanus), so I guess they're both the same type of yeast from different companies. As I said, though - there are many types and if you are really getting so good at mead-making that you are worried about what type of yeast you use - you probably are better at it than me and can find all the yeast-debate websites that are out there.

== Where do I get: yeast/demijohn...? ==
At a brew shop - look online or in the phone book for "homebrew wine". WRT demijohns - don't get the beer ones - your mead is goign t sit in them for 6months to a year, beer only sits in them for 4-6weeks. you don't want plasticy-tasting mead, so invest in a glass one if you can - it's worth it in the long-run. The 1-gallon ones don't cost that much more for glass and they're the best for beginning mead - by the time you're sure you want to go the whole hog you can have saved up enough for the 5/10-gallon ones.

== Honey: How much to use? ==

Three main factors determine approximately how much honey you should use:
# how sweet/dry you'd like your mead
# if you will be using a specialty yeast (eg champagne)
# if you will be adding other sugar-carrying ingredients (eg grapes)

tackling these in reverse order:
3. if you're making a pyment or melomel, I can't help you - the amount of variation is very wide and you really have to consult the individual recipe you are using, or, if you aren't using a recipe, make a guess based on what percentage of the mel will be "mead" and what will be "your-fruit wine" and use the honey-ratios (below) for the mead bit and a "your-fruit" wine recipe for the other

2. it's another guessing game depending on how sweet/dry you want it to end up. I've experimented with all three and to give a basic idea - if you're using champagne yeast add a kilo or two, if you're using sweet yeast, take one away... however - that assumes you want a medium mead. Maybe you want it dry as a desert or sickly-sweet... really it's a guesing game. Just remember, though - you can always add more honey if it's not sweet enough... but you can't take it out again if it's too cloying. So if in doubt, add the lower amount and add some more later. It'll make the ferment a little longer, but if that will make the end result drinkable, then it's worth it!

1. ok, I've never made a really dry mead as I personally can't stand the stuff, so I can't reliably comment on the amount of honey to use.
I generally make sack meads - which means they're quite sweet - but not sickly. Based on this I'd give the following *VERY* approximate guide:

kg honey per imperial gallon:
# dry mead - 7.5kg
# medium - 8-9kg
# sweet - 10-12kg

Be aware that when you get to about 12kg of honey, you are running dangerously close to creating a [[stuck ferment]], so a beginner would be safer with about 10kg for a sweet mead - and maybe adding more later if they felt the need.

Another complicating factor can be the "strength" of the honey itself. When I switched from supermarket honey to the real stuff, I noticed a *huge* difference in how strong/sweet the mead I made was. Pure honey is much stronger in flavour - though I'm not sure what the concentration-difference (if any) of the sugars is between pure honey and honey-glucose supermarket mixes.

== Safety ==

* '''Sterilise only with brewing sterilisers''' - you don't want to have to drink bleach, so don't use it to sterilise your bottles!
* '''Don't bottle too early''' - yeast produces CO2 while it still lives. if you bottle too early, the gas may build up inside the bottle and the bottle can explode, this is know as the [[glass grenade]] effect and is very dangerous.

== Controversies ==

=== To sterilise or not to sterilise ===
I've heard arguments both for and against sterilisation. Sure, they didn't do it in period. Sure, some batches may have been lost. Sure, the initial busrt of yeast-activity generally kills off most competition.
For me, it came down to personal laziness.... sterilising everything takes time, smells bad and is actually bad for you - especially when the metabisulphate sets off your migraine (like it does for me). I've been brewing for two years since i stopped asterlising (5 years all up so far) and I haen't lost a batch yet... that doesn't mead I won't ever, but I've put out at least 21 gallons in that time without losing anything yet and I think that's a good enough ratio for myself.
However, if you have a messy kitchen or you're just beginning or just don't trust fate as much - feel free - many people do sterilise and most people swear by it. I do sterilise in some cirumstance - eg where I'm using second-hand bottles that haven't been washed out and the dregs may have gone vinegary... not good. My advice is to read all your options and decide based on your own abilities.

However - if you choose to sterilise, make sure you use common sense and *BE CAREFUL*.
# metabisulphate must always be used out in the open or at least with the windows open and try real hard not to inhale the stuff - it's nasty!
# don't use anything apart from proper brewers steriliser. Bleach is not good for you when you finally have to drink the stuff!
# read the instructions on the packet/bottle. Especially as regards the dilution-strength nd whether to rinse the bottles out afterwards or not.

=== To boil or not to boil ===
Another case of personal preference. People have always told me to boil the honey, they tell me I should spend ages bent over the pot scooping scum off and desperately trying to pull it off the stove before it boils over.
This is probably do-able if you have only a gallon, but it becomes a chore when you do five 1-gallon pots-worth for your 5-gallon demi-john.

The argument for boiling is that the "scum' you pull out would otherwise make the mead cloudy and ick.

My feeling is that, sure, in period, this was great advice - your honey would normally be full of pollen, bee-bits and random bits of suspended beeswax. However, these days your local supermarket honey is pasteurised and homogenised as well as filtered, so highly unlikely to be of the random "raw" quality of the 1600's. I get my honey "raw" from an apiarist and even they filter it very finely out before handing it over.

The main argument against boiling is that boiling "boils off" the volatile components of the honey - and destroys natural enzymes any "wholesome goodness" stuff (that I have so far been unable to find anyone to fully describe to me).

Personally I'm not so certain of either argument, and therefore i go with my gut-instinct for laziness... again.

If you're making show-quality mead, maybe you'd like to be certain that it'll be clear and go with boiling - but then maybe you'll be worried that you'll boil off the more complex flavours... i personally don't boil. If my mead ever goes cloudy because of it 9hasn't yet) I'll throw in some dolomite - which is the usual way to clear suspension hazes anyway.

=== To stop the ferment or not ===
Stopping a ferment is absolutely *NO WAY* in period. Besides which, the longer you leave your mead, the nicer it will taste. i personally never bottle before a year, even if the ferment finished in 6 months. the only reason I can tell to stop your mead early is if you've absolutely, positively got ot have your mead by xyz time. However if you're on a tight schedule i'd much rather recommend you make some nice [[cider]] or [[perry]] or something instead - and leave that mead a few months more and take it to the following year's festival :)

== Recipies ==

* [[Basic sweet mead]]
* [[Syr Michael of York Mead]]

[[Category:Brewing]]

Cunnan:Village pump

2004-07-13T01:57:41Z

Taryn: /* Yet another upgrade */

In [[Medieval village]]s people would gather at the '''Village Pump''' to discuss those items that were important to their lives. On [[Cunnan]] the Village Pump serves a similar purpose: Giving users a place to meet and discuss current events, policy and content.
----
[http://www.sca.org.au/cunnan/wiki.phtml?title=Cunnan:Village_pump&action=edit&section=new You can add a new topic/question by clicking here.]
----

== Announcements ==
* Some of the old Village pump articles have been moved to save space:
** [[Cunnan:Old Village pump discussions (moved 2003)|Moved during 2003]]
** [[Cunnan:Old Village pump discussions (moved 2004)|Moved during 2004]]

== Topics ==

=== Another upgrade ===
Those of you who contribute to the Wikipedia will have noticed that over the past few days it has undergone a major facelift as well as having a major feature upgrade. Once the software settles down and the new version is released to the public I will install it here. - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]] 10:43, 1 Jun 2004 (EST)

:The upgrade is now complete. I apologize for the abruptness of the upgrade but there was a problem with the old software (I would have had to reinstall it or install this newer version). The new interface can be customized and we will have category support again.

:As always you should report any problems here. - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]] 18:14, 8 Jun 2004 (EST)

Uploading has been disabled. Was this deliberate, or is it as a result of the upgrade? [[User:Conrad Leviston|Conrad Leviston]] 00:11, 10 Jun 2004 (EST)

:It was deliberate (and done on account of the upgrade). I've re-enabled uploads now. - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]] 01:14, 10 Jun 2004 (EST)

=== Information taken from Wikipedia ===
I've noticed that Cunnan is listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copies_of_Wikipedia_content_%28low_degree_of_compliance%29 (under SCA wiki). I think that we are listed on the wrong page since we meet the criteria for moderate compliance but that is beside the point. We really should do something about this when we come across articles of our that are copied from the Wikipedia. Just adding "Some of this articles content were taken from the Wikipedia article at ''http://whateverurl''" would be sufficient. - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]] 10:43, 1 Jun 2004 (EST)

=== re/moving misspelt page titles ===

Hi,
I have noticed that there is a page for Pavillions. This is a misspelling of Pavilions and while I have corrected all the words inside the page, I don't know how to move the filename. The only way I know is to make a new Pavilions page and redirect Pavillions to it but I am not happy to do this.

Please advise,

Cian, the spelling pedant.

:If you are logged in (which you seem to be). You can move a page by clicking the "move" link. It should be along the top of the article (if you are using the new design) or in the left hand set of menus (if you are using the old design). You'll be asked where to move the page to and the old version will be turned into a redirect. - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]] (PS writing <nowiki>~~~</nowiki> will automatically sign your name on talk pages)

=== Yet another upgrade ===
There will be a minor version upgrade tonight (sorry about the short notice). There will be no (big) cosmetic changes this time just a few bug-fixes. - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]] 19:15, 8 Jul 2004 (EST)

:Done. If anything explodes mention it here. - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]] 20:13, 8 Jul 2004 (EST)

:Grrr, I broke special characters again. Fixed again. I'll update the database to UTF-8 soon so that this doesn't keep happening. - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]] 20:36, 8 Jul 2004 (EST)

::Not sure if it is related to these changes, but I had something break, I was looking at my watchlist and clikced of "7 days" and it gave me this error:

Fatal error: Call to undefined function: floatval() in /home/sca/public_html/cunnan/includes/SpecialWatchlist.php on line 74

::it was the same when I tried clicking on the other day or hour fields for this page. Cheers, [[User:Taryn|taryn]]

Drop spindle

2004-03-31T06:18:45Z

Taryn:

#REDIRECT [[whorler]]

Whorler

2004-03-31T06:17:47Z

Taryn:

Modernly called a "drop spindle", a whorler (in period) simply consisted of a pointed, straight shaft (the spindle) inserted into a disk (the whorl).

Generally the whorl was near the bottom of the shaft, but there are "high-whorl" techniques, where the whorl is actually at the "top" end of the shaft, with the spun thread wound around the shaft underneath it.

This is much in contrast with a modern drop spindle which tend to also have a hook at the top end of the shaft - the thread is actually looped over this hook to help keep the holding loop from slipping off the spindle during spinning.

Also, methods of winding the thread onto the spindle seem to have evolved over time - early spindles all seem to have the thread wound "evenly" up the spindle - so that the lump of wound thread becomes "cigar-shaped". Modern drop-spindle techniques generally have the thread wound near the bottom (actually resting upon the whorl) and the thread forms a general cone-shape.

Period paintings of spinners often show the spindle being held by the right hand, with a [[distaff]] held under the left arm. In this way, the spinner was able to feed the fibre into the spindle between the two hands.

Spinning technique

2004-03-31T06:10:49Z

Taryn:

[[Spinning]] is the art of creating [[thread]] from [[fibre]]s. A number of techniques have existed throughout the ages, but they generally coalesce into one of three general areas.

== Hand-spun fibre ==

The earliest method involved simply twisting the fibres with the fingers/hands, but this was very time-consuming and inefficient, and produced a thread that was generally not very strong. It also was pretty nasty on the fingers - especially with rough fibres like hemp. This technique, however, is still employed by some native tribes in the world - for example some of the Australian natives spun human hair for various purposes using this technique.

== Whorling / drop-spindle ==

The next and most prevalent method was called "whorling" and involves the use of a [[whorler]] (or what is modernly called a drop spindle). This device consists of a simple, pointed shaft (called the spindle) with one end fastened to the centre of a disk (the whorl).

The spun thread is securely looped around the shaft and hooked over the top, then is held (a few inches away from the spindle) by the spinner in one hand. The spinner then spins the whole spindle, with the disk acting as both a weight to keep the spindle turning, and a place to rest the spun thread upon (by undoing the loop at the top and rotating said spindle).

Fibres are added to the thread the spinner holds in her hand, and twisted into the previously spun thread. This creates the thread, and as it is completed, the spinner lets go of the thread and adds some more fibre to the top. the spindle thus slowly drops to the floor (thus why "drop spindle").

When the spindle reaches the floor. The spinner stops the spinning and unhooks the thread from the hook and winds the completed thread onto the shaft - then re-hooks it and continues from there.

=== Support Spindle ===

Another type of whorled spindle is the support spindle. This often looks very similar to a drop spindle in many respects. It consists of a central shaft which may be made of wood or metal and a whorl, placed near the bottom of the shaft. The whorl may be a disk, knob or bead which gives weight to the spindle and provides a resting spot for the spun strand. The bottom of the shaft is pointed to allow it to spin more readily, and the top may be hooked, but may also be pointed. A low-whorl drop spindle can be used as a support spindle provided the bottom has a point to it, and many support spindles can be used as drop spindles, provided they have enough weight to them to allow them to spin. In these cases, the difference is not the actual configuration of the spindle so much as the technique the individual spinner uses.

The pointed bottom of the spindle is rested on some surface which may be the lap, the ground (if the spindle is very long) or a "spinning bowl". This is a small smooth surface such as a small wooden bowl which allows the spindle to spin faster and longer than it otherwise would. Fibre may be hand-spun and attached directly to the shaft of the spindle, or a spinner may use a leader thread. The unspun fibre is held and drafted with one hand, while the other hand spins and supports the spindle. The shaft is given a fast twist and allowed to spin on the spinning surface while the spinning hand gently supports it. The idea is to keep the spindle from falling over while allowing the spindle to spin as long as possible. When the spindle slows down, another spin is given, and so on.

As the fibre is twisted, the spinner drafts out additional fibre. When the strand reaches arms length, the spinner winds the spun thread onto the shaft and continues drafting and spinning in this manner.

Support spindles may be used for any type of fibre, but are very useful for fine spinning such as cotton or silk thread, where the weight of a drop spindle could break the thread in progress.

== Spinning-wheel ==

The spinning-wheel made its appearance only late in [[period]] and at first was just a drop-spindle turned on its side and added to a large fly-wheel. The fly wheel was heavier and thus could be kept spinning for longer.

The spinner could also walk backwards the entire length of a room, drawing out the thread and keeping just ahead of the "twist" in it, rather than be stuck with just her own height. This was called the [[long draw method]] and the thread produced this way was not of as high a quality as that produced with a whorler - and thus whorling remained important for a very long time after the wheel was invented and put to use.

Early spinning wheels did not self-wind onto the bobbin (the shaft of the wheel's spindle as previous), as modern wheels do - the spinner still had to stop the wheel and wind the completed fibre onto the bobbin by hand.

An interesting point to note was that the spindle on these early wheels was often quite sharp, and thus sleeping beaty could quite easily have pricked her finger upon one - a task nearly impossible on modern-day wheels.

Spinning technique

2004-03-31T06:10:04Z

Taryn:

[[Spinning]] is the art of creating [[thread]] from [[fibre]]s. A number of techniques have existed throughout the ages, but they generally coalesce into one of three general areas.

== Hand-spun fibre ==

The earliest method involved simply twisting the fibres with the fingers/hands, but this was very time-consuming and inefficient, and produced a thread that was generally not very strong. It also was pretty nasty on the fingers - especially with rough fibres like hemp. This technique, however, is still employed by some native tribes in the world - for example some of the Australian natives spun human hair for various purposes using this technique.

== Whorling / drop-spindle ==

The next and most prevalent method was called "whorling" and involves the use of a [[whorler]] (or what is modernly called a drop spindle). This device consists of a simple, pointed shaft (called the spindle) with one end fastened to the centre of a disk.

The spun thread is securely looped around the shaft and hooked over the top, then is held (a few inches away from the spindle) by the spinner in one hand. The spinner then spins the whole spindle, with the disk acting as both a weight to keep the spindle turning, and a place to rest the spun thread upon (by undoing the loop at the top and rotating said spindle).

Fibres are added to the thread the spinner holds in her hand, and twisted into the previously spun thread. This creates the thread, and as it is completed, the spinner lets go of the thread and adds some more fibre to the top. the spindle thus slowly drops to the floor (thus why "drop spindle").

When the spindle reaches the floor. The spinner stops the spinning and unhooks the thread from the hook and winds the completed thread onto the shaft - then re-hooks it and continues from there.

=== Support Spindle ===

Another type of whorled spindle is the support spindle. This often looks very similar to a drop spindle in many respects. It consists of a central shaft which may be made of wood or metal and a whorl, placed near the bottom of the shaft. The whorl may be a disk, knob or bead which gives weight to the spindle and provides a resting spot for the spun strand. The bottom of the shaft is pointed to allow it to spin more readily, and the top may be hooked, but may also be pointed. A low-whorl drop spindle can be used as a support spindle provided the bottom has a point to it, and many support spindles can be used as drop spindles, provided they have enough weight to them to allow them to spin. In these cases, the difference is not the actual configuration of the spindle so much as the technique the individual spinner uses.

The pointed bottom of the spindle is rested on some surface which may be the lap, the ground (if the spindle is very long) or a "spinning bowl". This is a small smooth surface such as a small wooden bowl which allows the spindle to spin faster and longer than it otherwise would. Fibre may be hand-spun and attached directly to the shaft of the spindle, or a spinner may use a leader thread. The unspun fibre is held and drafted with one hand, while the other hand spins and supports the spindle. The shaft is given a fast twist and allowed to spin on the spinning surface while the spinning hand gently supports it. The idea is to keep the spindle from falling over while allowing the spindle to spin as long as possible. When the spindle slows down, another spin is given, and so on.

As the fibre is twisted, the spinner drafts out additional fibre. When the strand reaches arms length, the spinner winds the spun thread onto the shaft and continues drafting and spinning in this manner.

Support spindles may be used for any type of fibre, but are very useful for fine spinning such as cotton or silk thread, where the weight of a drop spindle could break the thread in progress.

== Spinning-wheel ==

The spinning-wheel made its appearance only late in [[period]] and at first was just a drop-spindle turned on its side and added to a large fly-wheel. The fly wheel was heavier and thus could be kept spinning for longer.

The spinner could also walk backwards the entire length of a room, drawing out the thread and keeping just ahead of the "twist" in it, rather than be stuck with just her own height. This was called the [[long draw method]] and the thread produced this way was not of as high a quality as that produced with a whorler - and thus whorling remained important for a very long time after the wheel was invented and put to use.

Early spinning wheels did not self-wind onto the bobbin (the shaft of the wheel's spindle as previous), as modern wheels do - the spinner still had to stop the wheel and wind the completed fibre onto the bobbin by hand.

An interesting point to note was that the spindle on these early wheels was often quite sharp, and thus sleeping beaty could quite easily have pricked her finger upon one - a task nearly impossible on modern-day wheels.

Netted Lace

2004-03-31T05:43:19Z

Taryn:

Originating with sailors that wanted to make something nice for their girlfriends, netted lace began by using and experimenting with the basic [[netting|net-knotwork]] in beautiful and delicate ways (ie finer linens rather than coarser netting-twine).

Generally netted lace is done in a circular fashion, with each piece displaying radial symmetry. Lace of this form is perfect as a "[[snood]]". However, there is no reason why it should not be created in a rectangle - as long as it's structurally sound.

Netted Lace

2004-03-31T05:42:05Z

Taryn:

Originating with sailors that wanted to make something nice for their girlfriends, netted lace began by using and experimenting with the basic [[knotwork/netting|net-knotwork]] in beautiful and delicate ways (ie finer linens rather than coarser netting-twine).

Generally netted lace is done in a circular fashion, with each piece displaying radial symmetry. Lace of this form is perfect as a "[[snood]]". However, there is no reason why it should not be created in a rectangle - as long as it's structurally sound.

Netted Lace

2004-03-31T05:41:07Z

Taryn:

Originating with sailors that wanted to make something nice for their girlfriends, netted lace began by using and experimenting with the basic net-knotwork in beautiful and delicate ways (ie finer linens rather than coarser netting-twine).

Generally netted lace is done in a circular fashion, with each piece displaying radial symmetry. Lace of this form is perfect as a "[[snood]]". However, there is no reason why it should not be created in a rectangle - as long as it's structurally sound.

Lace technique

2004-03-31T05:36:56Z

Taryn: shoudl really be split in two - but not enought for that yet. Lace=lace technique

#REDIRECT [[Lace]]

Weaving

2004-03-31T05:34:56Z

Taryn: clarification of naalbinding + weaving patterns

'''Weaving''' is taking separate [[thread]]s and combining them to make [[fabric]]s or [[braid]] (woven or [[knotted]] cords).

There are several types of weaving:
* [[Tablet weaving]]
* [[Loom]] weaving
* Various [[braiding technique]]s
* [[Naalbinding]] (more of a [[needle lace]] than true "weaving", though also looks a lot like [[knitting]] and was commonly mistaken for it at one time)
* Various [[knotting technique]]s
* Various [[lace technique]]s

In short, weaving is any technique that takes threads and entangles them in a more-or-less orderly fashion so that you end up with a solid piece of fabric or braid.

In the most common form, weaving is performed on a [[loom]] which holds several threads in place (called the [[warp thread]]s) while the weaver passes another thread back-and-forth, lacing these threads in place (this other thread being called the [[weft thread]]).

The warp threads generally form the stengthening shape for the cloth/braid, while the weft thread basically holds them into the shape they are held into while on the loom - so that once the cloth is removed from the loom, it retains its shape.

In [[period]], early [[wheel-spun]] techniques for [[spinning]] thread made a softer, less strong type of thread than the traditional [[whorl-spun]] thread. The wheel-spun threads were actually illegal to use in the warp-thread as they were considered too weak - especially where the cloth/braid was to carry weight. Whorl-spun thread was thus used for quite a long time after [[spinning wheels]] were invented and put to use.

The pattern or colour of the finished (woven) fabric depends on the weights, colours, patterns and methods used for the weaving itself and is highly dependant on which style of weaving is done (eg the list at the top of this page).

Talk:Brewers, Vintners and Imbibers Guild

2003-12-20T10:33:28Z

Taryn:

I notice from their website that this guild is planning on releasing a guide to period herbs and recipes (brewing specific). Does anyone feel like asking them under what license/scheme they are planning on releasing this information? This is somewhat similar to my plan to organise some people to redact the entire of the [[Forme of Cury]]. I'm still slowly adding all the recipes from the Forme of Cury (as [[User:Bot]], an invisible editor) - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]]

I'm a member... I'll ask :)
- [[User:Taryn|Taryn]] 21:33, 20 Dec 2003 (EST)

Needle lace

2003-12-12T02:03:40Z

Taryn:

'''Needle lace''' became popular in very late period, following on from the [[drawn thread work]] that was the earliest of laces.

Needle lace first made its appearance as the form [[punto in aria]] or "points in air" - named thus as it was a material constructed by string with "thin air" and adding bits until you had lace. This was opposed to the drawn thread work (or Reticella) in which you started from a material and removed bits.

Needle lace generally consists of having a strong edge secured on card or another stiff surface, and using a needle to delicately work many stitches over itself to create a worked area.

It is exceedingly time-consuming (the most time-consuming of all laces), and has thus always been incredibly expensive. The very fact that every stitch can be placed individually also means that the pattern has absolutely no constraints and thus was made into the finest and most complicated of filigree.

Only the most wealthy were able to afford needle lace in any quantity, often the larger pieces (such as the [[elizabethan]] [[ruff]]s) were supplemented by [[bobbin lace]] edges to fill out the space quicker and cheaper - some bobbin lace pieces even attmpting to copy the needle lace in an attempt at mimicry - with mixed success - there are some things that only needle lace can do.

references:
[[http://www.geocities.com/monstonitrus/a_and_s/needlelace/needlelace.html|tournament's illuminated article on needlelace]]

Punto in aria

2003-12-12T02:02:16Z

Taryn: Description and explanation

'''Punto in Aria''' is one of the earliest forms of [[needle lace]]. It is closely related to [[Reticella]] lace, and the name means "points in the air" due to the technique used to create it.

Reticella was a lace in which threads were drawn out of the fabric and some embroidery stitches used to embellish and hold the remaining stitches in place (as a decorated framework.

After a while, the laces became more and more "lacy" with more and more gaps - so many threads were pulled out that the fabric became flimsy. Eventually the lacemakers realised that, rather than starting with whole-cloth and removing threads, they could start with nothing, and simply build the framework themselves out of needle-made stitches.

The lace-makers felt they were building their stitches "in the air", thus the name of this technique.

This was the birth of true needle lace. Freed from having to use the structure of the warp/weft of the fabric, Punto in Aria developed flowing, curving structures, triangles and starburst patterns that are often seen in the pictures of lace collars and ruffs from this time-period.

Drawn thread work

2003-12-12T01:57:43Z

Taryn: moved stuff over to Punto In Aria

'''Drawn-thread work''' is generally considered to be among the first types of true [[lace]]. It was created by taking ordinary [[linen]], and pulling out certain threads, or cutting other threads, to create spaces in the linen, and stitching around the holes to makes sure they remained strong. This is similar in principle to modern hardanger - but hardanger itself is very much [[out of period]].

The holes were not at first left completely empty. Any remaining threads were left as a framework for embroidery in elaborate patterns. This style was known as Reticella.

Laces made in this fashion were quite popular and were used in collars, cuffs and table-ware. Often mixed with elaborate embroidery, including beautiful pieces where there are alternating squares of embroidered fabric with 'non-squares' of reticella lace.

Patterns were constrained by the [[warp]] and [[weft]] of the fabric itself. Having to draw out the threads was also difficult, this added to the fact that the lacier it becomes (ie the more threads you draw out), the flimsier the framework is.

Eventually, lace-makers didn't bother drawing threads out and simply cut out a space and built their framework in the gap - which became known as "[[Punto in Aria]]" = "points in the air".

Drawn thread work

2003-12-12T01:51:00Z

Taryn: Rewrite

'''Drawn-thread work''' is generally considered to be among the first types of true [[lace]]. It was created by taking ordinary [[linen]], and pulling out certain threads, or cutting other threads, to create spaces in the linen, and stitching around the holes to makes sure they remained strong. This is similar in principle to modern hardanger - but hardanger itself is very much [[out of period]].

The holes were not at first left completely empty. Any remaining threads were left as a framework for embroidery in elaborate patterns. This style was known as Reticella.

Laces made in this fashion were quite popular and were used in collars, cuffs and table-ware. Often mixed with elaborate embroidery, including beautiful pieces where there are alternating squares of embroidered fabric with 'non-squares' of reticella lace.

After a while, the laces became more and more "lacy" with more and more gaps - so many threads were pulled out that the fabric became flimsy. Eventually the lacemakers realised that, rather than starting with whole-cloth and removing threads, they could start with nothing, and make braids from needle-made stitches that looked like the cloth left over from pulling out the threads.

So the lace-makers dispensed with carefully drawing threads out and began to build their own frameworks with the embroidery stitches, this become known as "[[punto in aria]]" (points in the air).

This was the true birth of [[needle lace]].

Drawn thread work

2003-12-12T01:48:06Z

Taryn: Ok, figured out hte real diff betw punto in Aria and Reticella

'''Drawn-thread work''' is generally considered to be among the first types of true [[lace]]. It was created by taking ordinary [[linen]], and pulling out certain threads, or cutting other threads, to create spaces in the linen, and stitching around the holes to makes sure they remained strong. This is similar in principle to modern hardanger - but hardanger itself is very much [[out of period]].

The holes were not at first left completely empty. Any remaining threads were left as a framework for embroidery in elaborate patterns. This style was known as Reticella.

Laces made in this fashion were quite popular and were used in collars, cuffs and table-ware.

After a while, the laces became more and more "lacy" with more and more gaps - so many threads were pulled out that the fabric became flimsy. Eventually the lacemakers realised that, rather than starting with whole-cloth and removing threads, they could start with nothing, and make braids from needle-made stitches that looked like the cloth left over from pulling out the threads. This was the true birth of [[needle lace]] So the lace-makers dispensed with carefully drawing threads out and began to build their own frameworks with the embroidery stitches, this become known as "[[punto in aria]]" (points in the air).

Italian wars

2003-12-08T01:09:01Z

Taryn: Spelling fix

Silk

2003-10-31T10:09:59Z

Taryn: They eat more than just mulberry leaves - i've fed em lettuce and rose petals ;)

'''Silk''' is finely [[woven]] [[thread]] of the 'silk worm' - a caterpillar that produces the slik while building its coccoon in preparation for pupation.

The thread is taken from the cocoon before the moth fully passes through the chyralis phase. This process kills the chrysalis so obviously not every chrysalis is taken.

The colour of the silk depends on what the caterpillars were fed. They require green leaves and are generally fed on [[mulberry]] leaves which give a very pale blonde or white depending on species. If the diet is supplemented with rose petals, the thread can come out with a pink tinge.

The thread is either spun or used flat.

=== External Links ===
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk
* http://www.dharmatrading.com/silk_fabrics.html

Talk:Lucet

2003-10-31T09:50:49Z

Taryn:

Any info on when/where these were used?

yup :) [[User:Taryn|Taryn]] 20:50, 31 Oct 2003 (EST)

Lucet

2003-10-31T09:50:20Z

Taryn: Added a bit of history... my sources aren't rock-solid

A '''lucet''' is a two pronged implement that makes some very nice [[braid]]s with multiple uses. They were used from at least the 16th century onwards, the earliest examples coming from Scandanavia.

The lyre-shaped lucet is technically out of period (though prettier and easier to use). Instead, early lucets were generally a simple tube with prongs at the top ends (most finds being a hollowed, carved bone).

Lucets mostly produce square-profiled cords that are quite neat and nifty, and VERY tough (perfect for [[poynts]] or [[draw-strings]]), but use up a lot of [[thread]] to produce.

They can also make elliptical cross-section braid using the "twisted-stitch:" method that's pretty good for couching cord - as long as it's made with a fine fibre.

Braids can be made with multiple colours - either interchanging on individual stitches or groups of stitches, or used as a [[gimp thread]] for decorative purpose. Beads can also be added either in straight rows or looping around the braid in a helix pattern.

Braids made on a lucet need to be made from [[thread]] that can take a bit of abrasion as the technique will cause the thread to rub against the horns of the lucet as the loop is pulled tight.

Instructions (including how to make 2 colour and beaded cords) are available at this page:
http://www.stringpage.com/old/lucet.html

Another excellent resource is the Lacis book:
"Lucet Braiding: Variations on a Renaissance cord" by Elaine Fuller
ISBN 18911656066

You can get a lucet from:
http://merchants-medieval.com/cockerel/

Talk:Main Page

2003-10-11T02:04:36Z

Taryn: oops... colons

==Cunnan Focus?==
Is this a medieval reenactment wiki or an SCA wiki? The whole thing looks like it has been set up presuming that the SCA way of doing things is the only way it is done.

So which is the truth? Is it a badly-designed medieval reenactment wiki or is it a SCA wiki that misrepresents itself as a medieval reenactment wiki?

: It's a medieval reenactment wiki, plain and simple, but wikis always reflect the people who contribute to them. Currently, the only contributors (as far as I know) are people from the SCA, so the design, content, the main page, and opinions are all SCA oriented. We write what we know. If you'd like to add non-SCA content, please go right ahead. [[User:Morgant|Morgant]] 11:36, 15 Aug 2003 (EST)

:Well, it was, way back when we started, a medieval reenactment wiki, and it still is but (almost?) everyone who contributes is in the [[SCA]]. I'd be willing to change the explanation on the front page if people think its misleading. - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]] 12:23, 15 Aug 2003 (EST)

==Arts & Sciences==
Okie dokie, re the crafts/sciences. What would you have things such as [[astronomy]] under? It could be argued that there are no arts in the SCA only crafts (or the emulation of period art, at any rate). I'll agree that no ''true'' science in done in the SCA but there are certainly people who apply themselves to the study of period sciences.

Feel free to tell me I'm wrong (is this the first wiki argument? ;-) - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]] 14:10 6 Aug 2003 (EST)

:- Tobin: *I* feel that there's a number of people who do the 'crafts' of olde, and VERY few who actually do [[astronomy]] - and then they aren't doing the science of it, mearly recreating the 'elements' that were developed.
:Why not leave it as craft and see how many people actually object ? never hurt to irritate anyone :)

::Point taken but there are people that do astronomy and I dont think it should be thought of as a craft. - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]]

:::When more than 3 people use test tubes and actually reinvent the wheel, rather than just follow someonelses work - sold. till then No Dice. The SCA does Crafts.

:::Follow someone else's work vs. reinventing the wheel? I think it's important to distinguish between science and scientific discoveries. Nobody's claiming to be making scientific discoveries - these have already been made. Think about it like Crafts - nobody's inventing new ways of doing things - we're trying to recreate what was done before. We're investigating science as it was done during the middle ages. I enjoy researching medieval cryptography - it doesn't mean that I have to invent new methods of frequency analysis. Also, and more importantly, Arts, Crafts & Sciences is a pain to say. [[User:Morgant|Morgant]] 11:22 11 Aug 2003 (EST)

==Arts & Sciences (again)==
A google search reveals something in the region of 1,500 results for "sca "arts and crafts"" but more than 7,500 results for "sca "arts and sciences"". I've never met an A & C officer and doubt I ever will (even if that is a more accurate term. Shoule we start calling all [[constable]]s "order enforcing people" just because some people think "constable" suggests that they are part of the police force?)

The point I'm trying to make is that, regardless of accuracy, people say A & S not A & C (if you were searching for A & S stuff on the web which would be seaching for?) If the SCA '''is''' a game then it really doesn't matter but there is no point in being non-standard. - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]] 21:29, 25 Aug 2003 (EST)

[[User:Newt|Newt]]: Well let's start a trend, Tobin! We can slowly change the SCA to ''our'' way of thinking. Hmm.. I see what you're saying but I think with regards to the wiki we're just looking for ways of grouping topics nicely. There's nothing much to put under 'sciences', but you can very easily split up our 'arts' (which is currently damn huge) into 'arts' and 'crafts'. Re: knowne worlde handbooke... Sui does have a point!

:That sounds exactly like something sui would say ;-) It doesn't worry me if we add in a Crafts topic but taking out the sciences link (or going through that whole pointless "Crafts ("sciences")" thing again would be a bad thing, IMO. Split up the Arts link if you want and then add Crafts to the main page. - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]] 10:23, 27 Aug 2003 (EST)

==Arts and Sciences (yet again)==
I can see we're about to have this argument again. Reading what was said in the previous arguments, I'll not change it back right now but, the fact remains people say A & S not A & C ("correctness" doesn't enter into it, this is an SCA wiki and in the SCA people say A & S) - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]] 14:00, 26 Sep 2003 (EST)

:yes.. and americans are ALWAYS right about everything.. *sigh* glad to see that u can atleast accept change though Tobin. Now can the hard link from craft -> science, be removed? they are different! - Ben

::The link isn't hard, any logged in user remove it. The link goes from Crafts to [[Sciences]] not [[science]]. Also using Arts and crafts on the main page means that anyone searching google for Arts and Sciences (which would be most going on the number of hits google returns) wont find Cunnan

::I intend to change the link back from Crafts to sciences. - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]]

=="BE bold"==

I think this statement should be removed from the front page. Anytime i have been bold or attempted anything slightly .. erm.. off beat.. it has been quickly slapped down, and yes i am going to single Morgant out here. Either have the policy that this is to be dry and humorless and a totally informational database only or allow it to be more 'open' - of course, and this is an amazing idea - u could have BOTH!!

So the choice - I believe - is everyone, how do u want your WIKI to be?

as u can guess i'd like it to be more 'interesting'

:We want people to be bold as in adding content not as in making changes that run against the majority. I Agree SCA science isn't real science but the majority of the SCA still call it science (this is an SCA wiki).

:I never said that the wiki was supposed to be a place or mirth and merryment. In fact the whole thing started so I would have a place to put what I know about the SCA. The software is free the content is open. You're welcome to start your own wiki. - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]]

::In fact I wasn't even discussing the science thing.. It was more a general 'thing'. but point taken. If i wanna add content 'dry and humorless it is' - Ben

*Given that I'm singled out, I guess I should probably reply. I don't think I've ever slapped anyone down - I have, however, edited some pretty weird stuff. I'd like Cunnan to be useful, with a polished, edited look. Articles should be useful before they're funny - if you can do both, that's great, if you can't, don't. [[User:Morgant|Morgant]]

== Styles of articles ==

With the above responses, how about we agree to dissgree?
Morgant wants polished articles, dry and informational, whilst I want interesting and informational articles.

Can we compromise, and do both, and aside from grammer [without changing the whole article] or spelling [which morgant does a great job of tidying up] how's about we leave the other articles alone?

there IS a certain amount of 'ownership' in having authored something, and if you wish to ADD to an article then go for it, but leave the orginal artical in place? this being a wiki, and us having a 'gentlemans agreement' about such things sound make for much better content and enjoyment all round - and redduce the .. erm.. 'bickering' ? - Ben
*Here's how I feel about this - if everybody restricted themselves to their own articles, this wouldn't be a wiki. If an article is inaccurate, inappropriate, or otherwise lacking, it should be edited. Not doing so would make for worse, not better content. [[User:Morgant|Morgant]]

:::Then unlock the page(s) you have locked, and accept my editing in return. _ Ben

::::There is a single protected page on the wiki, the Main Page. I protected it because the consensus is, or appears to me and the other admins I've spoken to, that Sciences, regardless of accuracy, is the term used in the SCA. You're welcome to edit what you like but page protection and database locks are used from time to time when someone insists upon making a change that runs contary to consensus (corretion of common misconceptions does not come under this) - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]]

::::: " [[User:Morgant|Morgant]] " - Ben

== front page counter ==
Is it working? i have been doing 15-20 articles a day and yesterday it went up 1...

you might wanna check it
- Ben
:Last time I looked into it, the MediaWiki page count tag only counts articles of a significant size. (D'you know what it is, Tobin?) I'm guessing that Ben's 15-20 articles are predominantly short dictionary-style entries (which Cunnan should avoid, really), and they're not counting towards the total. Once they're expanded, they'll be included in the total. [[User:Morgant|Morgant]]

:The articles need to be of some length (one line jokes and short dictionary style stuff wont be counted). They also need to contain at least one link. I'll have to check what the minimum length is. Also, if you're not logged in you might be served a cached copy of the page. I'll be moving this conversation to the village pump when I have time. - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]]

==Dictionary-style entries==
Out of curiosity, why should dictionary-style entries be avoided? What if you can concisely explain something in 25 words or less (and include a link in it! e.g. [[acro-narcotic]])? The way I see a wiki to be, it's like a cross between a dictionary and an encyclopedia anyway: it's a quick and efficient way of obtaining information. And so, if I enounter a technical word in an article I want to be able to click on it and get a _brief_ explanation first.. and if people want to later they can add 10 pages of history and detailed description to it, and that's cool. Short, dictionary-style entries are a good building block to more complex, detailed entries. Feel free to convince me otherwise. - [[User:Newt|Newt]]

:I say they are often useful, however they are more a definition, than an article - they contain little information. If I looked up acro-narcotic and found a definition i might be happy, and I might not care if the article only had a definiition, and no examples. But if I looked up lemon and got only "a yellow fruit of the citrus family" I'd wonder why I bothered linking to it. And as a really useful wiki, i'd say It's the longer articles that define it. Just personal opinion - ie that I'd only count longer articles in the article count, but I'm happy with the short articles as definitions of tricky words or starting inspiration points for articles. [[User:Tiff|Tiff]]

:Whee! That got away quickly. By "short dictionary-style entries" I meant articles that consist of a definition with no re-enactment content or application, especially stuff lifted straight out of online dictionaries. I do think that making a stub article for further expansion, or defining technical or [http://www.sca.org.au/cunnan/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Middle_English medieval] words are good things - defining what a duck is, not so much. There are other wikis to do that. [[User:Morgant|Morgant]]

:: There are other website devoted to Medjeeval all round. hasn't stopped u guys. Morgant i defined 'duck' because i was working from the most wanted articles list. I have reduced that list considerably. if some of them are basic entries deal. (as for lifting them, i haven't done that in a while - and if i do, i change it)- Ben

::: Hm, while I have no idea how old this conversation is, I'll put in my 2c anyway... I actually find the idea of removing pages from the "most wanted" list (by creating short dictionary entries) a Bad thing (tm) - because that way you no longer have a list of pages that need real articles (the point of said wanted list). I think the page should be used by people wondering what is missing in the wiki and that they are able to answer with some medieval information.

:::I do agree that giving a definition of medieval words is very useful - and a good starting place for articles, but don't do it just so the list is shorter... IMHO that list provides much useful inspiration for article-writing. :( - Taryn

Talk:Main Page

2003-10-11T02:04:00Z

Taryn: short spiel

==Cunnan Focus?==
Is this a medieval reenactment wiki or an SCA wiki? The whole thing looks like it has been set up presuming that the SCA way of doing things is the only way it is done.

So which is the truth? Is it a badly-designed medieval reenactment wiki or is it a SCA wiki that misrepresents itself as a medieval reenactment wiki?

: It's a medieval reenactment wiki, plain and simple, but wikis always reflect the people who contribute to them. Currently, the only contributors (as far as I know) are people from the SCA, so the design, content, the main page, and opinions are all SCA oriented. We write what we know. If you'd like to add non-SCA content, please go right ahead. [[User:Morgant|Morgant]] 11:36, 15 Aug 2003 (EST)

:Well, it was, way back when we started, a medieval reenactment wiki, and it still is but (almost?) everyone who contributes is in the [[SCA]]. I'd be willing to change the explanation on the front page if people think its misleading. - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]] 12:23, 15 Aug 2003 (EST)

==Arts & Sciences==
Okie dokie, re the crafts/sciences. What would you have things such as [[astronomy]] under? It could be argued that there are no arts in the SCA only crafts (or the emulation of period art, at any rate). I'll agree that no ''true'' science in done in the SCA but there are certainly people who apply themselves to the study of period sciences.

Feel free to tell me I'm wrong (is this the first wiki argument? ;-) - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]] 14:10 6 Aug 2003 (EST)

:- Tobin: *I* feel that there's a number of people who do the 'crafts' of olde, and VERY few who actually do [[astronomy]] - and then they aren't doing the science of it, mearly recreating the 'elements' that were developed.
:Why not leave it as craft and see how many people actually object ? never hurt to irritate anyone :)

::Point taken but there are people that do astronomy and I dont think it should be thought of as a craft. - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]]

:::When more than 3 people use test tubes and actually reinvent the wheel, rather than just follow someonelses work - sold. till then No Dice. The SCA does Crafts.

:::Follow someone else's work vs. reinventing the wheel? I think it's important to distinguish between science and scientific discoveries. Nobody's claiming to be making scientific discoveries - these have already been made. Think about it like Crafts - nobody's inventing new ways of doing things - we're trying to recreate what was done before. We're investigating science as it was done during the middle ages. I enjoy researching medieval cryptography - it doesn't mean that I have to invent new methods of frequency analysis. Also, and more importantly, Arts, Crafts & Sciences is a pain to say. [[User:Morgant|Morgant]] 11:22 11 Aug 2003 (EST)

==Arts & Sciences (again)==
A google search reveals something in the region of 1,500 results for "sca "arts and crafts"" but more than 7,500 results for "sca "arts and sciences"". I've never met an A & C officer and doubt I ever will (even if that is a more accurate term. Shoule we start calling all [[constable]]s "order enforcing people" just because some people think "constable" suggests that they are part of the police force?)

The point I'm trying to make is that, regardless of accuracy, people say A & S not A & C (if you were searching for A & S stuff on the web which would be seaching for?) If the SCA '''is''' a game then it really doesn't matter but there is no point in being non-standard. - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]] 21:29, 25 Aug 2003 (EST)

[[User:Newt|Newt]]: Well let's start a trend, Tobin! We can slowly change the SCA to ''our'' way of thinking. Hmm.. I see what you're saying but I think with regards to the wiki we're just looking for ways of grouping topics nicely. There's nothing much to put under 'sciences', but you can very easily split up our 'arts' (which is currently damn huge) into 'arts' and 'crafts'. Re: knowne worlde handbooke... Sui does have a point!

:That sounds exactly like something sui would say ;-) It doesn't worry me if we add in a Crafts topic but taking out the sciences link (or going through that whole pointless "Crafts ("sciences")" thing again would be a bad thing, IMO. Split up the Arts link if you want and then add Crafts to the main page. - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]] 10:23, 27 Aug 2003 (EST)

==Arts and Sciences (yet again)==
I can see we're about to have this argument again. Reading what was said in the previous arguments, I'll not change it back right now but, the fact remains people say A & S not A & C ("correctness" doesn't enter into it, this is an SCA wiki and in the SCA people say A & S) - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]] 14:00, 26 Sep 2003 (EST)

:yes.. and americans are ALWAYS right about everything.. *sigh* glad to see that u can atleast accept change though Tobin. Now can the hard link from craft -> science, be removed? they are different! - Ben

::The link isn't hard, any logged in user remove it. The link goes from Crafts to [[Sciences]] not [[science]]. Also using Arts and crafts on the main page means that anyone searching google for Arts and Sciences (which would be most going on the number of hits google returns) wont find Cunnan

::I intend to change the link back from Crafts to sciences. - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]]

=="BE bold"==

I think this statement should be removed from the front page. Anytime i have been bold or attempted anything slightly .. erm.. off beat.. it has been quickly slapped down, and yes i am going to single Morgant out here. Either have the policy that this is to be dry and humorless and a totally informational database only or allow it to be more 'open' - of course, and this is an amazing idea - u could have BOTH!!

So the choice - I believe - is everyone, how do u want your WIKI to be?

as u can guess i'd like it to be more 'interesting'

:We want people to be bold as in adding content not as in making changes that run against the majority. I Agree SCA science isn't real science but the majority of the SCA still call it science (this is an SCA wiki).

:I never said that the wiki was supposed to be a place or mirth and merryment. In fact the whole thing started so I would have a place to put what I know about the SCA. The software is free the content is open. You're welcome to start your own wiki. - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]]

::In fact I wasn't even discussing the science thing.. It was more a general 'thing'. but point taken. If i wanna add content 'dry and humorless it is' - Ben

*Given that I'm singled out, I guess I should probably reply. I don't think I've ever slapped anyone down - I have, however, edited some pretty weird stuff. I'd like Cunnan to be useful, with a polished, edited look. Articles should be useful before they're funny - if you can do both, that's great, if you can't, don't. [[User:Morgant|Morgant]]

== Styles of articles ==

With the above responses, how about we agree to dissgree?
Morgant wants polished articles, dry and informational, whilst I want interesting and informational articles.

Can we compromise, and do both, and aside from grammer [without changing the whole article] or spelling [which morgant does a great job of tidying up] how's about we leave the other articles alone?

there IS a certain amount of 'ownership' in having authored something, and if you wish to ADD to an article then go for it, but leave the orginal artical in place? this being a wiki, and us having a 'gentlemans agreement' about such things sound make for much better content and enjoyment all round - and redduce the .. erm.. 'bickering' ? - Ben
*Here's how I feel about this - if everybody restricted themselves to their own articles, this wouldn't be a wiki. If an article is inaccurate, inappropriate, or otherwise lacking, it should be edited. Not doing so would make for worse, not better content. [[User:Morgant|Morgant]]

:::Then unlock the page(s) you have locked, and accept my editing in return. _ Ben

::::There is a single protected page on the wiki, the Main Page. I protected it because the consensus is, or appears to me and the other admins I've spoken to, that Sciences, regardless of accuracy, is the term used in the SCA. You're welcome to edit what you like but page protection and database locks are used from time to time when someone insists upon making a change that runs contary to consensus (corretion of common misconceptions does not come under this) - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]]

::::: " [[User:Morgant|Morgant]] " - Ben

== front page counter ==
Is it working? i have been doing 15-20 articles a day and yesterday it went up 1...

you might wanna check it
- Ben
:Last time I looked into it, the MediaWiki page count tag only counts articles of a significant size. (D'you know what it is, Tobin?) I'm guessing that Ben's 15-20 articles are predominantly short dictionary-style entries (which Cunnan should avoid, really), and they're not counting towards the total. Once they're expanded, they'll be included in the total. [[User:Morgant|Morgant]]

:The articles need to be of some length (one line jokes and short dictionary style stuff wont be counted). They also need to contain at least one link. I'll have to check what the minimum length is. Also, if you're not logged in you might be served a cached copy of the page. I'll be moving this conversation to the village pump when I have time. - [[User:Tobin|Tobin]]

==Dictionary-style entries==
Out of curiosity, why should dictionary-style entries be avoided? What if you can concisely explain something in 25 words or less (and include a link in it! e.g. [[acro-narcotic]])? The way I see a wiki to be, it's like a cross between a dictionary and an encyclopedia anyway: it's a quick and efficient way of obtaining information. And so, if I enounter a technical word in an article I want to be able to click on it and get a _brief_ explanation first.. and if people want to later they can add 10 pages of history and detailed description to it, and that's cool. Short, dictionary-style entries are a good building block to more complex, detailed entries. Feel free to convince me otherwise. - [[User:Newt|Newt]]

:I say they are often useful, however they are more a definition, than an article - they contain little information. If I looked up acro-narcotic and found a definition i might be happy, and I might not care if the article only had a definiition, and no examples. But if I looked up lemon and got only "a yellow fruit of the citrus family" I'd wonder why I bothered linking to it. And as a really useful wiki, i'd say It's the longer articles that define it. Just personal opinion - ie that I'd only count longer articles in the article count, but I'm happy with the short articles as definitions of tricky words or starting inspiration points for articles. [[User:Tiff|Tiff]]

:Whee! That got away quickly. By "short dictionary-style entries" I meant articles that consist of a definition with no re-enactment content or application, especially stuff lifted straight out of online dictionaries. I do think that making a stub article for further expansion, or defining technical or [http://www.sca.org.au/cunnan/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Middle_English medieval] words are good things - defining what a duck is, not so much. There are other wikis to do that. [[User:Morgant|Morgant]]

:: There are other website devoted to Medjeeval all round. hasn't stopped u guys. Morgant i defined 'duck' because i was working from the most wanted articles list. I have reduced that list considerably. if some of them are basic entries deal. (as for lifting them, i haven't done that in a while - and if i do, i change it)- Ben

::: Hm, while I have no idea how old this conversation is, I'll put in my 2c anyway... I actually find the idea of removing pages from the "most wanted" list (by creating short dictionary entries) a Bad thing (tm) - because that way you no longer have a list of pages that need real articles (the point of said wanted list). I think the page should be used by people wondering what is missing in the wiki and that they are able to answer with some medieval information.

::::I do agree that giving a definition of medieval words is very useful - and a good starting place for articles, but don't do it just so the list is shorter... IMHO that list provides much useful inspiration for article-writing. :( - Taryn

Fingerloop braids

2003-09-19T04:57:50Z

Taryn: linkfix

'''Fingerloop braids''' are made by cutting equal lengths of [[thread]] and attaching both the ends (usually knotted altogether) to a fixed point (doorknob is good - coffee-table leg also works) to create a set of loops. The fingers are then inserted individually into the loops created, and each loop is pulled through the others in the style as set out in the pattern.

A surprising amount of variation can be found in these braids:

* Braids that are generally flat in cross-section was used for [[edging]], short [[straps]] and [[seal tags]]. The narrower varieties were used for [[couching]] or for [[lacing]].
* Braids with a cross-section of an ellipse or half-ellipse (flat on one side and rounded on the other) were perfect for [[couching]] - the latter results in a nice flat surface for the side you place on the fabric, and a raised section for the decorative surface.
* Circular or spiral braids were used for [[drawstring]]s or [[poynt]]s
* More complex braids were also available, with a variety of textures and looks - depending on technique.

Differences in technique cover:
* the number of loops used
* the colour/texture of the [[thread]] used (homogenous or mixed)
* multiple loops on each finger
* whether the loop is picked up directly off another finger or twisted in some way
* how many loops another loop passes through/over before reaching its new position
* and more - including using multiple weavers per braid

It is generally quite difficult to make fingerloop braids to any great length, as you are limited by the length that one can comfortably reach. Three partial solutions to this are:
* Get a friend to tension your work as you braid, using a rod and pushing against the surface where the braid forms from between the hands.
* Using double length strings, tie a big overhand knot in the middle, braid one side, untie knot and braid otherside (creates only a small blip in centre which can be hidden on a medalion chain by braiding on medallion).
* A complicated system comprising pulleys and a fixed wooden rod on a base that can be used by one individual.
Nonetheless, fingerloop braiding is still ideally suited to easily producing short lengths of braid. Longer lengths may decline in quality due to variance in tension while braiding.

Extant braids, period recipes for creating braids (there was a [[guild]] for just this artform) and period illustrations of fingerlooping (including the 2 person technique described above) exist.

The techniques of fingerloop braiding are discussed at length in "[[Compleat Anachronist]] #108" available here:
https://secure.sca.org/cgi-bin/stockclerk/ca.html

Although learning in person is generally quicker, a basic introduction to the technique is located at:
* http://www.bumply.com/Medieval/finger.htm
* http://www.stringpage.com/old/fingerloop.html

Pictures of some fancy braids (no instructions but generally match the CA108 braids) can be found at:
http://www.cs.vassar.edu/~capriest/fingerloop.html

Fingerloop braids

2003-09-19T04:56:59Z

Taryn: Added more braid types and technique stuff

'''Fingerloop braids''' are made by cutting equal lengths of [[thread]] and attaching both the ends (usually knotted altogether) to a fixed point (doorknob is good - coffee-table leg also works) to create a set of loops. The fingers are then inserted individually into the loops created, and each loop is pulled through the others in the style as set out in the pattern.

A surprising amount of variation can be found in these braids:

* Braids that are generally flat in cross-section was used for [[edging]], [[short straps]] and [[seal tag]]s. The narrower varieties were used for [[couching]] or for [[lacing]].
* Braids with a cross-section of an ellipse or half-ellipse (flat on one side and rounded on the other) were perfect for [[couching]] - the latter results in a nice flat surface for the side you place on the fabric, and a raised section for the decorative surface.
* Circular or spiral braids were used for [[drawstring]]s or [[poynt]]s
* More complex braids were also available, with a variety of textures and looks - depending on technique.

Differences in technique cover:
* the number of loops used
* the colour/texture of the [[thread]] used (homogenous or mixed)
* multiple loops on each finger
* whether the loop is picked up directly off another finger or twisted in some way
* how many loops another loop passes through/over before reaching its new position
* and more - including using multiple weavers per braid

It is generally quite difficult to make fingerloop braids to any great length, as you are limited by the length that one can comfortably reach. Three partial solutions to this are:
* Get a friend to tension your work as you braid, using a rod and pushing against the surface where the braid forms from between the hands.
* Using double length strings, tie a big overhand knot in the middle, braid one side, untie knot and braid otherside (creates only a small blip in centre which can be hidden on a medalion chain by braiding on medallion).
* A complicated system comprising pulleys and a fixed wooden rod on a base that can be used by one individual.
Nonetheless, fingerloop braiding is still ideally suited to easily producing short lengths of braid. Longer lengths may decline in quality due to variance in tension while braiding.

Extant braids, period recipes for creating braids (there was a [[guild]] for just this artform) and period illustrations of fingerlooping (including the 2 person technique described above) exist.

The techniques of fingerloop braiding are discussed at length in "[[Compleat Anachronist]] #108" available here:
https://secure.sca.org/cgi-bin/stockclerk/ca.html

Although learning in person is generally quicker, a basic introduction to the technique is located at:
* http://www.bumply.com/Medieval/finger.htm
* http://www.stringpage.com/old/fingerloop.html

Pictures of some fancy braids (no instructions but generally match the CA108 braids) can be found at:
http://www.cs.vassar.edu/~capriest/fingerloop.html

Talk:Bottling crown seals

2003-09-10T01:30:14Z

Taryn: Important question re: sterilisation

Where did you get your info on using napisan as a sterilisation agent? Are you certain it's safe to eat? - [[User:Taryn|Taryn]] 11:30, 10 Sep 2003 (EST)