How Do I Document?

How Do I Document What I Do?

No matter how documentation is categorised – depending on where one re-enacts – there should always be a categorising system for documentation. Why? Because not all documentation is the same or should be read in the same way. In Queensland Living History, documentation is placed within one of the two categories: Primary and Secondary…although I like to include a third category called ‘Tertiary’ (explanation later). These categories, within Living History Queensland, are defined as such:

Primary Documentation: An example of the actual piece being documented. For example, if a member is documenting a chest, a picture of – as bringing the actual item may be problematic – the actual chest in a museum or other form of collection would be a primary source of documentation. This also includes a period artist’s impression of the item, ie an artist from the time. Reputable and accurate translations of original documents also fit into this category.

Secondary Documentation: A modern artist’s impression or a modern academic’s words on the item or practice.

I define these in almost the same way, but with a slight twist, shown as follows:

Primary Documentation: An example of the actual piece being documented. For example, if a member is documenting a chest, a picture of – as bring in the actual item may be problematic – the actual chest in a museum or other form of collection would be a primary source of documentation. This also includes a period artist’s impression of the item, aka an artist from the time. Reputable and accurate translations of original documents also fit into this category.

Secondary Documentation: A period artist’s impression of the item, aka an artist from the time (1).

Tertiary Documentation: A modern artist’s impression or a modern academic’s words. This also would include the written words of any later person (persons that did not live through the examined period) (2, 3).

One will notice that there are a few differences between the way I categorise documentation, and the standard practice of Living History Queensland. The differences are listed below, as well as explanations as to why:

I     I put an artist from the time’s depiction as a secondary form of documentation, as some of these pieces were made to be aesthetically pleasing or easier to understand, rather than to be historically accurate. For example, every time the Maciejowski Bible shows a king – in and out of battle – the king is wearing a crown. No smart king would have worn his crown in battle, simply because it would get severely damaged in the battle, and it would be like painting a gigantic bullseye on his head. But why, then, does this document feature the king wearing his crown all the time, even in battle? This is so that the reader can tell who is who, and what better way of showing even to a peasant which figure is the king? The guy with a crown on his head obviously!

Therefore showing a king wearing a crown in battle is not historically accurate, even though an artistic piece from the period shows it. This, of course, does not mean that documents such as the Mac Bible are purely useless for documentation; these pieces have many other concepts that are in fact authentic and can be shown to be consistent across various other pieces of documentation, such as tunic design for example.

2.     Don’t get me wrong, some modern artist’s impressions or modern academics words are very useful for documentation purposes. However, some can be quite misguided or interpreted in a very wrong way. For example, various artists from the early renaissance depict the soldiers in the battle of Arsuf (1191) wearing plate armour. This may have made the fighters look more impressive, but definitely not historically accurate. Plate armour only began to become standard practice after the year 1250 and, even then, full plate did not come around until the very early 1400s. Pieces such as this, therefore, would not make authentic documentation. The same can be said of the TV series, Vikings. While it is fun to watch, the fact that it shows the Saxon English (pre 11^th century) wearing early 17^th century helmets and coats of plates that look very Chinese is merely for aesthetic reasons rather than historical accuracy.

Concerning the words of modern academics, consistency and sources is the key. If the sources a modern academic uses are reputable, and their words are consistent across the area of historical study, then his/her words can be effective tertiary documentation. I only rate it as tertiary (instead of secondary) because they, like the rest of us, lack the contextual perspective that the people from the time had.

3.    While some individuals wrote works after the period, these people may have actually lived in the period beforehand. A classic example is the Zōhyō Monotagari, authored after the 16^th century by a man who was an officer in the 16^th century. Therefore, while his book was completed after the 16^th century, I would consider his words as primary documentation for the 16^th century as he, in fact, lived and fought in the period. However, any writings from individuals who did not live in the period I would consider to be tertiary documentation, as they lack the contextual perspective that I mention in point 2.