If You Name a Source, You’re Above Average:
A Guide to ‘Good Enough’ Documentation Based on the Lochac Kingdom A&S Competition Rubric
By Lady Gwen verch David
There are a lot of guides to documenting your projects out there, and a lot of advice on how to do it well. (Last time I looked, I quickly found more than forty different webpages.) This article is not about how to do it well. It’s about how little you can do and still be ‘good enough’.
What is documentation?
A lot of people I’ve asked this question say something along the lines of ‘proving your project is period’. (Interestingly, the Laurels I’ve spoken to don’t tend to agree.) Defined that way, documentation becomes an ever-expanding can of worms that I would defy anyone to open with confidence.
I prefer to think of documentation as ‘the explanation of my project’, covering what I did, how I did it, and why I did it that way. ‘Why I did it that way’ can include historical information (the kind of object I’m trying to copy, or the sources that helped me work out how), but also includes the reasoning behind my design decisions (e.g. linen is cheaper than wool).
Why document?
Showing Off: Writing about my project is an opportunity to point out the parts I did well that might not be obvious, or even visible.
Excusing Flaws: I can explain that I did some things imperfectly as a deliberate compromise (e.g. couldn’t afford a more appropriate choice of materials), or that I couldn’t figure out a better way, or that I made a mistake because I’m new to the technique.
Keeping a Record: If it’s the sort of project I might do again, writing down the details (especially the information I was working from) gives me something to refer back to. Plus if someone else is curious, I can give them the documentation rather than having to figure it all out in retrospect.
Helping Me Think: Writing about my project and the research I did can help me consolidate my thought processes and spot where I might have missed something – which is really useful if I’m doing a lot of projects in that area.
Earning Points in Competitions: If I’m entering an A&S competition, written documentation usually gets me points. (I’ve actually won competitions before because my documentation gave me a leg up over someone else’s more impressive project.)
BUT, I will be the first to say that documentation is optional. Even if you’re entering competitions, almost none of them require it, they just give you points for doing it. The SCA is a hobby; we do it for fun. If documentation isn’t fun for you, you don’t need to feel guilty for skipping it. What you make is just as important a part of Arts & Sciences as what you know, and much more important than what you write. You are still a valid artisan if you don’t write things down.
Introducing the Lochac Rubric
In Lochac, there is a standard judging rubric used for all Kingdom A&S Competitions (and often borrowed for local A&S competitions as well). Two of the five judging categories apply to documentation, and although this isn’t a universal standard by any means, it’s a convenient one to work with. My own abbreviated version of the two categories under discussion is in the appendix, or you can read the full thing at http://artsandsciences.lochac.sca.org/judging-scheme/
The ‘Documentation’ Category
Somewhat confusingly, one of the two categories that apply to documentation is, itself, called ‘documentation’. This one assesses your explanation of the historical background for your project. There are five bands, with a maximum score of ten points.
| 1-2 points: | “Identifies period and place relevant to the entry.” |
| ‘It’s Tudor’ |
| 3-4 points: | “Places the entry in its historical context, describes some basis for creation of the entry.” |
| A white veil for a 13th century French woman. Women of all classes wore these veils, as shown in illuminated manuscripts from the time.’ |
| 5-6 points: | “Uses some sources to begin discussion of the item and its creation.” |
| ‘According to La Menagier de Paris, peas could be cooked with bacon on normal days, or with butter and salt on fast days.’ |
| 7-8 points: | “Uses a range of sources, both secondary and primary, to discuss the item in terms of its context and the evidence behind the creation of the entry.” |
| 9-10 points: | “A scholarly level of analysis and discussion, using primary and secondary sources, with a detailed discussion and sustained argument providing the basis for the creation of the entry.” |
Start simple. Start with: ‘It’s Tudor’.
The ‘Interpretation’ Category
The second category that applies to your documentation is called ‘interpretation’, and assesses your explanation of how you made your project, and why you made the design decisions you did.
| 1-2 points: | “Provides minimal information about how the item was constructed and/or about the materials used, with no reference to sources.” |
| ‘A tablet-woven belt’ |
| 3-4 points: | “Provides basic explanation of how the item was constructed and about the materials used. Some insight into their design choices, but without reference to sources.” |
| ‘A pouch embroidered with chain-stitch. The pouch is wool, because that would have been used for brightly coloured items in period, but the embroidery thread is cotton because that was most easily available.’ |
| 5-6 points: | “Provides basic explanation regarding how the item was made and about the materials used, with limited reference to the sources. Information about design decisions/ substitutions is incomplete or not adequately supported by the evidence provided.” |
| ‘Scented water for washing hands, based on La Menagier de Paris. I boiled rosemary (one of the herbs mentioned in the text) and then strained it and let it cool.’ |
| 7-8 points: | ‘Provides detailed explanation of why particular materials and methods were used, with more extensive reference to primary and secondary sources to justify design decisions/substitutions. Some aspects of the explanation or use of the evidence are missing/unclear.’ |
| 9-10 points: | “Provides a clear, comprehensive and well-justified explanation of the method and materials used, and presents a fully-referenced argument in support of design decisions, including any substitutions made.” |
Final Thoughts
Documentation at a high level requires a significant investment of research, thought, and writing. It’s no wonder that most of us find the idea of doing so intimidating, particularly if it comes as an afterthought while preparing a competition entry. But you don’t have to document at a high level, any more than you have to bring a handmade elderflower cheesecake to a pot-luck. In fact, you don’t have to document at all. But if you want to give it a try, start with the basics. With ‘a Tudor linen cap’, if you like. And remember, if you name a specific source, according to the rubric, you’re above average!
Documentation Rubric
| 1-2 | Identifies time and place |
| 3-4 | Describes historical context Describes some basis for entry |
| 5-6 | Refers to some sources Discusses entry in relation to sources |
| 7-8 | Refers to primary and secondary sources Discusses historical context Discusses evidence for design/methods |
| 9-10 | Analyses primary and secondary sources Discusses evidence for design/methods in detail Justifies design/methods |
Interpretation Rubric
| 1-2 | Partially describes method and/or materials |
| 3-4 | Explains method and materials Describes design choices |
| 5-6 | Explains method and materials Refers to some sources Partially explains design choices |
| 7-8 | Explains method and materials in detail Partially justifies design choices using primary and secondary sources |
| 9-10 | Comprehensively explains method and materials Justifies design choices using primary and secondary sources |