Medicus Matt wrote:GuyofBurgundy wrote:Just seems like a case of having decided on the desired result and then finding 'evidence' to back it up.
Not the way I do things but it's your group. Each to their own.
More the other way round; before the kit regs were written, each section was researched indepent of existing reenactment groups; the idea was, if we reached the same conclusion, the basis was sound, if we didn't... well, as stated above, some reenactment groups have happily introduced and maintained 'dogma' over something not really substansiated. That being said, I understand the reasons why, but sometimes the reasoning is lost; as I believe it has been with cotton. I think it's more to do with; ''because if we allow it it floods in'' than ''nobody could reasonably have had it''.
I understand the wariness, and even acknowledge it might lead to too many cotton-wearers (although the idea that the incorrect naming was a factor, as I mentioned, is somewhat balanced by the fact that cotton was sometimes labelled 'wool' and therefore mislabeling works both ways) I do believe in the idea that the 12th century was more diverse in travel than reenactors allow. Trying to regulate cotton is a cross I wrought myself and will now have to carry; seeing as it'll be me and the Kit Officer knocking heads down to sort it out.