No subject

On the January 1996 cover letter, Talan Gwynek, Pelican King 
of Arms, outlined the definition of SCA-compatibility for names 
which we continue to use today:

   This month's submission of the name Rhonwen Briana MacLean 
   (Atlantia) raised in almost its purest form the question of 
   just what is meant by 'SCA-compatibility' of a name. (Ceridwen 
   Rhiannon MacLean might have posed the question a little more 
   bluntly.) Does 'SCA-compatibility' give a name the same status 
   as an attested period name, or does it represent a kind of 
   second-class onomastic citizenship?

   In actual usage the term SCA-compatible, when applied to a name, 
   appears to mean 'not used by human beings in period (so far as 
   we know), but too popular in the SCA to be disallowed'. Thus, 
   use of one of these names is (on the best available evidence) a 
   non-period practice. We allow many practices that were non-
   existent or nearly so in period, both in our names and in our 
   armory, but in general we stigmatize them as 'weirdnesses' and do 
   not allow too many of them to be combined in a single name or 
   armory. They are 'compatible' in the sense that they are not 
   completely disallowed, but they are still not considered fully 
   acceptable. It is consistent with this approach to allow a name to 
   include a single 'SCA-compatible' element but no more; each such 
   element added to a name further removes it from the realm of 
   authentic period practice. Indeed, we see no reason to distinguish 
   between 'SCA-compatible' names and other non-period names permitted 
   under the provisions of RfS II.4 (Legal Names): both are allowed 
   as concessions to modern sensibilities despite their inauthentic 
   nature. 

On the January 2008 LoPaD, we asked for commentary on a question last 
raised on the August 1994 cover letter:

   A number of commenters have stated over the past several of months 
   that the SCA has learned a lot since its early days, and it may be 
   time now to put away some of the "mistakes" we have heretofore 
   continued to register. So I put it to you all now -- Should we 
   discontinue the registration of "SCA-compatible" names that were not 
   used by humans in period...

When the question was asked previously, the answer was "no". However, 
another 14 years have passed, and in that time the number of 
submissions which use an SCA-compatible element that have reached Laurel-
level have been steadily decreasing; in the last five years names 
which use a SCA-compatible element have comprised about 75 (out of over 
4000). (We have no information about how many of such submissions were 
returned in kingdom.) Additionally, both our knowledge of medieval 
naming practices and the number of reliable sources which are easily 
available to the general public, through such places as the Medieval 
Names Archive and the Laurel education website, have increased and so 
it seemed reasonable to revisit the issue.

We asked the College's opinion on two points:
   -  Should we continue the registration of SCA-compatible names and 
elements, or discontinue this practice altogether?
   -  If we continue to register SCA-compatible names and elements, 
should we continue registering some SCA-compatible names and names 
elements but cease to register others?

I would like to thank everyone who took the time to share their 
thoughts on this issue. While the commentary was, as expected, 
not unanimous, the majority opinion (both heralds and non-heralds) 
was that the time has come to do away with the practice of SCA-
compatible names. The strongest argument in favor of this, voiced 
in various forms by many people, is based on fairness. SCA-compatible 
names are, as the precedent quoted first above indicates, names 
which, so far as we know, were not used by human beings in our 
period but have a high popularity level in the SCA. However, there 
are many names which, so far as we know, were not used by human 
beings in our period, but which are not given the status of SCA-
compatible because they do not have a similar level of high 
popularity. A number of the commenters noted that it is in principle 
unfair, and to some extent arbitrary, to say to one submitter, 
"You can register this name which we have no pre-1600 evidence for 
because it is a popular non-period name", and say to another 
submitter, "You cannot register this name which we have no pre-
1600 evidence for because it is an unpopular non-period name". As 
Effrick neyn Kennyeoch put it, "[Registering] Rhiannon because Rhiannon 
and her friends will be unhappy if we do not, while disallowing the 
equally inauthentic Garwen even though Garwen and her friends will be 
unhappy, is not internally consistent." It is also not consistent 
with our practice of ruling unregisterable other practices for which 
we have no period evidence, (e.g., double given names in Dutch), and 
allowing non-period names because they are popular unfairly penalizes 
people who have chosen unpopular non-period names.

Additionally, allowing name elements for which we have no evidence 
that they were used in period solely because they are popular is not 
consistent with the research and educational goals of the Society. 
Doing away with SCA-compatible names reflects the growth in our 
knowledge and standards of authenticity. As Rowel noted, "As the SCA 
becomes more geared towards historical accuracy in different areas 
(brewing, garb, etc.), the general historical atmosphere increases 
and it's not inappropriate for the name authenticity to proceed 
along with that." The low number of submissions with SCA-compatible 
elements which reach Laurel-level is an indication that the overall 
knowledge of historical naming practices in the SCA has increased.

Therefore, as of the May 2009 decisions meetings, we declare that 
no new name elements or name patterns will be ruled SCA-compatible, 
that all names previously ruled SCA-compatible are no longer SCA-
compatible and that in order for them to be registered, documentation 
meeting the same standards as for non-SCA-compatible names will be 
required.

-Aryanhwy


-- 
vita sine literis mors est
http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/