SENA, Armory Part 1, Style Principles
WARNING: Do not cite this page as a reference. This page is on this wikispace to make the content of SENA "searchable" and easier to find. If you think you find the information you seek here, go to the official home of SENA on the SCA Laurel Website to confirm the reference. [[1]]
A.1. Armory Style Principles http:heraldry.sca.org/sena.html#A1 #A1AA. Definitions of Rule Sets: We require an armorial submission to be compatible with period armorial content and style. We consider a design that follows attested patterns for armorial content and style within our period to meet this requirement. There are two ways to follow attested patterns: > #A1A11. Core Style Rules: Designs that follow the Core Style rules in A.2 and [[2]] below meet this requirement. These sections comprise our //core style. Our core style is not identical to the style of any single specific place and time, although it is based on the dominant style in medieval Western Europe, the Anglo-Norman style. > Some of those rules require documentation of an element, demonstrating that it is attested or constructed. In some cases, these rules or the Appendices are sufficient documentation. For example, a submitter might demonstrate that a plant was known to period Europeans. > Submissions that are documented under the Core Style rules are allowed to have a single step from period practice//, sometimes denoted as SFPP. In older rulings this same concept was described as a //weirdness. A step from period practice is an element not found in period, core style armory that we nonetheless allow. Some types of elements which are designated as a step from period practice are mentioned in the style rules. In addition, a partial list of elements that are a step from period practice is found in Appendix F. Any armorial submissions with more than one step from period practice will not be registered under the Core Style rules. > #A1A22. Individually Attested Patterns: Designs which follow period examples but do not fall within the core style rules in A.2 and [[3]] may instead meet the style standards of the Individually Attested Pattern rules as explained in A.4. > Under the Individually Attested Pattern rules, all elements (including charges, arrangement, complexity, etc.) of the armorial design must be documented as appropriate for the armorial style of a single time and place within the temporal scope of the Society. Elements which would be considered a step from period practice under the Core Style rules may only be used under the Individually Attested Pattern rules when documented as being used in the time and place as the rest of the submission. > Non-European armorial designs often do not fit into the core style rules, and thus may need to use the Individually Attested Pattern rules in order to be registered. #A1BB. Blazon and Emblazon: The image of the armory is known as the emblazon//, and the written heraldic description of the image is known as the //blazon//. We register the //emblazon//, rather than the //blazon. Any discrepancies between the image and the description will be resolved by changing the description to match the image. The Laurel office reserves the right to change the description of an image at any time, even after registration. The image will never be changed by the Laurel office. For this reason, we do not consider alternate emblazons included with a submission. #A1CC. Reproducibility: We require that the emblazon be describable in heraldic terms. This means that the submitted emblazon must be reproducible by a competent heraldic artist, with only normal heraldic variation, from the written blazon. Designs which depend on careful alignment of items in a way that cannot be reliably blazoned using standard period heraldic terms will not be registered. This is discussed in more detail in [[4]] below. Designs which use elements (charges, postures, orientations, tinctures, arrangements, etc.) that cannot be blazoned using standard period heraldic terms will not be registered. #A1DD. Recognizability: Because we register the image and not the words, we require that the elements in the image be recognizable from their appearance. We are willing to give some allowance for poor drawing, but depictions which are ambiguous as to tincture, the identity of a charge, the posture or orientation of an element, the arrangement of a group, etc. cannot be reliably blazoned and will be returned for a redraw. This is discussed in more detail in [[5]]below.