Renaissance Dance Database is an index of Renaissance dance resources that are available on the Internet. It does not supply any original content, but links to outside Web sites and documents. A message on the homepage states that the database’s author, Ben Pung (AKA Lorenzo Petrucci), invites suggestions for links to be added. This message also reveals that the resource’s intended audience is members of the Society for Creative Anachronism, or SCA. SCA is a private organization of hobbyists dedicated to the study and recreation of pre-17th century European culture (Society for Creative Anachronism, 2014). As such, the Renaissance Dance Database limits it scope to information about dances and dance styles which were developed prior to 1600. The indexed resources are provided as historical and instructional information for research and reconstruction purposes. Transcriptions of original dances created by SCA affiliates are not included.
The overall presentation of this resource hints at amateur origins. Its appearance, background design, fonts and images are basic and unsophisticated. No multimedia elements are incorporated. Though this is a free resource, there is no advertising other than frequent references to SCA. It does not offer capabilities to print, e-mail, export or share its content with social media outlets. The interface could best be described as unpolished. It loads fast enough, but navigation of the various cross-references is potentially confusing. To search the database, the user may choose criteria from a series of drop-down boxes. Search categories include Style, Creator, Source and Set for, in which one may indicate the number of dancers required. Descriptions of these categories would be helpful, but are not provided. Selecting from a drop-down menu, the user can click Dance List to retrieve a list of cross-referenced resources. The list is arranged alphabetically by the names of dances which fall into the selected criteria. Small color-coded boxes next to the dance names are meant to indicate the type of linked resources available for each dance, such as facsimile, transcription, sheet music or reconstruction. Unfortunately, a key to the code is not displayed on the results screen. To decode the boxes, one must click the Help button. The Help button offers little else besides this key, except to say, “If you would like to suggest a dance or link, please [sic] feel free to send an e-mail”. An Options button at the top of the page causes a box to pop-up that allows the user to select Minimum Text Available, which is meant to limit search results to linked resources of a desired type. However, only one type may be selected and the terms are undefined, leaving the user to guess.
Choices provided by the drop-down menu for Style reveal several problems. First, there are no definitions of the styles. It is assumed that the user already knows the difference between a Pavane and a Gresley, which are specific dances, vs 15th Century Italian or 16th Century Italian, which represent broader categories made up of many distinct dances. However, the specific and the broad are lumped together. When a style is selected and the Style Info button is clicked, no description of the style is given by the database itself. One would have to rely on the linked sources to (hopefully) provide a basic definition. Perhaps a seasoned member of SCA or a Renaissance dance scholar would be able to navigate these undefined styles effectively, but the assumption of knowledge this database makes might be inappropriate for a novice Renaissance dancer. Another problem highlighted by the Style drop-down menu has to do with content. It is clearly incomplete. Only eight style options are offered, two of which are the broad 15th or 16th century Italian categories. Similar categories for Renaissance dances from other countries are not included, except for “English County Dances”, which is still more specific than 15th century English dances would be, hypothetically. The uneven treatment may indicate bias on the part of the author, whose SCA name, Lorenzo Petrucci, is Italian.
Mr Pung/Petrucci’s authority is uncertain. He does not provide any credentials or biographical information. An Internet search of both his real name and pseudonym do not return any results that would suggest he should be considered an expert on Renaissance dance. An attempt to e-mail him via the linked address bounced back as undeliverable, which raises a red flag concerning the authority of this resource as well at its currency. Another indication that the database is not kept up-to-date is the fact that the most recent content was added August 2013, and at that time only two resources were added. The large majority of the content was added in 2008. There is no sign that older information has been edited for accuracy or currency. Further evidence that this resource lacks authority comes from several grammatical and typographical errors, broken links and its affiliation with a hobbyist organization rather than a professional or academic organization. Links from the resource’s General Dance Links page, most of which are also related to SCA, are likewise non-scholarly and do nothing to add its credibility.
For authoritative information on Renaissance dance, Oxford University Press offers two reference sources that give historical background, definitions, descriptions and techniques. The International Encyclopedia of Dance (Cohen, 1998) contains > 2,000 articles on all forms of dance. The Oxford Dictionary of the Renaissance (Campbell, 2003) (RR 2004/048) provides comprehensive information on all aspects of 14th to 17th century European life, including dance and related arts. Both titles are available in print and as online resources.
Though this resource could appeal to affiliates of SCA who might use it to share information, it is not likely to be useful to the general public who may not be familiar with the jargon used by its search criteria. Its questionable authority makes it unsuitable for academic or special library use. Indications that Renaissance Dance Database is no longer being maintained, such as the e-mail address that does not work and a lack of updated content, show that it should not be considered current. The interface is difficult to navigate and its content is incomplete and possibly biased. For these reasons, this resource is not recommended for library adoption.
