Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

57970Re: [Authentic_SCA] Re: wriggle room

Expand Messages
  • Heather Rose Jones
    Jul 8, 2009
      On Jul 8, 2009, at 4:11 AM, bronwynmgn@... wrote:

      > In a message dated 7/7/2009 10:51:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
      > tatsushu@... writes:
      > <<For food I often look at post-cutoff sources, but I analyze them
      > critically based on earlier evidence. If you find a 1640 recipe for a
      > food that is mentioned (but not otherwise described) in 1590, then
      > would it not be reasonable to assume that they are the same, barring
      > contrary evidence?>>
      > Similar yes, but quite possibly not the same. After all, we have
      > lots of
      > contemporary manuscripts which list a recipe of the same name in
      > each, but
      > the recipes themselves can be anything from slight variations of
      > each other to
      > completely different. We also have evidence that a dish can be
      > listed by
      > the same name in an earlier and a later source and have evolved
      > significantly
      > in between. So assuming that a dish named Bukenade in one source
      > and a
      > dish named Bukenade in another source are the same dish is a faulty
      > premise.

      My favorite example of this problem is how to interpret the Welsh
      clothing term "pais". The word shows up as a description of a specific
      garment continuously from the earliest written sources (the Book of
      Aneurin) to the present day. But the specific nature of the garment
      being referred to changes enormously over that time. Even if you had a
      picture of a garment in century X with an arrow pointing to it saying
      "this is a 'pais'", that wouldn't tell you what the word referred to
      in century X-1 or X+1.

    • Show all 19 messages in this topic