"In common use. . .?" Was: SC - French toast?

[WOLFMOMSCA at aol.com]

In a message dated 11/19/99 11:02:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
rushmaj at basf-corp.com writes:

<< >Maple Syrup is marginally period, BTW, the English brought some back
 >from Florida (reference the adventures of Sir John Hawkins) in the 1560's
 >(along with tobacco, which the French were already familiar with from
 >explorations in Florida) >>

I know I'm probably picking nits here, but this sentence doesn't say the 
French brought back maple syrup from Florida.  It says the English brought 
back maple syrup and tobacco, the tobacco being already known by the French 
from their explorations in Florida.  

However, given the nomadic nature of the native folk encountered by our 
European forebears, the Florida natives may very well have been acquainted 
with maple syrup, having received it in trade from more northern tribes.  But 
it's unlikely the French would know anything about it from their dealings 
with the Timucuan.  No additives, no preservatives, and maple syrup, done the 
old-fashioned way, doesn't keep in the kind of heat and humidity endemic to 
mid-Florida.  I know.  I live here, and my sister sends real maple syrup 
every Christmas in the care package from New Hampshire.  It lasts a few 
months with refrigeration once the seal is cracked.  Unrefrigerated, it's got 
a one month life span before mold makes it taste positively awful.  So my 
stash gets used up in the first couple of months between pancakes, French 
toast, and maple breads and cookies.  That way, it doesn't go to waste.  But 
it's very much a seasonal thing.  If the Timucuan had experienced maple syrup 
via trade, it would have been a seasonal thing as well.  Next time I run 
across the folks from the Men of Menendez, I'll ask them.  One of their 
branches does Timucuan reenactment, so they may have some info on trade 
networks and the like.

As for this "common use" thing, I've got some real problems with the concept. 
 First, there's the definition.  What was "common use"?  Fifty percent of the 
population?  Eighty percent?  Everyone did it?  Impossible, given the 
stratified nature of much of the societies re-created by SCAdians.  Many of 
these specialized re-enactment groups have very limited "periods".  All the 
members are working from the same sets of documentation, the same span of 
years (in some instances, months).  Their ability to define "common use" is 
enhanced by the significantly reduced time frame in which they operate.  For 
the SCA, this would be really tough.  What's common in the 6th century 
generally isn't common in the 16th century, and vice versa.  And given the 
limited amount of material available for many stretches of the SCA "period", 
well, I for one would not be caught dead trying to state that such-and-such 
was in common use in the 8th century, in so-and-so place, among this-and-such 
peoples.  I already have major heartburn with people who take one slice of 
history and make sweeping generalizations.  Intensive study of the 15th 
century English nobility living  in Dublin does not make one an expert on 
Irish medieval history, no matter how hard one tries to make it seem so.  
Professional historians all have a specialty.  The SCA isn't any different in 
that respect.  Everyone has a specialty.  That's where our personae come in.  
But unlike professionals, who have peers who'll slap them down when they make 
idiotic statements, we in the SCA have no peer review board, no professional 
oversight committee, to protect the average member from the off-handed, often 
wrong, and totally unjustified statements of someone who THINKS they're an 
expert on everything medieval based on their extensive knowledge of one 
particular place and time on the chronology.

Case in point.  For years, it was bandied about that the colors pink and 
orange weren't "period".  I have heard, with mine own ears, costuming Laurels 
grousing about so-and-so's oh-so-pink gown, and wouldn't it be lovely if 
she'd just get it through her head that pink isn't period.  Where did the 
original statement come from that pink isn't period?  Well, heavens, from 
Heralds, dontchaknow.  Pink and Orange are unacceptable tinctures for SCA 
heraldry (one of the few aspects of our game that _is_ time-span-and-place 
limited).  Therefore, pink and orange weren't period.  This silliness 
persists even today, thirty-plus years into our existence, parroted by people 
who don't know enough about it to be experts on anything, let alone the 
history of dyestuffs in the various times and places covered by the SCA.  And 
it doesn't matter that only one or two people still believe it.  It is 
believed by some, and touted as gospel.

Besides, as humans, we seem to be fascinated by the unusual, the odd, the 
rare bird.  It might be nice to put into one's documentation for a 
competition that the thing you've done was in common use during the whatever 
century in the wherever place, but to require a "common use" justification 
for everything we do isn't, somehow, right, or necessary.  Nor is it 
documentable, given the dearth of info available.  

Just my two cents worth.  Feel free to throw mud pies.

Walk in peace,
Wolfmother
============================================================================

To be removed from the SCA-Cooks mailing list, please send a message to
Majordomo at Ansteorra.ORG with the message body of "unsubscribe SCA-Cooks".

============================================================================