"In common use. . .?" Was: SC - French toast?
WOLFMOMSCA at aol.com
WOLFMOMSCA at aol.com
Sat Nov 20 05:48:04 PST 1999
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".
============================================================================
More information about the Sca-cooks
mailing list