SC - Re: Sugar - the definitive word (?)

[ChannonM@aol.com]

On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Hank wrote:

> Trading with the
> "new world" dates to as early as 400 - 500 AD (Irish) 1065 (Norse) and 1500
> (Spanish) all of which are period.  

But, as others have pointed out the fact that something could,
technically have been done does not make it period. To take an analogy;
it would have been possible for a seamstress during the middle ages to
make a pair of Levis (handsewn, using handspun thread from hadwoven
fabric, but still). Cotton was available in some areas, twill fabric was
common, and indigo was also used for dyeing fabric[1]. And I'm pretty
sure that some form of copper rivets could have been produced as well.
But that does not make Levis period.

> We know that the Norse traded European
> foods to the natives, it made them sick! So why not the reverse?  I am a
> "new cook" but if we really mean by "period" European, then we should say
> so.

I think that the definition could be summed up as "used in that
particular context in Europe during the SCA period". 

/UlfR

[1] I hope that I'm correct on all these point. I *think* I am, any
corrections?

- -- 
Par Leijonhufvud                                      parlei at algonet.se
Prayers plough not! Praises reap not.  
		-- William Blake