SC - Reverse documentation (Was Cucumbers and the SCA)

[Jenne Heise]

> I never said everything written in period was factual or effective, BUT, it 
> can be assumed that if it's mentioned in primary sources, they at least had 
> the concept or a similar one in mind. Therefore we can move forward and 
> explore.

The trouble is that people are being urged to avoid secondary sources if at all humanly
possible; since the sources that could point out to them what may be wrong with primary
sources are secondary sources, you are warning them away from any other knowledge. In
fact, for the vast majority of what we are looking at, we are working with
quasi-secondary sources-- translations-- for a good majority of people doing research in
primary sources.

Secondary sources include things like reference books, too. Things that tell you, for
instance, that period marygold was Calendula not Tagetes; that the clove gillyflower was
introduced into England after 1400 and therefore pre-1400 recipes calling for clove
gilofre must be something else. Even archaelogical sources that can tell you what kind of
kitchens people had, what tools they had, and what seeds were in their garbage are
secondary sources. 
 
> Which beats the heck out of deciding to use something and THEN trying to find 
> documentation. Usually making wide leaps in supposition during the process. 

It's always better to do the research first then do the project. But doing the research
first does not automatically mean avoiding secondary sources.

- -- 
Jadwiga Zajaczkowa, mka Jennifer Heise	      jenne at mail.browser.net
disclaimer: i speak for no-one and no-one speaks for me.
"He cooks eternally, imperturbably, suspended in the chaos of which the 
Master interprets the meaning..." Kipling, "With the Night Mail"