[Sca-cooks] Substitute for Potatoes?

[S CLEMENGER]

Twill is very, very, well known throughout much of Europe during the SCA 
time period.  There are some absolutely glorious fabrics made in various 
twill weaves that have survived to present day, especially earlier stuffs. 
Many of the extant garments from Hereolfsnes (14th century Greenland) are 
woven in one of a couple of fairly plain twill weaves--rather like a wool 
version of jeans denim, in fact.  Depends, in part, on the fibers used, and 
time period, and equipment (both spinning and weaving...you see an increase 
in fulled, plain-woven wools in mid-period, with the rise of the use of the 
spinning wheel and different kinds of looms).  I do not know, however, of 
any twill-woven cottons in period, but then, I'm only passingly familiar 
with the textiles in area that would be more likely to have them, as I 
concentrate more heavily on areas of western/northern Europe.  (Except for 
knitting and naalbinding...I adore that stuff.  Any time.  Anywhere.) If we 
were to use your term "ingredient combination," recreating clothing or 
fabric from the SCA time period and going on the (incorrect) assumption that 
twill isn't period, it'd be about like saying "meat isn't period."
--Maire, (lurking textile/clothing expert and erstwhile food geek)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Judith Epstein" <judith at ipstenu.org>
To: "Cooks within the SCA" <sca-cooks at lists.ansteorra.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 5:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Sca-cooks] Substitute for Potatoes?


>
> On Aug 24, 2009, at 6:13 PM, David Friedman wrote:
> > Do you think bluejeans are period garb? They are, as I pointed out
> > in another post, made from period ingredients.
>
> No, they're not Period. They're twill-weave, which isn't Period. If
> the exact same fibers, dye, and buttons (not zippers, of course) were
> used, minus trademarks, but on evenweave cloth rather than twill, I'd
> suggest that they were Period-plausible, but not Period. Ingredient
> use + construction method. Ingredient *combination* is what I think
> we're discussing.
>