Well, think about it, if they had an embroidery machine, the WOULD
have used it, right? But we know that they didn't have one, so of
course they couldn't have used one.
For me as a budding SCA Cook I use a variation of that phrase when I
prepare recipes. True, my recipes aren't always documented period, but
because I use period ingredients following the humors I consider the
food period. Just because I can't find documented use of two
ingredients together doesn't mean combining the two isn't period, it
just means it isn't documented.
Of course, I have run into the period police a couple of times, and at
the one feast that I was the feast steward for. So now my period
cooking is for home and for friends.
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Michelle Heitman
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> me "I hate it when someone says "if they would have had it in period, they
>> would have used it"
> I've heard this statement, and maybe *I* don't
> understand. I've always thought it referred to
> things that they did NOT have. e.g. Sewing
> machines, rip stop nylon, styrofoam ice chests,
> and such. I never thought it referred to things
> that we know they DID have, (for example,
> embroidered bees, or axes to be used to
> chop down trees,) that may or may not have
> been used to do other things.
> It's one thing to say, "we know they embroidered
> with this color in this style in this place....and
> we also know they had and used this other
> color (or design) in the same place...so perhaps
> I could use that color for the first design."
> It's another altogether to say, "They would have
> used an embroidery machine, if they had had
> Seems to me to be two completely different
Get the latest family news at: http://www.shanelambert.com