6 ms·

"The boar's head in hand bring I Bedeck'd with bays and rosemary. And I pray you, my masters, be merry Quot estis in convivio ..." https://en.wikipedia.org/

by qiskit 4y ago

"The boar's head in hand bring I Bedeck'd with bays and rosemary. And I pray you, my masters, be merry Quot estis in convivio ..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boar's_Head_Carol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boar's_Head_Carol The idea that anglo-saxon kings were mostly vegetarian seems like historical revisionism to peddle vegan/vegetarian propaganda. Certainly "esteemed" institutions like cambridge university and bbc wouldn't be involved in pushing such agendas?

zdragnar 4y ago
It seems more like faulty reasoning than an actual agenda. They argue that the lack of indicators of gout, and analysis of bones of people who might have been kings based on the nature of their burials, doesn't fit with the notion of someone who over-indulges in red meat. > Cambridge University bioarchaeologist Sam Leggett drew her conclusions after analysing chemical signatures of diets preserved in the bones of 2,023 people buried in England from the 5th to 11th Centuries. > She then cross-referenced these with evidence for social status such as grave goods, body position and grave orientation and found no correlation between social status and high protein diets. Later on in the article, it examines the historical evidence that royalty ate lots of meat- meal plannings and so forth, which they believe would have led to different chemical analyses had that been a daily regimen. I'm skeptical of the idea that they can confidently state they found a representative sample of kings, or that "not over indulging every single day" constitutes a vegetarian diet (it most certainly does not). All it really shows is that they had more moderate diets than we see in movies. What a surprise!
- decremental 4y ago
  I never attribute to faulty reasoning that which is adequately explained by propaganda when the information comes from government news sources. I'm sure at some point there will be a revised piece stating that, actually, Anglo-Saxon kings mostly ate bugs.
- lolinder 4y ago
  The flaws you point out are largely a case of the science news cycle in action (https://phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174 https://phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174), not the fault of the researchers. In their actual paper[0] and in the quotes the BBC uses, they don't use the word "vegetarian", and don't really make any unreasonable claims about their findings. [0] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/anglo-saxon-england/article/food-and-power-in-early-medieval-england-a-lack-of-isotopic-enrichment/46263E5BB81F455CD873220C0B7601B9 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/anglo-saxon-england/...
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    The paper is focused on the question of whether the word feorm in a particular historical context refers to a "pure" in-kind taxation of food, from which the king's ordinary diet is sourced, or whether it refers to a special event, separate from the king's ordinary diet. There's no real problem with that. But the BBC says this: > Cambridge University researchers analysed more than 2,000 skeletons and found elites ate no more meat than other social groups. And this is not reasonable at all. Historical sources everywhere in the world are happy to tell us, over and over again, that one of the primary benefits of having money is that you can eat more meat. It is not credible that early medieval England could somehow have been an exception to this; to the extent that the study's methodology indicated that "elites ate no more meat than other social groups", that should be viewed as a fault in the methodology.
    - t-3 4y ago
      Are your historical sources describing similar societies, or is the only similarity the "historical" part? Also, meat is often divided into more preferential portions and less, fresh vs. preserved, and legal vs. illegal. Plenty of room for social stratification without significant quantity differences.
bee_rider 4y ago
The headline is just totally inaccurate. In the article, they describe the fact that these kings ate a normal amount of meat (while the stereotype, I guess, is that a king would eat tons of extra meat). I think a more likely explanation, rather than pushing an agenda, is that the correct headline, "Anglo-saxon kings at a normal amount of meat" would not drive clicks.

by qiskit 4y ago

zdragnar 4y ago

It seems more like faulty reasoning than an actual agenda. They argue that the lack of indicators of gout, and analysis of bones of people who might have been kings based on the nature of their burials, doesn't fit with the notion of someone who over-indulges in red meat. > Cambridge University bioarchaeologist Sam Leggett drew her conclusions after analysing chemical signatures of diets preserved in the bones of 2,023 people buried in England from the 5th to 11th Centuries. > She then cross-referenced these with evidence for social status such as grave goods, body position and grave orientation and found no correlation between social status and high protein diets. Later on in the article, it examines the historical evidence that royalty ate lots of meat- meal plannings and so forth, which they believe would have led to different chemical analyses had that been a daily regimen. I'm skeptical of the idea that they can confidently state they found a representative sample of kings, or that "not over indulging every single day" constitutes a vegetarian diet (it most certainly does not). All it really shows is that they had more moderate diets than we see in movies. What a surprise!

decremental 4y ago
I never attribute to faulty reasoning that which is adequately explained by propaganda when the information comes from government news sources. I'm sure at some point there will be a revised piece stating that, actually, Anglo-Saxon kings mostly ate bugs.
lolinder 4y ago
The flaws you point out are largely a case of the science news cycle in action (https://phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174 https://phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174), not the fault of the researchers. In their actual paper[0] and in the quotes the BBC uses, they don't use the word "vegetarian", and don't really make any unreasonable claims about their findings. [0] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/anglo-saxon-england/article/food-and-power-in-early-medieval-england-a-lack-of-isotopic-enrichment/46263E5BB81F455CD873220C0B7601B9 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/anglo-saxon-england/...
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  The paper is focused on the question of whether the word feorm in a particular historical context refers to a "pure" in-kind taxation of food, from which the king's ordinary diet is sourced, or whether it refers to a special event, separate from the king's ordinary diet. There's no real problem with that. But the BBC says this: > Cambridge University researchers analysed more than 2,000 skeletons and found elites ate no more meat than other social groups. And this is not reasonable at all. Historical sources everywhere in the world are happy to tell us, over and over again, that one of the primary benefits of having money is that you can eat more meat. It is not credible that early medieval England could somehow have been an exception to this; to the extent that the study's methodology indicated that "elites ate no more meat than other social groups", that should be viewed as a fault in the methodology.
  - t-3 4y ago
    Are your historical sources describing similar societies, or is the only similarity the "historical" part? Also, meat is often divided into more preferential portions and less, fresh vs. preserved, and legal vs. illegal. Plenty of room for social stratification without significant quantity differences.

bee_rider 4y ago

The headline is just totally inaccurate. In the article, they describe the fact that these kings ate a normal amount of meat (while the stereotype, I guess, is that a king would eat tons of extra meat). I think a more likely explanation, rather than pushing an agenda, is that the correct headline, "Anglo-saxon kings at a normal amount of meat" would not drive clicks.