Isn't it a pity that the historical record isn't as clear and precise as we
might like it to be, but then we wouldn't have much to do as archaeologists
if it were. Not only must we content with illegible handwriting and wildly
variable spellings, there is also the issue of regional and temporal
differences in terminology for functionally identical artifacts (nevermind
errors that can obtain while translating from other languages into
English).
Although the term shillard is certainly not unique among estate inventories
(I found about a half dozen such references in a google search), it does
seem far more likely to be a variant spelling (or garbled transcription) of
stillard, rather than something completely different, since both usually
are described as pairs (and I would agree with Ron May that this descriptor
when applied to stillards probably owes to the pair of hooks on either end
of the balance beam for receipt of the item to be weighed and the counter
weight).
One bit of evidence that might help bolster this "guess work" would be
finding the term shillard in a room-to-room or building-to-building
inventory. When stillards are inventoried according to place, a hasty
search of on-line sources shows that they seem to be most frequently found
in service buildings, such as barns, dairies, cider houses, etc., (where
one might be routinely weighing things) and only rarely in the household
itself (and then usually with the additional qualififer "small"). Carol
Serr makes a similar point by noting frequent listings of the same items
together with either shillards or stillards in several estate inventories,
as though they might suggest functionally associated assemblages.
Perhaps the application of common archaeological principles like spatial
proximity and functional association to the text of probate inventories can
be useful toward understanding some of the arcana in these documents.
Further, just as we gain confidence in our interpretations through
comparative analysis of many sites, our understanding of any particular
document can be improved by the lights of many others. No doubt that
finding an old dictionary with a shillard entry would remove all doubt, but
short of that a little informed logic will just have to do. Dare we hope
that archaeologists working at the site in question will someday find such
a set of scales in the ground? And what will that tell us if they do?
paul courtney
<paul.courtney2@NT To: [log in to unmask]
LWORLD.COM> cc: (bcc: Vergil Noble/MWAC/NPS)
Sent by: Subject: Re: mystery object: "Pair of Shillards"
HISTORICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
<[log in to unmask]>
08/19/2005 10:09
AM CET
Please respond to
HISTORICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
My experience of having read tens of thousands of historical documents
in court and secretary hand tells me that the chances of finding a new
word or artefact are virtually zero. These difficult words are
inavariably spelling variations or as Tasha points out
mistranscriptions. It is thus far more likely that a pair of shillards
is a pair of stilyards than an unknown artefact. Obviously you can't
prove it but this isn't physics - as I say try transcribing a medieval
latin document where the words are abbreviated and m, n, u and i are all
reduced to minims (iii etc), you have to rely heavily on experience and
knowing what a word is likely to be. Context within a documenta and
comparison between documents is the usual key method. Caution is a good
thing but if you rely on proof we might as well throw most historical
documents prior to printing in the fire. If I was using this in an
article I would quote the original form as a stronger element of
interpretation than normal is present but it may well be a transcription
problem anyway. Even skilled paleographers have to make intelligent
guesses in separating many letter forms, and in medieval latin one of
the first things you are taught are likely variant spellings otherwise
using a dictionary is impossible.
Ron May wrote:
>So what you are saying, Paul, is that somewhere you have seen a definition
of
>"shillard" that matches "Steelyard"? And/or other scholars have analyzed
the
>term and come to the same conclusion? I am sure most folks would find that
>strong evidence. However, I recall an instance in which someone here in
>California mis-translated "casamata" at the Royal Presidio de San Diego to
mean
>"butcher shop/butchering house," only to find that the association with
the Spanish
>Army fort meant, in this case, "casemate" or powder and ball storage
building.
>It is for this reason that I am cautious with jumping to conclusions.
>
>Ron May
>Legacy 106, Inc.
>
>
>
|
