First, I demonstrate that the category of “food” is inappropriate for the textual heritage of Ayurveda, and that we need to be more sensitive to specific technical categories, such as anupana, pathya, and dravya, within which foodstuffs were accommodated. I pursue three interrelated inquiries to support my case. I then move on to show how food history actually can be deployed to subvert these antihistoricist claims. I also argue that history of science needs to distinguish between different types of antihistoricisms emerging from different academic and political contexts. In this article, I first describe and historicize these antihistoricisms by delineating both their colonial origins and their recent nationalist appropriations. ![]() ![]() They argue that Ayurvedic medicine must be understood as a “system” and with reference to its “metaphysical foundations.” Food has often played an important part in these antihistoricist arguments about traditional South Asian medicines. ![]() Some recent authors have argued that “Indian Systems of Knowledge,” such as Ayurvedic medicine, cannot be historicized.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |