Some recent authors have argued that “Indian Systems of Knowledge,” such as Ayurvedic medicine, cannot be historicized. 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. In this article, I first describe and historicize these antihistoricisms by delineating both their colonial origins and their recent nationalist appropriations. I also argue that history of science needs to distinguish between different types of antihistoricisms emerging from different academic and political contexts. I then move on to show how food history actually can be deployed to subvert these antihistoricist claims. I pursue three interrelated inquiries to support my case. 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. Second, I demonstrate that new foods, especially exotic New World foods, were absorbed into each of these technical categories recognized in Ayurveda. Finally, I show that these new foods did not simply leave the categories themselves untouched. The embodied experiences of the scholar-physicians’ palates substantially transformed the allegedly disembodied, ahistorical categories they wrote about. I argue, then, that far from being an ahistorical fossil as the proponents of antihistorical arguments would have us believe, Ayurvedic medicine was a rich, heterogeneous, and historically dynamic tradition, and food history is singularly well placed to testify to that dynamism.

中文翻译：

---

历史化“印度知识体系”

最近的一些作者认为，“印度知识体系”，例如阿育吠陀医学，不能被历史化。他们认为，阿育吠陀医学必须被理解为一个“系统”，并参考其“形而上学基础”。在这些关于传统南亚药物的反历史主义争论中，食物常常扮演着重要角色。在这篇文章中，我首先通过描绘这些反历史主义的殖民起源和他们最近的民族主义拨款来描述和历史化这些反历史主义。我还认为，科学史需要区分来自不同学术和政治背景的不同类型的反历史主义。然后我继续展示食品历史实际上如何被用来颠覆这些反历史主义的主张。我寻求三个相互关联的调查来支持我的案子。第一的，我证明“食物”的类别不适合阿育吠陀的文本遗产，我们需要对特定的技术类别更加敏感，例如 anupana、pathya 和 dravya，其中容纳了食物。其次，我证明了新食物，特别是异国情调的新世界食物，被吸收到阿育吠陀认可的每一个技术类别中。最后，我表明这些新食品并没有简单地使类别本身保持不变。学者-医师的味觉体验极大地改变了他们所写的所谓无实体的、非历史的范畴。因此，我认为，阿育吠陀医学远非反历史论点的支持者让我们相信的非历史化石，而是丰富的、异质的、历史上充满活力的传统，