SC - Re: SCA myths

[Philip & Susan Troy]

Hello, all!

I'm not sure who wrote what here. My considered comment on all this is
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

At the risk of stretching this out of all reasonable proportion and
lending it the possible credibility of repetition, there are a few
points here that need to be addressed.

Marisa Herzog wrote:

> The below is one of the current threads on the arts list, for all you gentles
> amusement.  I am quietly biting my toungue and not commenting on that list
> -brid

A wise move, I suspect.

> >Franz said:
> >
> >> My reaction to those who comment my cooking
> >> isn't period is that they wouldn't eat it if it was.
> >
> >Isn't that one of those SCA myths???? :)

Where is HG Cariadoc when we need him??? I can't believe it! We're being
given the old line about how we couldn't handle the extreme periodicity
of someone's cooking, so any attempt is a waste, and by the way: It's
All Our Fault!
 
> Actually, no.  But they wouldn't eat what we prepare either. There were many
> problems with the preservation of food that gave it an over flavor that we
> find unpalatable. Because of the spoilage speed, meat of all kinds was eaten
> the same day it was slaughtered. Mundanely, we prefer ours to have a
> slightly "aged" (spelled 'controlled spoilage') flavor. Theirs would taste
> "gamey" by comparison.  Common preservation technique was by salting, a
> process which normally required a minimum of three days of soaking in fresh
> water changed every six hours to remove the salt. Even still, it was overly
> salty.

If not my first rule of period culinary (or any other type of) research,
certainly one of the first rules: NEVER GENERALIZE, AND NEVER MAKE ANY
ATTEMPT TO DESCRIBE HOW THINGS "WERE". They weren't. Or rather, they
probably were, or may have been, in a specific time and place. The above
paragraph appears to be hogwash.
 
> The myth is that the excessive spice amounts were used to hide the fact that
> the meat had spoiled. This is wrong on three counts. First, as stated
> before, spoilage to them meant the "aged" level we enjoy.

No, spoilage to "them", whoever they were, more likely meant that if you
ate it, you would die or suffer illness. 

> The added spice
> *would* cover that flavor, but would not cover what even we consider as
> spoiled. Second, the spices acted to balance the heavy flavor of the
> preserving salt. Hence the proliferation of fruited meats. Sugars help
> molify the salt taste, and fruits were the major source of sugar available.
> Third, the spices were weak by today's standard. Read the side of a modern
> spice jar. "Keep in a cool, dry, place out of direct sun." Remember, most of
> Europe's spices came from the Orient, and there were only two ways it could
> travel: by sea, or by spice road.  If it went by sea, there went the "dry"
> instruction. If it went by spice road (ie thru the desert), there goes the
> "cool" part. Either way, by the time the spice arrived in England and
> France, it was so old as to have lost a majority of its flavor. One merely
> has to taste the difference between commercial herb flakes and fresh from
> your own garden to understand how much greater it would have been.

Again, a statement which would otherwise be fairly accurate in certain
circumstances (I should know; I believe I'm being misquoted, though) is
used to make a sweeping generalization which is misleading, at best. 
 
> As for what they ate, it was radically different. A good reason to go on the
> hunt was the opportunity to eat Hunter's Stew, made from all the "best
> parts" of the kill. These had the least fat, the most flavor, and the
> greatest nutrients. They included the Heart, Liver, Kidneys, Lungs, Tongue,
> Brains, all which spoil very quickly. (The fat acts as a protection against
> spoilage - no fat, spoils quickly.) These were eaten by the Hunting camp,
> with the rest of the meat brought back to the homestead. Oddly, if most of
> these parts were not removed, the kill was tainted BY these organ meats.
> (this is still the parts taken out in a field dress by hunters today.
> Generally, today they are just buried in the field at the kill/dressing
> site.) But they also ate turtle, eel, snake, bear, and any other type of
> meat they could find catch and kill.

Internal organs are still a very popular dog food, too. Doesn't mean
that they were relegated to that role in period. Bread soaked in blood
seems to have been a common hunter's method of luring the dogs off the
kill. As for Hunter's Stew, yes, there are certainly indications that
the quick-spoiling portions of game were sometimes eaten on the field.
On the other hand, extant recipes suggest that the various viscera were
frequently carried back to a more amenable kitchen setting for the
production of various chawdons, numble pies, roo broth, etc.  
 
> Vegetables were ALWAYS cooked, generally boiled, and usually overdone by our
> standards. Instead of potatoes, they ate turnips. They salt preserved their
> vegetables too, in the manner of pickling. Even their grains were boiled for
> eating, flavored with a touch of salt and maybe some butter.

False. Which I could be more diplomatic about this, but I can't. Some
vegetables were often eaten raw. It's just that no sensible cook bothers
to write down a recipe for carrot sticks. I can see it now: "Rafens.
Pulle your rafens fro 6e soyle. Waishe away 6e er6 6erfrom. Cut awaye 6e
noughty rootes. Tak a bigge byte." (Rafens, BTW, are radishes.)
 
> All in all, a very drab, mostly flavorless *daily* cuisine. The wonderful
> sauces of the french, like so many other items in our society, came very
> late in period or just out of it. The fruit dishes were all highly seasonal
> and thus more of a treat than expected. And of course, the church placed
> some highly restrictive laws on what could be eaten at what time of year as
> well.

'Scuse me while I wipe some foam away from my mouth...there's a
wonderful Irish proverb which says that hunger makes the best sauce. I
suspect the author of the above paragraph has never been hungry, and
furthermore, for someone who was previously touting the virtues of
freshness, and how different many medieval foods were from their modern
equivalents, seems remarkably ignorant of what can be done with a little
coarse salt and a dab of real butter.   
 
> Would you eat "period food"? I don't know. When doing my research into
> cultural cuisine, I look at traditional foods. Tell me, would you eat proper
> English Blood Pudding? Haggis? Jellied Ram's Eye? All Documentable as
> Festive Occasion Fare delicacies.  Just not to us.

That's Black Pudding, friend. Only people who are trying to gross each
other out bother to call it blood pudding; anyone from a culture where
it was or is eaten knows what it is made of. As for haggis, I can only
say that I have eaten it, along with several hundred of my closest
friends, and will continue to do so.

As for the Jellied Ram's Eye, I frankly suspect it's where I would draw
the line. I would like to see the documentation, though. 
 
> The rule I use for my cooking is: Raise the lowest level of knowledge by
> teaching while utilizing the "CREATIVE" aspect of the SCA to ensure
> enjoyment by the greatest number.  Same with my bardic work. I do Beowulf in
> the original old english, but no one understands what I am saying. Its
> period, its correct, but you won't enjoy it unless *I* make it enjoyable for
> you. And for that, I must provide a translation into a more modern idea of
> taste...er, the english language.

I have to agree with the theory. On the other hand, to take it to an
illogical extreme is to insult all our intelligences. If one cooks
several feasts according to the above rule, then the rule suggests that
our level of tolerance for foods alien to us will grow with each
successive (and successful) exposure, suggesting that each time the
gentle cooks for the same group, he could get closer to a reasonably
authentic product without loss of group enjoyment.
 
> Should any of you decide to enjoy yourself on a actual non mediterainian
> european culinary experience, contact me.  I and my cooking team would be
> happy to help you debunk this myth yourself.

I'm washing my hair tonight...

My apologies to all on this list for the rant. I was caught off guard,
and the old Fighting Cook instincts took over. Licensed to Kill, and all
that. Sorry!

Adamantius
______________________________________
Phil & Susan Troy
troy at asan.com
============================================================================

To be removed from the SCA-Cooks mailing list, please send a message to
Majordomo at Ansteorra.ORG with the message body of "unsubscribe SCA-Cooks".

============================================================================