SC - Re: sca-cooks V1 #184

[Bronwynmgn at aol.com]

In a message dated 97-07-02 17:59:47 EDT, you write:

<< >Well, if you're talking about the early Celtic peoples of Britian, 
 >they didn't eat rabbit because rabbits didn't exist in England much 
 >before the Normans.  I believe they were a Norman import  (again, 
 >working from memory, I believe the source is Ann Wilson's Food and 
 >Drink in Britian)
 
 From Maggie Black's _A Taste of History_, page 63, "The Evidence for 
 the Foods Eaten in Roman Britain":  "Not only were large game kept in 
 parks, small game such as hares were kept in 'leporia' or hare gardens 
 attached to the villas of the more well-eo-do Romas so that they would 
 be quickly available when needed for the table."
 
 Alys Katharine >>

This is an excellent piece of documentation to answer the question "Did this
people eat this food at this time?"  In this case, however, there's a
problem.  Hares and rabbits are different species.  The hare is, I believe,
native to the British Isles; the rabbit is not.  Many people, however, don't
realize that there is a difference between the two animals and think that
"hare" is another name for "rabbit", so the mistake is understandable.
Now mind you, if you can't find somebody selling hares, I would assume that
rabbit would be the closest alternative if you want to cook "hare" for a
feast.

Brangwayna Morgan (previously known as Bronwyn Morgan o Aberystwyth; changing
my name in quest of increased authenticity.)