OT - Re: SC - eyeballs and rotting fish

[Phil & Susan Troy]

I'm thinking that the ratio of edible meat to eyeballs in given
animals would most certainly limit consumption on large scale.  Only
two eyes to a boar, hind, steer, pheasant, eel, tune, etc.  While
large numbers of smaller animals would be eaten to gain enough
protein, you still only get two ocular organs per each critter.  (and
larks have mighty small eyes!).

Same with fish....two eyes per.  The contention that the eyes may have
been a banquet food makes some reasonable sense, and also goes futher
to strengthen the position of Adamantius here.  The most reasonable
assumption is that food at a banquet served as a novelty would not be
an item of wholesale consumption on a regular basis by the masses
(even the noble masses).   

The organs of animals have always been prized for their intensity of
flavor and nutrition (e.g. offal, testicles), but the smaller and/or
less numerous ones must, by definition be more limited in
availability.  Surely someone eats/ate whatever part you mention of an
animal, especially in hunting/gathering classes.  Those of more noble
status ate the better parts available in market rather than eating
everything because of conservation of meat source (as would be a more
likely habit of peasant hunters).   

We have little or no record of what the chattle ate, as we continue to
examine.  We only have the records of nobility to work from.  Anyone
have a shopping/pantry list that has 2 stone of Lark's eyes?  or any
other eyes for that matter.
============================================================================

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".

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