SC - Cookbook details required

[Acanthusbk@aol.com]

OK, I'll bite.

Elise Fleming wrote:
> 
> The idea of fastening the bowl to the handle was suggested by several
> others.  I would argue that the bowl was fastened to the "shovel" end,
> the wide blade.  Medieval ovens weren't as cramped as ours.  Nor were
> all of the coffins as small as our pies are.  Affixing a wooden or
> metal bowl to the broad blade would allow a greater amount of liquid to
> be poured into the shell, filling the shell more quickly, and thus
> losing less heat from the open oven.  I would posit ooh! good fancy
> word!) that there were more intact peels around than plain handles.
> And, if a plain handle were wanted, why wouldn't someone just say to
> attach the bowl to a stick or handle, rather than affixing it to the
> broader peel blade?

Possibly because peels were a common tool in a bakery? I'm not quite
sure if I can envision any particular advantage to attaching a bowl to
the blade end of the peel, except perhaps torsional, and there are ways
around that. I mean, the size of the bowl doesn't change, and unless
they're using some pretty arcane technology, I'd think the difficulties
of attaching a bowl to either end would be about equal. Bearing in mind,
of course, that bowls sometimes had a shorter shelf life in the MA, as
they seem to have been fairly routinely pierced for draining or pouring
things like fritter batter. This is pretty much idle speculation,
though, since the important thing is that it _was_ done, and the
preferred method would probably have been whichever way worked, which is
both ways. 

But I don't see why it wouldn't have been done that way, either.

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".

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