OT - Re: SC - Re: saffron

[CBlackwill@aol.com]

In a message dated 4/4/00 10:14:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
TerryD at Health.State.OK.US writes:

>  These products appear only in the last
>  century of a period covering over a thousand years.  Are they appropriate,
>  to a feast alledging to be "period" and presumably cooked from 14th Century
>  sources -- no.  But they might be appropriate to a late 16th Century
>  Southern German feast.

Agreed (and I have always agreed) that if you are preparing a feast from a 
particular region and a particular time, then many New World products may not 
be appropriate.  There is no arguement here.  However, my concern rises when 
someone preparing a "generic" medieval feast is lambasted for the use of 
these products, simply because they do not appear in the few "primary 
sources" we have available.  You must admit that there were many thousand 
more cooks in the middle ages than there were cookbook authors.  And the 
potato was in widespread use in parts of Europe (read "Western Culture") by 
the end of our period of interest.  Simply because it did not make it into 
the culinary guides of the day does not mean it was not consumed regularly.  
That is the crux of my arguement:

I am well aware of certain individuals desire to re-create medieval cooking 
using solely what has been written down and traceable.  This is a scholarly 
pursuit worthy of admiration.  But I, personally (and read that word again so 
that there is no confusion), do not feel that extrapolation beyond the 
written word should be grounds for ostricization.  It can be said that 
deviating from the evidence can lead to some dangerous assumptions, sure.  
That is where the "common sense" comes into play.  If we stop to think about 
the real society we are trying to re-create, the mindset and economic state 
of that society, then we should have a fairly decent idea as to what may or 
may not have been used or eaten (or worn or fought with).  This kind of 
"forward thinking" is often used in the field of archaeology.  Bits and 
pieces of pottery fragments (documentable sources) are examined, and, based 
upon what else is buried around them, we make assumptions as to their 
possible uses.  In a few cases we have direct proof, such as grain residue 
left inside, or grape lees in the bottom of an amphorae (or recipes put to 
pen and ink).  In other cases we do not.  But we make these "scientific" 
assumptions based on what we already know.  I like to consider the SCA cooks 
as our own "archaeologists".  They do the ground work, and discover the 
"documentable sources".  This then allows us to get a better picture of what 
"may have been" done beyond that.  From thier work, we gain insight into the 
culture and eating habits of our precursors.  Using this insight in a logical 
and sensible manner, we are now able to design our own "period" recipes.

Never let it be said that I do not appreciate, nor do I denigrate, the 
outstanding work of those SCA cooks who have poured over the tomes and 
manuscripts of old.  I have even taken up the scholarly work, myself, as of 
late.  However, I do it more for the reasons I mentioned above:  to 
extrapolate upon the existing data, and design "period" recipes of my own.  I 
would never use Yellow #5 in a medieval style dish, nor would I offer up a 
bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken and call it "period" (delicious, yes...but 
not "period).  I would, however, use the knowledge already uncovered to make 
basic assumptions as to how a particular ingredient would have been used in 
our time of study.  And, hopefully, the Gendarme de Cuisine will not pull me 
away from the table and rush me off to the "O.O.P. Gulag" simply because they 
have no copy of my recipe in their bibliography.  If they want one, I'll give 
it to them.

Balthazar of Blackmoor

P.S. Stefan...dou you have a section in the Florilegium for so-called 
"period-style" recipes?