SC - The Kitchen article

[Stefan li Rous]

Brandu commented on the article posted here recently. Sorry Brandu, but
I 
disagree with some of your comments.

> This site (ThinkQuest) seems to be a site where participating High School 
> students get to post their papers.
> 
> I can presume that this is not written by a historian, but a kid. 
> Inaccuracy and generalizations are to be expected.

Yes, and the fact that is only so much you can describe in a few
paragraphs.
 
> some thoughts:
> 
> > This was to prevent a fire in the kitchen from spreading 
> > to the great hall. 
> It was more likely because the preparation of food was distracting, 
> servants work, and of no interest to the gentry (just the final product)
> 
> > Fires happened often because all food was cooked over a 
> > fire or in an oven. 
> Rampant generalization. Kitchen Fires continue to happen for the same 
> reasons, BTW. 

Again these are generalizations because of the wide area and time period
covered. However, I've seen both of these comments made by recognised 
historians in the books on period cooking I've been reading.
  
> > The kitchen itself could be constructed of wood or stone. 
> no information. All castle buildings of the period were of stone or wood

Probably not true. It depends on how broad your definition of "stone" and
"wood" are. Do you consider wattle-and-daub to be wood? Do you consider
"brick" to be stone? A number of late period castles/manor houses were
made of brick. Also, the audience may not know that "All castle buildings
of the period were of stone or wood". If it is true that only stone or
wood was used this would be a reasonable statement considering the
audience. However, I'm not sure it is true.
 
> > Animals were often cooked over the fire in the fireplace on 
> > spits. 
> they were more frequently boiled, if the corpus of recipes I have seen 
> are any indication

Yes, but "often" doesn't mean it was the only way or even the most common
method. Yes, perhaps there is something unsaid here but its a brief article.

> (BTW Ras, I think a bed of wood coals would equate in the mind of a high
> school kid to "fire"... that is putting too fine a distinction here, don't you think?)
> 
> > Spits were long poles of wood on which an animal could be secured. 
> metal, is more likely. a wooden spit can only be used a couple of times 
> before they burn through

Yes, very likely. A spit is not a hard piece of metal to create.
 
> > The 
> > spit would then be turned over the fire to make sure the animal was cooked 
> > evenly. 
> Freequenly be some mechanical means, by a cranker, a clockwork 
> mechanism (late medieval/rennaissance), or even by dogs in a tread wheel

Or by use of turbine blades in the rising stream of hot air.

> > A 
> > fireplace could also be used to smoke meat, a primitive form of preserving 
> > it. 
> more likely, a smokehouse performed this function. and it was not all
> that primative. A fireplace where people were working would make a
> lousy smoker.

In a large castle, yes. But we have smoking instructions that do talk about
hanging it in a fireplace, but I think these were for smaller households or
those further down in society.
 
> > An oven might be used to make bread or cook other dishes like pastries or 
> > pies. 
> Not other way to do that I am afraid... 

This might depend on your definition of "oven". We have talked about other
ways to cook bread and pastries than in the big beehive shaped ovens.
- -- 
Lord Stefan li Rous    Barony of Bryn Gwlad    Kingdom of Ansteorra
Mark S. Harris             Austin, Texas           stefan at texas.net
**** See Stefan's Florilegium files at:  http://www.florilegium.org ****