SC - Peeps - OT

[Tara Sersen]

Stefan li Rous wrote:
> 
> Nanna said:
> > We Icelanders have never taken to lutefisk.
> 
> Interesting, as was frankly the entire message.
> Do you have any idea why Icelanders didn't go for the lutefisk? Is
> one of the needed ingredients of a lower quality? Or is there some
> climatic or cultural differance that would account for this? Or is
> it "just one of those things"? I'm assuming lutefisk was in use
> before Iceland was colonized, so the techniques and tradition would
> be originally there in both places.

Here's what we know, more or less:

Various sources, ranging, I believe, from period poetry to a recent
history of cod harvesting (I can't find it right now) speak of dried cod
being "the hardtack of the Vikings". In other words, a lightweight,
easily transported, easily preserved when dry, food which could be
broken up into shavings or chips and eaten as is. Essentially unflavored
cod jerky. Harmless enough, if not very flavorful by most standards.

We know cod have been taken from Northern European waters since at least
the period of Imperial Rome.

Then, of course,  we have quite a few stockfish recipes, and at least
one late-period German recipe which is nearly identical to a modern
lutefisk presentation.

However, I'm not aware of anything linking lutefisk (a specific
preparation of dried cod defined, more or less, by a process of
tenderizing the fish in a strong alkalai solution; evidently "lute-" =
"lye") to the Vikings.

It may be, as Nanna mentioned, a question of the availability of wood
needed to drip potash or lye. I don't know how well Iceland was set up
for forests in period, but isn't there a general tradition of going
a-Viking, in part, to deal with lumber shortages, and the resultant
deforestation of places like Ireland?
     
Adamantius
- -- 
Phil & Susan Troy

troy at asan.com