[Sca-cooks] No sugar - too much spice.

[Decker, Terry D.]

> Each town often had its own standard measures, which might be
> close to those of the next town along, or which might be quite
> different.  The standard measures in a town might also change
> with time, though that would be rarer.  The standard measures
> could also change in response to political power changes

Apothecary measures were fairly standard across Europe and were used to
measure precious metals, spices, etc.  Troy measures are an expansion of the
apothecary measures to larger commodities and appear to have been widely
used in trade.

Most of the local standards are variations of Roman and Troy measures.
Rather than changes in political power, the changes in the standards
probably represent attempts to bring the weight of commodities into a ratio
of value with the weight of gold and silver.

At one time, England had at least two different bushel measures, the London
bushel (56 lbs. of wheat) and the Winchester bushel (60 lbs. of wheat),
which probably made life fun until 1303 when the Winchester bushel became
the official measure of the country.  The Winchester bushel is still the
U.S. standard measure.

>
> In some cases the same name might mean something different
> depending upon what was being measured -- the only remnants we
> have today that I can recall at the moment is the difference
> between dry ounces and fluid ounces, and (though probably not
> directly relevant to cooking) between ounces Troy and ounces
> Avoirdupois.

The ounce is derived from the Latin "uncia" meaning "one twelfth part."  In
the Troy system, a pound has 12 ounces.  The name carried over into the
Avoirdupois system to mean 1/16.  An ounce is 1/16 of a pound.  A fluid
ounce is 1/16 of a pint and is part of the English wine measure rather than
Avoirdupois proper.

The U.S. standard measures are based on Avoirdupois and the English wine
measure, as are most English measures prior to 1828 when Parliment adopted
the Imperial measures.

The Avoirdupois system was introduced into England at the beginning of the
14th Century.

>
> Only yesterday I was reading in _Gourmet_ of someone being given
> modern directions for bicycling in Swedish 'miles', and only
> finding out later (after much cycling) that a Swedish 'mile' is
> about six English miles.

This is a homophone rather than an equivalency.  The Germanic "meile" is
4,000 klafters (fathoms) or 24,000 fuss (feet), which makes it roughly
equivalent to a league (which has varied from the approx. 1.5 miles of the
ancient Celtic measure adopted by the Romans to about 5 miles).

Miles, as used outside of the Germanic countries, are based on 1000 Roman
paces (mille), or the distance between Roman milestones, approximately 5,000
feet.

I haven't found anything on the derivation of "meile," so if anyone comes
across it, please pass the information on.

>
> Another complication is that sometimes amounts are probably given
> in terms of the cost of the ingredient, as in 'a denier's worth
> of cinnamon'.  There is ongoing controversy about whether it was
> really based on value; or whether 'denier' meant a specific small
> weight, or specific small volume, in such circumstances.

In the case of spices, we are talking about a specific weight.  A denier is
the French equivalent of a pennyweight or a scruple, 24 grains or 1/20 ounce
Troy.

As a coin, the denier is a silver penny, which buys a lot of spice, even at
Medieval prices.

> One can
> easily imagine some medieval spices taking three years to get
> from tree to table (for example one year Indonesia to India, one
> year India to Egypt, one year Egypt to Paris).

It would take about a year to move spices from field to Egypt making use of
the seasonal winds.  Spices brought from the harvesting sites to the ports
on the West Coast of India where they were sold to traders who shipped the
spices to Mocha then north on the Red Sea to Egypt.

We are talking a trade that is several millenia old and whose participants
knew the growing a travel cycles to optimize the delivery of the spices, so
any delays in the system are probably related to striking a price rather
than the actual transport.

In the 1st Century, Roman merchants opened direct trade with India and
Taprobane to break the Arab monopoly.  By using large galleys, they could
operate in heavier seas and did not rely on the wind.  This could cut the
transport time to under a year.

For a look at the spice trade in the 6th Century, try the Topographia
Christiana of Cosmas Indicopleustes.  There are supposedly a couple of
English translations, one by J.W. McCrindle in 1887 and one by E.O. Winstedt
in 1909.  I haven't found either, but I haven't been seriously searching for
them.

In the early Medieval Period, when European spices were largely shipped
through Byzantium and traffic in Europe was very irregular, several years
might be in order.  After the 10th Century, when various Italian cities
opened direct trade with Egypt, the transit time of the goods would start
shrinking.

By the time the Portuguese entered the game, it was about a one year cycle
from field to Europe and a few more months to spread the spices into the
ports of Europe.  This does not take into account the problems of striking a
price, finding buyers or being overstocked.

>
> With stuff being stockpiled and warehoused at various stages in
> modern times it wouldn't surprise me to learn of similar delays.
> Does anyone know of any specific modern transit times?

You might ask Francisco Sirene, as he is in the business.  I don't know if
he is currently on the list, but he has been in the past.

> I have zero evidence, but it wouldn't entirely surprise me to
> learn that for some specific spices the medieval methods of
> careful packing and shipping (in anticipation of long journeys)
> could have been superior to modern methods, and could have resulted
> in 'fresher' spices despite possibly longer transit times.
>

> Thorvald