Rant on research; was, Re: [Sca-cooks] Re: Coffyns

[Phil Troy / G. Tacitus Adamantius]

Hullo, the list! Please note that this reply contains a fair amount 
of stuff that doesn't directly address Da or pies; this thread was a 
good hook to hang it on, though...

Also sprach Micheal:
>Well guess that idea has mixed reviews . I handle each by its own merit.
>  Hampton court no doubt did as you say all by hand pride of craft 
>and all. But not every manor, inn, or tavern had that size staff now 
>did they.

Nor did all taverns and inns have ovens. We don't know a huge heck of 
a lot about food service in such places, as far as I know. It's 
conceivable that that the idea of mass-producing pies would have 
brought gales of derisive laughter from the innkeeper. "Wot the 'ell 
do ya think this is, bleedin' 'Ampton Court???"

>Soot on the pots bailiff drag that filthy no good lazy scully away. 
>Not a very solid reason for saying no to a ponderance.

Soot on the pots, or at least some blackened seasoning (i.e. carbon, 
not that Paul Prudhomme stuff), can be a useful sealant and can help 
with heat transfer and the avoidance of hot spots. Some medieval 
recipes will specify using a clean, new pot, which suggests that with 
use, there was probably some inevitable change to their nature. I 
don't think anyone said "no" to the idea, but I also don't think 
people saw much reason to say "yes", if people insist on expressing a 
research speculation in terms of "yes" and "no".

<rant mode; please note that this is a general rant and not 
victim-specific ;-) >

See, it's long been my contention that many SCAdians are too darned 
fixated on what is "permissible", and exactly what we "cannot" do. 
While at first glance it may appear that all these vast hordes of 
authenticity nuts who are all going around saying "no" all the time 
are responsible for this, in actual fact my experience has been that 
such people (if they exist as described; I've never met one in my 23 
years in the SCA) are far more about saying "yes" than saying "no".

Look at it this way: we're trying to recreate medieval and 
Renaissance life (more or less) starting from scratch. We're learning 
everything we can along the way. As we do research, we come up with a 
[sometimes incomplete] picture of what life was like in the period 
and place that interest us enough to warrant the research, and we 
base our conclusions, and our recreation efforts (say, pies) on that 
information. Right? Am I describing anything vaguely like the SCA, 
apart from my obvious, shocking failure to mention beer? If this 
isn't everybody's definition of the SCA, I think it's at least close 
to most people's, and spot on for many.

In this approach, it's not a good idea to get too attached to a 
potential conclusion before you do the research. So, for example, if 
I go to my doctor with a cough, and he decides I have a viral 
respiratory infection, a.k.a. a cold, and then I tell him about my 
massive and sudden weight loss, fatigue, pain, etc., all of which 
might point to, say, thoracic cancer. The doctor doesn't get all 
angry and insist I have a cold and say "no" to my cancer. He examines 
the evidence and proceeds accordingly. If necessary he finds the 
evidence himself.

Similarly, historians, archaeologists and recreational hobbyists who 
study the Napoleonic Wars don't first decide the French Army of the 
period used air-to-air, heat-seeking missiles, then look for evidence 
by asking around among their friends, and when those friends say they 
weren't aware of the role of air-to-air missiles in the Napoleonic 
Wars, and have seen no evidence of them, they don't decry the 
narrowmindedness of those friends and say that they're saying "no" to 
air-to-air missiles, lemons, or pots used to form pies.

Because they're not saying "no". Rather, they're saying, "Maybe. I 
don't know. Do you have a compelling reason for saying 'yes'? I can't 
find one, myself."

Sure, the example above is a huge exaggeration, but it's for effect; 
I'm not accusing anyone of this kind of thinking, but it seemed like 
a good time to mention all this, as we've been discussing speculation 
and the burden of proof a lot lately on this list.

Finally, when one engages in speculation of this kind, you have to 
understand that speculation is what it is, and it's generally not a 
substitute for hard evidence. Sure, you can use it, but if it gets 
shot down, you remember that it is what it is, and that it's often 
very likely to be disproven by other evidence. In that case, you 
shrug and move on. It's generally considered uncool to fight tooth 
and nail for a point, and then, when there's a lot of evidence that 
tends to invalidate your point, shrug and say, "Hey, what are all you 
people getting so upset about? It was just an idea... you guys are so 
narrow-minded!"

The best plan is to remember we're all friends here, that we function 
as each others' students and teachers in a group that emphasizes 
edumakashun, and that nobody is supposed to be saying stuff for the 
purpose of belittlement. Since that's a given, anything anyone says 
is, by definition, assumed to be a positively-intended and 
potentially helpful educational tool. And since we're all being kind 
to each other, there's no reason to become upset.

<rant mode off, back to discussing pastry>

>Thick enough to stand on its own, well just cause it comes from a 
>shaping device means it  thin. Lost the logic here. Maybe valid 
>maybe not.

I assume the reason for this was confusion between a form used to 
shape the pie (such as the block/stake I mentioned) and a form that 
provides ongoing support, such as a pie plate.

>Like the press idea though it would be a massive space consumption. 
>Ease of use would be the question.

Depending on the complexity of the device, what powers it, the number 
of moving parts, etc., it wouldn't have to be significantly larger 
than the pie itself. Slightly smaller, in fact. As I said, a hockey 
puck or a hatbox shape on a stick...

>Nope I am sorry I believe IF such a device ever existed it would 
>have to have been really simple.

Agreed. If nothing else, consider the difficulty of getting the 
formed pastry out of such a device without destroying it.

>  A wooden shape a pot bottom or a piece of pottery. So simple it 
>could be looked at as something else without raising a question. 
>Cause this many people looking would have seen it already.

Assuming the device wasn't presumed to be part of a mill or quern, or 
a mallet, or some other tool.

>  Indeed it would most likely fall into a method and some body might 
>have written it down some where. Now either we have not found it yet 
>or it just didn`t happen. We have not uncovered everything within 
>the middle ages now have we? Another one of those hmm I wonder 
>quests.
>Da

True. On the other hand, we know a fair amount about the concept of 
mass-production in period, and prior to the Middle Ages. For example, 
there are numerous Roman factories, and artifacts linked to specific 
factories (say, several nearly-identical pieces of armor made 
according to a specific design and all stamped with the same markings 
indicating where it was made). However, as far as I know, there 
doesn't seem to be, in period Europe, anyway, quite the same kind of 
mechanized factory work, assembly lines, and interchangeable parts we 
now associate with factories. My suspicion is that, if any complex 
mechanical devices were being used in kitchens (buildings notorious 
for burning down), we'd see more of them in non-kitchen applications.

HTH, and my apologies for the rant...

Adamantius
-- 




"S'ils n'ont pas de pain, vous fait-on dire, qu'ils  mangent de la 
brioche!" / "If there's no bread to be had, one has to say, let them 
eat cake!"
	-- attributed to an unnamed noblewoman by Jean-Jacques 
Rousseau, "Confessions", 1782

"Why don't they get new jobs if they're unhappy -- or go on Prozac?"
	-- Susan Sheybani, assistant to Bush campaign spokesman Terry 
Holt, 07/29/04