[Sca-cooks] Ye old artichoke question

[Ariane Helou]

Greetings,

Your friendly neighborhood classicist has an answer to the first question:

The thing that the satyr is holding in the Pompeiian relief is most 
definitely *not* an artichoke.  It is, as the caption states, a "thyrsus," 
an accessory of certain religious rituals; it's a staff with ivy or vine 
leaves wrapped around it, and the artichoke-looking thing that sometimes 
appears at the top is actually pine cone.  It appears frequently in 
iconography (both Greek and Roman) of the god Dionysus and his cult 
worshippers, or (as in this picture) of satyrs and other deities associated 
with the natural world or with agriculture, and is described in literature 
as well.  In Greek, "thyrsos" is one of several words to describe this 
item; in Latin, "thyrsus" usually refers to this decorated staff but can 
also have the literal meaning of the stem or stalk of a plant.  But in any 
case, it's not an artichoke -- sorry.

I can't say for certain about the second mosaic, since there's so little 
context, but since there seem to be straight leaves sprouting off the 
stalks, I'd say the argument for those being a representation of artichokes 
is stronger.  And they do look very convincingly like artichokes.  On the 
other hand, I suppose they could be badly-drawn thyrsi? ;-)

As for whether the ancients did in fact have artichokes, I did a search of 
English definitions in the major Greek lexicon (Liddell & Scott) and a 
reliable Latin dictionary (Lewis & Short).  While these are still the 
standard in language study, I should point out that they were written in 
the 19th century and not all the definitions have been brought up to 
date.  That said:

In Greek: "kaulokinara: an artichoke stem"; "kinara: artichoke, Cynara 
Scolymus"; and even "kinarephagos: eating artichokes."  There's also a 
specialized usage of "sphondylos" (usually "vertebra, spine, backbone") to 
mean "the head of a kind of artichoke (kinara)."

In Latin: we have "ascalia: the edible part of an artichoke"; "cactus: A 
prickly plant with edible stalks, etc., found in Sicily, Spanish artichoke: 
Cynara cardunculus, Linn."; "cinara: a kind of artichoke (Cinara scolymus, 
Linn.) native to the island of Cinara".

Kinara, cinara, and cynara are just different spellings of the same 
thing.  So the real question is, what on earth are Cinara/Cynara scolymus 
and Cynara cardunculus?  Failing that, does there currently exist anything 
labeled as Sicilian or Spanish artichoke?  This is where my sleuthing 
abilities fall short.  (I should point out, also, that the "Linn." on the 
scientific names means -- I'm pretty sure -- that this is the Linnaean 
nomenclature from the 17th or 18th century, and therefore won't necessarily 
correspond to modern scientific nomenclature; not only that, but it was a 
label applied by scholars living a couple thousand years later than the 
'kinarephagoi' in question.)

So we know that there existed in antiquity something that more modern 
scholars like to label as "artichokes," but who knows what that really 
means.  Actually, I just went to an English dictionary and it says the 
scientific name of what we call the artichoke IS Cynara scolymus, which is 
pretty cool.  But -- and I realize I'm kind of arguing myself in a circle 
here -- isn't that exactly the tomato issue?  A modern scholar looks at an 
ancient description of a fruit or vegetable, and makes a guess (not always 
correctly) at what its modern equivalent might be?

Finally, "the seminal works for the Roman artichoke" previously inquired 
after would be the relevant chapters in Pliny's "Natural History."  I don't 
have a copy handy, but if I get a chance I'll look it up when I go to the 
library later.

Anyway, I hope I provided some answers, and I'm sure I raised a number of 
questions.  And I haven't even had coffee yet. :-(


Vittoria


At 11:26 PM 5/16/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>Greetings,
>
>I have been doing research into gardening and one of my recent ILL
>books was the W. Jashemski book on her excavations of Pompeii. One of
>the images in the book that I found interesting was this one:
>
>http://www.serenadariva.com/Temp/satyr.JPG
>
>unfortunately I did not scan it seperately and is was only in pdf so
>it is a horrible scan. She has it labeled as an ivy tipped something
>but I truly think that it looks a lot like an artichoke.
>
>In a second book that I have called "The origins of fruits and
>vegetables" they have the following image:
>
>http://www.serenadariva.com/Temp/artichoke.jpg
>
>Unfortunately this book is more of a "coffee table" book than anything
>else and the citation for the image does not have a date. From a
>google seach on the Bardo Museum it appears that it is famous for it's
>large collection of Roman Mosaics - which I believe implies that this
>mosaic is most likely Roman in origin. Unfortunately that doesn't
>narrow our range of possible dates too much.
>
>"The Bardo Museum: With its unparalled collection of mosaics, the
>Bardo Museum is sometimes likened to the Louvre for its breadth and
>quality. Most of the mosaics were commissioned between the 2nd and 4th
>centuries AD to adorn the sumptuous villas of wealthy citizens
>throughout Tunisia."
>http://homepage.mac.com/melissaenderle/tunisia/bardo.html
>
>So, between these two images I believe there is a little evidence to
>suggest that the globe artichoke was known to the Romans. And I
>believe that their inclusion in an SCA feast would not be out of line.
>But it bears more researching.
>
>Glad Tidings,
>Serena da Riva
>
> > While Northern Italy might not take to the Arab artichoke, what if the
> > Italian artichoke were already there?  While Wright makes a decent case and
> > his essay is easy to find, the seminal works for the Roman artichoke 
> are old
> > and are difficult to locate.  I think I'd like to see why the consensus is
> > for a Roman artichoke.
> >
> > Bear
>
>_______________________________________________
>Sca-cooks mailing list
>Sca-cooks at ansteorra.org
>http://www.ansteorra.org/mailman/listinfo/sca-cooks