Nicholas Cimini (talk | contribs) |
Bunchofgrapes (talk | contribs) →Disguising rotten food: Quote from Dalby, and trying to clarify |
||
Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
My personal take is that since spices were luxury items afforded only by the very wealthy, they were used accordingly; that is to impress upon your guests with your wealth and worldly manner by serving them exotic dishes with fine imported spices. To get an idea of I am talking about consider the difference between the plebeian menu at your local lunch place and the menu at some of Los Angeles's finest joints. At the very least the people using expensive imported spices could also afford to eat fresh produce and meat. |
My personal take is that since spices were luxury items afforded only by the very wealthy, they were used accordingly; that is to impress upon your guests with your wealth and worldly manner by serving them exotic dishes with fine imported spices. To get an idea of I am talking about consider the difference between the plebeian menu at your local lunch place and the menu at some of Los Angeles's finest joints. At the very least the people using expensive imported spices could also afford to eat fresh produce and meat. |
||
It is for these reasons that I propose we delete this paragraph in its entirety. |
It is for these reasons that I propose we delete this paragraph in its entirety. |
||
Line 77: | Line 78: | ||
:::RE: "but there is no evidence to support this claim" - the reference that was given above suggests that spices were, indeed, used to make food more palatable. In that article, scientists suggest that "We believe the '''ultimate reason''' for using spices is to kill food-borne bacteria and fungi". |
:::RE: "but there is no evidence to support this claim" - the reference that was given above suggests that spices were, indeed, used to make food more palatable. In that article, scientists suggest that "We believe the '''ultimate reason''' for using spices is to kill food-borne bacteria and fungi". |
||
:::If anyone would like to disagree with this contention please provide evidence, including a quotation, to the contrary. --[[User:Nicholas Cimini|Nicholas]] 22:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC) |
:::If anyone would like to disagree with this contention please provide evidence, including a quotation, to the contrary. --[[User:Nicholas Cimini|Nicholas]] 22:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC) |
||
::::I'm a little confused regarding your stance; I'll get back to that. First, a quote from Dalby, p. 156: (typos mine, I'm transcribing.) |
|||
:::::''It is also neccessary to look critically at what earlier historians have said. It is easy to perpetrate errors. At some time in the twentieth century, a British historian unfamiliar with foreign food was told (possibly by his mother) that spices serve to mask the flavour of rotting meat. This assertion is now made of medieval cousine in several otherwise well-researched histories written in Britain. It is undocumented, and, in general, for ancient and medieval cuisines, it is most unlikely to be true. Spices were a luxury item, afforded only by those who could afford very good food. No recipe or household text recommends them to mask bad flavours. On the contrary, spices are called for liberally in ancient recipe books for their positive flavour, their aroma, their preservative and dietary qualities. |
|||
::::That paragraph supports both "claims" you were asking about. Now, on to the part I'm a little confused about. |
|||
::::We seem to be discussing three separate claims. Could you clarify your feelings regarding these three points? |
|||
::::# Spices were used to disguise or hide the taste of rotten food. |
|||
::::# Spices were used to preserve food. |
|||
::::# Spices were used because they taste good. |
|||
::::Number 1 is the claim that appears to me entirely non-factual; I've cited references to two recent books, books all about spices and the spice trade, to back that up. |
|||
::::Number 2 may have some truth. Spices probably were thought to be more of a preservative than they actually were (salt was much, much more effective than most eastern spices), but there are still some elements of truth in there. |
|||
::::Number 3 is obviously the case. Nobody is trying to argue against that, I hope. It just doesn't entirely serve to explain why Europeans were so willing to pay so much for this stuff from so far away, no matter how good it tasted. |
|||
::::Now, where do we stand? The old text was counter-factual, I believe, but I'm sure the new text could bear some improvement, especially regarding points 2 and 3. —[[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]] ([[User talk:Bunchofgrapes|talk]]) 22:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:38, 21 November 2005
Photo
great picture btw Vladdraculdragon 16:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Salt
Is salt actually a spice? Is this the right place for a discussion of salt routes in Europe as my, albiet uninformed, conception of the spice trade is that it is Asia & the Middle East westward rather than the trade in salt within Europe. Also what does the Production in Tons table relate to is this salt or spices? A more detailed heading for this would be beneficial. AllanHainey 07:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that salt is a spice. I would say, along with pepper it is the most important one. The production in tons table is quoted after the French Wikipedia and concerns all spices.--Fenice 06:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
- Going by Wiktionary spice is "plant matter (usually dried) used to season or flavour food." (this is backed up by Spice), while salt is certainly used to season food it isn't plant matter but is an ionic compound, sodium chloride. I don't think that the spice trade article is an appropriate place for the information on salt routes for this reason & because salt has never been & isn't generally considered as one of the 'spices' transported in the traditional East West spice trade (or the New World spice trade) which seems to be the basis of this article, I'd say it could be more appropriately dealt with in a seperate article on the salt trade (which when you consider Celtic salt trading with the Romans & trans-Sahara salt mining & trading for slaves & gold would be, eventually, a substantial article in its own right). Unless you, or any other users, have any objection I'll make this change & leave a link on the spice trade page. AllanHainey 08:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
- I don't object to remove the paragraph on salt routes. Websters encyclopedic dictionary also defines spices as "...aromatic substances of vegetable orgin.."--Fenice 08:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, a link should be included.
Any other minerals-as-foodstuffs and similar that could be referred to in this context?
Jackiespeel 16:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Copied from WP:IDRIVE comments
- I have added a small amount to the article, but it can be expanded much more. As stated, the spice trade was THE reason for the Age of Expansion, THE reason for the power of the Hanseatic League, THE reason for the power of naval exploration etc. Batmanand 11:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
End of copied text. Maurreen (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Refs
This is listed as part of a reference: "XCAXZOWCONEUQZAAFXISHJEXXIMQZUIVOTQNQEMSFDULHPQQWOYIYZUNNYCGPKYLEJGDGVCJVTLBXFGGMEPYOQKEDOTWFAOBUZXUWLSZLKBRNVWWCUFPEGAUTFJMVRESKPNKMBIPBARHDMNNSKVFVWRKJVZCMHVIBGDADRZFSQHYUCDDJBLVLMHAALPTCX". Is this for real? Maurreen (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- no, can't be, ir looks like an accidental deletion.--Fenice 14:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
The Table
What does the table at the bottom represent? Is it global produciton of Saffron? If so are the figures in kilograms pounds or (unlikely) tonnes)? Lisiate 23:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- According to [1], Iran produced 185 tons of saffron which was the most of any country that year (2003, I think. The article doesn't specify.). So it looks like the table represents tonnage for all spices, however the FAO defines a spice. Anyone else think we should just redo that table from scratch? It's kind of ugly. Recury 02:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, Recury is right. I added the saffron info, the table was already there. Maurreen (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- The table apparently relates to global production of all spices in tonnes, as I asked about it earlier, under the heading salt. I agree that it should be redone, or at least have a more accurate/informative heading. AllanHainey 10:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, Recury is right. I added the saffron info, the table was already there. Maurreen (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Russia
According to Braudel (p.194) there was, in the mid-16th century, an alternate spice trade route from Persia through Russia (largely up the Volga), initially trading with the English and later with the Dutch. Does anyone know anything much about this? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:30, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Disguising rotten food
I have to disagree with this paragraph from the history of spice trade.
"Spices were some of the most valuable items of trade in the ancient and medieval world. This was primarily as a result of the lack of refrigeration and poor standard of hygiene that meant that food often spoiled quickly. As a result of human evolution, our sense of taste tends to dislike food that is "off", as these foods tend to have a higher chance of being poisonous. In order to mask these flavours, spices were in huge demand in the Europe in the High Middle Ages." To understand my misgivings here is an article from Science Daily Cornell University. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/03/980305053307.htm And I quote: "The idea that people use spices to disguise the taste of spoiled food, he says, "ignores the health dangers of ingesting spoiled food.""
My personal take is that since spices were luxury items afforded only by the very wealthy, they were used accordingly; that is to impress upon your guests with your wealth and worldly manner by serving them exotic dishes with fine imported spices. To get an idea of I am talking about consider the difference between the plebeian menu at your local lunch place and the menu at some of Los Angeles's finest joints. At the very least the people using expensive imported spices could also afford to eat fresh produce and meat.
It is for these reasons that I propose we delete this paragraph in its entirety.
Lica Nistor
- Stongly agree; the view that spices were popular in Europe in order to hid the taste of bad meat has been discounted by every modern writer on Spices that I have come across. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC
- This contention is not supported by the article that you reference. Indeed, the article actually says: "The biologists did consider several alternative explanations for spice use and discounted all but one: the 'eat-to-sweat' hypothesis.--Nicholas 13:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should have been more clear, too. Modern writers discount the disguise-rotten-food theory, but there's no consensus on why spices actually were in demand in Europe. Jack Turner's Spice: The History of a Temptation (see full reference info in Black pepper) spends some time musing on various reasons; from memory, they include:
- A feedback loop involving them being expensive, which led to both:
- Some people (the rich and noble) wanting them precisely because they were expensive and
- Major efforts to find new trade routes or take over spice territories dominated by others
- The flavors themselves, of course
- Food and medicine weren't particularly distinguished from one another, and spices, being stronger-flavored, were viewed as stronger medicine. The first apothecaries were largely spice stores.
- The exotical appeal of the near-mythical lands where the spices came from. Particularly in the Early middle ages, when nobody could really say anything concrete about the spice lands (spices passed through many hands from there to Europe, and likely few if any knew much about anything a few steps down the chain). Spices essentially came from a land of mythology.
- Similarly, religious connotations of those lands and the spices. The Egyptions used and burned spices more in religious rituals than in cooking, and that continued somewhat as time went by. The mythology around the exotic locales where spices originated was sometimes stretched to full "garden-of-eden" type stories.
- A feedback loop involving them being expensive, which led to both:
- —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should have been more clear, too. Modern writers discount the disguise-rotten-food theory, but there's no consensus on why spices actually were in demand in Europe. Jack Turner's Spice: The History of a Temptation (see full reference info in Black pepper) spends some time musing on various reasons; from memory, they include:
- I believe that spices were, indeed, used to make food more palatable. The article that is referenced above quotes scientists as saying "We believe the ultimate reason for using spices is to kill food-borne bacteria and fungi". The scientists also state "Everything we do with food -- drying, cooking, smoking, salting or adding spices -- is an attempt to keep from being poisoned by our microscopic competitors. They're constantly mutating and evolving to stay ahead of us. One way we reduce food-borne illnesses is to add another spice to the recipe. Of course that makes the food taste different, and the people who learn to like the new taste are healthier for it." --Nicholas 11:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- RE: "It has been claimed that this was primarily as a result of the need to disguise the taste of spoiled food" - "It has been claimed" by whom? - please provide references.
- RE: "but there is no evidence to support this claim" - the reference that was given above suggests that spices were, indeed, used to make food more palatable. In that article, scientists suggest that "We believe the ultimate reason for using spices is to kill food-borne bacteria and fungi".
- If anyone would like to disagree with this contention please provide evidence, including a quotation, to the contrary. --Nicholas 22:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm a little confused regarding your stance; I'll get back to that. First, a quote from Dalby, p. 156: (typos mine, I'm transcribing.)
- It is also neccessary to look critically at what earlier historians have said. It is easy to perpetrate errors. At some time in the twentieth century, a British historian unfamiliar with foreign food was told (possibly by his mother) that spices serve to mask the flavour of rotting meat. This assertion is now made of medieval cousine in several otherwise well-researched histories written in Britain. It is undocumented, and, in general, for ancient and medieval cuisines, it is most unlikely to be true. Spices were a luxury item, afforded only by those who could afford very good food. No recipe or household text recommends them to mask bad flavours. On the contrary, spices are called for liberally in ancient recipe books for their positive flavour, their aroma, their preservative and dietary qualities.
- That paragraph supports both "claims" you were asking about. Now, on to the part I'm a little confused about.
- We seem to be discussing three separate claims. Could you clarify your feelings regarding these three points?
- Spices were used to disguise or hide the taste of rotten food.
- Spices were used to preserve food.
- Spices were used because they taste good.
- We seem to be discussing three separate claims. Could you clarify your feelings regarding these three points?
- Number 1 is the claim that appears to me entirely non-factual; I've cited references to two recent books, books all about spices and the spice trade, to back that up.
- Number 2 may have some truth. Spices probably were thought to be more of a preservative than they actually were (salt was much, much more effective than most eastern spices), but there are still some elements of truth in there.
- Number 3 is obviously the case. Nobody is trying to argue against that, I hope. It just doesn't entirely serve to explain why Europeans were so willing to pay so much for this stuff from so far away, no matter how good it tasted.
- Now, where do we stand? The old text was counter-factual, I believe, but I'm sure the new text could bear some improvement, especially regarding points 2 and 3. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)