Adapting Historic Recipes?

Sorry to have been MIA the past while. Had a large wholesale book order that had to get printed and delivered and have been working on getting that done.

We’ve spent quite some time, justifiably, talking about ingredients. An equally important---perhaps even more important--aspect of understanding historic recipes is language.

It’s bad enough when you have to translate a “foreign” language. Worse is when you think you’re reading English, but the words have different meanings than we’re used to. We saw this, for instance, when we discussed the recipe for mumble found in Elizabeth Smith’s The Complete Housewife. That conversations can be found here: http://www.foodsoftheworld.activeboards.net/chicken-mumble_topic1765.html

Even more familiar words can present a challenge, though. One recipe we often use as an example of this is To Roast A Fowl.

For starters, when adapting it from the 18^th century version, we first had to determine what was meant by “roast.” Four or five cooking methods that we still use today were called roasting back then. For example, you could take your fowl (i.e., chicken, duck, turkey, wild bird), clean it, truss it, and tie it to a rope; then hang the rope in front of the fire. Twist up the rope until it’s knotted and let go. The fowl will rotate in front of the fire, and radiant heat will cook it on all sides, just like a rotisserie. That’s one method they would have called “roasting.”

As it turns out, for this recipe “roasting” means to cook directly over hot coals on a gridiron. What we’d call grilling today.

When cooking this way, birds usually were butterflied first. Simple enough. But in the 18^th century, and beyond, they called that “spatchcocking.” The first line of the recipe instructs us to “spatchcock a large fowl.” If you don’t know what spatchcock means, however, you’re already lost. What’s more, a hundred years later, when the French codify their cuisine and cast it solidly in concrete, “spatchcock” takes on a subtly different meaning. If that’s the only definition you know, you won’t be preparing the chicken as per the 18^th century manner.

And so it goes.

It’s not only techniques that are affected by language. Old time measurements---when used---can be confusing. What, exactly, is a drachm, for instance? What's more, British measurements and American measurements, although using the same words, are often different. A British gill, for example, is not the same thing as an American gill. For the record, one of them is 1/5 cup while the other is ¼ cup. Depending on ingredients being measured that could be a significant difference.

And speaking of measurements, how many of you, without looking it up, know what a scruple is?

So, the long and the short of it is simply that language can be the most important element in understanding old recipes.

Tiger Nut Sweets has to be in the running.

Recorded, "Set down for preservation in writing or other permanent form."
Recipe, "A set of instructions for making or preparing something, especially a food dish."

I guess I should have written my question differently. I should have asked what is the the oldest recorded recipe you are aware of?

I've eaten something very similar to Tiger Nut Sweets many times. Very rich without being too sweet. Easy to eat too many, but something I couldn't eat every day, meaning I can get tired of them quickly, but always enjoy coming back to them.

Sorry for the thread hijack.

http://articles.latimes.com/1985-05-23/food/fo-8362_1_ancient-recipes

Mesopotamia 1,700BC is the oldest that I could find.  Not a particular area of interest to me either though.  Still I would not mind a copy of the best translation possible of these recipes. 

Likely not, Rod, as many of the ingredients are untranslatable and, quite possibly, no longer exist even if we knew what they were. The Roman recipes, however, have been translated and reproduced numerous times.

Karl, the link takes me to a site which says the page I'm looking for no longer exists.

The SCA is big on documentation so I am in the habit of looking for it.  

HistoricFoodie wrote: Karl, the link takes me to a site which says the page I'm looking for no longer exists.   I don't think documentation is all that important for a group like FotW. If a recipe, or group of recipes, let's them experience the sorts of food eaten in a particular time/place, then that's good enough. Those who enjoy the experience are likely to go on and do further research. That's when documentation becomes important, I reckon.   Meanwhile, I got to thinking about how long Chinese culture has been around. Started searching, but, so far, the oldest recipe I've found claims to be 2,400 years old. Still puts Mesopotamia in the lead.

Thanks for the tip, Ahron.

Well, I'm not sure how to respond. I don't want to make this an open policy meeting, and I believe these issues should be brought to the founders via private messaging. But, I'm sure they have seen this thread and know what is happening in it.

This site is by definition about the Foods of the World series of books, and therefore, originally, limits itself.

I am as guilty as any of breaking out of that limitation. In my opinion, in many positive ways, this forum has gone beyond that original limitation. It has evolved into what it is today and will change as it progresses into the future.
 
On one hand, I want to see input from those people out there with real experience in very regional foods, and lots of pictures.

On the other hand, I am an information oriented kind of guy, so details are always good, and adding the level of background detail to certain parts of this site can only make it a more rounded place for anyone stopping by to experience, and I'm all for it. I believe, if the kind of information HistoricFoodie and Karl and others can provide is placed here in the forum, then as people who are interested in such things search the internet for this type of information they will end up here and maybe stay awhile and ultimately make this a better, more comprehensive place.

So, I don't think it's about how much I care about your research and your sharing it here, than it is about whether the founders want to take a part of the forum in that direction to expand and enrich it.