
How Snobbery Helped Take the Spice Out of European Cooking - Petiver
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/03/26/394339284/how-snobbery-helped-take-the-spice-out-of-european-cooking
======
001sky
_" In Europe, meat was considered the manliest, strongest component of a
meal," Laudan notes, and chefs wanted it to shine. So they began cooking meat
in meat-based gravies, to intensify its flavor._

Main thesis.

Interestingly enough, the European pallate has also had a dterimental effect
on some oriental and african cuisines athat were historically more spicy.

That bein said, history doesn't really bear out the main thses as laid out in
the headline. Spices were a very late addition to the european pallatte, and
the timeline give for their retrenchment would put them at a very small
proportion of the timeline of historical europe. In other words, "the spice"
era was merely a short lived fad. For most of its history spices were rare and
not very widespread in usage, then they were available, and then they were
superseeded with other technical innovations. The technical innovation of
stock based sauce is a derivative of increasing economic wealth. But the snob
factor is really a poor way to phrase it. It is more true that the european
pallate took the spice out of middle-eastern and north african cuisine based
on the snob-factor. This makes more sense because the status of european
pallate was seen as being higher than local cuisinge during the colonial and
post-colonial transition peirods. That is, it was social aspiration driving
the trend, not technical innovation. Its much less clear that a similar
explanatory sequence works for the evolution of the euroean pallate itself.

~~~
cafard
Capsicum wasn't known outside of the Americas before the Europeans reached it,
but weren't other spices known well before that, e.g. cumin?

~~~
001sky
It's all a matter of degree.

As to what was 'known' and what was actually commonly or widespread in use,
for example, seems to matter a lot. For exmaple, there are definitely regions
that show early adoption of arabic culinary influence eg, moorish spain. the
early days of venetian traders of the middle ages (1250), etc. And the
returning soldiers from the crusades would have rbought back implicit
knowledge to incorporate spices in other areas further north (1100-1300).

But it would also seem that those exceptions prove the rule--the timeframe we
are talking about is either early and very geographically constrained or later
and constrained to a finite window of time.

But we know that the persians and arabs had spices and that the hellenistic
and roman empires had access to the spoils of war from those geographic
regions.

[http://www.spiceadvice.com/history/](http://www.spiceadvice.com/history/)

(not the greatest source, but illustrative)

------
mazatta
I'll happily read anything that talks about spices, but I didn't find the
article all that convincing. I sent the link to an old housemate of mine, who
is working on a PhD in medieval history, and here is her response:

" _pinches bridge of nose_ Apart from the rather random and non sensical use
of 'medieval' in here? Yeh it is pretty bad.

I mean what? Do they mean medieval as 'anything at all before the year 1600'?
In which case there is a significant issue because up until the thirteenth
century they didn't have most spices - maybe pepper, some salt (expensive as),
bay leaves, clove... but none of the better known ones. Let alone sugar! They
had honey.. and fruit, all of which have complex flavour profiles. You see
some things coming back the crusades (cinnamon) and the like. Also it depends
on where you are, because of course Constantinople didn't have that issue.
Likewise parts of the Mediterranean and Iberia, and the Middle East. Normally
classic 'medieval' flavours are sweet and sour and little differentiation
between savoury and sweet - beer, vinegar, nuts, pepper, hyssop and other
herbs achieved the flavouring. They definitely used meat, but almost certainly
most people couldn't eat that on a regular basis because it is expensive, so
this makes no sense on a class scale.

French cooking also comes out of fourteenth century cooking, so load of
bollocks (I have a recipe here that is almost identical to what it is today) -
there is just more cream with the advent of refrigeration. Most of the stuff
we associate with it today is post French revolution and the nineteenth
century - I love how the idea of French cuisine seems restricted to really
narrow Parisian stuff. Not to mention the humoural theory of medicine was
still prevalent into the eighteenth and nineteenth century in some parts (in
particular the antipodes and Canada). Protestantism had nothing to do with the
price of fish. If anything it was the trading networks established from
Malacca and the like, which still meant that spices were only affordable by
the wealthy until much later when engineering meant ships didn't take 15
months to get there and 15 months back. Paying in blood for spices. Wars were
fought over this stuff, along with tea and opium. I suspect most of our modern
eating habits are blameable on the Victorians - although having said that,
Queen Victoria had her own Punjabi chef to make her curries!

There also seems to be some sort of changing shift about what 'spice' means -
herbs are not spices. Neither is salt and pepper. Grah. Talking about cherry
picking your responses from historians! "

------
dmritard96
"They concluded that what makes Indian cuisine so exquisite"

and

"While some have praised the new research for revealing the secret to why
Indian cuisine is so delicious"

It is just assumed that Indian food is fantastic. I love Indian food but this
is not some sort of quantifiable thing is it - deliciousness?

~~~
saosebastiao
Those exact quotes stood out to me as well. It is obnoxious to listen to
someone act as if his culture's cuisine is somehow objectively superior,
almost like he doesn't recognize that people have tastes.

~~~
Steko
It all started with the headline of Roberto Ferdman's WaPo article on the
original linked study which appeared a few months ago.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9138580](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9138580)

A dozen other blogspam variants on that article appeared in short order and
here we find it echoing again.

Although the direct source is American I can't help but think that the
underlying meme has something to do with the objective horribleness of British
food and the ubiquity of Indian restaurants in the UK.

~~~
mikehawkins
I'll agree with much of this - but after 8 years living in London and now in
Manchester, the 'objective horribleness' of British food is now about 15-20
years out of date. Back in the day, sure - man, how my parents could tell
stories when stationed over in the UK.

But now? I've had superb meals in both city and country - and there's been a
big rediscovery of the roots of British cuisine. Just with better ingredients,
imagination, and avoiding _shudder_ the classic blunder of oversteaming the
veggies. :)

Case in point - hit up the Bull in Highgate in London. Amazing pub, that
serves top-notch food for about $15 a plate.

~~~
Russwrites
English food is improving but there are still some shockers to be found.
Having a molten lump of cheddar cheese in a curry when you are expecting
paneer (as stated on the menu) makes you wonder if the chef tries their own
food.

------
mc32
I thought spices were to a good extent used to cover up the bad meats and
vegetables --ie on the verge of spoiling. But perhaps that's overly
simplistic.

Another thing is that the cuisines of the world were mostly fomented or
enabled by the "sensibilities" of nobility/rulers where there was such
lineage, as was the case in France, China and a few other places. For the most
part, however, most national foods were derived from peasant cooking and thus
are simpler, heartier and more robust.

~~~
idlewords
That's not true at all. If you could afford spices, you could afford unspoiled
food.

~~~
ddebernardy
Interestingly, that actually depends on what you call "unspoiled food".

There were no refrigerators or grossery stores then. The best you could do was
salt your meat and place it in a larder.

Also, taking the meat straight off of a recently slaughtered animal happens
about as often as it does today. Which is to say not that often.

The bulk of a cow, for instance, is so hard it's essentially uneatable as is
unless you slow-cook it in a stew. That's part of what made ground beef so
revolutionary and transformative -- women could go working instead of cooking
all day. The remaining parts of the carcasse need about two weeks for enzymes
to properly soften the meat. [1]

Technically, tender, tasty meat is in fact "slightly spoiled" \-- in good
conditions, of course.

[http://www.quora.com/How-long-after-a-cow-is-killed-does-
it-...](http://www.quora.com/How-long-after-a-cow-is-killed-does-it-take-for-
the-meat-from-the-cow-to-reach-the-supermarket)

------
akshat_h
I am quite curious about how food was before potatoes, tomatoes and chillies
were found in Americas. Based on what I know of Indian cuisine(north India
Punjabi though it is one of the most popular that has been exported outside),
these three ingredients are used very often. In particular, tomatoes are used
pretty much everywhere for the curry.

~~~
rayiner
Bangladeshi cooking uses a lot of traditional old world ingredients. Garlic,
cloves, cumin, turmeric, and ginger were all available in the old world.
Potatoes are common today, but traditional vegetables like tarot and radishes
are too. Many dishes are made without chilli peppers, although that's
certainly common now. They up the heat, but I don't think they define the
flavor profile in many Bangladeshi dishes.

------
beloch
Every time I read something about the history of cooking, it only seems to
reinforce how recent most of the mainstays of "traditional" cooking are. So,
what was lost? I'd be sincerely interested in seeing a database of recipes
from the "lost" European medieval cuisine this article speaks of. Western
cuisine is often at it's best when it's blending influences from other
cultures. Perhaps looking into the past would produce some real surprises!

~~~
dragonne
You might be interested in
[http://www.innatthecrossroads.com/](http://www.innatthecrossroads.com/) .
Though it's ostensibly Game of Thrones themed, the authors do research in old
European recipe books and frequently even prepare two versions of each dish:
an authentically old fashioned one, and one more suited to modern taste (and
also typically much easier to make). The verdict on the "authentic" versions
varies widely.

(There is also the delightful, but seldom-updated
[http://www.gameofbrews.com/](http://www.gameofbrews.com/) .)

------
bigpeopleareold
I get that people like foods with lots of spices, etc. Sometimes I do, but in
general, I like food plain or just some mild flavoring with herbs and such.
The joy is in the quantity of the food than strictly its flavor.

I guess that makes me an elitist snob from the days of monarchy :)

------
hartator
I was thinking the usage of spicy spices was correlated to the heat of the
country in order to sanitize the meat you eat. (Raw meat in hot envirnoment is
the recipe for food indigestion, spices mitigate that.) It's more related to
bacteria risks than social factors or west/east. For example, in French
cuisine, a steak tartare (raw beef) will have more spicy spices then a regular
curry. I believe the whole premise of this article is just wrong.

~~~
kansface
Truly spicy food has typically been found only in the tropics ... and Korea.
Chili peppers are strictly new world, but people in eg India/China used other
piquant ingredients before the Portuguese introduced them. I have never seen a
cogent explanation for the distribution of piquant cuisines.

Until very recently, mostly everyone has been a vegetarian so I don't believe
your meat proposal is the whole story. Having said that, Indian not only
differs from French food in terms of spiciness. As the article points out,
Indian food has a much wider range of seemingly uncomplimentary flavors -
recipes are typically a couple of dozen ingredients which is uncommon in the
West.

~~~
tacon
I once read how strong spices were one of the few techniques available to keep
rotting meat edible for a little longer, before the advent of refrigeration.
Otherwise, it was salting, drying, etc. to keep meat edible.

~~~
cubancigar11
India still has the largest population of vegetarians. Today, even in big
cities, you will have trouble finding a house on rent if you tell land lord
that you are a non vegetarian. Similarly alcohol has a very poor history in
India since it was ruled by Muslims for several centuries before the British
Raj. Salting and drying are indeed used, in as much as pickles involve it. But
meat doesn't come onto picture at all. Spices themselves are dried and don't
go bad. Extremely spicy food doesn't too. Warmer climate + fertile gangatic
planes also lend themselves to widespread farming.

In contrast, Europe had to import spices and thus the common people didn't
have access to spices. Cold weather also pushes people towards hunting by
making farming difficult. Obvious outcome is potato, making beer from potato,
eating meat, drying meat (steaks).

~~~
saiya-jin
huh, making beer from potato??

~~~
DanBC
You can make an alcoholic drink, but not beer, from potatoes.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poit%C3%ADn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poit%C3%ADn)

~~~
_0ffh
Not to mention the more widely known Russian thing...

------
bad_user
Does anybody else hate barbecue sauce? I personally hate eating sweet food.
For me sweets aren't food.

~~~
CuriouslyC
Barbecue sauce isn't one monolithic thing. The overly sweet, thick sauce
you're thinking of is the mass market version of Kansas City style barbecue
sauce, but the Carolinas, Tennessee and Texas all have distinctive sauce
styles, and none of them are sweet.

------
jessaustin
The contrast TFA sets up between spices and stocks isn't inevitable. I find my
favorite dishes have both; Cajun and Creole cooking is a great example.

------
thiagof
Yeah, masks everything with spicy flavours. It doesn't matter the tastes of a
potato ...

