Monday, May 20, 2024

The Recipes: a Mediaeval Joust

After several years of wishing we could be involved a chance encounter while “pirating” in Scarborough has led to Tastes Of History’s first performance at the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds, Yorkshire. We were delighted to offer a taste of mediæval food to spectators at the live-action International Jousting Tournament over the Easter bank holiday weekend. 


From Friday 29th March to Monday 1st April the museum’s impressive jousting arena resounded to the cheers of crowds and the clash of lances on armour, as knights battled it out in an authentic mediæval jousting tournament. A truly international event, this year teams from the United Kingdom, France and Italy competed for honour and trophies in this iconic mediæval sport.

The museum opened at 10 am and there were two tournament shows per day starting at 11 am and 2 pm, featuring knights and their horses, plus plenty of pomp and pageantry. There was also a full programme of events and activities in and around the museum, including jesters, minstrels, blacksmiths, have-a-go pool-noodle jousting and the chance to try some mediæval-style food. Talking of which, that’s where we came in.

The following selection of recipes drawn from mediæval sources were available for museum visitors to sample. Some are old favourites, but there were a couple of new dishes which we hope you may be inspired to try at home. Bon appétit!


Wednesday, May 01, 2024

Maasai "Lion Spear"

Pictured below is a spear recovered from an outbuilding at a former family residence, at the time called “Parthia”, in Beckhampton, Wiltshire. It has been in the author’s possession since the 1980s but in the intervening 40+ years precisely what it was or where it came from was unknown. While its origin remains a mystery, the desire to identify whether it is, as suspected, an African spear finally demanded some research. Based on the evidence so far, it appears it is a possible “Maasai ‘Lion’ Spear”. Weapons like it were (are?) carried by the tribe’s young men when they are charged with protecting the cattle that the Masai depended upon from the predation of lions. Reputedly, the technique was to firmly ground the tail spike of the spear and direct the spearpoint at a lion who was then enticed to charge. If all went well, the leaping beast would be impaled on the spear. Every Maasai youth needed to kill a lion in this way to be recognised as a warrior, but the smallest mistake on the young man’s part would likely not end well.

Who’re the Maasai?  The Maasai are nomadic pastoralists of East Africa who range along the Great Rift Valley of Kenya and Tanzania, the Samburu of Kenya, and the semi-pastoral Arusha and Baraguyu (or Kwafi) of Tanzania. Maasai subsist almost entirely on the meat, blood, and milk of their herds. Their kraal, consisting of a large circular thornbush fence around a ring of mud-dung houses, holds four to eight families and their herds.

The Maasai maintain a number of patriarchal clans grouped into two classes, or “moieties”. Within the classes members are integrated in a system of age-sets that sees groups of the same age initiated into adult life together. The age-class thus formed is a permanent social grouping that lasts the lifetime of its members. They move up through a hierarchy of grades, each lasting approximately 15 years, including those of junior warriors, senior warriors, and junior elders, until they become senior elders authorized to make decisions for the tribe. Between the ages of about 14 and 30, young men are traditionally known as “morans”. During this period they live in isolation in the bush, learning tribal customs and developing the strength, courage, and endurance for which Maasai warriors are noted throughout the world.

Solving the riddle  An image search of the internet quickly returned numerous pictures of “African spears” of varying styles and designs. A very similar looking spear (below) was listed as having been sold on the online auction site liveauctioneers.com. It had been catalogued as a “19th-century African Maasai Lion hunting spear”. Frustratingly, any further description was hidden behind a paywall.

However, another auctioneers, Fagan Arms, had clearly sold the "Maasai Lion Spear” shown below, and they had provided a useful accompanying description that read:


“68¼ inch length. Forged iron head with spiral twist to the middle. The socket with white inked “Ed” number and Africa Kenya Masai. Evidently indicating that it was used by an educational department, probably from a missionary society as was the custom. Slender tail piece and original wood grip…Excellent condition with good age character and old collection number to the wood.”

In December 2019, yet another US auction site, EJ’s Auction & Appraisal of Glendale, Arizona, had sold for $60 what they called a “Vintage 70in Senior Maasai Lion Spear” as pictured below.

These three examples were chosen because demonstrates one or more key feature against which the author’s spear can be compared. All four (the author’s included) have a central hard-wood shaft set into and connecting the sockets of the blades and shank. The type of wood is not known but each shaft is presumably fashioned from a tree indigenous to the Maasai Mara, a vast expanse of land in Kenya inhabited by the Maasai people, within which Albizia and Acacia are the prevalent trees that contribute to the unique appearance of the landscape. It is highly likely therefore that the wood is either Albizia or Acacia, unless it has been replaced by something else during the spear’s lifetime.

Each spear has a similar long iron shank forming what is essentially a pointed spear-butt. It appears that the shank is formed from a solid bar of iron flared at one end and hammer forged into closed, round, tapering socket. Any noticeable variation between the examples is evident in the blade shapes. The author’s spear has a forged, leaf-shaped iron blade, with integral socket, that is very similar to the first example shown above. Without a better description of that example, however, determining whether the two blades are equivalent in length and width remains moot. Regardless, the author’s spear blade has a total length of 864 mm (34 in).

Given the stylistic similarities, one is left to conclude that the found spear is most likely of a type used by the Maasai. Whether it is a true “Lion spear” is far from certain, but the title does evoke a warrior tradition and adds an air of adventure. Is it perhaps too tempting to imagine this iconic African object returning to the UK in the possession of a 19th-century explorer. Was it an honoured gift, looted or in the worst case, a tourist memento. Regardless, just how this spear ended up in an outbuilding in rural Wiltshire remains a mystery. Bon appétit!

Tuesday, April 23, 2024

Dispelling Some Myths: Upside down Union Flags

The Union Flag pictured hangs in an upper hall of a London school recently visited by Tastes Of History to deliver a “Knight and Castles” themed history day. Looking closely at the flag some viewers may well remark that it is upside down, while others may add that this signifies someone is in distress. Yet are these beliefs correct? The short answer is “No”. Dear reader you could stop here, but if you are piqued and wish to find out why these “factoids” are incorrect, then please read on.

A new flag  There are two competing parts to this explanation which need addressing. Firstly, is the flag upside down? To better understand that question it is worth dissecting the flag’s design and its evolution. To do that we must travel back to early 17th-century Britain where a new monarch had inherited three resolutely separate kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland. In 1603, however, King James I of England, and VI of Scotland, united these realms in his person in a fledgling union. Just three years into his reign reports of altercations between Scottish and English ships forced the King to contemplate whether vessels of the two nations should fly the same flag to affect some form of harmony. Months of discussion at court eventually agreed a design. Thus, on April 12th, 1606, the King issued a proclamation “declaring what Flags South and North Britons shall bear at Sea”. To avoid any further disputes, James ruled that “henceforth all our subjects of this Isle and Kingdom of Great Britain” shall fly “the Red Cross, commonly called St George’s Cross, and the White Cross, commonly called St Andrew’s Cross, joined together”. Unfortunately, the exact design of this innovative flag is lost to us, but it is highly likely to have looked like the one pictured, which was used before 1801. In that year (1801) witnessed the union of Great Britain and Ireland and a royal proclamation establishing the present design of the Union Flag (or Union Jack).


Today the flag combines aspects of three older national flags: the red cross of St George for the Kingdom of England, the white saltire of St Andrew for Scotland and the red saltire of St Patrick to represent Ireland [2].


Surprisingly there are no symbols in the flag signifying Wales making the Principality the only home nation with no direct representation. In what appears a significant omission actually stems from the Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542 (or the Acts of Union). The law, enacted by the English Parliament during King Henry VIII reign, effectively subsumed Wales into the realm of the Kingdom of England. Sixty-four years later, with Wales thought to be synonymous with England, the designers of James I/VI’s new Union Flag simply did not contemplate including a symbol to represent the nation. The Welsh Dragon was however adopted as a supporter [3] in the royal coat of arms of England used by the Tudor dynasty from 1485. With such long-standing recognition the author cannot see a reason why the red dragon would not make a welcome addition, but to do so will take an Act of Parliament and the Royal Assent. At the time of writing the subject does not appear to be open for debate and there seems little appetite for a change. Shame.

Upside down?  Now that we better understand the design elements incorporated into the Union Flag, why might some think our example is upside down? According to the College of Arms, the official heraldic authority for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and much of the Commonwealth including Australia and New Zealand:

“It is easy to fly the Union Flag the wrong way up if close attention is not paid to the design. In the upper corner of the flag nearest the flagpole, the wider diagonal white stripe should be above the red diagonal stripe. If the red is above the wider white stripe the flag is upside-down.”

To the casual viewer of our example, someone who is used to reading from left to right and top to bottom, in the upper left quadrant “the red is above the wider white stripe” and therefore, as the College of Arms explains, the flag should be considered upside down. Except it is not because if you look closely, you should notice that the eyelets for attaching the flag to a lanyard are on the right edge. This means the flagpole would be to the right-hand side and therefore the wider diagonal white stripe is above the red diagonal stripe as shown in the upper right quadrant nearest the flagpole.

The same misunderstanding occurred in 2020 when critics angrily questioned why, after a costly £900,000 refurbishment, the Union Flag on the vertical stabiliser (tail fin) of the Royal Air Force (RAF) Voyager (pictured) had been painted upside-down. Comparing the two inset pictures with the tail fin does seemingly support the critics as the flag looks identical to the incorrect version shown on the right. The RAF, however, was quick to defend the design as being completely correct and one that had carefully followed the proper protocol for displaying the Union Flag on an aircraft. In this respect the convention is for the design to appear as though it is flying from a flag placed at the nose of the aircraft as it travels through the air. However, when viewing the starboard side, one can have the mistaken impression that the design is backwards, or upside down. In fact, it is simply the observer viewing the reverse side of the flag.

Distress signal  This leaves us with the second element to address: whether flying the Union Flag the wrong way up signifies someone is in distress. It is frequently claimed that an upside-down flag is a coded distress signal (and should only be used as such). No mention of this “fact”, however, is included in the authoritative publication on “Flying Flags in the United Kingdom”, yet the urban myth persists. To a casual observer or someone unfamiliar with the flag’s design it is not very easy to spot whether it is orientated correctly, especially at a distance. Presumably, however, anyone wishing to signal their distress would want the message to be crystal clear and not simply the case that someone had accidently flown the flag the wrong way up. So, while an upside-down flag may be considered disrespectful in the UK, even if to do so was an honest mistake, it remains simply that – a mistake. Bon appétit!

Reference:

College of Arms website, (2024), “Union Flag: FAQs”, available online (accessed March 6th, 2024).

Endnotes:

1. In heraldry and vexillology (the study of the history, symbolism and use of flags), fimbriation is the placement of small stripes of contrasting colour around common charges or ordinaries, usually for them to stand out from the background. In heraldry, a charge is any emblem or device occupying the field of an escutcheon (shield). That may be a geometric design (sometimes called an ordinary) or a symbolic representation of a person, animal, plant, object, building, or other device.

2. Although the Republic of Ireland seceded from the United Kingdom in the first half of the 20th-century, Northern Ireland remains and is represented by the red saltire of St Patrick.

3. In heraldry, supporters, sometimes referred to as attendants, are figures or objects usually placed on either side of the shield and depicted holding it up (see Note 1).

Sunday, March 31, 2024

Dispelling Some Myths: Crucifixion

Crucifixion is a method of capital punishment in which the victim is tied or nailed to a tree, stake, beam or large wooden cross, and left to hang until eventual death. It was used as a punishment by, among others. the ancient Greeks, Persians, Carthaginians and the Romans. Supposedly one of the keenest practitioners of crucifixion historically, to the Romans crucifixion was a punishment reserved for slaves or the worst kind of criminals, particularly those who threatened the status quo or challenged Rome’s authority. When, for example, the slave revolt led by the former gladiator Spartacus was finally suppressed, contemporary accounts claim 6,000 prisoners were duly crucified along the Via Appia between Capua and Rome. Such a visible punishment was clearly intended as an abject lesson to any slave tempted to flee from or kill their master that they would suffer the same fate.

Crucifixion is said to have evolved from the Assyrian, and later the Persian, preference for impalement as a means of execution where the criminal was transfixed by a pointed stake passing longitudinally through the body. The two methods are not truly comparable, however, even though in both methods some form of a stake (Latin stipes) was used, and victims were not subjected to a prolonged and painful death. It is from the Roman writer Seneca’s [1] De Consolatione ad Marciam (“On Consolation to Marcia”), written around AD 40, that we learn crucifixion and impalement are two distinct kinds of execution:

Video istic cruces ne unius quidem generis sed aliter ab aliis fabricatas; capite quidam conuersos in terram suspendere, alii per obscena stipitem egerunt, alii brachia patibulo explicuerunt; video fidiculas, video uerbera...

“I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made differently by different [fabricators]; some individuals suspended their victims with heads inverted toward the ground; some drove a stake (stipes) through their excretory organs/genitals; others stretched out their [victims'] arms on a patibulum [cross bar]; I see racks, I see lashes...”
(Seneca, Cons. ad Marc. XX)

Unlike the Assyrians and Persians, impalement was the less usual Roman method. Rather, it seems public crucifixion was preferred with the condemned typically suspended from a tree, a wooden stake, or some form of wooden cross (Latin crux). The familiar T-shaped cross, however, was not necessarily the most common method used. Rather an X-shaped construction made of two pieces of wood crossed to form four right angles, known as a Saltire, was more widespread, as was a single upright post or tree (Latin: crux simplex or stipes) to which the condemned would be tied or nailed either facing forward or backward. Interestingly, Seneca notes that some victims were suspended “with heads inverted toward the ground”. Possibly the most famous example of this was the execution of the apostle Simon Peter (later Saint Peter), at least in the Christian tradition.

St Peter
  One of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus, and one of the first leaders of the early Christian Church, the Roman authorities sentenced Peter to death by crucifixion. Somewhat inconveniently, however, the details of his execution are not described in Scripture. Despite this, numerous writers at the time (or shortly thereafter) claim Peter was martyred for his faith in Rome sometime shortly after the Great Fire in AD 64. The same early Church tradition also claims Emperor Nero wished to blame the Christians for the disastrous fire that had destroyed large swathes of the city. Echoing Seneca observation above, in accordance with his eponymous apocryphal Acts, Peter asked to be crucified head down as he felt unworthy to die in the same manner as Jesus. Significantly, the Jewish historian Josephus informs us that, in the first century AD, Roman soldiers had delighted in nailing Jewish rebels to crosses in different humorous poses. It is likely that the author of the Acts of Peter would have known this and the position attributed to Peter's crucifixion is thus plausible, either happening historically or invented by the aforementioned author of the Acts.

Manner of execution
  The criminal, after sentence was pronounced, carried his cross to the place of execution. According to William Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities under the entry for “crux” (“cross”) both Plutarch (De Tard. Dei Vind. ἕκαστος τῶν κακούργων ἐκφέρει τὸν αὐτοῦ σταυρόν), Artemidorus (Oneir. II.61) as well as the Gospels mention this practice. Smith also notes, from Livy (XXXIII.36) and Valerius Maximus (I.7), that the Romans, as with other capital punishments, would often scourge the condemned before their crucifixion. Stripped of their clothes, the criminal was taken to the place of execution and there nailed or bound to the cross. Binding was the more painful method as it prolonged suffering leaving the condemned to die of hunger. Instances are recorded of the crucified surviving nine days. It was usual to leave the body on the cross after death. Of note, the deliberate breaking of the legs of the thieves mentioned in the Gospels was not the normal practice. That this happened was most likely to hasten death given that Jewish law expressly demanded bodies of the condemned could not remain on the cross during the Sabbath-day.

Physical evidence?
  Despite contemporary Roman authors recording thousands of victims being crucified throughout the Roman Iron Age there has been little archaeological evidence to shed light on how it was performed. In popular western consciousness, our understanding of the practice has been heavily influenced by Christian iconography and the Gospels. This should come as no surprise as the most famous example of crucifixion, certainly within Europe and its subsequent sphere of influence, is the execution of Jesus in Roman-controlled Judaea [2]. His gruesome and public death followed by his subsequent resurrection was, and remains, the foundation of Christian beliefs.

Although not the most common form of cross, as previously mentioned, that represented by the letter T - the Tau cross - had been adopted as a symbol of Early Christianity by the 2nd-century AD. The use of the more familiar Greek and Latin crosses (as pictured) with intersecting beams appear in Christian art towards the end of Late Antiquity (from the late 3rd-century to the 7th- or 8th-century in Europe). While we cannot say with any certainty which form of cross was used - remember the most common form was the Saltire or possibly Tau versions - representations of the crucifixion can be found in most Christian churches. These ubiquitous depictions nearly all show Jesus with nails driven through his feet and the palms of his hands - the stigmata of the Christian tradition. As shown above, Caravaggio’s [3] iconic depiction of the “Crucifixion of Saint Peter” of 1601, which hangs in the Cerasi Chapel of Santa Maria del Popolo in Rome, is a good example of crucifixion as portrayed in Renaissance art. Apart from the atypical upside-down attitude of Saint Peter, viewers will note that a single large nail is shown driven through each hand and each foot.

Ignoring the feet for a moment, depicting a nail pinioning each hand to a cross-beam (patibulum) derives from the description of Jesus’ wounds where the Greek word ‘χείρ’ used in the Gospel of John (20:25) has been traditionally translated as ‘hand’. Unfortunately, like so many other words with multiple meanings, χείρ could also refer to the entire forearm below the elbow. It has thus become popular to contend that the nails were inserted just above the wrist, through the soft tissue, between the two bones of the forearm (the radius and the ulna). While nails are almost always depicted in religious art, historically we know the Romans sometimes just tied victims to the cross. So, were victims tied or nailed to a gibbet, whether that was a tree, a stake or a cross? More worryingly, if the Romans crucified 1,000s of people as is so often stated, why is there such a lack of archaeological evidence?


A little piece of evidence  The small discovery of a nail, just a few millimetres long, hammered through a skeleton’s heel was hailed as both the best evidence yet of Roman crucifixion and the first example of its kind found in Britain [4]. The nail remains embedded in the right heel and ankle of a man who was aged in his mid to late thirties at the time of his death. The remains, dating to about AD 250, were found in a previously unknown settlement in the Cambridgeshire village of Fenstanton. Twelve other nails were also located about the skeleton perhaps indicative of the deceased being carried to his grave on a stretcher-like wooden board. Experts theorise that the man had been crucified since the mode of carriage would have been useful in cases where a corpse had been left to decompose on the cross (a sobering thought).


Little is known about the individual but given crucifixion was banned for citizens at the time, but not for members of the lower classes, rebels and slaves, implies the remains may be those of a slave (Ingham & Duhig, 2022, 18-29).

The case from archaeology
  There are only three other known possible examples of Roman era crucifixion from Jerusalem, Italy and Egypt respectively. Although the ancient historians Josephus and Appian refer to the crucifixion of thousands of Jews by the Romans, there is only a single archaeological discovery of a crucified body of a Jew dating back to the Roman Empire around the time of Jesus. Discovered at Giv’at ha-Mivtar in northeast Jerusalem in 1968 (Tzaferis, 1970, 18-32), the remains included a heel bone (calcaneum) with a nail driven through it as pictured. This crucial piece of evidence was accidently found in an ossuary with a man's name inscribed on it that translates as “Jehohanan, the son of Hagakol” (Haas, 1970, 38-59; Tzaferis, 1985, 44-53; Zias, 1985, 22-27). Assigning this particular name to the person’s remains can be argued is no more than an assumption that, if we are truly critical, probably cannot be independently corroborated. Yet, while it is perfectly reasonable to assume the most likely explanation is that the bones are those of “Jehohanan”, what if the bones were placed in a re-used ossuary with the previous occupant’s name still scratched into its surface? An element of doubt means we cannot be completely certain but on the balance of probability, the name inscribed on the ossuary and the remains within are most likely synonymous. “Jehohanan, the son of Hagakol” is, for now, our single known Jewish victim of crucifixion.

Returning to the archaeological evidence, Nicu Haas, an anthropologist in the Department of Anatomy at the Hebrew University Medical School in Jerusalem, was the first to examine the ossuary and Jehohanan’s remains in 1970. The initial account of the length of the nail led Haas and others to conclude:

“The feet were joined almost parallel, both transfixed by the same nail at the heels, with the legs adjacent; the knees were doubled, the right one overlapping the left; the trunk was contorted; the upper limbs were stretched out, each stabbed by a nail in the forearm.”
(Israel Exploration Journal, Vol-20, 1970)

Interestingly, ancient sources mention the sedile, a small seat attached to the front of the upright, about halfway down, which could have served to take the person's weight off the wrists. A footrest (suppedaneum) attached to the upright perhaps for a similar purpose, is sometimes included in representations of Jesus’ crucifixion but, interestingly, is not discussed in ancient sources.

Haas’ conclusions became widely accepted by the public, but several errors in his observations were later identified. In 1985, Joe Zias, curator of the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums, and Eliezer Sekeles from the Hadassah Medical Centre, re-examined the crucifixion remains. They determined the initial measurement of the nail was inaccurate being shorter than Haas had reported. Its true length, 11.5 cm (4.53 inches), would not have been long enough to pierce two heel bones and the wood. Moreover, pieces of bone had been misidentified, some bone fragments were from another individual and, significantly, there was no bone from a second heel. In other words, the nail had pierced only one heel so Jehohanan’s two heels may not have been nailed together. In the absence of the second heel, which may or may not have been pierced by a nail, one might surmise that his heels could have been nailed separately to either side of the upright post (Chapman, 2008, 86-89; Zias, 1985, 22-27; Zias, 2004). Whichever way his feet were secured, to hasten the man’s death, his legs had been broken perimortem, but remember this is atypical for a Roman crucifixion as described above.

So far in all cases, Jerusalem, Italy and Fenstanton, only one heel bone transfixed with a nail have been recovered. Based on this slender evidence it has been assumed, not unreasonably, that both heels were [probably] nailed to the wooden upright, but might this be wrong? Whether or not the victim was nailed or bound to a patibulum crossbeam, what if only one heel needed to be transfixed to secure them to the upright? With their arms pinned, it is highly unlikely that the condemned could easily free their feet, and if they did, how would that serve to save them? Indeed, it might even serve to speed their demise, something the authorities would not be keen to happen. So, while it is probably unwise to extrapolate too much from these two finds, might they indicate the Romans were content that one heel bone pierced by a single nail was sufficient guarantee of security. And while it pains the author to say it, the bureaucratic Roman army might see using one less nail as being more efficient and (here is an awful thought) a cost saving measure.

Hand or wrist?
  Further examination determined olive wood fragments were adhered to the point of the nail thus indicating that Jehohanan was probably crucified on a cross made of olive wood or more likely on an olive tree. However, as pictured olive trees do not grow nice and straight so manufacturing the archetypal cross of two intersecting straight beams becomes far more laborious and time-consuming. The tip of the nail was bent, possibly from striking a knot in the wood, which prevented it being extracted from the foot. In addition, a piece of acacia wood was found between the bones and the head of the nail. It is presumed that, where nails were used to crucify the condemned, these pieces of wood prevented the victim or their own body weight pulling the nail through the feet (or wrists).

Haas examination also identified a scratch on the inner surface of the right radius bone of the forearm, close to the wrist. He deduced from the form of the scratch, as well as from the intact wrist bones, that a nail had been driven into the forearm at that position. Along with many of Haas' findings, however, his conclusions have been challenged as it was subsequently determined by Zias and Sekeles that the scratches in the wrist area were non-traumatic and, therefore, not definitive evidence of crucifixion:

“Many non-traumatic scratches and indentations similar to these are found on ancient skeletal material. In fact, two similar non-traumatic indentations were observed on the right fibula, neither are connected with the crucifixion...Thus, the lack of traumatic injury to the forearm and metacarpals of the hand seems to suggest that the arms of the condemned were tied rather than nailed to the cross.”

The findings of Zias and Sekeles could not conclude whether in this case a horizontal patibulum crossbeam was attached to the upright stake to which the victim's heel was nailed. The evidence was so ambiguous concerning the victim’s arms that Zias and Sekeles had to rely on the data provided by contemporary writings to support their reconstruction of the position of the arms as attached to a crossbeam. Yet while contemporary Roman literary sources contain numerous descriptions of crucifixion, they say little about how the condemned were affixed to the cross. Unfortunately, as with the Fenstanton find, the direct physical evidence from Jerusalem is limited to one right heel calcaneum (heel bone) pierced by an 11.5 cm iron nail with traces of wood at both ends.



The end is nigh
  Crucifixion was intended to be a gruesome spectacle leading to a painful and humiliating death. As stated, it was originally reserved to punish slaves, pirates and enemies of the state, the latter presumably being the category in which Jesus found himself condemned. As a capital punishment crucifixion was not applicable to Roman citizens until it was later extended to those of the lower classes (humiliores) [5].

The length of time it might take for a victim to die could range from hours to days depending on their health, the prevailing environment and which method of crucifixion was used. In 1950, Pierre Barbet theorised that, when the whole body weight was supported by the stretched arms, the typical cause of death was asphyxiation. The victim’s weight would cause hyper-expansion of the chest muscles and lungs making it difficult to breath. The only way to alleviate this would be for the victim to draw himself up by the arms to relieve the pressure, possible aided by his feet being supported by tying or resting on a wood block (suppedaneum). Regardless, the effort needed would quickly lead to exhaustion only for the body to sag once more. Over time the two sets of muscles used for breathing, the intercostal muscles and the diaphragm, would become progressively weakened. This cycle might continue until the victim is no longer able to lift himself leading to death within a few minutes. While Babet’s theory has been supported by several scholars (Habermas, Kopel & Shaw, 2021, 748–52), the medical consensus is that asphyxia is unlikely to be the primary cause of death by crucifixion (McGovern, Kaminskas & Fernandes, 2023, 64–79).

Several other possible causes of death (Maslen & Piers, 2006, 185–188) have been mooted. These include heart failure or arrhythmia (an abnormal heart rhythm) (Edwards, Gabel & Hosmer, 1986, 1455–1463; Davis, 1962, 182), hypovolemic shock caused by the loss of too much blood or fluid (Zugibe, 2005), acidosis leading to excess acid in the body fluids (Wijffels, 2000, 52 (3)), dehydration (Retief & Cilliers, 2003, 938–941), and pulmonary embolism, a blocking of an artery in the lungs (Brenner, 2005, 1–2). Any one of these factors or a combination of them, or indeed many other causes will most likely result in death.

Conclusion
  In reconstructing any crucifixion reliance has to be placed on the limited skeletal evidence together with the observations made by Haas, Barbet et al. and the ancient historical sources. Despite that the most common of crucifixions used either a simple stake (stipes) or a tree, modern reconstructions usually include a crossbeam (patibulum). According to the ancient sources, the condemned man never carried the complete cross, as is commonly believed. Rather, only the crossbeam was carried, while the upright was set in a permanent place where it was used for subsequent executions. Usefully therefore the same crossbeam could be used repeatedly for attachment to an upright stake permanently fixed in the ground. Moreover, Josephus tells us that during the first century AD, wood was so scarce in Jerusalem that the Romans were forced to travel ten miles from the city to secure timber for their siege machinery. If wood was so scarce, it makes sense, at the very least economically, for the crossbeam and upright to be used repeatedly.
Literary and artistic evidence seems to suggest that the arms of the condemned were tied with ropes rather than nailed to the cross. Even so, it must be borne in mind that death by crucifixion resulted from the manner in which the condemned person hung from the cross and not any traumatic injury caused by nailing. Hanging from the cross resulted in a painful process of asphyxiation until the condemned person expired, unable to continue breathing properly.


References:

Arkeonews, (2021), ‘First example of Roman crucifixion in UK discovered in Cambridgeshire village’, available online (accessed July 13th, 2022).

Brenner, B., (2005), ‘Did Jesus Christ die of pulmonary embolism?’, J Thromb Haemost, 3 (9), pp. 1–2.

Chapman, D.W. (2008), ‘Ancient Jewish and Christian perceptions of crucifixion’, Baker Academic.

Davis, CT (1962). "The Crucifixion of Jesus. The Passion of Christ From a Medical Point of View". Arizona Medicine. 22: 182.

Edwards, W.D., Gabel, W.J. & Hosmer, F.E., (1986), ‘On the physical cause of death of Jesus Christ’, Journal of the American Medical Association, 255 (11), pp. 1455–1463.

Habermas, G., Kopel, J., & Shaw, B.C.F., (2021), ‘Medical views on the death by crucifixion of Jesus Christ’, Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, 34 (6), pp. 748–52.

Granger Cook, J., (2014), “Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World”, Mohr Siebeck.

Gualdi-Russo, E., Thun Hohenstein, U., Onisto, N. et al., (2019), ‘A multidisciplinary study of calcaneal trauma in Roman Italy: a possible case of crucifixion?’, Archaeol Anthropol Sci 11, 1783–1791, available online (accessed July 13th, 2022).

Haas, N., (1970), ‘Anthropological observations on the skeletal remains from Giv'at ha-Mivtar’, Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1/2, pp. 38-59, available online (accessed June 23rd, 2023).

Ingham D., Duhig C., (2022), ‘Crucifixion in the Fens: life & death in Roman Fenstanton’. British Archaeology, January-February 2022, available online (accessed July 13th, 2022).

Maslen, M. & Piers D.M., (2006), ‘Medical theories on the cause of death in crucifixion’, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99 (4), pp. 185–188.

McGovern, T.W., Kaminskas, D.A. & Fernandes, E.S., (2023), ‘Did Jesus Die by Suffocation? An Appraisal of the Evidence’, Linacre Quarterly, 90 (1), pp. 64–79.

Retief, F.P. & Cilliers, L., (2003), ‘The history and pathology of crucifixion’, South African Medical Journal, 93 (12), pp. 938–941.

Smith W., D.C.L., LL.D., (1875), A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, “Crux”, London: John Murray, available online at “LacusCurtius” (accessed April 15th, 2024).

Tzaferis, V., (1970), ‘Jewish Tombs at and near Giv'at ha-Mivtar’, Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1/2, pp. 18-32, available online (accessed June 23rd, 2023).

Tzaferis, V., (1985), ‘Crucifixion - The Archaeological Evidence’, Biblical Archaeology Review 11, Available online (accessed June 23rd, 2023).
Wijffels, F., (2000), ‘Death on the cross: did the Turin Shroud once envelop a crucified body?’, Br Soc Turin Shroud Newsletter, 52 (3).

Zias, J. and Sekeles, E., (1985), ‘The Crucified Man from Giv'at Ha-Mivtar: A Reappraisal’, Israel Exploration Journal 35 (1), pp. 22-27, Available online (accessed June 23rd, 2023).

Zias, J., (2004), ‘Crucifixion in Antiquity - The Anthropological Evidence’, COJS.org, Available online (accessed July 13th, 2022).

Zugibe, F.T., (2005), ‘The Crucifixion Of Jesus: A Forensic Inquiry’, New York: M. Evans and Company.

Endnotes:

1. Lucius Annaeus Seneca [the Younger] (c. 4 BC – AD 65) was a Stoic philosopher of ancient Rome, a statesman, dramatist, and in one work, satirist, from the post-Augustan age of Latin literature.

2. The crucifixion of Jesus occurred in 1st century Judaea, most likely in AD 30 or AD 33. It is described in the four canonical gospels, referred to in the New Testament epistles, and is attested to by other ancient sources. Consequently, it is considered an established historical event, although there is no consensus among historians on the details.

3. Michelangelo Merisi (or Amerighi) da Caravaggio (more popularly known simply as Caravaggio) was born on September 29th, 1571 in Milan, Italy. He died aged 38 on July 18th, 1610 in Porto Ercole in Tuscany, Italy.

4. BBC History Magazine (February 2022), ‘History in the News: Evidence of Roman crucifixion found in UK’, p. 8.

5. The most common punishment for a Roman citizen was a fine (damnum). Thieves would have to pay compensation many times higher than the value of the stolen item(s) and would be deemed infamous (ignominia). Citizens might deny lawbreakers access to fire and water, and anyone legally banished from Roman society (exilium) forfeited all their privileges and property. While citizens could be condemned to a life of slavery (servitus), Roman law determined the death penalty only applied if they had committed treason or patricide. Roman citizens were thus very rarely sentenced to death, and in all instances a citizen could not be crucified. Wealthier persons and the Roman elite guilty of capital crimes were most likely to be executed by the sword, either self-inflicted (suicide) or beheaded by an executioner.

6. Sepsis, sometimes called septicaemia or blood poisoning, is a life-threatening overreaction by the immune system to an infection that starts to damage your body's own tissues and organs. You cannot catch sepsis from another person.

Wednesday, March 20, 2024

A Brief History of Food: Fish ‘n’ Chips


Recently the BBC broadcast an episode of “Rick Stein’s Food Stories” that stated the origin of fish and chips lay with the Portuguese who first fried fish in the 15th-century. While the fried fish claim might have a historical basis, as we will see, the connection with chips is more problematic as potatoes did not appear in Britain until the late 16th-century or early 17th-century. So, was Mr Stein correct? We set out to find out and it seems that, while now a quintessential part of British life, the origin story of fish ‘n’ chips is not entirely clear. We begin our story with exploring who introduced the idea of frying fish to Britain and when.

A fishy tale  “Pescado frito” (literally “fried fish” in Spanish) is a traditional dish from the Southern coast of Spain, typically found in Andalusia, but also in Catalonia, Valencia, the Canary Islands and the Balearic Islands. It is made by coating the fish (usually a white fish) in flour and deep-frying in olive oil. Seasoned only with salt, pescado frito is usually served hot, freshly fried, to be eaten as an appetizer or as the main course. The deep-frying of the fish in olive or vegetable oil makes it crisp and light even when eaten cold. It became a traditional Shabbat fish dish eaten by 16th-century Andalusian Jews in Spain and Portugal as a late breakfast or lunch after synagogue services on Saturday morning. Although there is little in the way of proof, it is thought that this Jewish fish dish was the inspiration for what would become fish and chips. The argument runs that pescado frito was brought to England by Jewish migrants from the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal). Named for where they came from, Sephardim or Sephardic Jews began to settle in England in small numbers in the mid 17th-century.

The Jewish communities in Spain and Portugal had prospered for centuries under the Muslim reign of Al-Andalus in the aftermath of the Umayyad conquest of Hispania. Their fortunes began to decline, however, with the Christian campaign of Reconquista to seize back control of Spain from the Muslims. In 1492, the Alhambra Decree by the Catholic Monarchs of Spain called for the expulsion of Jews, and in 1496, King Manuel I of Portugal issued a similar edict for the expulsion of both Jews and Muslims. These decrees led to a combination of internal and external migrations, mass conversions, and also executions. By the late 15th-century, Sephardic Jews had been largely expelled from Spain and scattered across North Africa, Western Asia, Southern and Southeastern Europe, either settling near existing Jewish communities or as the first in new frontiers, such as along the Silk Road. Their widescale expulsion from the Iberian Peninsula was certainly not the first time Jews had experienced such persecution, however.

On July 18th, 1290 - a date chosen for its significance as a Jewish holy day – King Edward I issued “The Edict of Expulsion”, a royal decree expelling all Jews from England, the first time a European state is known to have permanently banned their presence. The expulsion edict remained in force for the rest of the Middle Ages. Yet, in the wake of the Spanish Inquisition, from the beginning of the 16th-century some Jews began to return to England. Those who did had to conceal their religion for fear of reprisal, but they seemingly did not have to do so with much vigour. In a case of “turning a blind eye” many of the Jews in England, although well known as such, were largely ignored. Many of these “hidden Jews” made names for themselves while in England.

The Edict of Expulsion of 1290 was eventually overturned more than 365 years later in the 17th-century. During Oliver Cromwell’s Protectorate, in 1656, Jews were informally permitted to resettle in England from the Netherlands. If these Sephardic Jewish immigrants continued to prepare fried fish in their traditional manner, then it is possible that the practice caught the imagination of the English and led to one half of today’s meal of fish and chips. A valuable connection to the Jewish immigrant origin story is corroborated in Alexis Soyer’s 1845 cookbook “A Shilling Cookery for the People”. In his first edition Soyer records the following recipe:

“75. Fried Fish, Jewish Fashion.

This is another excellent way of frying fish, which is constantly is use by the children of Israel, and I cannot recommend it too highly; so much so, that various kinds of fish which many people despise, are excellent cooked by this process; in eating them many persons are deceived, and would suppose them to be the most expensive of fish. The process is at once simple, effective, and economical; not that I would recommend it for invalids, as the process imbibes some of the fat, which, however palatable, would not do for the dyspeptic or invalid.

76. Proceed thus: - Cut one or two pounds of halibut in one piece, lay it in a dish, cover the top with a little salt, put some water in the dish, but not to cover the fish; let it remain thus for one hour. The water being below, causes the salt to penetrate into the fish. Take it out and dry it; cut out the bone, and the fins off; it is then in two pieces. Lay the pieces on the side, and divide them into slices half an inch thick; put into a frying pan, with a quarter of a pound of fat, lard, or dripping (the Jews use oil); then put two ounces of flour into a soup-plate, or basin, which mix with water, to form a smooth batter, not too thick. Dip the fish in it, that the pieces are well covered; then have the fat, not too hot, put the pieces in it, and fry till a nice colour, turning them over. When done, take it out with a slice, let it drain, dish up, and serve. Any kind of sauce that is liked may be used with it; but plain, with a little salt and lemon, is excellent. This fish is often only threepence to fourpence per pound; it containing but little bone renders it very economical. It is excellent cold, and can be eaten with oil, vinegar, and cucumbers, in summer time, and is exceedingly cooling. An egg is an improvement in the batter.

The same fish as before mentioned as fit for frying, may be fried in this manner. Eels are excellent done so; the batter absorbs the oil which is in them.

Flounders may also be done in this way. A little salt should be sprinkled over before serving.

77. In some Jewish families all this kind of fish is fried in oil, and dipped in batter, as described above. In some families they dip the fish first in flour, and then in egg, and fry in oil. This plan is superior to that fried in fat or dripping, but more expensive.”

(Hughes, 2022)

From Soyer we can firmly establish that the frying of fish was well known in Britain by the middle of the 19th-century. The first element of the classic fish ‘n’ chips meal is resolved, but what of the chips themselves and who, when and where were the two combined?

The humble potato  According to “The Cambridge World History of Food” (Messer, 2000, 187-201) it was Spanish explorers in the 16th-century who first encountered the potato as they explored what would become the countries of Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, and Ecuador. While comparing the unfamiliar tubers to truffles, the Spanish apparently adopted the Quechua name “papa” for this new (to them) discovery. Returning from the Andes laden with silver destined for the Spanish government, it is thought that sailors also carried with them maize and potatoes as food for the journey home. It is speculated, therefore, that the first potato specimens probably reached Spain around AD 1570. It is further reasoned that leftover tubers (and maize) were taken ashore, planted and cultivated. From then on, the potato spread via herbalists and farmers to Italy, the Low Countries, and England. Uniquely for England there was likely a second introduction of the tuber sometime in the subsequent twenty years. Nonetheless, despite folklore crediting Sir Francis Drake with introducing the potato to Britain, this could not have been the case. During his round-the-world voyage between 1577 and 1580, Drake recorded his first encounter with potatoes off the Chilean coast in 1578. It would take him a further two years to return home, so it is highly unlikely that the tubers would have survived such a long period at sea.

The potato first spread across Europe for non-food purposes. Being a member of the nightshade family, the potato was regarded with suspicion and fear so, at first, it was mostly used as livestock fodder or to feed the starving. This was confirmed in 1601 when botanist Carolus Clusius reported that potatoes were in common use in northern Italy for animal fodder and for human consumption. The tuber’s widescale cultivation remained stymied across much of Northern Europe by agricultural practices that favoured the customary growing of grain in open fields and the grazing of animals on fallow land. Potatoes were thus confined to small garden plots and excluded from large-scale cultivation, until the early 1770s. The colder years of the Little Ice Age in late 18th-century Europe caused many traditional crops to fail resulting in famines in several countries. At those times and places when and where most other crops had failed, potatoes could still be relied upon to contribute adequately to food supplies. Consequently, the humble potato eventually became widely accepted as a cheap, reliable foodstuff.

Ireland in the early 17th-century was probably the first country in Europe to cultivate potatoes on a widescale. When, by the 18th-century, the Irish population exploded, its people subsisted almost entirely on the crop. The potato had spread to England soon after it reached Ireland. On top of imports from the latter, potatoes were widely cultivated in Lancashire and around London to become a staple foodstuff by the 18th-century. By 1715 the potato was widely grown in the Low Countries, the Rhineland, Southwestern Germany, and Eastern France, and by the mid 18th-century had also been firmly established in the Kingdom of Prussia in northern and eastern Germany. Northern and western France took longer than eastern France, but there too it became common later that same century. From humble beginnings the potato rose to power the industrial revolution in 19th-century Europe, cementing its dominance into the 20th-century as a versatile food used in so many different dishes. All of which leads us neatly to consider chips.

Chips  Ignoring the ongoing dispute between France and Belgium as to who invented “fries”, fried potatoes have long been popular in England. The earliest known recipe for something resembling today's chips appears in William Kitchiner's cookbook “The Cook's Oracle” published in 1817. Amongst a raft of recipes for potatoes, No. 104 probably best describes the cooking of “chips”:

“Peel large Potatoes, slice them about a quarter of an inch thick, or cut them in shavings round and round as you would peel a lemon; dry them well in a clean cloth, and fry them in lard or dripping. Take care that your fat and frying-pan are quite clean; put it on a quick fire, watch it, and as soon as the lard boils, and is still, put in the slices of potatoes, and keep moving them till they are crisp; take them up and lay them to drain on a sieve; send them up with a very little salt sprinkled over them.”

By the second half of the 19th-century deep-fried chips (slices or pieces of potato) may have first appeared in England as a recognizable dish. The Oxford English Dictionary notes as its earliest usage of “chips” in this sense the mention in Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities (1859) of “husky chips of potato, fried with some reluctant drops of oil”. Dickens had earlier also mentioned a “fried fish warehouse” in Oliver Twist first published in 1838.

Apparently chips first became popular in Lancashire and Yorkshire, but we may never know who was the first to combine them with the fried fish first introduced and sold by Jews in London’s East End. By the 1860s, however, the first combined fish-and-chip shops had appeared. The earliest known were opened in Bow, East London by Jewish immigrant Joseph Malin circa 1860 and, at about the same time, by John Lees in Mossley, Lancashire (1863). 

Quite quickly fish and chips became a relatively cheap, staple meal among the working classes in England. Apart from their affordability, this popularity was fuelled by the rapid development of trawl fishing in the North Sea and the expansion of the railways during the second half of the 19th-century meaning fresh fish could be rapidly transported from the ports to the heavily populated areas and major industrial cities. By 1910 there were over 25,000 fish-and-chip shops across the UK, rising over the next two decades to over 35,000 shops. Since then, numbers have steadily declined until, according to the National Federation of Fish Friers, there are currently in the region of 10,500 specialist fish-and-chip shops in the UK. One amazing survivor is the Rock & Sole Plaice in Covent Garden, which started trading in 1871 and is London's oldest fish-and-chip shop (or “chippy”) still in operation.

Chippies  The earliest chippies used only very basic facilities, usually a large cauldron of cooking fat, heated by a coal fire. Over time the modern fish-and-chip shop settled on a common layout where the food is still served to queuing customers over a counter in front of the fryers. Until the late 20th-century British fish and chips were often served wrapped in old newspapers, or with an inner layer of white paper (for hygiene) and an outer layer of newspaper or blank newsprint for insulation and to absorb grease. The practice of using old newspaper as a cost-saving exercise survived as late as the 1980s when it was ruled unsafe for food to come into contact with newspaper ink without a hygiene boundary layer of grease-proof paper. Newspaper has given way to fish and chips being wrapping in plain paper or served in recyclable cardboard or other biodegradable cartons.

Cooking  Beef dripping or lard were traditionally used for frying imparting a different flavour compared to vegetable oils which now dominate. Frying in lard can still be experienced in some living industrial history museums, such as the Black Country Living Museum or Blists Hill Victorian Town. Most fish-and-chip shops use vegetable oils, such as palm oil, rapeseed or peanut oil, as these make fried chips suitable for vegetarians and for adherents of certain faiths.

In Britain and Ireland, cod and haddock are most commonly used for fish and chips, but it is not unusual for vendors to offer many other kinds of fish, especially other white fish, such as pollock, hake or coley, plaice, skate, ray, and huss or rock salmon (a term covering several species of dogfish and similar fish). Legislation introduced in 2003, however, requires fish must be sold with the particular commercial name or species named. This means in today’s chippies customers are more likely to be offered “haddock and chips” or “cod and chips” rather than the more vague “fish and chips”.

The fish is routinely filleted, so no bones should be found, before being coated and fried in a simple water and flour batter. To create a lighter, crispier batter, a little sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) and vinegar is often added to produce bubbles in the batter. The water can also be substituted for milk or beer. Carbon dioxide in the latter gives a lighter texture to the batter, adds flavour and produces a more orange-brown colour. 

And finally…  So, although the origin of the classic dish of the British Isles, fish and chips, is far from clear-cut. It is believed that the fried fish component was introduced by Sephardic Jewish immigrants to England who arrived in the late 1400s and early 1500s. Their tradition of eating battered fried fish as a Sabbath meal found favour as a popular street food first in London. As for chips, our earliest evidence dates to 1817 within the pages of William Kitchiner's cookbook “The Cook's Oracle”. In the UK, chips are not “French fries”, the former being more thickly cut than the latter. As to which came first, it remains the case of discovering the earliest dateable reference to the frying of potatoes. Once again, this origin story is far from certain. Regardless, the combination of fish and chips has long been considered a working-class food; its rise in popularity coinciding with the apogee of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-1800s. Over the intervening decades the dish has remained a firm favourite enjoyed by millions every year. Bon appétit!


References:

Dickens, C. (1859), “A Tale of Two Cities, Chapter V: The Wine Shop”, Project Gutenberg, available online (accessed March 13th, 2024).

Hughes, G., (2022), “A Shilling Cookery for The People, 1845”, available online (accessed March 13th, 2024).

Kitchiner, W., (1817), “The Cook's Oracle, Vegetables: Sixteen ways of Dressing Potatoes”, pp. 167 – 172, available online (accessed March 15th, 2024).

Messer E. (2000), “Potatoes (White)”, in Kiple K.F. & Ornelas K.C., (eds.), “The Cambridge World History of Food”, Cambridge University Press, pp. 187-201.

Royal Museums Greenwich website, “The history of fish and chips”, available online (accessed March 10th, 2024).

Zaino, C., (2013), “Chipping away at the history of fish and chips”, BBC Travel website, available online (accessed March 15th, 2024).