I will admit I love to read. It is a love that started when I learned English as a second language at 7 years old. I used reading as practice to master a language that even for the sponge mind of a 7-year-old was confusing to learn. When it comes to reading, I’m pretty much game for any genre if the story is well told. But I am a sucker for historical fiction, especially those before the year 1800. I like to dive into the world the author has so skillfully imagined. Walking that fine line between fact and fiction — a product of research and their imagination. These novels take us into a world both known and completely alien to our modern society. I am drawn to these novels because it teaches me about history but not in the obvious way. Often, I read something on a page, and I wonder if that is true to the age or a figment of the author’s imagination. And there the quest begins.
This quest begins whilst reading a time travelling historical novel in which the two protagonists find themselves in 16th century England. The protagonists from the 21st century are trying to eat a well balance diet to avoid illness, i.e., eating vegetables. After all, who wants to get sick in a time without modern medicine where bloodletting was a common remedy. These protagonists were trying to recall what would be available to ask for without drawing attention to themselves. And that got me wondering what vegetables we associate with a cuisine but are not at all native to the region. An import that became a staple to a society, like tomatoes for Italian cuisine. Italy with its long history of cuisine — well over a millennium — that never included the tomato. Yet so many of us relate Italian cuisine with tomatoes which was an import from the new world. So, my first question — what vegetables were available in 16th century England?
I was happy to discover one of my favorite vegetables — spinach — was available during this time. So, I would be content, in the food department at least. It seems that the most common vegetables during this time included other greens such as cabbage and lettuce. Bulb plants such as leeks and onions also made the list. But most common were root vegetables such as turnips, parsnips, skirret, and carrots. And that sounded right on its surface because when I think of pre-colonialist English cuisine I think, among other things, of dishes with root vegetables such as pottage or an assortment of savory pies. When reading up on this topic two things caught my attention, sparking a secondary tier of questions. One, what in the world is skirret? Two, carrots weren’t orange?
So, what is skirret? As it turns out, it is a sweet root vegetable with similar texture to a potato. A flowering perennial plant, with its tiny white flower clusters, would have been a pretty addition to any garden. But underneath was a large cluster of roots that could be plucked out or partially cut and then replanted. A continued source of nutrition for the everyday folk who relied mostly on their gardens for sustenance. They could apparently be eaten raw much like carrots and cooked quickly by boiling or roasting. But as the new world imports became popular, they replaced old staples. In this case the increase popularity of the potato, a crop from the new world, led to the decrease of the use of skirret.
Now let’s discuss what I found most surprising. The carrot. A vegetable whose addition to most dishes is so ubiquitous in modern cuisine that it’s almost unconscious. How often do you see carrots on a plate and not think twice about it? But imagine a time that a carrot was considered either a novelty or cattle feed. What’s more, imagine them not orange. In recent years I had seen the rainbow carrot packages in the organic stores and co-ops. But I had assumed erroneously that these were new varietals. A way to entertain our modern aesthetics and get us to eat more veggies by making a more colorful plate. Little did I realize that these varietals are closer to what the carrot was commonly found as, instead of orange. The carrot has a long history in Eurasian cuisine, and could be found in white, yellow, red, purple, and black. The modern orange carrot however is not that old in the history of the root vegetable. Rather, it is a result of selective breeding mostly attributed to Dutch farmers in the 16th and 17th century, although their existence can be found prior to this time period in other regions. This selective breeding came into favor for two reasons. It gave the carrot a sweeter taste and they seemed to thrive in the Dutch soils compared to other varietals.
What the rise in popularity of the orange carrot shows us, is how trade and politics can irrevocably transform societies and after generations the history is lost. So why would a varietal grown by the Dutch — a relatively small country — change the face of a vegetable? Simple, economics. During the 16th century the Dutch were an agricultural powerhouse that exported its crops to other parts of Europe. And since the orange varietal thrived, that is what made it to the markets in other parts of Europe. Additionally, the 16th century was a time of political turmoil in the Netherlands. It was a time when the Dutch were part of the Spanish empire and Dutch rebellions were on the rise. It was a time when the House of Orange cemented itself as the royal house and ultimately resulted in an independent Dutch state. It was during this time of instability that Dutch emigration was common, and southern England was a benefactor of it. As these migrants brought with them their garden crops, they influenced the vegetables found in their communities and ultimately English cuisine.
What’s more fascinating in both accounts is the realization of how worldly society was nearly five hundred years ago. When we compare our modern world with historic times we tend to think of these isolated communities. People who lived the entirety of their lives within close proximity to where they were born. How often do we think how fortunate we are to live in modern times because of everything we have access to? That is still true because we now have access to produce all year round regardless of season. But are we wrong in this assumption that we lived so isolated until the age of globalization at the turn of the 20th century? Consider these two vegetables again. The skirret has its origins in Asia and its migration into the British Isles is attributed to the Romans. The Romans whose empire spanned from the British Isles through much of central and southern Europe into the Middle East and northern Africa. It is close minded to think that an empire so large wasn’t a catalyst for global exchange of goods and ideas. Known for their road building to allow easy movement of Roman troops, these very roads became throughfares for exchange almost two millennia ago.
The rise in popularity in the orange carrot and the decline of the skirret shows us how global trade was firmly rooted nearly five hundred years ago. Now I am fascinated to think of a time so long removed from our modern one with so much similarity. Global influence, migrants, and cosmopolitan cities. Dynamic intersections of culture, goods, ideas and peoples. Is that really any different from today?
Sense of Wonder 