Tastes of the Mediterranean

[Daniel Rogov]

I have also posted the following on the Middle Eastern and African section of egullet but because it relates to discussions currently in progress here and may have a wide interest, am taking the liberty of posting it here as well.

Mishkenoat Sha'ananim, the organizer of the Tastes of the Mediterranean conference that took place several months ago has now posted the proceedings of the entire conference.

The taped procedings, including each of the talks given can be viewed at http://web11.mediazone.co.il/media/mishkenot/150605/ Most of the talks are English but others are in Hebrew, Italian and French. Simply scroll down to find those that are of interest to you. (My own talk is there of course and I welcome feedback/questions or objections).

Also posted are the recipes that were demonstrated by various chefs and those and still photos of the conference are found at http://www.mishkenot.org.il/programs.php?id=74&

I think these talks will sum up far better than could I the nature and ambiance of the conference.

[Almass]

I had a quick look/see at the link you so kindly provided and although I could not possibly view all the clips and pics but here is my 2ct.

1- I am a bit disappointed with the presentation level of the dishes pictures? I assume they taste the part but I still think that we have a very long way to go on single dish on a plate presentation where such food is concerned. Pictures of the cooked recipes seem to be OK but falls down when served on a plate.

2- As for the clips which I viewed. Your participation was quite entertaining and I liked your angle of eating for pleasure and I agree with you that the food pyramid thingy is a load of bull. By and large, I agree with what you outlined.

However I would like to raise two separate issues:

A- You state that you recognise three cuisines in the world which are French - Italian and Chinese.

I would narrow it down to only two: French and Chinese.

Could you dwelve a little more as to why you think Italian is a cuisine which put it's mark next to French and Chinese. I went back to the Medicis and I still cant see how they fare up to the French and Chinese raffinement.

B- When you talk about a "cuisine" are you strictly embracing the cooking part or englobing the eating part as well?

What I am trying to say is whether it is not true that what makes French cuisine is not only the recipes and the preparation/presentation part of it but the whole ceremonium of the family sitting down with a properly set dinning table with all the ensuing echelons of proper seating, the clean hands and clothes, the benediction (don't laugh), the wine, the hors d'oeuvres and entree, plats principales, dessert et pousse cafee.

Is it not the whole ceremonium which is embeded in the children as to how to enjoy and respect the pleasures of the table which was later translated to the fine restaurant decorum?

It still ring in my ears "de ne pas garder les coudes a table et de fermer la bouche en mangeant et ne pas parler la bouche pleine". Is it not all the addition of such small details which make the French cuisine what it is and not only the mere recipe?

Is it not le savoir vivre et les plaisires de la table and the delectable food which makes you call a "cuisine" a "cuisine" and not a "kitchen"?

I will always remember a famous Advertising commercial aired on TV for Christofle which shows some elaborate Chinese Mandarins sitting in front of foreign dishes with Christofle cutlery and turning the knifes and forks upside down to use them as chopsticks to eat the food!!>!?!??!

Edited August 2, 2005 by Almass (log)

[Daniel Rogov]

Almass, Hello...

On the development of distinct cuisines I am very much in agreement with historian Reay Tannahill who points out that the development of a true and/or unique cuisine depends only in part on geography, geology and climate. Factor into this the reliance crops that demand heavy rains or arid conditions, and yet others that require long, hot summers. To this add now questions of whether fuel is plentiful or scarce.

And those determine only which raw materials will be available to the cook and perhaps how they might be cooked. To go a bit further we have to distinguish between the existing state of technology of various societies, how people perceive food within those societies, and the impact on the local table of conquerors, religious beliefs and taboos. Knowing that many refuse to eat the foods of those they consider their "enemies", we also have to ask just whom a given people or set of peoples love, whom they fear and whom they out-and-out despise.

More than this, because the development can be fickle and because cuisines cannot develop in a vacuum, in asking whether a specific culture has its own distinct cuisine one must then also be aware that even when one locates an area that boasts a unique history, geography, demography and sociology there is still no guarantee that a unique cuisine will develop. Going a step further, cuisines never develop quickly. I would estimate that at least 1,500 years are required.

As to why I include Italy in my trio of "true cuisines", let it be clearly understood that I am not going at all to the Medicis. I may (and I am aware of the arguments about this) credit the Medicis for their role in elevating what was a well developed but not yet unique French kitchen into a full cuisine. When it comes to Italy itself however, I go to the days of ancient Rome, for it was during those perhaps glorious, perhaps horrific (always depending on one's point of view) that Romans expanded not only their list in ingredients by conquering so much of the world but their repertoire of cooking methods and flavors. I agree with Careme's comment to the effect "Roman cooking was sumptuous, magnificent but fundamentally barbarous". It was, however, even then, the birthing ground for a true cuisine.

To respond to another of your questions – I consider the dining habits of a people part of their culture and even perhaps part of their raison d'etre, but not part of the cuisine. When I speak of cuisine I relate entirely to food and drink and its preparation from the time it appears in seed form until it is placed on the table. After that all is a matter of good taste or bad taste. Unlike the tree that falls in the forest and has no-one to hear it, thus producing no sound, a cuisine exists even if there is no-one present in the world but those who create it. It may sound outrageous, but defining a cuisine is not dependent on having an appreciate audience.

I am well aware by the way that much of what I say above is controversial. Fair enough, for we are not dealing here with fact. …Only with hypotheses. And if one's hypotheses cannot be outrageous, what in the world can?

[Swisskaese]

Why wouldn't Ottoman cusine be included?

[Daniel Rogov]

Why wouldn't Ottoman cusine be included?

←

Michelle, Hi...

There is no question but that the culinary arts of Turkey were raised to a high point during the heyday of the Ottoman sultans (1453-1650) and that dining was elevated into an art form, especially by those near to the inner sanctum of the palace. Going a step further, it is even evident that many dishes considered new at that time were introduced by the sometimes armies of chefs and assistants that inhabited the halls of the huge kitchens of the palaces.

All of which, however, came together to create not a unique cuisine but merely (and merely in this case not a derogatory term but merely a descriptor) a more sophisticated kitchen than was found earlier. Referring to what I hypothesized and implied earlier, a true cuisine demands unique cooking methods, relies on the existence of at least some unique ingredients, and more than anything requires the development of a repertoire of dishes and culinary styles that are more than passing moments in history. It is undeniably true that due to the influence of the sultans and their armies in other countries (often in the form of conquests) that Turkish cooking methods and ingredients impacted enormously on the kitchens of the Balkans, Eastern Europe in general, the Middle-East and portions of North Africa but even as early as the 18th century those had become so diffused and changed within individual regions that any Ottoman originality had been lost.

One can find a few restaurants in Turkey today (those concentrated in Istanbul and Izmir) that feature something called "Ottoman Cuisine". I have dined in some of those places. What remains of the Ottoman Empire in these places is décor and style but if one measures carefully, the Ottoman culinary influence is one that has become an diffuse kind of Turkish-French-Italian-Middle Eastern blend.

On the other hand, do be aware that I value the Turkish kitchen highly, much as I do the kitchens of (e.g.) Iraq, Morocco and the Georgian Republic. Note, however, that I say "kitchens"…..not "cuisine"

[Adam Balic]

Interesting discussion. What do you think defines Italian cuisine? To me Italian food is regionality and diversity, so I have difficulty seen the wood for the trees.

[Behemoth]

I am out of my league here but I've always been curious about this. I have yet to hear an unambiguous definition of what sets "cuisine" apart from mere "kitchen". The closest I have come to a satisfying answer is that it defines a way of cooking that has been codified formally, in writing, at a certain point in time by an upper class male. Which is fair enough. French and Chinese cuisine cerainly share this trait.

But if that is the working definition, does Italian cookery still count? Is there an Italian Escoffier? And if there isn't, then surely Moroccan cuisine should have as much claim to the label "cuisine" as Italian does. Or is it one of those things where "I can't define it exaclty, but know it when I see it"?

Daniel, I must say your accent threw me for a loop. Are you originally from NY?

Anyway, it was neat seeing Claudia Roden "in person". Thanks for posting this.

[Daniel Rogov]

What do you think defines Italian cuisine? To me Italian food is regionality and diversity, so I have difficulty seen the wood for the trees.

←

Adam, Hi....

We are in agreement in that one of the great charms of Italian cuisine is the culinary diversity between various regions within Italy, the love of polenta in some areas, of rice in others of pasta in still others among the most obvious of examples. Despite this diversity there are certain binding elements between each of these sub-styles – those tracing back at least to the time of Rome and the use and even sophisticated use even then of grains, olive oil, olives, fresh fruits, vegetables and poultry that throughout Italy have always been readily accessible to most who could buy in local markets. And to those in the country of raising their own basics. Even in Roman times street-side stands both in cities and towns offered a wide variety of fare that existed throughout the empire – sausages, pastries and olives that were within the range of even the poor.

Italian cuisine both unified and diversified by regions from let's say the 5th century BC until the 8th century AD. At that time the impact of Moslem Arabs brought a great many new foodstuff to Italy (e.g. rice, oranges, figs, spinach). What then solidified Italian cuisine even more was the way in which those were adapted to the local habits… and more than that, not only adapted but formalized and expanded upon. Going a step further, pasta is merely one aspect of Italian cuisine but what is truly common to all of Italian cuisine is the remarkable repertoire of sauces that developed. Some culinary historians feel that the development of sauces took on accelerated significance to Italian cuisine after the introduction from the New World of the tomato. There is truth to that but there is also a fallacy for what was critical to the integrity of the local cuisine was the manner in which tomatoes were used.

As to the overall issue of diversity – all true cuisines hold quite enough potency that they almost must diversify. What binds as a cuisine however is a commonality that runs through not specific dishes but an overall attitude towards and preparation of many different dishes, no matter how diversified those might be. And, of course, durability. The same sausages, pastries and olives that were served to Roman legionnaires and in the market of Ancient Rome are the same sausages, pastries and olives that are offered today. And will be in five hundred years…..

[Adam Balic]

Interesting arguement. I guess the same principle could be applied to the Middle East and North Africa, substituting the Persians for the Romans. After all this region quite possible the greatest number of surviving historic culinary texts of any region, which show direct evidence of continuity.

[Daniel Rogov]

Nadia, Hello...

You ask several questions, thus, several answers.

As to what comprises a "cuisine" and what a "kitchen"… A cuisine is codified not necessarily by one person but by a collection of people and over time and that code has something akin to human cognition, that is to say in maintaining its integrity but developing over time and going through various and often hierarchical stages. More than that, within the country involved, that code is accepted, either with full awareness or simply by habit by the vast majority of the people.

A "kitchen" on the other hand is more local, tends to shift its values over time for convenience sake and for whims rather than historical and has far less impact on the populace and their neighbors. A kitchen also depends on a far larger number of interpretations, this in a way preventing its true codification.

In another way, a cuisine represents at least in part a philosophy of food while a kitchen presents primarily a series of dishes, some related others not. In a sense then, as there is an Italian cuisine there are the kitchens of Veneto, Puglia, Sicilia, Tuscany, Liguria, etc…… And, as there is a unifying code for French cuisine there are the kitchens of Provence, of Alsace, of Normandy, etc. I will say on reflection that in a country/area that has a true cuisine those regionals kitchens might be thought of a subsets of that cuisine.

As French cuisine was codified by a host of chef/authors, so Italian cuisine had and has its codifiers, and those from the days of ancient Rome and the Etruscans through the Middle Ages, the Renaissance and until today. A book I highly recommend on this is Italian Cuisine: A Cultural History by Alberto Capatti and Massimo Montanari, published by Columbia University Press.

Specifically with regard to Morocco, which sets a marvelous and often complex table, I'll stand with "kitchen" as opposed to "cuisine" and that based partly on the remarkable similarities between the kitchens of the various nations and people of the Maghreb. More than that, the perhaps undue influences placed on those countries by the foibles of history and varied conquerors and occupiers. Differences indeed exist but those subtle enough that by switching a few herbs and spices one might easily confuse one with the other.

Let it be stated loudly and clearly that there is no shame or even "second-classness" whatever involved inn having a kitchen rather than a cuisine, the differences not at all reflecting on quality but on generalizability and specifity. As French, Italian and Chinese cuisine can be sumptuous and magnificent so can the kitchens of (for example) Moroccan, Syria, New Orleans, New England and Mexico.

As to my personal background, let it be suffice to say that if so required I can too easily say "toity-toid street" and with no problem whatever could fall into "New Yawkeese". And yes, I am old enough to remember when the Dodgers were housed at Ebbett's Field.

[C_Ruark]

Daniel,

Thanks for posting the hyperlink, I'll definitely enjoy having a closer look/listen... briefly scanning through your own lecture as I write. Fascinating.

To continue this discussion on Mediterranean cuisine: How would you evaluate the lineage of "modern" (post-1948) Israeli cuisine? Is it more than "fusion cuisine"? Do any foods qualify, to use a term from your lecture, as "national cuisine"?

If this is discussed in-depth in any of the lectures, please feel free to indicate as such...no need to worry if certain lectures are in Hebrew... (pardon any bad transliterations; no Hebrew fonts loaded) Ani meh-veen EE-vreet.

Thanks!

Chris

[Almass]

We seem to have overlooked India!

Now is there not a true Indian cuisine?

Or would this fall under the kitchen classification?

I think not and there is truly an Indian cuisine.

Having reshufled the cards, we shoud talk of the following cuisines:

French - Chinese - Indian and runner up Persian or Ottoman (depending where and when in time you are standing).

[Daniel Rogov]

Chris, Hi…..

Considering that it is now 1:20 in the morning in Tel Aviv, I'll take the liberty of responding while "standing on one leg".

First off, in my opinion, there is no distinct Israeli cuisine and (referring to my above posts) not even a distinct Israeli kitchen. I see no shame whatever in that, for considering the youth of the country, that the population (under 7 million) comes from more than 80 different countries, and that there has been little cross-over between the cooking styles that people brought with them, the country simply has not had time to develop a unique "style" of cookery yet alone a cuisine. Let's say that at this stage it’s a comfortable mélange of sometimes vastly different kitchens.

True, we have gone far beyond that sad point when foreign food writers coming here could find nothing more to write about than the "fabulous Israeli breakfast", and there is a good deal of marvelous cookery to be found in various homes and restaurants. But thinking of a fusion of those people indigenous to the area and those who have come to it from other continents is simply not something that has even begun to come to pass.

As to fusion, as I mention in my little talk, that's come to be a four letter word, too many cooks/chefs simply throwing together what they think at the moment will be a playful combination that happens to use different culinary styles. There are some true signs of fusion, those coming from chefs whose parents or grandparents immigrated and who have managed to (quite literally) fuse together their personal and familial backgrounds, fine training in French cuisine, and local ingredients. The very best example of a chef demonstrating the beauty of fusion is probably chef Chaim Cohen.

As to specific dishes that might be thought of as truly Israeli at their source, I can think of only two – the halvah parfait (originally prepared by chef Tsachi Buchchester and now claimed by at least 25 chefs worldwide as their own!!!) and goose liver cooked on the grill (originated as long as thirty years ago in the steak-humous-shwarma joints (steakias in Hebrew) in Tel Aviv's HaTikva quarter.

Those interested in gathering an idea of what Israeli chefs are doing these days may want to take a peek at my little book "The Diverse Israeli Table: Dining Out In Israel" that was published by the Israeli Information Center in Jerusalem. The book can be found online at http://www.stratsplace.com/rogov/israel/israeli_chefs.html

On that note and now salivating comfortably in thought of grilled goose liver, to borrow a line from Samuel Pepys "and so to bed".

Edited August 2, 2005 by Daniel Rogov (log)

[Behemoth]

We seem to have overlooked India!

I have to agree. India definitely fits the above descriptions, and is precisely the sort of example I was looking for and failed to come up with. Distinctive, simultaneously unified and diversified, and certainly influential throughout Southeast Asia and beyond.

The problem with talking about overlap between cuisines in the countries of the Maghreb, or of the Middle East, is that those borders in many cases didn't exist 60 years ago.

I should make clear that I don't take the definition of "cuisine" vs. "kitchen" as any type of hierarchy. I am just enjoying the chance to think about something besides the work I keep putting off.

[Daniel Rogov]

We seem to have overlooked India!

Now is there not a true Indian cuisine?

←

Almass and Nadia, Hi….

I'll have to stand with my argument that there is no true Indian cuisine, the various kitchens of the country being so diverse in character as to be sometimes almost unrecognizable in other parts. In fact, because each of the hundreds of sects and religions in India has a unique set of food regulations and taboos, there is probably no nation with as many diverse culinary styles. As Madhur Jaffrey so well points out, Hindus do not eat beef, Moslems do not eat pork and some Indians, in respect for the reverence-for-life principle not only abstain from all meat and fish but also eschew eggs because they represent potential lives. Kashmiri Hindus cook with the spice known as asafetida and frown on the use of garlic. Moslems from the same area rely heavily on garlic in their cookery and avoid asafedita. Even some of the vegetarians in the nation have a problem. The Jains from the area of Gujerat, for example, will not eat beets or tomatoes because their color reminds them of blood. Some Jains are so orthodox that they will not eat root vegetables because in pulling them out of the earth an innocent insect might die in the process.

Going even a step further and still using Madhur Jaffrey as my source, at least several conquerors left very heavy imprints on regional Indian cookery. Goa, on the West Coast was ruled by the Portugese for 400 years and it was even those Europeans who introduced to the chili pepper to India. The Moghuls, who came to India via Persia in the 16th century, introduced the nation to the concept of cooking meat with yoghurt and fried onions. In truth, the only people who occupied India and failed to leave a mark on the dining habits of the people were the British.

If there is a single common denominator to all of the foods of India it is the heavy and imaginative utilization of spices, those including asafetida, coriander, turmeric, cloves, cinnamon, cardamom, black pepper, nutmeg, ginger, saffron and cayenne pepper. But, as couscous, baked beans or humous cannot define a national or regional cuisine, neither can the use of spices.

Edited August 2, 2005 by Daniel Rogov (log)

[Almass]

Daniel. It is always a pleasure reading you.

Now as you said it is time for bed.

Just before doing that, I settle down with a Bolivar Belicosos Finos and an Armagnac Tenareze domaine d'Amblat and tomorow is another day.

Good Night

Edited August 2, 2005 by Almass (log)

[Adam Balic]

Daniel - I afraid I just can't agree that Italy has a distinctive cuisine and India and the Middle East don't (I would personally lean towards an Italian kitchen, based on above discussion). I don't thing that there is any real evidence of a continuation of Roman food culture throughout Italy (after all a great deal of the population in Italy arrived after the Romans), in fact there is very little evidience on what the Romans ate anyway.

But, it has been a very interesting discussion and it has given me much to think on. I may even change my mind (which would be a first so I thank you). Also thank you very much for starting this post and linking to the conferance which I have found facinating.

We seem to have overlooked India!

Now is there not a true Indian cuisine?

←

Almass and Nadia, Hi….

I'll have to stand with my argument that there is no true Indian cuisine, the various kitchens of the country being so diverse in character as to be sometimes almost unrecognizable in other parts. In fact, because each of the hundreds of sects and religions in India has a unique set of food regulations and taboos, there is probably no nation with as many diverse culinary styles. As Madhur Jaffrey so well points out, Hindus do not eat beef, Moslems do not eat pork and some Indians, in respect for the reverence-for-life principle not only abstain from all meat and fish but also eschew eggs because they represent potential lives. Kashmiri Hindus cook with the spice known as asafetida and frown on the use of garlic. Moslems from the same area rely heavily on garlic in their cookery and avoid asafedita. Even some of the vegetarians in the nation have a problem. The Jains from the area of Gujerat, for example, will not eat beets or tomatoes because their color reminds them of blood. Some Jains are so orthodox that they will not eat root vegetables because in pulling them out of the earth an innocent insect might die in the process.

Going even a step further and still using Madhur Jaffrey as my source, at least several conquerors left very heavy imprints on regional Indian cookery. Goa, on the West Coast was ruled by the Portugese for 400 years and it was even those Europeans who introduced to the chili pepper to India. The Moghuls, who came to India via Persia in the 16th century, introduced the nation to the concept of cooking meat with yoghurt and fried onions. In truth, the only people who occupied India and failed to leave a mark on the dining habits of the people were the British.

If there is a single common denominator to all of the foods of India it is the heavy and imaginative utilization of spices, those including asafetida, coriander, turmeric, cloves, cinnamon, cardamom, black pepper, nutmeg, ginger, saffron and cayenne pepper. But, as couscous, baked beans or humous cannot define a national or regional cuisine, neither can the use of spices.

←

[anzu]

I'll have to stand with my argument that there is no true Indian cuisine, the various kitchens of the country being so diverse in character as to be sometimes almost unrecognizable in other parts. In fact, because each of the hundreds of sects and religions in India has a unique set of food regulations and taboos, there is probably  no nation with as many diverse culinary styles.  As Madhur Jaffrey so well points out, Hindus do not eat beef, Moslems do not eat pork and some Indians, in respect for      the reverence-for-life principle not only abstain from all meat and fish but also eschew eggs because they represent potential lives. Kashmiri Hindus cook with the spice known as asafetida and frown on the use of garlic.  Moslems from the same area rely heavily on garlic in their cookery and avoid asafedita.  Even some of the vegetarians in the nation have a problem. The Jains from the area of Gujerat, for example, will not eat beets or tomatoes because their color reminds them of blood. Some Jains are so orthodox that they will not eat root vegetables because in pulling them out of the earth an innocent insect might die in the process.

Going even a step further and still using Madhur Jaffrey as my source, at least several conquerors left very heavy imprints on regional Indian cookery. Goa, on the West Coast was ruled by the Portugese for 400 years and it was even those Europeans who introduced to the chili pepper to India. The Moghuls, who came to India via Persia in the 16th century, introduced the nation to the concept of cooking meat with yoghurt and fried onions.  In truth, the only people who occupied India and failed to leave a mark on the dining habits of the people were the British.

If there is a single common denominator to all of the foods of India it is the heavy and imaginative utilization of spices, those including asafetida, coriander, turmeric, cloves, cinnamon, cardamom, black      pepper, nutmeg, ginger, saffron and cayenne pepper.  But, as couscous, baked beans or humous cannot define a national or regional cuisine, neither can the use of spices.

←

I'd like to add a little to these comments. This is by no means intended to be flat-out contradictions of what you have said, but is intended to add more detail to your comments.

Firstly, the statement 'the various kitchens of the country being so diverse in character as to be sometimes almost unrecognizable in other parts'.

I would actually say that they ARE unrecognizable in other parts. I am a non-Indian who has been married to an Indian for a long time now, speak Hindi, have lived in India for several years, and have a strong interest in regional Indian foods. I spend a lot of my time in India with other women, in their kitchens, and learning their recipes.

There have been times when, to show my thanks, I have cooked a dish from a different region of India for these ladies. Almost without fail, the dishes have not been recognized as Indian at all. To a certain extent, I am sure, some pre-judgement is occuring here - if I looked 'more Indian' perhaps there would be a stronger tendency to accept that these foods are Indian. However, the very foreign-ness I am bringing into this issue shows that, in these cases, it is preconceptions about the person who has cooked the food, rather than the food itself, which is being recognized as 'Indian'

To forestall the objection that maybe I have changed the food so much that it is no longer recognizable, I should add that, when learning these dishes, I have usually gone back to my own kitchen,, re-created the dish, taken it back for feedback to the original person who gave me the recipe, and have frequently repeated this process several times until they were satisfied with my version of their dish.

Incidentally, the rise of cooking programs on Indian television is starting to bring about a change in awareness of regional foods within India. The ladies I deal with are beginning to recognize certain non-local dishes, but in most cases (there will of course be exceptions) they show little or no interest in trying to cook these foods themselves.

Secondly, 'at least several conquerors left very heavy imprints on regional Indian cookery. Goa, on the West Coast was ruled by the Portugese for 400 years and it was even those Europeans who introduced to the chili pepper to India. The Moghuls, who came to India via Persia in the 16th century, introduced the nation to the concept of cooking meat with yoghurt and fried onions. In truth, the only people who occupied India and failed to leave a mark on the dining habits of the people were the British.'

For those who are interested in foreign influences on Indian cookery, I'd like to point out that the Moghul influence goes far beyond the cooking of meat with yogurt and fried onions. There is a vast range of foods in India which clearly have their roots in the Arabic and/or (more frequently) the Persian-speaking world. Tracing the permutations of burani, various types of halva, sweets such as jalebi/zaloobia, etc. across Persia, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, India, etc. is one of my passions.

I would argue that the British DID leave a mark on the dining habits of the people. Tomatoes, for example, were brought to India about as late as 1850 from Britain, and while it was apparently the Dutch and not the British who first grew potatoes in India, it was the British who fostered their cultivation. Both now have wide-spread acceptance throughout India. (source: K. T. Achaya A Historical Dictionary of Indian Food ).

Perhaps (?) less significant on overall dining habits, but present nonetheless is the introduction by the British of Western-style yeast raised breads, the British-led cultivation of tea and the spread of the custom of tea-drinking in India, the introduction of what is now termed 'Indian-made foreign liquor' (gin, whiskey, etc. which are now drunk in immense quantities throughout India), etc.

Should anyone be interested, here is a link to a post I wrote concerning a fully 'Indianised' sweet that combines western-style bread with the very Indian method of reducing milk by boiling until thick.

Finally, this statement: 'If there is a single common denominator to all of the foods of India it is the heavy and imaginative utilization of spices, those including asafetida, coriander, turmeric, cloves, cinnamon, cardamom, black pepper, nutmeg, ginger, saffron and cayenne pepper'

In fact, there are actually some areas within India where spices are not used heavily at all. Kerala is one such example. I quote here from Vijayan Kannampilly, The Essential Kerala Cookbook 'Unlike North Indian vegetarian cuisine, in the preparation of vegetables the Malayali's reach, as a rule, does not extend beyond pepper, cumin and chilies. Traditionally, the use of spices, barring pepper and some of the green spices, were confined mostly to the preparation of Ayurvedic medicines.'

Even in North India, many dishes are characterised by very light spicing indeed. As a very broad generalization, meat dishes tend to be more heavily spiced with many of the spices mentioned above, vegetable dishes are often far less spiced, and may indeed be flavored with nothing other than fresh green chili. Here, also, regional and reiligious differences ensure that there will be a great variation in the use or lack of use of spices.

My apologies for hijacking your topic.

[C_Ruark]

- The following recipe, except for font selections,  is quoted from Rogov_Israeli_Chefs.doc written by Daniel Rogov

Mediterranean Tartare

Chaim Cohen

First Course        *

500 gr. fine burghul

400 gr. finest cut beef or lamb, with all gristle removed

1 onion, chopped

4 – 5 tomatoes, peeled seeded and chopped

1 cup of parsley, chopped

1/2 cup green onion, chopped

1/2 cup pomegranate seeds

lemon juice

olive oil as required

salt and freshly ground black pepper

In a heavy skillet heat 1- 2 Tbsp. olive oil and in this saute the onion until translucent.  Add the tomatoes, season with salt and pepper and cook for 20 minutes covered.

Pour the burghul on a tray. Pour over the tomato sauce and mix well so that the burghul absorbs the liquids.  Let stand to cool.  pour over it the tomato sauce, mix well so that burgul absorbs the liquids.

With a sharp knife cut the meat very finely.  In a bowl combine the meat, parsley, green onion, pomegranate seeds and burghul.  Season to taste with salt,  pepper and lemon juice and knead as you would a dough until the mixture if uniform throughout.  If the mixture is too dry, add a bit of oil.  Form into patties and serve, ideally accompanied by toast slices.  (Serves 4 – 6).

Daniel,

I downloaded your document. Many thanks for giving us access to wonderful resource... I'm going to work with several recipes at dinner this week. I especially like this one from Chaim Cohen.

I happened upon the above-quoted recipe and noticed a confusing portion of the method which I highlighted in bold. Can you please explain what is to happen with the burghul and tomato sauce?

Many thanks,

Chris

[chefzadi]

I am out of my league here but I've always been curious about this.  I have yet to hear an unambiguous definition of what sets "cuisine" apart from mere "kitchen". The closest I have come to a satisfying answer is that it defines a way of cooking that has been codified formally, in writing, at a certain point in time by an upper class male. Which is fair enough. French and Chinese cuisine cerainly share this trait.

But if that is the working definition, does Italian cookery still count? Is there an Italian Escoffier? And if there isn't, then surely Moroccan cuisine should have as much claim to the label "cuisine" as Italian does. Or is it one of those things where "I can't define it exaclty, but know it when I see it"?

Daniel, I must say your accent threw me for a loop. Are you originally from NY?

Anyway, it was neat seeing Claudia Roden "in person". Thanks for posting this.

←

I generally do not get into these sorts of discussions.

I will mention that there are more cookbooks in Arabia than the rest of the world's cuisines combined. I'll find the quote.

I think that the earliest cookbooks sweep through the Islamic world. The amount of trade and travel was vast, one almost feels like they traveled almost at the speed of the internet.

Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia= Magrhebi cuisine and it is certainly grand as well as simple. The range of techniques, aside from the fussy knife cuts exceeds that of French techniques. The range of dishes is astounding.

And this ole boy is codifying Magrhebi cuisine online with the help of other Magrhebis. I'm working on things for the home cook, professionals and a curriculum that can be used in schools.

EDIT: There is alot more, much much more published on Magrhebi cuisine in Arabic and French. There's just not much in English. But that doesn't mean texts don't exist.

Edited August 3, 2005 by chefzadi (log)

[marlena spieler]

As to my personal background, let it be suffice to say that if so required I can too easily say "toity-toid street" and with no problem whatever could fall into "New Yawkeese".  And yes...........remember when the Dodgers were housed at Ebbett's Field.

←

I know this is off-thread, okay lets see i'll say something on thread to keep it here: i put mexican food in the pot with indian, et al, on the subject of cuisine, actually cuisines, of a place. so regional and diverse. yet so distinctive overall.

i totally agree with the grilled goose liver from ha-tikvah quarter, yum, if you're gonna create an original dish for a fledgling nation, way to go.

on the other hand, when i was interviewing claudia roden for a saveur article on felafel she asserted that felafel, served in a pita with lots of salads, was an israeli dish. other middle eastern countries served it differently, and in eygpt, made from broad beans (fave).

okay now my original reason for posting:

hey, my dad was a baseball player and played with Joe Dimaggio! it was during the war, when the majors were disbanded and the army, navy and air force had teams.

i have a lovely pic of my dads team, and there not far from my dad, is ol' Joe. anyone who wants a photocopy, my dad loves sending them out!

marlena

[Daniel Rogov]

Marlena, Hi.....

As I said in my little talk, there are three food writers of the 20th century that I adore and Claudia Roden is one of those. Despite that, one maintains the privilege of occasionally disagreeing even with those one adores......

With regard to felafel - the first remains of ground chick peas have been found in the tombs of several of the Pharoahs. This does lead one to suspect that felafel or at least something damned near felafel does predate the foundation of Israel.

As to combining felafel, what Israelis call Arabic salad, hot peppers, white and red cabbage, amba sauce, tchina, humous, hot sauce, sliced onions, slices of fried eggplant and a dozen other things in a pizza... I won't vouch for where it started but by heaven I will say that eating those things is an art-form and it may well be true that native-born minally sixth generation Israelis are the only people on the planet that can avoid having any of those ingredients drip onto their shirts or blouse fronts, their trousers or skirts or their shoes. A true art-form...one definitely to be much admired.

Smiling........believe me, I'm smiling

Edited August 3, 2005 by Daniel Rogov (log)

[C_Ruark]

As to combining felafel, what Israelis call Arabic salad, hot peppers, white and red cabbage, amba sauce, tchina, humous, hot sauce, sliced onions, slices of fried eggplant and a dozen other things in a pizza...

Smiling........believe me, I'm smiling

←

Daniel,

I'm always on the prowl for new pizza versions - the Tandoori pizzas that made their way around the UK in the 90's were brilliant. Can you post a general recipe/method for assembly (perhaps just an image)? Does the tchina + hummus replace tomato sauce?

C

[Daniel Rogov]

Chris, Hi.....

I wouldn't dare post a recipe for that. The famous pizza in question was tried only once by a simultaneously brave and foolish joint in Jaffa and believe me, fell flat on its face. The ingredients mentioned belong not on a pizza but in a pita. Let's be kind though and call that person's attempt a stab at "originality". Believe me....more to be pitied than censured.

[marlena spieler]

As I said in my little talk, there are three food writers of the 20th century that I adore and Claudia Roden is one of those.  Despite that, one maintains the privilege of occasionally disagreeing even with those one adores......

With regard to felafel - the first remains of ground chick peas have been found in the tombs of several of the Pharoahs.  This does lead one to suspect that felafel or at least something damned near felafel does predate the foundation of Israel.

As to combining felafel, what Israelis call Arabic salad, hot peppers, white and red cabbage, amba sauce, tchina, humous, hot sauce, sliced onions, slices of fried eggplant and a dozen other things in a pizza... I won't vouch for where it started but by heaven I will say that eating those things is an art-form and it may well be true that  native-born minally sixth generation Israelis are the only people on the planet that can avoid having any of those ingredients drip onto their shirts or blouse fronts, their trousers or skirts or their shoes.  A true art-form...one definitely to be much admired.

Smiling........believe me, I'm smiling

←

i know, i questioned what claudia said directly to her when i interviewed her, as from what i've read too felafel made with chickpeas is an ancient traditional food throughout the middle east including eygpt, but claudia was adamant, really adamant. i suppose it was her experience from childhood, but still there are more experiences other than ones own, so hearing about the ground chickpeas found in ancient eygptian tombs makes sense.....the article on felafel ran about 6 years ago, probably before they had an online archive, i don't know, have never tried to find it.

as for the whole salad-bar felafel, as my daughter and i refer to the felafel where you add so much stuff, the eggplant, the amba, the onions and arabic salad and cabbage etc,, oh god do i love a good go at those bars of goodies, and i've never been able to eat a fully loaded pitta bread without it coming out from the bottom. sometimes i think i should be shrouded in plastic to eat such felafel! and its never as good if it isn't really really messy, i like the part where, after i've been munching for a few minutes from the salady ingredients on top, the tahina starts softening and eating away at the bottom of the pita first, and then i must switch eating from wherever i am to the bottom, managing to sem the tide of salads and relishes falling and oozing out, i might even suck up a felafel ball from the bottom while i'm at it......i've never had a felafel as good as some of my favourite street felafels in itsrael, though the one at l'as au felafel in paris is pretty darned good--you have to get it with EVERYTHING including eggplant though. and i'm always wanting to eat french food and felafel is so filling that i have to leave a big gap of time if i have a felafel.........another good felafel is at murrays across from beth israel hosp in manhattan (excellent zhug!). im sure there are really good ones in nyc that i just haven't gotten to yet. i mean, i'm always on the bagel breakfast programme (ess a bagel is current favourite) when i'm in nyc and with a breakfast like a bagel it doesn't leave much room for anything else until dinner.......

its the middle of the night. i think i'll go put some chickpeas up to soak.

i always keep tahina, lemon, cumin and garlic in the house, as delicious yummy tahina sauce is something i often need at a moments notice. nearly three in the morning can be a good time to make and eat tahina. but as for the chickpeas, i think i'll have to wait for the soaking. i know i could use canned but its not the same........

x m

ps: i note in reading the schedule of presentations that the conference of mediterranean tastes was presented in conjunction with a photographic exhibition by the student of bezalal art and design school. i have a warm affection for bezalel, as spent a winter when i was an art school attending classes there, a long time ago!

Edited August 4, 2005 by marlena spieler (log)