Sheep's head cooking

[PDH]

I know you are a might PhD, while all I have is a lowly LL.B. and B.Sc., but I didn't say hunter-gatherers "eat" every part of an animal - I said they "use" every part of an animal.  And feeding dogs certainly counts as "use".

I'm not a PhD (My initials are PDH), but my point was that the hypothesized symbiosis of wolves and man was more an advantage of the wolves eating scraps that the foragers didn't eat or use as anything other than garbage.

[merithyn]

Waste not want not.

but everyone wastes a little. eating the nasty bits nobody ever eats simply to not waste. where does it stop? mcdonald ketchup packets rather than waste $ on the bottle?

I bet the non (comparatively) impoverished cavemen tossed away some parts

I'm not sure you understood my question. I was asking if there was value to keeping and using the head in cooking. I knew that it was a delicacy in some places, and was looking for suggestions on what those might be. As has been shown in this thread, there are those who do, indeed, consider foods made with the head worthwhile. If I have it, and there is good food to be made with it, then why would I waste it?

In answer to your question, my research shows that historically speaking, only in the more modern era do we throw away so much of the carcass. I've been digging specifically into 13th and 14th century cooking in England, and there are recipes for most parts of the animal. If not for cooking, then they are used for other things, ie leathercrafting and wool rugs. The hooves are used for glue, and the bones are used for a variety of things like needles, dice, bone folders, and quite a bit more.

Given that it's usually pretty hard to get those kinds of things from the grocery store - or even a butcher - having my own sheep with which to get them is a big boon, and not something I'm going to have the opportunity to do very often. (Especially since my breeding sheep only had females.)

[merithyn]

How about waiting for shit to grow up first before killing it and chopping its fucking head off for a soup bone. Goddamn.

They're more than a year old. That's actually twice the typical life of a lamb from the store. And they've had a wonderful life. They've lived on a large pasture, grazing as they please, and getting grain to supplement during the winter. These sheep have had it good, especially compared to the stuff you get in the store.

[merithyn]

Actually, I would not be surprised if foragers didn't eat every part of an animal - with a low population and good methods to gather resources they likely had surpluses at times, thus the domestication of dogs.

Now farmers, they HAD to use everything because often time they were closer to the edge of starvation.  Also, blood sausage needs a cookpot after all.

Most hunter/gatherers found use for most of the carcass. Those bone needles didn't come from wheat.

[Berkut]

I figure the "hunter gatheres used EVERYTHING!" myth is up there with the idea that they all were peaceful and lived in respect and care for their environment. IE, a complete figment of modern wishful thinking.

I am quite sure they used exactly as much as was useful to them, and not a bit more. I doubt they went out of their way to create uses so they could be sure to waste nothing.

In other words, they were not driven by any principle of "do not waste!". In fact, we know that there were times that they were incredibly wasteful - even shockingly so.

"We need some buffalo meat! Hunting them is a lot of work! How about we drive that herd over that cliff even though we could not possibly use all that meat? Works for me!"

[Malthus]

I figure the "hunter gatheres used EVERYTHING!" myth is up there with the idea that they all were peaceful and lived in respect and care for their environment. IE, a complete figment of modern wishful thinking.

I am quite sure they used exactly as much as was useful to them, and not a bit more. I doubt they went out of their way to create uses so they could be sure to waste nothing.

In other words, they were not driven by any principle of "do not waste!". In fact, we know that there were times that they were incredibly wasteful - even shockingly so.

"We need some buffalo meat! Hunting them is a lot of work! How about we drive that herd over that cliff even though we could not possibly use all that meat? Works for me!"

Yup. The thing most hunter-gatherers did not want to waste was their effort. 

Another thing to keep in mind is that the hunter-gatherers we know of from historic periods almost without exception lived in relatively marginal lands (the one major exception was the West Coast native Americans, who lived off the salmon run; maybe also the great plains tribes of NA, depending on whether one views the great plains as marginal). The reason: they were pushed off of better lands by farmers in prehistoric times.

[garbon]

In other words, they were not driven by any principle of "do not waste!".

Was anyone saying that though? Presumably it was being said because logically it seems easier to use all usable bits of the animal you already have killed then seeking out a new animal to kill.

[Berkut]

In other words, they were not driven by any principle of "do not waste!".

Was anyone saying that though? Presumably it was being said because logically it seems easier to use all usable bits of the animal you already have killed then seeking out a new animal to kill.

That certainly seems to be the implication as an answer to the question of "Why do anything with the head?".

IE, if we want to do as they did, we have to use everything whether we want to or not - that waste is by definition to be avoided as a principle in and of itself.

[Legbiter]

Anyone here tried bear? Bear fat was apparently a delicacy in certain Amerindian tribes.

http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/guts-and-grease-the-diet-of-native-americans/

[Malthus]

In other words, they were not driven by any principle of "do not waste!".

Was anyone saying that though? Presumably it was being said because logically it seems easier to use all usable bits of the animal you already have killed then seeking out a new animal to kill.

Depends on circumstances.

There were limits, for example, on the willingness and ability of HGs to preserve meat.

There were ways to do it - such as "pemmican" - but it didn't work with all kinds of meat. As it turns out, and particularly in temperate climes, various foods (such as animals) tend to be super-abundant for limited periods of time - when you can get buffalo, you can get lots of buffalo; when you can get salmon, you can get lots of salmon - so HGs would get as much as they can and preserve the preservible bits, and leave the rest to rot.

There is lots of evidence of this sort of 'overkill'.

[Savonarola]

Anyone here tried bear? Bear fat was apparently a delicacy in certain Amerindian tribes.

http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/guts-and-grease-the-diet-of-native-americans/

I've had bear bologna.  It was gamey.

[merithyn]

In other words, they were not driven by any principle of "do not waste!".

Was anyone saying that though? Presumably it was being said because logically it seems easier to use all usable bits of the animal you already have killed then seeking out a new animal to kill.

That certainly seems to be the implication as an answer to the question of "Why do anything with the head?".

IE, if we want to do as they did, we have to use everything whether we want to or not - that waste is by definition to be avoided as a principle in and of itself.

I certainly wasn't saying "If we want to do as they did". I was saying, "I have this bit that I don't normally have access to. Is it worth keeping, and if so, why?"