Scottish Rock Garden Club Forum
Bulbs => Crocus => Topic started by: Croquin on November 20, 2011, 10:32:24 PM
-
Dear all Croconuts (so funny the first time you hear that) :D
it seems that other crocuses than C. sativus can be used for producing saffron, and may have been throughout human history.
has anyone of you already tried to produce and taste some saffron from these species ?
what was the taste, was it interesting and really different from C. sativus' saffron ?
very curious about that :-*
-
During Soviet regime (behind Iron curtain) there were several experiments searching for replacement for true saffron produced from Crocus sativus. Soviet biologists found that stigmas of Crocus pallasii can be used as replacement for C. sativus and quite similar were stigmas of Crocus speciosus, too. Although the last not yielded so good quality as C. pallasii. Only difference between pallasii and sativus was in crop. Stigmas of sativus are larger and heavier (if I eremember well - I read about this ~35 years ago, but I can search in my library, if you are really interested.
Janis
-
I asket the same question on the PBS forum
I know C.pallassii and C. nudiflorus do
There was a note in The Crocus book
If I remember well there is a crocus
with a similar or even better quality saffron
but had no time for searching the exact text
Roland
-
Janis and Roland,
thanks !
here is the list I have - which must be the list of crocuses from the section crocus, series crocus, I guess that all of them bloom in the fall, and from the pictures I could see (never seen the plants for real), they seem to have "large" red stigmas that could produce saffron :
• Crocus asumaniae B. Mathew & T. Baytop (1979)
• Crocus cartwrightianus W. Herbert (1843)
• Crocus hadriaticus W. Herbert (1845)
• Crocus moabiticus F. Bornmuller & J.E. Dinsmore (1912)
• Crocus mathewii H. Kemdorff & E. Pasche (1994)
• Crocus naqabensis D. Al-Eisawi (2001)
• Crocus oreocreticus B.L. Burtt (1949)
• Crocus pallasii
o subsp. pallasii K.L. Goldbach (1817)
o subsp. dispataceus E. A. Bowles (1982)
o subsp. haussknechtii B. Mathew (1977)
o subsp. turcicus B Mathew (1977)
• Crocus thomasii M. Tenore (1826)
I did not know about the possibility with C. nudiflorus and C. speciosus.
Does it mean that any crocus with somehow developped stigmas can be used for the purpose of spice production without intoxication risk ?
Janis, you are most welcome to go dig a deep hole into your archives :-)
-
I found this information in old books
The Romans brought C.nudiflorus to Britain
because it was to cold for C.sativus
and the quality was similar they said
I did not try it myself
but maybe next year I have enough flowers to try
Roland
By the way
that was the list I meant
-
Mathew (p39) has a short discussion of C. nudiflorus as a source of saffron. The species is naturalised in parts of England & the recorded sites are said to be associated with the Knights of St John of Jerusalem. It seems to have been introduced at least 300 years ago but exactly when is not known. It has been shown that there is no significant chemical difference between the stigmas of C. nudiflorus & C. sativus.
-
I found this information in old books
The Romans brought C.nudiflorus to Britain
because it was to cold for C.sativus
and the quality was similar they said
I did not try it myself
but maybe next year I have enough flowers to try
Roland
By the way
that was the list I meant
About nudiflorus as safran source in Britain wrote G. Maw in his Monograph and E.A. Bowles in his handbook, too.
Janis
-
Interesting...
I have found this map showing the natural occurrences of C. nudiflorus in France
http://www.tela-botanica.org/nn19898
and this one for the UK
http://www.brc.ac.uk/plantatlas/index.php?q=plant/crocus-nudiflorus
where it says its origin is SW France + N Spain
Romans would have introduced it in Great Britain from their southern U-rop' colonized territories, rather than from the heart of the Empire, implying that its use as a source of saffron was marginal (PS: not doubting what you say, just trying to consider a bigger picture and looking for crossing references - that's my working method)
I am not sure about the dates, but I also read that Great Britain had a warmer climate than today during the Roman Empire period, and that Romans could grow lemon trees in the surroundings of current London: it would mean that it was possible to grow saffron in the south of GB by that time.
Later (middle ages) the European climate became very cold, forcing, for example, Scandinavian settlements in Greenland to disappear (Norse people came there around 1'000 AD, it was still warmer than a few centuries later, and the name of it indicate that it was covered with vegetation).
Also, you have the Saffron Walden area where Crocus sativus used to be cultivated in a more recent part of history.
Gerry, I'd like to read more about the chemical study comparing stigmas from both species, do you please have any reference ?
I'm now wondering if C. nudiflorus can hybridize with C. sativus, C. cartwrightianus and cousins, considering that these species must have diverged due to their geographical isolation ?
-
Croquin -
The information I posted came from the standard modern monograph on the genus:
Brian Mathew, The Crocus, Batsford London (1982)
With reference to the comparison of stigmas Mathew cites this:
G A Nelson (1950) The Naturalist 1950: 141-142. I have not seen it.
I have never seen any evidence that C. nudiflorus was introduced into England by the Romans; I'd be interested to know where can it be found. I'm not sure that C. sativus (rather than C. nudiflorus) was cultivated in Saffron Walden. It is also supposed, on etymological grounds, that Croydon may have been a centre of saffron cultivation.
Phylogenetic studies suggest that C. nudiflorus is unlikely to hybridise with any of the saffron group.
-
hmmm...
1982 is old, not to mention 1950.
new scientific methods have come into existence since then, and it is not surprising with these new tools that all plant taxons have been checked and some reorganized.
thanks for giving your sources when you make a statement, this allows double checking and progressing on solid grounds.
-
hmmm...
1982 is old, not to mention 1950.
That depends on how old you are & what your profession is. I assume you are quite young. Believe it or not, science did not begin in 2001.
new scientific methods have come into existence since then, and it is not surprising with these new tools that all plant taxons have been checked and some reorganized.
A recent phylogenetic study of Crocus has not greatly altered Mathew's classification. Perhaps you should look at it:
A phylogeny of the genus Crocus (Iridaceae) based on sequence data from five plastid regions
Gitte Petersen, Ole Seberg, Sarah Thorsøe, Tina Jørgensen & Brian Mathew
Taxon (2008) 57, 487-499
thanks for giving your sources when you make a statement, this allows double checking and progressing on solid grounds.
In my (former) profession we always gave our sources. Perhaps you could give a source for your statements about the Romans?
-
Dear Gerry, please, let us not indulge in this direction and make things become personal.
I come on this forum to get enlightened by the knowledge that you experts possess, but to extract it from your brains I need to stimulate :-)
Was I going too fast ? If so, all my apologies.
It is very kind of you to share with newbies (without too much patronising postures) - let's just stay at the level of information, knowledge, and crocuses.
In 1982, many of the tools available today did not exist, and you write that your 1982 source was itself a reference to a 1950 research, which triggered my remarks.
It is not a question of being young or old, the world progresses fast and past references sometimes become obsolete.
Later on you add that little was reorganized in the crocus taxon (from biochemistry analyses? I think I read this paper once), previously established on morphological criteria, which only means that Mathew did clever.
All the discussion around the Romans is not initiated from me, I have no references, I was just thinking and speculating from the food for thought that Roland gave.
You have stated without reference: "Phylogenetic studies suggest that C. nudiflorus is unlikely to hybridise with any of the saffron group."
I was adding this comment about references because this topic is interesting and if you had any reference to give it was most welcome.
-
.
You have stated without reference: "Phylogenetic studies suggest that C. nudiflorus is unlikely to hybridise with any of the saffron group."
I was adding this comment about references because this topic is interesting and if you had any reference to give it was most welcome.
The phylogenetic study is that for which I gave the reference. It dates from 2008.
-
Very interesting.... don't know a whole lot about it, except for a few of the historical data...
Does it mean that any crocus with somehow developped stigmas can be used for the purpose of spice production without intoxication risk ?
I think all stigma's of Crocusses will contain almost the same chemicals...in very high dosages saffron is also poisonous. Don't know which chemical(s) is/are responsible for it being poisonous, though.
The Romans brought C.nudiflorus to Britain
because it was to cold for C.sativus
Never heard about the use of C. nudiflorus as an alternative for C. sativus by the Romans...but quite possible...
I am not sure about the dates, but I also read that Great Britain had a warmer climate than today during the Roman Empire period, and that Romans could grow lemon trees in the surroundings of current London: it would mean that it was possible to grow saffron in the south of GB by that time.
Later (middle ages) the European climate became very cold, forcing, for example, Scandinavian settlements in Greenland to disappear (Norse people came there around 1'000 AD, it was still warmer than a few centuries later, and the name of it indicate that it was covered with vegetation).
If I remember correctly, the climate during the Roman times wasn a bit cooler than ours...you had a temperature maximum during the middle ages (10th-13th century) and a "little Ice-Age" at the beginning of the modern ages (15th or 16th century)
-
E.A. Bowles. A Handbook of Crocus and Colchicums for gardeners. 1952. p. 33
Janis
-
Even more "antique" publication (by someone). Full text Croquin can find on internet (of course, if this one is sufficiently "scientific" monograph) ;D
Janis
-
Janis, you are most welcome to go dig a deep hole into your archives :-)
At first, I'm too busy now to search for this one, and, it is in Russian, so I'm afraid it will help you too little.
Janis
-
Probably I made a mistake in my memory
Order of St. John of Jerusalem plus the text
is ringing a bell
must be that and not the Roman
but it was looooong ago when I saw that article
Sorry folks (http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp61/ellyput54/oopsemoticon.gif)
Roland
-
As I noted above, it is thought that Croydon, a town south of London, might have been a centre for the cultivation of saffron since the name is thought to derive from the Anglo-Saxon croh denu meaning 'crocus valley'. Anyone familiar with present day Croydon ("a concrete hell") will probably find this astonishing.
This information comes from the Wikipedia entry on Croydon but can be found elsewhere.
-
Thanks everybody, we are learning a lot through this croconutstorming process.
Janis, do as you please according to your available time, Russian language is not a code I can't break.
I have received your book today ("Crocuses... genus") and I will start reading it - I guess I will get a lot of insights from it.
To summarize, Romans did not introduce C. nudiflorus in GB but knights did, much later in history - it seems that this order existed from the end of the 12th century until the beginning of the 14th century - therefore introduction would be around this period.
Ok, it seems from these reports that other crocuses can produce the spice.
From what you know about crocuses, do you think that they all can (but those with too small stigmas) ?
Do you think that they all contain the same chemical components in their stigmata, or that some species can be dangerous to use as spice ?
True, saffron from C. sativus is toxic at higher doses, and lethal at some treshold which is unclear to me (I read 5g somewhere, 20g somewhere else, most of the time 10g - for example here http://www.herbresearch.de/en/resources/doc_download/12-saffron-a-review-of-the-literature). Intoxication symptoms are mainly: vomiting, nausea, headache, dizziness, bleeding (uterus, intestines), and kidney failure (same ref.).
Saffron has some toxicity, for instance it has abortificant properties (Hosseini et al. 2009 Planta Med), and has specific cytotoxic effects on cancer cells (for example Crocetin Inhibits Invasiveness of MDA-MB-231 Breast Cancer Cells via Downregulation of Matrix Metalloproteinases. Dimitra G. Chryssanthi et al., Planta Med 2011; 77(2): 146-151).
-
At a distance of some many hundreds of years, I think it is very hard to prove if the Romans did, or did not, introduce saffron and in what form.
Since I find it hard most afternoons to remember what I did in the morning, such puzzles are no surprise to me! :D
I do know that Brian Mathew, (a friend and mentor to me in things bulbous and crocus related) has been employed in the past by saffron dealers to ensure that the product they sell is "geniune" saffron from C. sativus.
-
The only chance to know for sure is to find a reference in the Romans' writings, since they left some literature.
But where to look ?
However, we can speculate on more solid grounds thanks to logic:
1) if C. sativus was introduced in GB by Romans early in history, it probably died during the medieval small ice age, if it had not already disappeared before (it seems that this species never survives long in a place where it is left to itself without man's cultural assistance). Maybe was it the point to introduce C. nudiflorus: as a cold substitute crocus for saffron production when climate changed?
2) if C. sativus was already there from previous introduction, what could have been the point to introduce C. nudiflorus for saffron production, since it has smaller stigmas, therefore a reduced crop of spice? It could only be chosen because C. sativus was not growing or cropping well anymore and the spice was in use, otherwise C. sativus would have been preferred, like in Spain, France, etc.
Therefore, it seems that the key issue is the colder climate of GB (or period) - but all this is speculation.
By the way, do you have troubles growing C. sativus outdoors in GB nowadays ?
___________
Saffron, due to its price, has always been among the most sophisticated products.
You will find very surprising (and sometimes disgusting) things in the saffron you buy, barely of crocus origin.
Tons remain undetected each year.
Surely what Mr Mathew was employed for.
But fraud by adding stigmas from other crocuses, I don't believe: harvesting smaller stigmas crocuses would be more work demanding than harvesting C. sativus.
Fraud needs to be cheap and easy, its goal is to increase the weight and/or the volume of the spice.
-
At a distance of some many hundreds of years, I think it is very hard to prove if the Romans did, or did not, introduce saffron and in what form.
Since I find it hard most afternoons to remember what I did in the morning, such puzzles are no surprise to me! :D
;D ;D
It's not impossible to prove though:
You could prove that the Romans used it from:
a) written records
b) remains from the spice found in cooking pots or from remains of clothes which were coloured with saffron.
with b) it wouldn't prove if the saffron was grown in England or if it was imported.
If one could find plant remains in a soil sample which was taken from a soil-layer, dated to the Roman period, you could prove the plant was grown there during that time....so, not impossible to prove but not very easy either....maybe someone has found remains of Crocus sativus during a dig already. For that you would have to look at the British excavation records of Roman sites and more specifically the archeobotanical and/or palynological records of those digs.
-
To summarize, Romans did not introduce C. nudiflorus in GB but knights did, much later in history - it seems that this order existed from the end of the 12th century until the beginning of the 14th century - therefore introduction would be around this period.
That makes more sense, that is during the temperature maximum of the middle-ages.
-
Yes, I'm trying to make sense and see where the plausible possibilities are - keeping in mind that this is all speculations based on the inputs I got from the forum.
I imagine that archaeological remains must be very difficult to find, and as you said, depending on the type of object discovered, it wouldn't be automatically a proof of local production.
Is it possible that the dead plant can be preserved in the ground? I guess it should have to be 100% dry, or the plant tissues would decompose faster than empires rise and fall?
But you are correct, archaeological archives of the GB Roman sites could be a significant source together with literature.
I will keep that topic in a corner of my mind to be aware of it when I review docs. Thanks !
-
Yes, I'm trying to make sense and see where the plausible possibilities are - keeping in mind that this is all speculations based on the inputs I got from the forum.
I imagine that archaeological remains must be very difficult to find, and as you said, depending on the type of object discovered, it wouldn't be automatically a proof of local production.
Is it possible that the dead plant can be preserved in the ground? I guess it should have to be 100% dry, or the plant tissues would decompose faster than empires rise and fall?
But you are correct, archaeological archives of the GB Roman sites could be a significant source together with literature.
I will keep that topic in a corner of my mind to be aware of it when I review docs. Thanks !
There is a lot of plant material which is preserved in the ground. Of course in perfectly dry conditions or permanently wet conditions they preserve the best. I wrote my master-dissertation about agriculture and the change in diet during the late Bronze age (1325 - 800 B.C.). The raw data were the plant remains (seeds/pollen/vegetal remains) found on excavations. So I'm sure there are records in GB regarding the archaeobotany of Roman sites.
-
by chance, if you were in the field, do you still have the possibility to access knowledge on this topic ?
-
by chance, if you were in the field, do you still have the possibility to access knowledge on this topic ?
Normally that data should be open to the pubic. I have no idea which agency is responsible for that information in GB, though.
If I find the time, I'll look it up.
-
:-*
-
I just want to share something.
I came to read an interesting historical testimony about saffron, written by Pliny the Elder in Naturalis Historia (book XXI chap17) about 2'000 years ago (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137%3Abook%3D21%3Achapter%3D17).
"The wild saffron is the best; indeed, in Italy it is of no use whatever to attempt to propagate it, the produce of a whole bed of saffron being boiled down to a single scruple; it is reproduced by offsets from the bulb. The cultivated saffron is larger, finer, and better looking than the other kinds, but has much less efficacy. This plant is everywhere degenerating, and is far from prolific at Cyrenæ even, a place where the flowers are always of the very finest quality."
"There is a peculiar kind, too, of cultivated saffron, which is in general extremely mild, being only of middling quality; the name given to it is "dialeucon." The saffron of Cyrenaica, again, is faulty in the opposite extreme; for it is darker than any other kind, and is apt to spoil very quickly. The best saffron everywhere is that which is of the most unctuous quality, and the filaments of which are the shortest"
The translation from Latin in French gives somehow a slightly different overall meaning, implying more obviously than in the English version that saffron (spice) was not only obtained from Crocus sativus in the antique world, but also from other wild crocuses:
« Le safran sauvage est le meilleur ; il ne convient nullement de le semer en Italie, chaque carré ne rapportant que le vingt-quatrième du coût. On le multiplie par caïeux. Le safran cultivé est plus large, plus grand et plus beau ; mais il a beaucoup moins de force ; il dégénère toujours, et il est d'un faible rapport même à Cyrène, où les autres fleurs sont toujours les plus estimées. »
« Il y a une espèce particulière de safran cultivé qui est extrêmement goûtée ; comme elle a du blanc au milieu, on l'appelle dialeucon. Le safran de la Cyrénaïque a le défaut opposé ; il est le plus foncé de tous ; il se gâte aussi très promptement. Partout le meilleur est celui qui est le plus épais et le plus court »
-
A short history of Saffron Walden: http://www.saffronwalden.gov.uk/Saffron_Walden_Town_Trail.pdf
We had some uncertainty in the discussion, at one point, about the historical reality of saffron cultivation in Saffron Walden.
This link to bring further information.
-
As saffron from Crocus sativus is not enough expensive, I suggest to use Crocus moabiticus to produce it ;D ;D ;D
-
$$£€! 8)
I don't really know what crocus used the ancient civilizations for saffron production, but some roman texts talk about wild saffron, which was preferred by consumers. Maybe you're correct ::)
-
An interesting and free paper on the possible origin, or at least search for, of saffron; http://www.globalsciencebooks.info/JournalsSup/images/Sample/FPSB_4(SI2)1-14o.pdf (http://www.globalsciencebooks.info/JournalsSup/images/Sample/FPSB_4(SI2)1-14o.pdf)
Aaron
-
B. Mathew has written somewhere that what was depicted in Minoan frescoes could well be the harvest of saffron from C. cartwrightianus because white flowers were also painted.
I am not convinced by a natural hybridization involving C. thomasii and C. cartwrightianus because of the geographical distribution of these two crocuses (map Fig 3 p 6, reference given by Aaron) - unless the crossing was man made and artificial, which is also possible, or unless C. thomasii was artificially cultivated with C. cartwrightianus in the same garden (after all, commercial exchanges existed and a certain degree of civilization existed in the empires of the past).
A natural mutation in C. cartwrightianus seems more plausible regarding genetic closeness with C. sativus and visual resemblance of the plants, am I wrong ?