Talk:Garum

Not Amphora

Does anybody know how the one-handled pitcher in the picture is really called? It's not 'amphora', the previous version not withstanding. An amphora has, by definition, two handles. ospalh (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted references to the Asian fish sauce

This article is about Ancient Roman Fish sauce, not fish sauce in general. Deleted this reference: ", a cousin of Vietnamese nuoc mam " Intranetusa 21:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

luxury or staple?

http://www.italiancookingandliving.com/food/pf_text/ac_garum.html claims:

Existing in various forms and qualities, garum could be enjoyed by slave and emperor alike, and gradually grew prevalent enough to invoke the only large-scale factory industry in the ancient world.

which contradicts our article:

"was usually only consumed by the higher classes of society."

bogdan 23:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

James Grout's Encyclopaedia Romana has an article on garum that cites primary sources. This garum article contains an analysis of the price of garum, suggesting that its price was comparable to that of honey, and therefore would be affordable to more than just Roman upper class. The claim that garum "was usually only consumed by the higher classes of society" should probably be removed, or at least amended to "was often consumed" to make it supportable by the available evidence, unless someone can substantiate this claim.

This contradiction is ongoing: current introduction says "it was both a staple to the common diet and a luxury for the wealthy" - I don't think it can be both, unless there were very distinct grades of garum. The source of the 'luxury' item claim needs to be found... 124.170.199.83 (talk) 07:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The Curtis article I've cited makes it clear that garum of differing quality was consumed at every level of socity.--Wetman (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

In cosmetics?

I didn't tag this as I'm not one of those taggers, but such a use does need some explication.--Wetman (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Producer or importer?

Was Aulus Umbricius Scaurus a producer or an importer of garum? The importer of the picture on Commons uses the German word "Produzent". The caption on en-wikipedia uses the word "importer". (The French version is careful and speaks about a "merchant".)

It seems to be known—please see the (unsourced) sentence about archaeologists and bogues—that garum was also produced in Pompeii.

--JmCor (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

My Edits

Would it also be called oenogarum in Latin?68.148.149.184 (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Oeno comes from the Greek for wine. Oenogarum would be, I believe, a different kind of sauce. Derekpatterson (talk) 08:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

New edit

I recently attempted two extremely minor changes to this article, to remove first some misleading grammar, and second, some entirely unrelated information. Both changes were marked, apparently, as "vandalism" by one of the wiki-regulars. I do not care to figure this system out. I have wasted 10 minutes in a vain effort to re-apply my changes under a registered user-named, without luck. I just plead with the regulars of this site, STOP REVERTING ALL ANONYMOUS CHANGES. I contribute, or attempt to, regularly. And near every time my changes are reverted. I never change content, only correct and amend errors and misleading statements. A quick check of my amendments would prove this. Anyways, I'm sure the same 'regulars' will purge this as fast any other attempt I make to contribute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StopTheBloat (talk • contribs) 02:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Were you operating from IP:24.174.87.106? If so, then I reverted your edits. I looked at the last one you made, where you had removed both content and a citation. You say the content was "entirely unrelated". I wouldn't agree. If you are going to delete material, you should always give a reason in the edit summary, and if the deletion is any way likely to be controversial, you should discuss it first with other editors on the talk page. More seriously, you removed a citation. Wikipedia revolves around reliable sources, and it is never an "extremely minor change" to remove one. That citation also covered earlier material which you left standing. It was the removal of the citation that prompted me to rollback your edits as vandalism. That is why your earlier edit on a minor grammatical point was also reverted. I have reinstated your grammatical improvement, and put a welcome on your talk page. Please read the guidelines there and note in particular, the importance of assuming good faith in other editors. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Reminding others to assume good faith while not doing so yourself? You must be a mod on here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.48.8 (talk) 07:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I consider, and denote, that the subject of "have a good faith in," up above, was not Epipelagic, or any other singular user. Having a good faith in the whole, evergoing process of change of the Wikipedia — seems like a productive guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.129.137.51 (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on preparation

The text in the wiki says: "one to three months, where the mixture fermented and liquified in the dry warmth, the salt inhibiting the common agents of decay." Watching Secrets of the Dead, where they were working on Roman ship wrecks, they prepared Garum, and the time they cited was days not months. So I wonder if it should be said the time to prepare varied??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.31.181.147 (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the Romans were also using red plastic buckets.--Wetman (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

When did it disapears into history?

There is no mention of the lost of the reciepe and taste for it.. the fall of Rome, by example? when, roughly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.179.15.169 (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Or did it? Even reference 15 mentions the "Colatura di Alici" sauce prepared to this day in the area. The method used to make it is pretty much compatible with the ancient descriptions, though as far as I'm aware the oldest reference to the modern sauce goes to the 15th century. All the same a sauce made in the same basic way, in the same basic area, with a gap of probably only 7 or 8 centuries between the two, sets my parsimonious explanation senses tingling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.87.4.251 (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

io9 & MSG

io9 has an essentially unsourced article discussing that garum had a high MSG content that accounted for most of its popularity. Obviously, it's an unencyclopedic article and unreliable source, but do they have a point? and is there a better account of it? — LlywelynII 08:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Persian variety still consumed

I am from southern Iran where we use a type of sauce on bread called "Mahyave", which is a fairly common cuisine. I was reading this source: http://www.parthia.com/parthia_cuisine.htm#Garum and the recipe it gave for Liquamen was approximately the same: We mash sardines, then mix it with Fennel, dried lemon, Nigella Sativa seeds and Turmeric Rhizomes and this paste is then mixed with salt and left to dry under the sun.

I am in no place to discuss the Parthian origin of this food. However, I hope me linking the Farsi page to the article Garum is not a case of original research. I live the rest to you guys. حضرت محمود (talk) 09:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Etymology - or: What fish was γάρος?

I was curious what fish γάρος, "the fish whose intestines were originally used in the condiment's production" was, but I could see no evidence that there ever was such a fish, or that the word indeed derives from such a fish. All I saw in favor were similarly vague and dubious mentions, such as cooking pages, or at best, this museum page. I know we don't consider internal links as reliable, but the most credible seems to me wikt:el:γάρος, so I will change the sentence accordingly and give that as a reference, in hopes that anyone who knows more about the topic can improve that page. — Sebastian 18:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

- Hi, would this help? "Garum (auch: Liquamen) war das Standardgewürz in der antiken römischen Küche. Diese Würzsoße wurde für salzige und süße Speisen verwendet, etwa in der Häufigkeit, wie heutzutage Fischsoße in der asiatischen Küche verwendet wird. Garum erfreute sich in der römischen Küche größter Beliebtheit. Die Herkunft wird entweder in Griechenland oder Karthago vermutet. Für eine griechische Herkunft sprechen die schriftlichen Quellen. Der Name Garum leitet sich demnach über Garos vom griechischen Wort Gauros (Ga????) für die Europäische Sardelle (Engraulis encrasicolus) ab, die ursprünglich für die Produktion von Garum verwandt wurde (Plinius: [garum] olim conficiebatur ex pisce quem Graeci garon vocabant). Doch kannten auch die Phönizier solche Soßen. Für eine nordafrikanische Herkunft würde sprechen, dass die Nachweise für Produktion schwerpunktmäßig in den ehemals punischen Gebieten Portugals, Spaniens und Nordafrikas vorliegen. Zudem liegen die frühesten Nachweise für Garum in einer Zeit, in der diese Gebiete römische Provinzen wurden. Die früheste Erwähnung im Lateinischen findet sich bei Varro in de lingua latina. Garum war eine Flüssigkeit, die dadurch entstand, dass man Fische wie Thunfisch, Europäische Sardelle, Aal, Makrele und andere einschließlich ihrer Eingeweide mit Salzlake vermischte und teilweise monatelang der Sonne aussetzte. Dabei wurde das Fischeiweiß durch in den Eingeweiden enthaltene Enzyme abgebaut. Bei konstant gehaltener Temperatur von ca. 40 °C ist die Fermentation nach ca. einer Woche abgeschlossen."

Rough Google translation:

"Garum (also: liquamen) was the standard spice in ancient Roman cuisine. This seasoning sauce was used for salty and sweet foods, about as often as today fish sauce is used in Asian cuisine. Garum enjoyed great popularity in Roman cuisine. The origin is suspected in either Greece or Carthage. A Greek origin seems to be indicated by the written sources. Hence, the name Garum derives from the Greek word via "Garos" from "Gauros", the Greek name for the European anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus), which was originally used for the production of garum (Pliny: " .... [Garum] olim conficiebatur ex pisce quem Graeci garon vocabant ..."). But also the Phoenicians knew such sauces. A North African origin is made plausible by evidence for production being centered in the formerly Punic areas in Portugal, Spain and North Africa. In addition, the earliest evidence of garum are at a time in which these areas were Roman provinces. The earliest mention is found in the Latin Varro in "de lingua latina". Garum was a liquid that created by mixing fish such as tuna, European anchovy, eel, mackerel and others including their guts with brine, and partially exposing it to the sun for months. The fish protein was decomposed by enzymes present in the intestines. At a constant temperature of about 40 ° C, the fermentation is completed after about a week."

T 88.89.144.233 (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Where are the sources?

Garum was a fermented fish sauce used as a condiment in the cuisines of ancient Greece, Rome, and Byzantium. Liquamen was a similar preparation, and at times the two were synonymous. Although it enjoyed its greatest popularity in the Roman world, the sauce was earlier used by the Greeks. The Latin word garum derives from the Greek garos or garon (γάρον), of uncertain origin. The author doesn't show any source. Why? --Karanko (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

So why don't you do some work yourself and find the sources? --Epipelagic (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding @Karanko:'s comment, @Epipelagic: since when is it the reviewer's responsibility to cite sources? The originator of the information is responsible. Cite sources, or remove text. Alrich44 (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

No, you should not be removing long standing text unless it is in a BLP or you have good reason to believe it shouldn't be there. In earlier years there was less rigour about verification, but most long standing legacy text still belongs in articles even if it is not yet cited, and shouldn't be causally removed without a careful search for sources. Nor is it appropriate to dignify unsolicited and obvious types of criticism by calling them "reviews". What is a real help is taking responsibility and doing the needed work yourself. It's all too easy and of very little help merely criticizing articles and demanding others improve them. Karanko is unlikely to be addressing "the originator of the information" who may have left Wikipedia many years ago. The passage for which sources are demanded also happen to be from the lead. It is not required to cite the lead if it is a summary of material already cited in the main body. --Epipelagic (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Epipelagic, thanks for the explanation. I was including my good reason for removing them...no sources or conflicting sources without a clear understanding of the conflict. Alrich44 (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

If I get the time this weekend to find some more reliable references, would anybody be willing to help me improve this article by correcting much of the confusion present. I think the current references used, are themselves including the confusion with garon which is the 'collective' Greek noun for all fermented fish condiments. Such transcription error are easy to make with such similar spelling. Garum however, is the Latin for a fish paste condiment from blood and guts only; Allec is for fish paste with bones, and Liquamen is for the liquid fish sauce which is separated from the pastes. This must be made clearer. Also, bacterial fermentation is exactly the thing you don't need in this process. They would consume all the amino acids, leaving a nitrogen rich brine only useful for fertilizing marine kelp bed farms. Garon depends on natural enzymatic digestion from those already present in the cells of the fish.--Aspro (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I may be available to help translate source material into text, or edit for my own clarity that may help others. I wish I could get more clarity into MSG too. I think most of the issues people have with it is from the extra things that some processors wind up including in their products. Haven't found a good source for it though. Alrich44 (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be a great help. What is going through my mind is that we should have separate article for true Garum, Allec, Muria and Liquimen. The history section of each, can mention that the definition of the nouns are sometimes confused. Another section can provide references to current day equivalents – of which there are many. This will (I trust), provide a clear sort of audit trail that everybody can follow... From the Wikipedia reading Marine Biologist, to those involved in the fishing industry, to high class chiefs, to the housewife who just wants to get a bit of background to the ingredients she is using and finally to the academic food historians and archaeologists that do original research. Over fifty years ago, my father produced his own home made form of allec to feed to our chickens. The high protean and calcium content help them to lay better eggs. Oh boy did it stink at first! There must be references to this practice we can link to also. In this modern day and age, what happened before our food gets served up before us is a mystery to most people. One of the aims of an encyclopaedia is to demystify. I think this is the best way forward on this article.--Aspro (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Consider Allec isn't in most online dictionaries. I found it here: http://www.cooksinfo.com/allec. "...the paste, or sediment, that was left at the bottom of the container or barrel that other fish sauces such as garum, liquamen or muria were made in." Wiktionary only has it as herring.[1] Alrich44 (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This is where two heads are better than one, on an Audit Trail. We need to compare references. As far as I know, Allec was made from anchovies that had been topped and tailed. They have very soft bones and so Allec can be eaten -even to day- as a spread on a modern day pizzas. Think you have got the gist of this - so carry on Googling. As I said before, I am a little busy right at this very moment but I happened upon an article by Grainger, who whilst doesn’t say the exact thing that I am suggesting, never-the-less, exposes and explains the confusion in the naming of things [2]--Aspro (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

What does this mean

"and salt could be substituted for a simpler dish. " it reads like a non sequitur. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

This caught my attention as well. Unclear sentences send my brain into a tailspin... The fragment now reads "salt could be substituted for it in a simpler dish", hopefully this is more clear. Angryredplanet (talk) 08:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Tapeworm

How could garum have helped spread fish tapeworms across Europe? Surely the fermentation process would have destroyed the tapeworm?Royalcourtier (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Umami

An IP editor has repeatedly removed a reliably cited mention that garum provides an umami flavor, despite being reverted by different editors. The justification offered in edit comments has been the opinion of the editor that "unami" "is simply a Japanese culinary term, meaning savory." However, the source states correctly that garum is an umami flavoring, and makes use of the common English usage of the term umami, borrowed from the Japanese (as can readily be confirmed from many other sources). The Japanese etymology is a distraction here (the etymological fallacy), as it is the English usage that is relevant to the article. The term umami is only approximately equivalent to "savory", a term with wide meanings; it is used in English, whatever it may once have meant in its Japanese etymology, to denote the specific (meaty) flavor associated with a type of receptor on the tongue. The text was correct, and should now be reinstated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________

The so-called "common" English usage of the term "unami" is a relatively recent one, tied to the relatively recent sushi fad in the West. The five tastes are known by English speakers as follows: sweet, sour, bitter, salt and glutamate/savoury/savory, as they have been known since the subject was researched in the West. There are those who feel it necessary to use the synonymous Japanese term of "unami" in place of 'savory'. To those of this opinion, please prove that this substitution is necessary in an article intended for English readers. Please also show that the use of the term 'savory' fails to describe the taste of Garum. Failure to provide such proof of necessity relegates the choice of using "unami" in such a context to a mere style choice in an English-language article about a Mediterranean food.

The citation given would, therefore, be meaningless, given the context in which it is being used. The entire article about Garum is sourced from Mediterranean/Western culture and the singular use of an Eastern term, when the equivalent Western term suffices perfectly, stands out like the proverbial and totally avoidable sore thumb, inelegant as the day is long and redundant to its core. Cite away; however, in the end, all citations, along with the compilation of opinion will distill to only this: that the Japanese refer to a certain taste as "unami", which English speakers call 'savoury/savory'.

User 71.112.244.51 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.244.51 (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

No such proof is required, and the attempt to insist on it is purely tendentious. The opinions stated by the IP editor are essentially personal opinions, expressing a considerable measure of distaste for the term umami (which the editor bizarrely insists on spelling a different way). While everyone is entitled to hold whatever views they like, personal opinion is entirely inappropriate in a Wikipedia article. Umami is a relatively recently discovered flavor and taste receptor, adding to the traditionally known four, namely sweet, sour, salt, bitter. English had no name for the fifth flavor, and rather than inventing one, the language borrowed a term from Japanese, which is now established usage for this specific meaning. That meaning is not identical to the etymological meaning of the original term, and it is as I already mentioned a clear instance of the etymological fallacy to presume it must continue to have such a meaning, or indeed some supposedly "correct" transliteration, when the established English usage is spelt differently, a clear marker if such were needed that the term has been adapted as well as borrowed from the original. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• What puzzles me is, why if savoury in English means 'without sweetness' does the poster here mention TAS1R1+ R3 receptors as a justification in his very first edit summery? Here is the science bit. Human receptors for sweet and umami taste. Thus is is not per sa savoury by definition. Whilst Garum may taste savoury because of its high salt content, that doesn’t mean that umami per sa is a savoury taste, even though it is often used in savoury dishes – its also used in ice-creams and one would hardly call those savoury. Egg yoke acts as the emulsifier for the dairy cream to turn it into ice-cream. Ice-cream manufactures often use sea-weeds like Irish Moss as an additional emulsifying agent too – because it adds to their products a err.. ( Oh what is the word I looking for – its on the tip of my tongue ) Ah. Got it. A Umami Taste! Much cheaper pure MSG doesn’t provide this. Sea Weed also has the added benefit of giving soft ice-creams a smother mouth-feel. A win-win for seaweed and umami. Here is a list of other seaweeds. Note: the Latinised names in this list all begin with Saccharina. Now come on 71.112.244.51... We don't object to you editing Wikipedia because you have the potential to become a good editor. Have another go (but base your future edits on what you are 'intellectually' -rather than emotionally- sure about).--Aspro (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Wait, are we really having a long discussion just because someone can't be bothered to read up on a term? It's not even "new" - we've known the existence for a distinct taste receptor and its molecular interactions since before the human genome was sequenced. That the IP is ignorant of this basic knowledge is not the basis for sound editing. HCA (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

GARUM and GARAM

The name garum for the salty fish mixture reminds me of the Malay word garam for salt. Is there a connection? Yospangsada (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Yospangsada: I wonder if it's more directly connected with Hindi (and other Indian languages), e.g. garam masala = hot spice. Bahasa (Indonesian and Malayan) seems to have quite a few loan words from Indian traders. Did they perhaps bring salt? Peter coxhead (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Disappearance section

My recent addition to this article was reverted by User:Zefr for the following reason: "conjecture, unsourced". (Link to diff). I am confused by this revert, as it was neither conjecture, nor unsourced. Zefr, can you please explain your revert? Eniagrom (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

As the use of garum during Roman times (at least 2000 years ago) and before is based on interpretation of artifacts and no records, your edit on how it disappeared from common use impressed as conjecture derived from conjecture, with the one NPR source deep in conjecture. One sentence on its possible reasons for disappearing would be sufficient. Editing your last sentence for the History section: "Historians consider piracy and salt tax to be possible reasons why garum disappeared from common use.(ref name="NPR") --Zefr (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

recipe

the recipie given here seems somewhat different https://www.timesofisrael.com/factory-for-romans-favorite-funky-fish-sauce-discovered-near-ashkelon/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.245.17.105 (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

shared origin with ketchup?

I read the linked text at footnote 8; it doesn't seem at all that garum and ketchup have a shared origin, except in the sense that they both use fish. --2607:FEA8:D5DF:F3D9:1CFD:643F:358D:3A22 (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Garos (fish) redirecting here

@Deor: I do not understand your reversal of my change that made "garos" bold [3] with a comment "no, it doesn't" [redirect here]. It is easy to check that Garos (fish) indeed redirects here since November 2023. Garos is also a term frequently used by researchers in this field, see, for example [4]. Therefore it seems that MOS:BOLDREDIRECT applies. Викидим (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

You boldfaced garos with the edit summary "redirects here". But Garos doesn't redirect to this article; it's an article about a French commune. Garos (fish) may redirect to this article, but that doesn't seem to me to merit boldfacing the term. Perhaps if it redirected specifically to the "Manufacture and export" section, there would be a better justification for boldfacing it here. Deor (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Викидим (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)