Norman-French Cuisine, the Soft Culinary Invasion of A.D.1066

Norman-French Cuisine Invades England (Somewhat) in A.D. 1066

Dr. James J. S. Johnson

Nevertheless He [i.e., the Creator-God] left not Himself without witness, in that He did good, and He gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.  (Acts 14:17)

The year A.D. 1066 is best remembered by William the Conqueror’s successful invasion of Britain—an event that changed world history forever.(1),(2),(3)

As this author’s previous history research has reported, the fate of America’s George Washington actually hung in the balances during the Battle of Hastings (!), on the 14th of October, A.D.1066.(1),(3)

However, did that invasive immigration of Normans also change the dietary habits of Britain’s inhabitants?

Archaeologists from Cardiff University and the University of Sheffield have combined the latest scientific methods to offer new insights into life during the Norman Conquest of England.  … But little has been known about how it affected everyday people’s lives. … There is evidence the Norman invasion led to more controlled and standardised mass agricultural practices. Pork became a more popular choice and dairy products were used less. But on the whole, a diet dominated by vegetables, cereals beef and mutton remained largely unchanged.(4)

In other words, according to recently reported archeological research, the conclusion is that the Norman conquest of England only changed popular cuisine habits “somewhat”, but “not so much”.(4),(5),(6)

Dr. Elizabeth Craig-Atkins of the University of Sheffield’s Department of Archaeology said: “Examining archaeological evidence of the diet and health of ordinary people who lived during this time gives us a detailed picture of their everyday experiences and lifestyles. Despite the huge political and economic changes that were happening [in 1066], our analysis suggests the Conquest may have only had a limited impact on most people’s diet and health.  “There is certainly evidence that people experienced periods where food was scarce. But following this, an intensification in farming meant people generally had a more steady food supply and consistent diet. Aside from pork becoming a more popular food choice, eating habits and cooking methods remained unchanged to a large extent.”(4)

Before the Norman invasion, in A.D.1066, the island of Britain’s demographics displayed the mix of original Celtic peoples and later-arriving Saxons, plus a sprinkling of settlers from two centuries of intermittent immigrations by Norse Vikings.

However, when Duke William’s force came from Rouen, they brought with them their Norman-French language, plus some Norman-French dietary preferences. French cuisine often features poultry, plus the Viking heritage of Normandy always included fish, such as cod, salmon, and herring.(2),(5),(6)

Eventually, bones reveal who was eating what.(4),(5),(6),(7)

Researchers used a technique called stable isotope analysis on bones to compare 36 humans found in various locations around Oxford, including Oxford Castle, who had lived between the 10th and 13th centuries. Signals from food we consume are archived as chemical tracers in our bones, allowing scientists to investigate the quality and variety of a person’s diet long after they have died. … Levels of protein and carbohydrate consumption were similar in the group and evidence of bone conditions related to poor diet—such as rickets and scurvy—were rare.(4)

The study of diet enables exploration of the impact of political change on everyday life through its illumination of the provisioning, marketing, selection and preparation of foodstuffs. … Previous analyses of diet in England during the 11th-century Norman Conquest have focused on changes in food culture brought about by French cultural influences. These include increased consumption of domesticated pigs and wild species, as well as changes in cooking practices, such as a greater frequency of roasting and new methods of slow cooking…. These changes can be set against developments in food culture, which characterise the early centuries of the late medieval period, such as the increasing consumption of fish….(5)

Unlike swine raised far from coastlines or navigable rivers, swine raised by Vikings—and by Norman French—were often fed fish scraps.(7)

Isotope analysis was also used on 60 animals found at the same sites, to ascertain how they were raised. Studies of pig bones found their diets became more consistent and richer in animal protein after the Conquest, suggesting pig farming was intensified under Norman rule. They were likely living in the town and being fed scraps instead of natural vegetable fodder.(4)

These dietary differences complicate research for archeologists who rely upon Carbon-14 dating methods. Traditional radiocarbon dating usually assumes a terrestrial food-based diet—ingesting photosynthesis-fixed ¹⁴C via eating grains, root vegetables, fruits, and nuts, plus various meats and dairy products derived from grain-fed or grass-fed herbivores.(7),(8)

However, fish-dominated diets—supplemented by pork from swine raised on fish scraps—accumulate less Carbon-14 in human bones, so dietary adjustments are needed when estimating date-of-death timeframes for the bones of those who habitually ate fish and other foods traceable to a marine food-chain.(7),(8)

Meanwhile, whatever good food is eaten—whether it’s from a terrestrial food-chain (like chicken), or from the sea (like fish)—should be eaten with thanksgiving, because good food is its own proof of God’s caring providence.(9)

For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. (1 Timothy 4:4-5)

References

1. “But what if there had been no George Washington to ‘father’ America? … If the battle [of Hastings] had gone the other way and William the Conqueror had died, then he would not have been alive to have [fathered] a son named Henry (England’s Henry I), who was born two years after the Battle of Hastings. Since George Washington is a [F21] direct descendant of Henry I, Washington wouldn’t have been born roughly 700 years later…”  Johnson, J. J. S. 2012. Christmas, Vikings, and the Providence of God. Acts & Facts. 41(12):8-10, posted at https://www.icr.org/article/christmas-vikings-providence-god .
2. Haywood, J. 1995. The Penguin Historical Atlas of the Viking World. London, UK: Penguin Books, pages 14-15, 80-81, 137.  Normandy’s William the Conqueror was an F5 descendant of the famous Norwegian-born Viking Hrolf (the Ganger) Ragnvaldsson, who established Rouen, Normandy.
3. Andrusko, S. M., et al. 1983. Genealogical Research at the Library of Congress. Library Trends. 32(1):51-65, especially page 53. See also Ashley, M. 1998. The Mammoth Book of British Kings and Queens: The Complete Biographical Encyclopedia of Kings and Queens of Britain. New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 439, 497-504, 521, esp. 499. ICR’s adjunct faculty, British historian Dr. William R. Cooper, provided helpful scholarship with this biogenetic data analysis.
4. Cardiff University staff writer. 2020. Norman Conquest of 1066 Did Little to Change People’s Eating Habits. Posted by PhysOrg (July 6, 2020) at https://phys.org/news/2020-07-norman-conquest-people-habits.html .
5. Craig-Atkins, E. B. Jarvis, L. Cramp, et al. 2020. The Dietary Impact of the Norman Conquest: A Multiproxy Archaeological Investigation of Oxford, UK. PLoS One. 15(7): e0235005 (July 6, 2020), posted at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235005 .
6. Some of the biochemical findings were unexpected. It seems that the Anglo-Norman clergy, who mandated cultist dietary restrictions for the common folk, did not practice what they themselves preached. “It might be expected, for example, that Christ Church’s monastic community observed religious proscriptions against meat [1 Timothy 4:1-5], and so consumed more fish (and poultry) than individuals interred in the other cemeteries. However, this appears not to have been the case, as Christ Church has the lowest mean δ¹⁵N and δ¹³C values compared to the other sites. The three individuals from Oxford Castle may have had a higher social status, and therefore a diet richer in meat and fish, but in this case, as the mean δ¹⁵N value is highest, but the δ¹³C value is lowest, marine dietary input must have been negligible in this small sample of individuals.”  (Quoting Craig-Atkins, E. B. Jarvis, L. Cramp, et al., cited in the previous footnote).   On Europe’s dietary restrictions during the Dark Ages, see Kurlanksy, M. 1997. Cod: A Biography of the Fish that Changed the World. New York, NY: Walker & Company, pages 24 & 35.
7. Johnson, J. J. S. 2018. Viking Bones Contradict Carbon-14 Assumptions. Acts & Facts. 47(5):21, posted at https://www.icr.org/article/viking-bones-contradict-c14-assumptions .   For a short podcast on this topic, review James J. S. Johnson’s “Why One-Size-Fits-All Radiocarbon Dating Doesn’t Work”, ICR Creation Science Update Podcast (August 24, 2018), posted at https://www.icr.org/article/one-size-fits-all-radiocarbon-dating-doesnt-work .
8. Jarman, C. L., M. Biddle, T. Higham, et al. 2018. The Viking Great Army in England: New Dates from the Repton Charnel. Antiquity. 92(361):183-199. See also Arneborg, J., J. Heinemeier, N. Lynnerup, et al. 1999. Change of Diet of the Greenland Vikings Determined from Stable Carbon Isotope Analysis and ¹⁴C Dating of their Bones. Radiocarbon. 41(2):157-168.   Arneborg and her team recognize how diet must be accounted for when using Carbon-14 dating methods: “If the bone collagen is of terrestrial origin, the measured (conventional) ¹⁴C age is converted into a true calendar age by using the global tree-ring calibration curve. However, this simple procedure is not applicable when the bone collagen is derived in part from marine carbon which, due to the marine reservoir effect, appears several hundred ¹⁴C years older than the corresponding terrestrial carbon. This seriously constrains the dating of bones of people who have had access to food protein from the sea.”
9. Acts 14:17. See also Johnson, J. J. S. 2011. Our Daily Bread: How Food Proves God’s Providence. Acts & Facts. 40(4):8-9, posted at https://www.icr.org/article/our-daily-bread-how-food-proves-gods/ .

---

 

Court Okays Tunneling Pipeline under the Appalachian Trail

APPALACHIAN TRAIL, N.H. (Lakes of the Clouds hikers hut)

U.S. Supreme Court Okays Tunneling Pipeline under the Appalachian Trail

Dr. James J. S. Johnson

(attorney admitted to bars of Texas & Colorado)

APPALACHIAN TRAIL, N.H. (Presidential Range)

In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.  (Proverbs 3:6)

Earlier this month (June 15, 2020), the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a federal appellate court ruling that previously prohibited the new Atlantic Coast Pipeline from being laid under part of the Appalachian Trail.(1)

Environmentalist groups, as well as hiking enthusiasts, had protested how the proposed “Atlantic Coast Pipeline” would be constructed to run underneath part of the historic Appalachian Trail.(2) The pipeline construction company, however, prevailed in court.

Dominion Energy, which has partnered with Duke Energy, to build the 600-mile pipeline from West Virginia to northeastern North Carolina, welcome the high court’s ruling as an ‘affirmation’. Dominion spokesman Aaron Ruby noted that 50 other pipelines ‘have safely crossed under the Trail without disturbing its public use.’ The pipeline will be installed hundreds of feet below the trail’s surface, he said, and emerge more than a half-mile away on either side.(2)

The Appalachian National Scenic Trail (“Appalachian Trail”), which is older than the USA, is perhaps the most famous and best-loved of America’s hiking trails. Hiking trails, as this author has recently reported, provide wonderful opportunities for appreciating God’s creation.(3)

But what relevance to Biblical Christians is there to an environmental lawsuit about flowing petroleum products under a famous mountain hiking trail?

The proposed subterranean pipeline involves some $8 billion in projected costs, to convey natural gas across part of the commonwealth of Virginia.(2) All of the physical land (in controversy) belongs the U.S. government—specifically, the land in question is allocated (by Congress) to the George Washington National Forest in central Virginia. The U.S. Forest System is part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.(4)

As such, the legal presumption is that such federal land can be used for commercial purposes, if doing so is a responsible “wise use” of the land, providing public benefit and avoiding reckless waste of resources.(1),(4)

U.S. Forest Service-managed lands routinely lease to private businesses, for timber and other commercial uses, so long as the U.S. government benefits from the contracted uses. So, there is no big surprise when part of a national forest is contractually leased to a private business (for ranching, timber, or petroleum operations), so long as the government contracting system benefits the USA.(4)

However, the complicating legal factor, in this equation, is that a segment of the multi-state Appalachian Trail cuts through the George Washington National Forest. That historic trial is itself declared—by congressional action—as a natural resource to be administered by the National Park Service, which is part of the U.S. Department of the Interior.(2)

Federal “park” lands are not the same as federal “forest” lands. Federal lands assigned to the U.S. Park Service are not routinely leased, for subterranean activities, to private businesses for commercial development.(1),(4)

Unsurprisingly, the multi-purpose “wise use” standards used in federal forests (by the U.S. Department of Agriculture) are not the usual “preservationist” property use norms applied by National Park Service (of the U.S. Department of the Interior), so there is a jurisdictional overlap that complicates how the federal government can manage the physical trail-within-forest land involved.(1),(4)

Further complicating this multi-agency “turf” dispute is the combination of federal statutes (i.e., laws passed by Congress) that conditionally permit and/or prohibit what uses can be made of “lands” managed by the Forest Service, versus those administered by the Park Service.(1)

Meanwhile an $8 billion project pivoted on this terminology question:  is the Appalachian Trail a long piece of federal “land” assigned to the Park Service?(2)

In short, the majority vote in the U.S. Supreme Court decision said No, thereby determining that the pipeline could pass underneath the Appalachian Trail, because the scenic hiking trail was not itself a physical piece of “land”.

We are tasked with determining whether the Leasing Act [of 1920] enables the Forest Service to grant a subterranean pipeline right-of-way some 600 feet under the Appalachian Trail. To do this, we first focus on the distinction between the lands that the Trail traverses and the Trail itself, because the lands (not the Trail) are the object of the relevant statutes.(1)

Rather, the trail was deemed a passage-way through (and over) land, what the law calls an “easement” (or “right-of-way”)—similar to how rural streets are access-ways that separate neighbors, but the physical land itself (under the traveled road) is considered to be owned by the property-tax-paying landowners who border the roadway. (This was the law, in 1968, when the Forest Service granted a trail-administering “right-of-way” easement unto the Park Service.)

Pursuant to the Trails Act, the Forest Service entered into “right-of-way” agreements with the National Park Service “for [the] approximately 780 miles of Appalachian Trail route within national forests,” including the George Washington National Forest. … A right-of-way is a type of easement. In 1968, as now, principles of property law defined a right-of-way easement as granting a nonowner a limited privilege to “use the lands of another.” … Specifically, a right-of-way grants the limited “right to pass … through the estate of another.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1489 (4th ed. 1968). Courts at the time of the Trails Act’s enactment acknowledged that easements grant only nonpossessory rights of use limited to the purposes specified in the easement agreement. … Stated more plainly, easements are not land, they merely burden land that continues to be owned by another.(1)

Here is how the judicial majority summarily explained their decision:

In sum, read in light of basic property law principles, the plain language of the Trails Act and the agreement between the two agencies did not divest the Forest Service of jurisdiction over the lands that the Trail crosses. It gave the Department of the Interior (and by delegation the National Park Service) an easement for the specified and limited purpose of establishing and administering a Trail, but the land itself remained under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. To restate this conclusion in the parlance of the Leasing Act, the lands that the Trail crosses are still “Federal lands” … and the Forest Service may grant a pipeline right-of-way through them—just as it granted a right-of-way for the Trail. Sometimes a complicated regulatory scheme may cause us to miss the forest for the trees, but at bottom, these cases boil down to a simple proposition: A trail is a trail, and land is land.(1)

Now, there is an aspect of this analysis that should catch the attention of Biblical Christians—this ruling reminds us that forested land (“real property”) may be itself physical matter, yet the right or opportunity to travel through that forested land is not itself physical material.

An entitlement to hike along (i.e., upon) a particular trail is an “easement” (a/k/a “right-of-way”), a non-physical right to travel under certain conditions (such as traveling without causing waste, during certain timeframes, etc.). But the opportunity to hike on a mountain trail is not itself a physical thing, like a rock or tree or hard-packed soil.

Appreciating biogenetic family history (wearing Texas Czech Genealogical Society shirt, while eating crawdads in Mississippi)

Likewise, our human lives—as living creatures specially created in God’s image—are more than just our physical bodies. Yes, part of us is physical—God made us from dust of the earth. Yet God added to that physical stuff non-physical personal lives—which can be described by words like soul, spirit, personality, etc.—which is the part of us finite creatures that somehow shows a hint of our infinite God.(5)

So, when you take your next nature hike—take time to observe the wide and wild variety of physical animals (like bees, bunnies, and butterflies—or June-bugs, jaybirds, and jaguarundis)—interacting with physical plant-life (like trees, bushes, grasses, flowers)—within the geophysical environment (including rocks, soils, sunlight, rain, freshwater streams). Appreciate God’s caring handiwork!(3)

Ohio forest hiking, AD2005 (wearing Glattfelder family history shirt)

But don’t stop there! Appreciate also your own human activity of walking, hiking, strolling.

A simple nature walk in your neighborhood—or hiking a mountain trail—is an opportunity to be grateful for that moment that God has given you.(3),(4),(5)

That very opportunity is taken (or neglected) within a physical context of time and space, yet the opportunity itself is not physical. The opportunities that God gives to us are intangible blessings—they are like easements—we can use them or lose them, but they are not physical stuff that we can store inside a garage.

Part of storing up treasures in Heaven involves recognizing and using our God-given opportunities to honor the Lord Jesus Christ here on Earth.(6),(7)

Even taking a walk, where you are now, can become an opportunity to see God’s glory in the so-called little things—details of His magnificent creation.  It’s not necessary to go hike the Appalachian Trail to see God’s artistry in what He has made.(7)

APPALACHIAN TRAIL, N.H. (Lakes of the Clouds hikers hut)

References

1. U.S. Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association, 2020 WL 3146692, ___ S.Ct. ___ (June 15, 2020), reversing 911 F.3d 150 (4^th Cir. 2018). Justice Thomas used this comparison: “If analyzed as a right-of-way between two private landowners, determining whether any land had been transferred would be simple. If a rancher granted a neighbor an easement across his land for a horse trail, no one would think that the rancher had conveyed ownership over that land. Nor would anyone think that the rancher had ceded his own right to use his land in other ways, including by running a water line underneath the trail that connects to his house. … Likewise, when a company obtains a right-of-way to lay a segment of pipeline through a private owner’s land, no one would think that the company had obtained ownership over the land through which the pipeline passes. Although the Federal Government owns all lands involved here, the same general principles apply.”
2. Wheeler, T. B. 2020. Supreme Court Rules Pipeline Can Cross Under Appalachian Trail. Chesapeake Bay Journal (June 16, 2020), posted at https://www.bayjournal.com/news/energy/supreme-court-rules-pipeline-can-cross-under-appalachian-trail/article_531842f4-afd0-11ea-8bd4-cf3bc0da0e9a.html .
3. Johnson, J. J. S. 2020. Sweden’s Fun in the Sun, Nature Hiking. Creation Science Update (June 5, 2020), posted at https://www.icr.org/article/sweden-fun-in-the-sun-nature-hiking .
4. Johnson, J. J. S. 1995. Introduction to Environmental Studies, An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Applied Ecology, Conservation Policy, and Environmental Ethics. Dallas: NWQD Press, LeTourneau University. Regarding the roles of the U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service, see especially pages 57-76.  Regarding hiking the Appalachian Trail, see pages 1-9 of Appendix F.
5. Genesis 1:26-27; Psalm 102:18. See also Johnson, J. J. S. 2012. Grackles and Gratitude. Acts & Facts, 41(7):8-10, posted at https://www.icr.org/article/grackles-gratitude/ .
6. Matthew 6:19-21.
7. Revelation 4:11.

Alaska adventure, en route from Seward to Anchorage

Moravian Log Cabin Days

Moravian Log Cabin Days,  in a North Carolina Forest

 Dr. James J. S. Johnson

 Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, ‘I have no pleasure in them’.   (Ecclesiastes 12:1)

[NOTE:  this is not the cabin I lived for 1/2 a year, but it looks similar in size and style.]

This adds another episode to the “Pilgrim Geography” series, first announced in “Remembering Peer Pressure Testings  during Junior High Years,  in Reisterstown and Wards Chapel, Maryland” [posted at https://rockdoveblog.wordpress.com/2020/02/03/remembering-junior-high-years/ ].

---

NOTE:  The memoir below is excerpted from “Czech into Texas; From Bohemian Roots, to a Moravian Log Cabin, to the Lone Star State”, ČESKÉ STOPY [Czech Footprints], 13(1):15-22 (spring 2011).

---

 Czechs, and folks with Czech ancestors, have been coming to Texas for more than a century.  However, some of us gladly claim our Czech ancestral lineages, yet must do a bit more documentation to prove we are genuine  “Tex–Czechs”,   —   and I resemble that remark.    Yet part of my Czech heritage (which includes both Moravian and Bohemian elements)  includes living in a 17^th–century Moravian immigrants’ log cabin (see photo of similar cabin below) during a cold and snowy winter,  prior to my “immigration” to the Lone State.  . . .

MORAVIAN   LOG   CABIN   DAYS

After completing junior college in Maryland (Montgomery College at Germantown), I needed to transfer to a four–year university, to complete my undergraduate studies.  Skipping the irrelevant details, I transferred to Wake Forest University in North Carolina, in the fall of AD1980   —   specifically in the historic “twin cities” of Winston–Salem, with emphasis on the “Salem”.

Originally, Salem was a Moravian colony (settled by Moravian Brethren Protestants of the 1600s), located near a site that would eventually be named “Winston”.  The industrial town of Winston grew up and out, eventually enveloping the smaller Moravian settlement of Salem, so the combined metropolitan area became known as “Winston–Salem”, North Carolina.  Tobacco was “king”, there, as the brand-names “Winston” and “Salem” still attest.

 

    Salem (restored Moravian town in N.C.)            

Salem, to this day, has a “historic” Moravian town (located by Salem College) which preserves many of the 17^th–century Moravian customs and culture, such as Moravian cuisine, Moravian beeswax candles, the multi-pointed 3-D Moravian Christmas stars, etc.

During part of my time attending Wake Forest University, I drove home to Raleigh (where my wife was employed) on the weekends, but rented a cheap place to live that was within driving distance to the university. At first this involved living at a trailer park but that proved to be too expensive to continue beyond the first semester.  So, before the spring of AD1981, due to “student poverty” (if you’ve been there, you know what I mean!), I needed to secure a new form of “student housing”, for my non–weekend lodging.  What I found (and used into the early summer) was certainly “cheap”, but sometimes your “bargain” is not what you expected.

This new “student housing” turned out to be a 17^th–century Moravian log cabin.

The dark–brown log cabin was located in a woods five miles from Wake Forest University’s campus, somewhat behind the house of the current owner  (who rented it real cheap,  but “you get what you paid for”).  This five–mile distance was not flat, and I especially recall two steep hills, because  (on days when my car wouldn’t start) I often used a bicycle, unless snow and ice conditions made walking an easier form of travel (which was frequent).

Thankfully, there was a McDonald’s located at the midpoint between my log cabin and the university campus, so I routinely bought a bottomless cup of coffee there, as I warmed up and enjoyed the bright interior lighting, which was easier to read by (when doing homework) than was reading by candlelight or firelight.   The McDonald’s also had running water (for hand-washing), a flush–toilet, and sturdy dining chairs for hours and hours of reading and writing (all the while getting free refills on my coffee).   Yet, probably best of all (for studying), the McDonald’s had very good interior lighting, for reading and writing.  Half the time my Moravian log cabin’s scintilla of electricity didn’t work, for reasons I still don’t understand, so electric light in the cabin was unavailable about as often as it was available.  Many evenings I did my reading and writing by candlelight and/or by firelight, i.e., reading by the firelight put out by the frenzied dancing of warmth-radiating flames blazing in my fireplace.

So, for the spring semester of A.D. 1981, as well as for the summer term of A.D. 1981, a Moravian pioneer’s log cabin was home for me, during week-days.  (On weekends, if my car worked, or if I could get to a bus station, I went home to Raleigh for the weekend, to the apartment where my wife and step-daughter lived.)  This arrangement was rather Spartan, on week-days, as will be explained below.  However, it became apparent that this arrangement must change before the fall semester, due to an addition to our family!  Specifically, my wife became expecting during January A.D. 1981. In time, our son was born in mid-October.  During the final portion of her pregnancy, we needed a new home that was within commuting distance to the university, yet in a city where my wife’s company had an office (so we prayed for an intra-company transfer of her employment).  Just before the fall semester, we moved to Greensboro (N.C.), which was close enough for me to commute to Winston–Salem (to attend school), and for my wife to work at her new (i.e., transferred) employment, at her company’s Greensboro branch office.  But, meanwhile, during January to September (about half of A.D. 1981), I lived five days a week  in the 17^th century log cabin, which was located inside a wooded area too far to receive mail delivery form the U.S. Postal Service.

The log cabin itself was a simple Moravian settler’s cabin:  one room,  plus a “loft” (where I found a freshly shed snake-skin, left recently by a very long snake!).  No refrigerator: yet the entire cabin was like a refrigerator, unless a large fire was burning in the fireplace!   One bed.  One chair.  Wood floor.  Two shelves attached to the log walls (one for books, one for food).  Rudimentary electricity had been added to the cabin,  by the cabin’s owner,  to allow for only one electric item to use electricity.   (The qualifying word here is “rudimentary”.)  Lots of bugs and spiders.  Especially lots of spiders.  For example, one could plug in the lamp, to use a light bulb in a lamp (for reading).  Or, one could use the plug for an electric skillet (to heat food).  But not both at the same time.  Also, “multi-strip” electric–chord devices apparently overloaded the circuit, causing the wee flow of electricity to cease, sometimes for days.   (So forget using a multi–strip.)   So, to heat up food, the lamp’s light-bulb provided light to see, while the light was on. (During wintertime the daylight disappears quickly, so light becomes an important issue).   After canned food was poured into the electric skillet, I could light a candle.  Then, seeing by the light of the candle, unplug the electric light–powered lamp, and plug in the electric skillet.  After cooking the food, which can be eaten directly from the electric skillet, unplug the skillet, and plug in the lamp.   Or, eat by candlelight.  (Even today I have fond memories of reading my Old Testament Hebrew Bible by candlelight and/or firelight.)

After eating, use the snow outside to “wash” out the skillet.  (Presumably, if the “dish–cleaning” wasn’t perfect, whatever food germs remained in the skillet, till the next meal, should get cooked to death whenever the skillet was next fully heated up for the “new” food.)     The cabin had thick walls of mortared blackish–brown square–cut logs, forming an interior rectangle of about ten feet by twelve feet.   No indoor plumbing!  (No details beyond that  — except I’ll note here that cold, snowy winter nights are not a good time to have urgent digestive issues!)  And, thankfully, for winter weather, the cabin had a very efficient fireplace.  (The woods next to the cabin supplied all of the firewood needed, month after month.)   In the spring and summer, however, the inside of the cabin was so cool (compared to the outdoor weather) that it felt like air conditioning.  Cheese and pimento keeps (unspoiled) for weeks in a cabin life that, without any refrigerator.   It’s amazing how much cheese and pimento (or peanut butter) one can eat, day after day, week after week, month after month, if you have enough saltine crackers to go with it! (Because I ate so much of it then, I won’t eat it now.)

   

Prior to the fall semester (of A.D. 1981) I gave up my week-day lodgings at the Moravian log cabin, when we rented an apartment in Greensboro (North Carolina), from which I could commute to the university, while my wife worked in Greensboro. Surely my college education would have been impossible without my wife working, to put me through school – so she deserves my unending gratitude for this and many other lovingkindnesses to me (over the past three-decades-plus).  And during this time our daughter (my step-daughter, if you want to get “technical”) attended school in Greensboro.  In October of A.D. 1981, not that long after my “Moravian log cabin days” concluded, our energetic baby boy was born.

  “IMMIGRATING”   TO  TEXAS

             This “Czech-into-Texas” journey is now about over. After Wake Forest University, I attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, for my first doctoral program.  Even during that time, however, I kept an eye on Texas (since my wife is a native Texan; need I say more?).  After completing my first doctorate, I accepted a challenging job in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas.  In A.D. 1986, our family relocated to the greater Dallas area, where we have been ever since.

So, biogenetically speaking, I (providentially) finally got my “Czech into Texas”.

---

 

 

 

Remembering … Junior High Years

Dr. James J. S. Johnson

Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, ‘I have no pleasure in them’.   (Ecclesiastes 12:1)

Remembering Peer Pressure Testings  during Junior High Years,  in Reisterstown and Wards Chapel, Maryland

When I think back, on days gone by,

Such as my years, in junior high:

Peer pressure dares, and snobby sneers;

God’s grace my guide, not foolish peers —

Rich victories won, as time hiked by.

This limerick begins a “Pilgrim Geography” series, recalling how God has providentially blessed me in various places, along life’s journey as I trek about this earth as a “pilgrim” belonging to the Lord Jesus Christ.

During my junior high years I was confronted with a lot of ugly peer pressure (i.e., opportunities to sin), which repulsed me and nudged me toward the more-independent pathway of “daring to be a Daniel”  —  when peers mocked my teen-aged piety (as if I had a loser lifestyle, as a “jerk” who would never become “popular”) saying NO to opportunities for immorality.

(Although one doesn’t always know who is watching  —  https://wordpress.com/post/leesbird.com/95265   —  personal moral integrity is often showcased when “no one” is watching.  Besides, it’s never true that “no one” is watching, because God always observes us, even when human eyes and ears don’t.)

Needless to say, I have no regrets that I repeatedly refused “dares” to compromise my personal integrity for the fleeting comfort (and false “value”) of peer “acceptance”/approval.

For a few Old Testament Scriptures, that inform God’s children of their privileged calling as “pilgrims”, see Genesis 47:9; Exodus 6:4; and Psalm 119:54.  In the New Testament, see especially Hebrews 11:13 and 1st Peter 2:11.

By God’s grace, since becoming a Christian (during autumn of my 6th grade year), my earthly pilgrimage (which has included a lot of Providential geography) has been an ongoing mix of life experiences that provide character tests and opportunities to grow in serious loyalty to (and fellowship with) Him, always being enabled by His indwelling Spirit’s all-sufficient grace and guidance (Romans 8:9; Ephesians 4:30), spiced and seasoned with a generous sprinkling of surprises, learning, adventures, joy, and abundant life (John 10:10).

Thank You,  LORD,  for being with me — and shaping my young life then —  through those precious years.

---

 

When in Scotland, Eat Well!

Nevertheless He [i.e., God] left not Himself without witness, in that He did good, and He gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.  (Acts 14:17)

Good food is a proof of God’s providential care and power, as Acts 14:17 indicates.  [See my analysis, of this truth, in “Our Daily Bread:  How Food Proves God’s Providence”, ACTS & FACTS, 40(4):8-9 (April 2011), posted at  https://www.icr.org/article/our-daily-bread-how-food-proves-gods/ .]

So, here is my Scottish-memories limerick, to help me recall some wonderful food that I ate while in Scotland, including many “full Scottish breakfast” buffets (with hot black teas), plus gourmet later-in-the-day treasures like Norway Lobster (a/k/a “Langoustine”, Nephrops norvegicus  —  a marine crustacean resembling a mini-lobster, i.e., a crawfish that tastes somewhat like a prawn-sized shrimp), haggis (which looks like a large egg roll — and tastes like Pennsylvania Dutch scrapple), venison, Isle of Mull mussels, scones (with clotted cream),  sea scallops (e.g., “Queenies”), salmon, haddock (as part of “fish and chips”), haggis-&-cracked-black-pepper potato chips, Irn-Bru ice cream, and more!

Recalling Scottish Cuisine, in the Highlands & Hebrides

Scallops, haggis, fish and chips

Are well welcomed by my lips;

Norway lobster, steak of deer,

Scones and tea  give me cheer;

Scallops, haggis, fish and chips!

[writ by JJSJ while leaving Scotland, 21st July AD2019]