Off the top of my head, where all the foolish notions are stored, I would
start with the fish of commerce in England which were local for local
consumption, such as Dover sole and plaice (our summer flounder) and little
white bait, and such, and then those that were salted or dried for commerce,
such as cod. The tuna is a lot of fish, but isn't a fish that could be
preserved well until canning (and then it turns out to can exceptionally
well, especially in oil). This would also have been true in New England,
where runs of striped bass and bluefish provided fresh fish near shore, and
cod and halibut provided big hauls that could be salted down offshore. What
could be done with a deep-water bluefin tuna off New England in the 1840s?
If you knew how to bleed it correctly (an important point for the Japanese
buyers of these fish here in recent years), you could race it into Boston,
but why would it sell at a premium against other summer fish?

Generally, I think the Pacific market in the 19th century was also dependent
on salting, as with salt salmon from Alaska becoming so popular in Hawaii.

Now, if there is a whole salt tuna thing I'm unaware of, I'll look deeper in
my brain.


--
-Mark H. Zanger
author, The American History Cookbook, The American Ethnic Cookbook for
Students
www.ethnicook.com
www.historycook.com

"ASmith1946" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >Ah,, thank you Arri. I was thinking tuna, as in the fish and was
wondering
> >how that nickname had happened <grin>.
>
> This raises several interesting issues The first is linguistic. The
> Spanish/Mexican word "tuna" clearly meant the fruit of the cactus. The
word
> "atun" clearly meant the fish. The English word for tuna was "tunny," a
word
> that was used in the US until about 1900. How "tuna" came to mean the fish
is a
> mystery. It was likely a Californization of the Spanish/Mexican word. The
fist
> usage I can find dates to 1881. Then this spelling just replaced "tunny"
within
> a decade or so in the US. I understand that "tuna" is regularly used in
the UK
> as well now? If so, I assume it's due to the sale of canned tuna.
>
> This raises a larger issue. Why didn't the English and the Americans eat
much
> tuna prior to about 1907? Prior to this date, I can't find many recipes in
> English-language cookbooks (there are some in French/Spanish cookbooks
> published in the UK and US, but very few in British or American
cookbooks). Any
> earlier recipes from Australia or New Zealand by chance?
>
> A couple tuna species are huge (some weighed it about 1000-15000 pounds)
and
> they are plentiful in the North Atlantic and the Pacific. Tuna isn't that
> difficult to catch and it is a very mild-tasting fish, particularly the
white
> meat. Tuna has been part of Mediterranean cuisine since ancient
Greek/Roman
> times, and there are many French/Spanish/Italian/Arab recipes for tuna.
Why not
> the English-speaking world until the 20th century?
>
> Andy Smith