the pasta debate

[chef koo]

you've all noticed that thread about fusion cuisine and the posts about how pasta came from china. i've heard this story from many people. i've also heard that pasta was around during the roman times long before marco polo went traveling. i'm sure there are a few food experts that can settle this. problem being is that the ones who say the italians invented pasta are the italians. i think we need a less biased opinion or one that we at least trust

Admin note: Posts #39-42 may not necessarily "flow" within the context of this thread since four threads all relating to this topic were merged from three different forums.

Edited October 17, 2005 by SobaAddict70 (log)

[albiston]

I don't mind being called biased, though I honestly think I'm much less than most other Italians I know when it comes to Italian cuisine. And, well, you can trust my opinion or not. I might take that somewhat personally , but that's not the point. Since you're referring to this previous thread, and what I wrote there, let me go into more detail.

You're mistaken when you imply that only Italians claim that pasta was around during Roman times. First of all, it is not an exact statement and not what I claimed. To discuss this issue one has to separate fresh pasta made with soft flour and dried one made with durum wheat. What is known from Latin sources (Apicius and others) is that Romans had a product called laganum, from which probably the word lasagne comes from. There are differing opinions regarding the question if this preparation resembled today's lasagne in any way, though there are good reasons to believe that the soft flour pasta we eat now descends from that.

If we talk about dry hard wheat pasta, then the Romans have nothing to do with that (and I cannot recall anyone claiming this on these forums). Most scholarly books and papers I have read point to an Northern African/Arabic origin. And no, it's not only Italians. You should take a look at this extremely thorough and informative article from US author Clifford Wright. As you will notice he makes a very strong point for this claim.

Going back to the Chinese connection, Wright dismisses it explaining that (emphasis added):

We know Marco Polo didn’t discover macaroni in the Far East for two reasons. First, it is clear that he is already familiar with lasagne and vermicelli and other pastas from his descriptions of the various alimentary pastes he encounters in the East. Furthermore, whenever he encounters wheat in the form of vermicelli or lasagne (undoubtedly soft wheat) he makes no mention of the most unique properties of hard wheat--namely its long shelf life when made into various food products and its gluten content.

I think we can agree that if Marco Polo described the wheat products he encountered with Italian names that were well established by the time, those products must have been known in Italy before his voyage.

Edited May 30, 2005 by albiston (log)

[Pan]

What about the history of noodles in China, though? What do the archeologists and historians know about how long they've had 'em?

[Adam Balic]

It is a complicated issue and is difficult to approach as what qualifies as 'pasta' differers from writer to writer.

I think that a general answer would be that 'pasta' has independent and multi-regional origins, but some specific pasta or a least their names can be traced. For instance 'Laska' in Malaysia in origins in a Persian (and maybe older) noodles name, but the noodles now used in the dish most likely have East-Asian origins.

But, most writers now agree that Marco Polo did not bring back pasta to Europe, although he used a word for a type of European pasta to descibe something he saw in SE-Asian.

The Romans most likely had flat sheets of dough, but it is difficult to say it these were pasta (even if the word they used to describe these gives us a modern word for a type of pasta). It is all a matter of definition. Is a flat-bread a pasta? Most people would say not, but there are products in this class that are used in a manner that a pretty close to most peoples definition of a pasta.

Anyway a much better discussion on this topic can be found on Clifford Wright's site.

[albiston]

What about the history of noodles in China, though? What do the archeologists and historians know about how long they've had 'em?

←

That's an answer I'd be very interested in knowing too.

BTW just to avoid misunderstandings I should add that I'm not claiming in any way that China did not evolve noodles on its own (or through the influence of neighboring cultures). I think there are enough examples out there to see that certain dishes have evolved in independent ways in different places, and noodles are clearly one of these. Since the title of the thread mentions pasta expressly, my point should only be taken in regards to Italy.

[Adam Balic]

You're mistaken when you imply that only Italians claim that pasta was around during Roman times. First of all, it is not an exact statement and not what I claimed. To discuss this issue one has to separate fresh pasta made with soft flour and dried one made with durum wheat. What is known from Latin sources (Apicius and others) is that Romans had a product called laganum, from which probably the word lasagne comes from. There are differing opinions regarding the question if this preparation resembled today's lasagne in any way, though there are good reasons to believe that the soft flour pasta we eat now descends from that.

Alberto - I think that most Italian sources I have seen prefer to derive 'Lasagne/Lasagna' from the Greek 'lagana which was a type of flat bread and seems to fit the Roman image of the dish. The other suggestion is that the word has a vulgar Latin origin, named after the cooking vessel 'lasania, which has its origins in the Latin 'lasanum (which I think means 'piss pot').

What ever the case, from the Roman recipes I have seen I imagine a dish that contains flat bread, a bit like the modern Lunigiana 'Testaroli' or maybe the Balkan 'Mlinci'. But, I'm not sure that this means that the Roman dish is the only ancestor of the modern Italian dish. I would favour a Greek (or earlier) original model that developed locally in several locations (the Roman model being one of these), later there was some cross fertilization, maybe. It seems more logical to me that the Sicilian lasagna has Greek, rather then Latin roots in any event. Fun isn't it?

[albiston]

Alberto - I think that most Italian sources I have seen prefer to derive 'Lasagne/Lasagna' from the Greek 'lagana which was a type of flat bread and seems to fit the Roman image of the dish. The other suggestion is that the word has a vulgar Latin origin, named after the cooking vessel 'lasania, which has its origins in the Latin 'lasanum (which I think means 'piss pot').

Adam, what I've read is similar to what you write above. After all the Romans took loads of inspirations from Greek culture. My understanding though was that what the Greek called lagana is not exactly what the Romans ate under the name laganum, but it could just be a wild theory. And yes, lasanum should mean exactly that.

What ever the case, from the Roman recipes I have seen I imagine a dish that contains flat bread, a bit like the modern Lunigiana 'Testaroli' or maybe the Balkan 'Mlinci'. But, I'm not sure that this means that the Roman dish is the only ancestor of the modern Italian dish. I would favour a Greek (or earlier) original model that developed locally in several locations (the Roman model being one of these), later there was some cross fertilization, maybe. It seems more logical to me that the Sicilian lasagna has Greek, rather then Latin roots in any event. Fun isn't it?

←

Absolutely, I'm really enjoying this . I definitely agree with the similarity of old lasagna and testaroli, but I didn't mean to infer that the Roman laganum is the only ancestor of modern day lasagne (and tagliatelle, pappardelle and co.). The original model might probably be Greek and I would imagine Roman laganum developed from that. My point is that soft wheat pasta dishes like lasagne and pappardelle have in turn evolved from the Roman dish.

[Adam Balic]

Absolutely, I'm really enjoying this  . I definitely agree with the similarity of old lasagna and testaroli, but I didn't mean to infer that the Roman laganum is the only ancestor of modern day lasagne (and tagliatelle, pappardelle and co.). The original model might probably be Greek and I would imagine Roman laganum developed from that. My point is that soft wheat pasta dishes like lasagne and pappardelle have in turn evolved from the Roman dish.

←

Alberto - I see what you mean, I think that some of the confusion (I have) with lasagna/e is that there is a difference between the dish(s) and the pasta. When ever I see lasagna I metally think of the stuff that Garfield eats (cartoon cat character BTW), rather then the wide sheets of pasta that are called lasagna. I know of the Sicillian and E-R dishes that use this pasta and are named after the pasta, what makes me think that the Romans may have not had that much to do with the evolution of these modern dishes is that there don't seem to be widespread variations lasagna dishes in the former Roman empire or even within modern Italy. To my knowledge?

From a practical point of view, if you make sheet pasta the basic form you get is going to be lasagna (cut it up and it becomes lasagnette, pappadelle etc etc), I can see the Romans possibly giving the word to describe this type of dough shape (from the Greek), especially if it was a high status dish, but any direct link to a recipe is harder to see.

The word seems to be widespread (used by Marco Polo for instance) to describe flat sheets of pasta, but if the Greek word pre-dates the Latin, maybe the widespread use of this word to describe a flat dough product pre-dates the Roman useage for a flat-quasi-pasta/bread, and continues in a more restricted manner after the Romans were dust.

[chef koo]

I don't mind being called biased, though I honestly think I'm much less than most other Italians I know when it comes to Italian cuisine. And, well, you can trust my opinion or not.

←

no worries. i trust your opinion.

but you're right. in my title i was refering to pasta. so i'm assuming that one day while someone was making some lagana and forgot to leaven it and decided to boil it?

[albiston]

Alberto - I see what you mean, I think that some of the confusion (I have) with lasagna/e is that there is a difference between the dish(s) and the pasta.

I understand and upon reflection your definition is definitely more exact, at least historically. The use of lasagne as description for a kind of pasta seems posterior to the mentions of dishes related with today's lasagne. In a sense it is similar to the way the sense of the word tortelli evolved. At first it described only the filling and today it is used for pasta and filling folded in a certain form.

I know of the Sicilian and E-R dishes that use this pasta and are named after the pasta, what makes me think that the Romans may have not had that much to do with the evolution of these modern dishes is that there don't seem to be widespread variations lasagna dishes in the former Roman empire or even within modern Italy. To my knowledge?

I don't know about the rest of the Roman empire, but Italy has quite a wide regional variety of lasagne dishes. Yet that has probably more to do with more recent exchanges of culinary knowledge and recipes, so your point remains valid.

The word seems to be widespread (used by Marco Polo for instance) to describe flat sheets of pasta, but if the Greek word pre-dates the Latin, maybe the widespread use of this word to describe a flat dough product pre-dates the Roman usage for a flat-quasi-pasta/bread, and continues in a more restricted manner after the Romans were dust.

←

I see what you mean. Certainly a good point which makes sense to me.

I don't mind being called biased, though I honestly think I'm much less than most other Italians I know when it comes to Italian cuisine. And, well, you can trust my opinion or not.

←

no worries. i trust your opinion.

Thanks, I'll sleep better after this .

but you're right. in my title i was referring to pasta. so i'm assuming that one day while someone was making some lagana and forgot to leaven it and decided to boil it?

←

That's a really intriguing question and one I've often wondered about myself. It seems that the dishes of old were probably baked and dressed flatbreads, like the testaroli Adam mentions, or consisted of sheets of fried dough, as described in Clifford Wright's article. Interestingly there are still examples of this: ciceri e tria is pasta dish from Puglia where the pasta is in part boiled and in part fried. When did it change? My thought (a bit far-fetched maybe) is that we have to look at the Arabs again: their dried pasta needed to be boiled in a liquid to become palatable again. And so it would be cooked in milk, broth or water . Maybe fresh pasta started getting prepared with the cooking method for dried pasta as the latter spread.

[Adam Balic]

That's a really intriguing question and one I've often wondered about myself. It seems that the dishes of old were probably baked and dressed flatbreads, like the testaroli Adam mentions, or consisted of sheets of fried dough, as described in Clifford Wright's article. Interestingly there are still examples of this: ciceri e tria is pasta dish from Puglia where the pasta is in part boiled and in part fried. When did it change? My thought (a bit far-fetched maybe) is that we have to look at the Arabs again: their dried pasta needed to be boiled in a liquid to become palatable again. And so it would be cooked in milk, broth or water . Maybe fresh pasta started getting prepared with the cooking method for dried pasta as the latter spread.

←

I guess I can think of a few origins of soft-wheat pasta in Europe alone.

- flat breads that evolved into pasta, testaroli are an example of this.

- Mlinci (note my Balkan bias) are flat bread/pasta dough that are made from soft wheat then baked for storage and transport (not sure the Italian's ever worked this out for soft wheat products).

- Noodle/dumplings as an ancestor

- batter type products, either like crespelli (what are those things called that are crepes used as pasta?) or like some types of european and Asian noodles

So the two main groupings I see are flat bread v dumplings. I think that latter is more likely and that it isn't a very big stretch of the imagination to get:

porridge/gruel/puls/polenta > dumpling > pasta

But ultimately I don't think there is one origin and I don't think that it would be a linear relationship.

Edited May 30, 2005 by Adam Balic (log)

[Daniel Rogov]

According to Reay Tannehill, one of the outstanding culinary historians of our days, pasta probably originated neither in China nor in Italy but simultaneously and by pure serendipity, in Arab countries and in India.

It is known, for example, that at leat 50 years before Marco Polo set sail from Venice,Indians were dining on sevika (translated as "thread") and Arabs on rishta (a Persian word also meaning thread). The probability is that pasta made its way to Italy not from the Far East but from Arab lands in the later Middle Ages. Some speculate that pasta was introduced to Sicily and southern Italy as early as the 11th century, those territories being not a very difficult trp from North Africa.

For references: Reay Tannahill, Food In History, Stein and Day,NY, 1973; Om Prkash, Food and Drinks in Ancient India, Delhi, 1961; A.J. Arberry, "A Baghdad Cookery Cook" in Islamic Culture 23, 1939.

Edited May 30, 2005 by Daniel Rogov (log)

[marlena spieler]

I agree with Daniel, have always been under the impression that pasta originated in the middle east with a basic gruely-dough, rolled into balls or shapes and boiled. but from everything i've read, i feel it was very very long time ago, as in one of the first foods that humans created........

oh how i love pasta!

marlena

[Adam Balic]

I think that as noted above that there is no real doubt that much of the pasta in Italy has Arabic/Persian origins, but I think that a distintion has to be made (as pointed out by Clifford Wright) between hard wheat pasta and soft wheat pasta. The former seems to belong to be Arabic/Persian/Near Eastern, but there seems to be no reason to suggest that some soft wheat pasta are native to Italy or at least Europe.

[rjwong]

In Harold McGee's revised & updated edition of On Food and Cooking, Mr. McGee states in his opening paragraph under "The History of Pasta and Noodles" (p. 571):

It's a story often told, and often refuted, that the medieval traveler Marco Polo found noodles in China and introduced them to Italy. A recent book by Silvano Serventi and Françoise Sabban has set the record straight in authoritative and fascinating detail. China was indeed the first country to develop the art of noodle making, but there were pastas in the Mediterranean world long before Marco Polo.

That's a rather bold statement for Mr. McGee to make! The book he was referring to is:

Serventi, Silvano, and Françoise Sabban. Pasta: The Story of a Universal Food. Translated by A. Shugaar. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002. 

According to Mr. McGee, northern Chinese seem to develop the noodle-making art sometime before 200 BCE. Then ca. 300, Shu Xi wrote an "Ode to Bing (wheat products)."

Mr. McGee goes so far as to make this statement (p. 572):

China also invented filled pasta, the original ravioli, ...

I haven't read the Serventi/Sabban book. Based on the book reviews, this book seems to be the most thoroughly researched book on the topic. Apparently, the Marco Polo story is just that: a story. Mind you, I want to verify this for myself ... and for eGullet & for chef koo, since we all want to get to the bottom of this, don't we? DON'T WE??

[Adam Balic]

I have the book. My impression is that the authors are not claiming that pasta was introduced from China to Europe, directly or indirectly, rather that it had developed it's own pasta independenly. Also, as I mentioned above, one has to be careful of what the authors are talking about when they refer to 'pasta'. There seems to be no evidence that the Chinese had hard wheat until relatively recent times and many of the 'pasta' were possible made of grains etc other then soft wheat.

It is a very interesting read BTW.

[archestratus]

In Harold McGee's revised & updated edition of On Food and Cooking, Mr. McGee states in his opening paragraph under "The History of Pasta and Noodles" (p. 571):

It's a story often told, and often refuted, that the medieval traveler Marco Polo found noodles in China and introduced them to Italy. A recent book by Silvano Serventi and Françoise Sabban has set the record straight in authoritative and fascinating detail. China was indeed the first country to develop the art of noodle making, but there were pastas in the Mediterranean world long before Marco Polo.

That's a rather bold statement for Mr. McGee to make! The book he was referring to is:

Serventi, Silvano, and Françoise Sabban. Pasta: The Story of a Universal Food. Translated by A. Shugaar. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002. 

According to Mr. McGee, northern Chinese seem to develop the noodle-making art sometime before 200 BCE. Then ca. 300, Shu Xi wrote an "Ode to Bing (wheat products)."

Mr. McGee goes so far as to make this statement (p. 572):

China also invented filled pasta, the original ravioli, ...

I haven't read the Serventi/Sabban book. Based on the book reviews, this book seems to be the most thoroughly researched book on the topic. Apparently, the Marco Polo story is just that: a story. Mind you, I want to verify this for myself ... and for eGullet & for chef koo, since we all want to get to the bottom of this, don't we? DON'T WE??

←

I have tried to read Serventi and Sabban's book Pasta: The Story of a universal Food. By page 11 I concluded that this is probably the worst book on food history ever written. It is ahistorical in its approach, poorly researched, uncritically researched and generally worthless. First, the authors make no distinction between the importance of soft wheat and hard wheat. But they also seem to be thoroughly unfamiliar with the latest research and arguments on this issue. They claim that hard wheat was not only known in the classical world but used by the Romans. Their sources, some goiing to the mid-19th century have been surplanted. But basically, let me go into some depth here on one issue as this is an important historical issue.

Hard wheat seems to have been unknown in the Mediterranean of classical times. Two archeological finds from Byzantine Egypt show that in parts of that country its cultivation was spreading in the centuries just before the rise of Islam. [see Täckholm, V. G. Täckholm and M. Drar. Flora of Egypt. 7 vols. Cairo:, 1941-, p. 254-7; Karanis. The Temples, Cin Hoards, Botanical and Zoological Reports. Seasons 1924-31. A.E.R. Boak, ed. University of Michigan Studies, Humanistic Series XXX (1930)]. Elsewhere, however, there is not yet any evidence of this crop in pre-Islamic times. It goes unmentioned in the late classical works on farming, natural history, geography and medicine. [There is no archeological evidence--at least none that has been examined by modern techniques--of hard wheat at pre-historic or ancient sites in the Near East. [see Renfrew, J.N. Paleoethnobotany. London, 1973. pp. 40ff, 202ff and Helbaek, H. "Paleo-ethnobotony". Science in Archeology. D. Brothwell and E. higgs, eds. 2nd ed. London, 1969. p. 104; Helbaek, H. "Cereals and seed grasses in Phase A:. R.J. Braidwood and L.J. Braidwood. Excavations in the Plain of Antioch. vol. 1. Chicago, 1960 passim; Helbaek, H. "Commentary on the phylogenesis of Triticum and Hordeum," Economic Botany. Vol. XX (1966), p. 350ff and Helbaek, H. "Plant collecting, dry farming, and irrigation agriculture in prehistoric Deh Luran.” Prehistory and the Ecology of the Deh Luran Plain. F. Hole, K.V. Flannery and J.A. Neeley, eds. Ann Arbor, 1969, p. 386; Hartmann, F. L'agriculture dans l'ancienne Egypte. Paris, 1923. p. 49ff; Dixon, D.M. "A note on cereals in ancient Egypt". The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals. P.J. Ucko and G.W. Dimbleby, eds. London, 1969. p. 131ff; Bell, G.D.H. "The comparative phylogeny of the temperate cereals". Essays on Crop Plant Evolution. Sir J. Hutchinson, ed. Cambridge, 1965. pp. 75-76 and Schulz, A.. Die Geschichte der kultivierten Getriede. Halle a.d.S., 1913, passim; and Schulz, A. "Die Getriede der alten Aegypter,” Abhandlungen der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft zu Halle a. d. S. New Service. vol. V (1916), pp. 18-20 find no evidence of hard wheat in ancient Egypt, while White, K. D. Roman Farming (London, 1970) is unable to identify it in any Roman agricultural texts. The suggestion of Jasny, N. The Wheats of Classical Antiquity Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science ser. LXII no. 3 (Baltimore, 1944), p. 27 and passim repeated in André, J. Lexique des termes de botanique en Latin. Paris, 1956. p. 321 that certain Greek and Roman texts refer to hard wheat and that hard wheat was "the greatly predominant wheat of classical antiquity," seems altogether without foundation. What is referred to is probably emmer (Triticum dicoccum) or poulard (Triticum turgidum), both of which have a more ancient history in the Mediterranean. The older archeological finds of cereals must now be re-examined. Only the most careful microscopic and chemical analyses using techniques developed recently by H. Helbaek of the University of Copenhagen and others would permit an unambiguous identification of Triticum durum. But the outcome of such studies has until now been to show that the common wheat of ancient Egypt was emmer; see Helbaek. "Paleo-ethnobotany,; pp. 206-07 and Lauer, J.P., V.L. Täckholm and E. Åberg. "Les plantes découvertes dans les souterrains de l'enceinte du roi Zoser à Saqqarah (IIIe dynastie)", Bulletin de l'Institut d'Egypte. vol. XXXII (1949-50) pp. 127, 156-7. Thus the claim of Peak that hard wheat was grown in Palestine over 3,000 years ago must be dismissed; the other botanists and archeologists who examined the find upon which Peak based his conclusion consider it to have been poulard. The finds in Byzantine Egypt reported in Täckholm, Täckholm and Drar above seem more certain, but even these require further analysis. Tentatively, however, it may be accepted that hard wheat reached the lower Nile valley and the Fayyum by the time of the Roman occupation of Egypt and that it was here that the Arabs first came in contact with this crop. On the other hand, we should not overlook the possibility of an earlier diffusion from Abyssinia to the Arabian peninsula, if indeed Abyssinia is the crop's primary center.

None of the above discussion nor the sources I've mentioned except the problematic source of Andre are menitioned by Serventi and Sabban. It's not worth the money and what in the world was Columbia University PRess thinking?

[Adam Balic]

archestratus - thank you for the very detailed critic. I read the book and found it interesting, but obviously I don't have enough knowledge to pick up on the errors that you did.

This may be one question that may not be answered in full. I recently attended a lecture on looking at the grain production in Medieval England, at which the author mentioned that even experts have difficulty with identification of ancient grains(mostly or charred or water logged gains). One thing that was mentioned was that monocultures seem to be quite rare, multiple grains seem to have been sowed in the same patch. This blend of grians seems to have varied from location to location and also temporally. In the UK, true monocultures seem to have only developed in the 18th century.

As an aside the author mentioned that he also did much research in Turkey at one point and he mentioned that this model was formally true in Turkey as well, traditional blends were; Rye, Trivet wheat, Soft wheat, Emmer. And often these strains were 'land-races' (local strains developed for local conditions). This traditional practice seems to have stopped as the agricultural ministry has been keen to modernize and has supplied/encouraged the use of modern varieties in monoculture.

I guess the point of this is that if this model is true of historical farming practices, then to get a pure or mostly pure crop of hard wheat, then people would have had to make a very deliberate decision to grow the crop as a monoculture. Or through chance they farmed in an area where hard wheat is the dominant crop. If the former is that case then it suggests not only recognition of the special properties of hard wheat for pasta (or pasta related products), but also considerable organisation. This also suggests to me that the production of pasta like products must have pre-dated the use of hard wheat to make pasta.

Although hard wheat is obviously very suited to making pasta that can be stored and dried for long periods of time (an obvious selection advantage for the use of this grain), it isn't the only model.

In the Balkans soft wheat flour is rolled out into flat sheets of pasta, then baked until crisp, slightly browned and blistered. The product is called Mlinci in croatian (from the Indo-European root word for 'mill' I have been told), no idea of its true origins, but it can be stored for long periods of time (months) and is used much like hard wheat pasta. I know that you have very correctly defined 'pasta' as a product of hard wheat, but would it be also be possible to define 'pasta', not only on what it is composed of, but its property of been able to be stored. I know of this example because through chance my grandmother makes it, I'm sure that there are many such examples.

So I wonder if scholars have looked at the development of pasta in too much of a linear way. Hard wheat pasta may be indroduced as a completely new product, replaced a pre-existing product or transforming a pre-existing product (replacing mlinci with hard wheat pasta sheets doesn't change the fact that a pre-existing pasta dish did exist).

As you can most likely guess I am very interested in the topic, so thank you for your imput.

[archestratus]

Adam, one of the on-going problems I have about the origin of macaroni debate is that most commentators don’t provide definitions of the terms they are using and don’t tell us why the pasta debate is important at all. Some of what I want to say I’m sure you’re familiar with, but as this is a public board it’s worth repeating.

Most writers define “pasta” as a dough made with flour and water or eggs and boiled in water either fresh or dried. Why is that important? They don’t tell us. Well, the mixing of flour and water is not important for the history of macaroni (the generic name, derived from the Italian, for dried alimentary pastes capable of long-term storage and cooked through boiling or steaming), although it may be historically interesting for other questions. But for the origin of macaroni debate it is not historically heuristic.

I’ve argued elsewhere that to ascribe the term "macaroni" (i.e. pastasiutta or pasta secca) or "pasta" to products made of soft wheat is to ignore the importance that a new food played in subsequent political and economic developments, especially in Mediterranean Europe. Ascribing the word macaroni to an alimentary paste made from soft wheat, as many food writers do when discussing the history of macaroni, is neither helpful nor historically interesting. That filiform, round, cylindrical, or sheet dough products made from a mixture of water and the flour from cereal grains existed for a very long time is not in question.

What is important about the invention of macaroni is not its shape but the particular kind of wheat it is made with, namely Triticum turgidum var. durum. This wheat, which apparently evolved through cultivation from emmer wheat in an as yet undetermined location, is mixed with liquid to form an alimentary paste that is dried, then stored for long periods of time and cooked by boiling or (less commonly) steaming in or over water or broth. This particular kind of wheat, commonly known as hard wheat, semolina, or durum wheat, is unique because of its high gluten and low moisture content, which distinguishes it in a significant way from soft wheat or bread wheat (Triticum aestivum), the major wheat known by the ancient Greeks and Romans. The important characteristics of hard wheat in the making of macaroni are, first, it prevents the stretching and breakage of pasta during the curing and drying process and, second, because it maintains its texture and taste better during the cooking process than does soft wheat.

But something else is overlooked by many writers on this topic. In Roman times, and through the medieval era, flour was of much poorer quality than today. It was not thoroughly cleaned, and with the primitive milling technology that existed right up to the beginning of the modern era (c. 1700) the grain was coarsely ground. Sieves also had not improved over time, and even first grade flour was much coarser than what we think of as good bread-making flour. Medieval milling technology was unable to grind hard wheat flour fine enough for bread baking, therefore wheat bread was made from soft wheat, also called bread wheat. This medieval hard wheat flour was used for other purposes, such as porridges, and in the invention of new foods such as macaroni, couscous, bulgur, farik, and hardtack.

Another factor overlooked by many writers, including Serventi and Sabban, is the absence in ancient literature of any description of the more obvious uses of hard wheat. With the kind of milling equipment available to the ancients, it would have been impossible to obtain a fine flour from the grains of hard wheat and thus virtually impossible to make bread from hard wheat. The obvious alternative uses for hard wheat are porridges, couscous, and pasta secca. According to the ancient writers, classical-era porridges were made from other grains, and there is no mention whatever of dishes resembling couscous or of pasta secca. As best we can tell from the latest results of molecular archeology and an examination of classical literature, the Romans and Greeks did not know hard wheat and therefore did not invent macaroni.

The three most important reasons for the invention of macaroni are: First, the perennial famines of the times (between 900 AD and 1500 AD) could be reduced and controlled because dried pasta was a food with a very long shelf-life. Second, governments and speculators could warehouse food supplies for long periods of time to counteract years of low production and to offset inflation caused by high prices and demand. Third, a plentiful supply of hard wheat (especially in the form of hardtack, but also pasta secca) allowed longer sea voyages, opening up an age of exploration

So, Adam, to respond to some of your questions:

1) yes, the identification of ancient grains is very difficult and our knowledge is not yet definitive. Only studies relying on molecular archeology are even remotely reliable.

2) “people would have had to make a very deliberate decision to grow the crop as a monoculture. Or through chance they farmed in an area where hard wheat is the dominant crop. If the former is that case then it suggests not only recognition of the special properties of hard wheat for pasta (or pasta related products), but also considerable organisation. This also suggests to me that the production of pasta like products must have pre-dated the use of hard wheat to make pasta.”

I would guess that both were the case at different times. I would imagine that macaroni was invented when it was realized on the part of those growing hard wheat that the semolina was too hard to mill finely enough for bread, therefore they began to experiment with other products. There is no evidence of “pasta-like products” in the classical era. But, what in the world is a “pasta-like product”? Certainly you can’t mean a particular shape, because pasta can be made in a myriad of shapes. A pasta-like product must have evidence of its truly important characteristics mentioned above, namely, first, that holds up better than soft wheat during the curing and drying process and, second, it maintains its texture and taste better during the cooking process than does soft wheat, and third, it can be stored for extraordinarily long periods of times (one writer in twelfth century Spain mentions 80 years)

3) “Although hard wheat is obviously very suited to making pasta that can be stored and dried for long periods of time (an obvious selection advantage for the use of this grain), it isn't the only model.”

If you’re defining pasta as including non-hard wheat alimentary pastes, and fresh alimentary pastes (i.e. pasta fresca), then you’re right. But I’m arguing that that definition is not heuristic. As a historian you need to answer the question “why is that important?”

4) “So I wonder if scholars have looked at the development of pasta in too much of a linear way. Hard wheat pasta may be indroduced as a completely new product, replaced a pre-existing product or transforming a pre-existing product (replacing mlinci with hard wheat pasta sheets doesn't change the fact that a pre-existing pasta dish did exist).”

I disagree with this based on the argument above.

And lastly, a cautionary note: research continues and our ideas about hard wheat may change--so like a paraphrase of Deep Throat's "follow the money" we should "follow the macaroni."

Hope all this clarifies my position. And thanks for keeping this discussion at such a interesting and fruitfully high level.

[Ben Hong]

A few questions:

Why is Marco Polo generally accepted as the first traveller between China and Europe. He may be the best documented, but certainly not the first. The silk road was a link about a thousand years before old Marco made his trips. Don't you all think that those travellers and traders could at least have a hand in early intercontinental communications?

Chinese civilization predates the Roman Empire by oh, say, 2500 years. Any civilization, during those early days, that could develop the ability to accurately forecast eclipses and comets, create an accurate calendar, and observe other natural and scientific phenomena, surely could develop something as plebeian as noodles/pasta. No?

Pasta or noodles, makes no never mind who or where it was developed, it all tastes great.

Another great Chinese invention that is being usurped by the revisionist running dogs of the imperial west.

[Adam Balic]

Thank you for the detailed reply, it has been very interesting and informative. Let me see if I can address some points:

Hard wheat flour as special properties that that make it's use attractive. I don't think that taste/texture is an issue as these are very subjective and exact preferences change both geographically and temporally. I would list these specific properties that are important to the success and use of hard wheat flour for pasta production as:

Elasticity, water absorbtion, the ability to make a paste which can be dried without cracking and the ability to be stored for long periods.

Most of these properties are shared to a lesser or greater degree by other grains. But I feel that this ability to easliy make, dry and store hard wheat pasta is the important point, because I think that these abilities make it a very attractive product for scale-up, commercial production and trade.

It is possible to make a pasta-like product from rivet/poulard (Triticum turgidum) or even soft wheat. It may not be as good a product or store as well, but it will taste fine and people will and have developed food based on these (or at least in the case of soft wheat, rivet seems to be more suited to gruel/puls type preps). But you can't trade these products effectively.

Mlinci are a great solution to a the problem of local storage and transport, but useless as a major trade item, so not important in the big picture.

I would imagine that the development of early hard wheat pasta must have spurred the improvement of milling technology as well. Once mills capable of producing quality hard wheat flour were developed, I can't seen the resulting pasta remaining a non-trade item for very long.

"pasta-like product" is tricky as it can pretty much include anything. As a personal definition I would say that it included the range of idems "Dumpling to gruel". Obviously, this isn't very precise or useful to others. However, while I think that while it is very useful to define pasta as the product of Triticum turgidum var. durum to differentiate it from soft wheat products and to actually help define what is being discussed (food writers still seem to treat "Pasta" as a monolithic idea, hence the Marco Polo story which will not die), I think that some interesting angles are lost.

For instance, this pretty much excludes soft wheat products from the North of Italy which most likely evolved quite seperately and are worth considering in their own right, although I can see how a pre-existing product was altered/changed by the introduction of hard wheat flour. Lasagne is still made from soft wheat flour in some areas for instance. Comparing the Northern and Southern uses and history of this pasta would most likely prove very interesting. I wonder if supermarket durum wheat pasta is replacing the soft wheat pasta fresca in the North and if this is an old cycle being newly repeated?

[archestratus]

A few questions:

Why is Marco Polo generally accepted as the first traveller between China and Europe. He may be the best documented, but certainly not the first. The silk road was a link about a thousand years before old Marco made his trips. Don't you all think that those travellers and traders could at least have a hand in early intercontinental communications?

Chinese civilization predates the Roman Empire by oh, say, 2500 years. Any civilization, during those early days, that could develop the ability to accurately forecast eclipses and comets, create an accurate calendar, and observe other natural and scientific phenomena, surely could develop something as plebeian as noodles/pasta. No?

Pasta or noodles, makes no never mind who or where it was developed, it all tastes great.

Another great Chinese invention that is being usurped by the revisionist running dogs of the imperial west.  

←

No, Marco Polo is not the first. And the 12th century Chinese traveler Chau-ju Kwa traveled to Spain.

Pasta secca is not so plebian as it appears today. First, there is no conclusive evidence that the Chinese knew Triticum turgidum var. durum, although they seem to have made their wheat products from Triticum aestivum var. aestivum. Second, in 13th century Italy, for example, it was food for the rich urban dwellers, and the poor counldn't afford it.

Edited June 14, 2005 by archestratus (log)

[archestratus]

Thank you for the detailed reply, it has been very interesting and informative. Let me see if I can address some points:

Hard wheat flour as special properties that that make it's use attractive. I don't think that taste/texture is an issue as these are very subjective and exact preferences change both geographically and temporally. I would list these specific properties that are important to the success and use of hard wheat flour for pasta production as:

Elasticity, water absorbtion, the ability to make a paste which can be dried without cracking and the ability to be stored for long periods.

Most of these properties are shared to a lesser or greater degree by other grains. But I feel that this ability to easliy make, dry and store hard wheat pasta is the important point, because I think that these abilities make it a very attractive product for scale-up, commercial production and trade.

It is possible to make a pasta-like product from rivet/poulard (Triticum turgidum) or even soft wheat. It may not be as good a product or store as well, but it will taste fine and people will and have developed food based on these (or at least in the case of soft wheat, rivet seems to be more suited to gruel/puls type preps). But you can't trade these products effectively.

Mlinci are a great solution to a the problem of local storage and transport, but useless as a major trade item, so not important in the big picture.

I would imagine that the development of early hard wheat pasta must have spurred the improvement of milling technology as well. Once mills capable of producing quality hard wheat flour were developed, I can't seen the resulting pasta remaining a non-trade item for very long.

"pasta-like product" is tricky as it can pretty much include anything. As a personal definition I would say that it included the range of idems "Dumpling to gruel". Obviously, this isn't very precise or useful to others. However, while I think that while it is very useful to define pasta as the product of Triticum turgidum var. durum to differentiate it from soft wheat products and to actually help define what is being discussed (food writers still seem to treat "Pasta" as a monolithic idea, hence the Marco Polo story which will not die), I think that some interesting angles are lost.

For instance, this pretty much excludes soft wheat products from the North of Italy which most likely evolved quite seperately and are worth considering in their own right, although I can see how a pre-existing product was altered/changed by the introduction of hard wheat flour. Lasagne is still made from soft wheat flour in some areas for instance. Comparing the Northern and Southern uses and history of this pasta would most likely prove very interesting. I wonder if supermarket durum wheat pasta is replacing the soft wheat pasta fresca in the North and if this is an old cycle being newly repeated?

←

First, we must be careful not to conflate in our discussion hard and soft wheat flour of today with 1,000 years ago. They are two different animals. There has been just too much genetic variation in crops, not to mention the hand played by modern genetics in agronomy. So when talking about pasta or hard wheat we shouldn't think of something we buy in a supermarket today. For instance, modern genetics has already crossed soft wheat and hard wheat and new flours are often hybrids. All-purpose flour for instance is a combination of soft and hard wheats.

Second, I think you are a little confused about the relationship of milling technology and hard wheat. The improvements in milling technology led to the ability to make bread from hard wheat, semolina bread, which did not exist before about 1600 (+ - 100) and not to pasta, which the medieval millstone was able to gind fine enough to make pasta dough but not fine enough to make bread flour. The trade in pasta was in fact very early indeed. We know that by 1154 there was a pasta factory in Trabia, a town near Palermo in Sicily, and they were trading even then with Naples and Calabria. We also know that Genoa became a major pasta producer, that is durum pasta, also in the 12th century and they too were trading widely. But it must have all began in Sicily, because the Genoese were using the word tria, a Sicilian word, to describe their product.

[Adam Balic]

I am often confused, all part of the learning process (I hope). I have no doubt that ancient flours differ from modern types, for instance I doubt that ancient crops were a monoculture, most likely they were a mixture of different grain species or an mixture of different strains of the same species. This seems to be true of medieval crops and exant crops where traditional methods are used. A logical consequence of individuals storing grain to use in next years crops. Even modern flours have hugh amounts of variation. This is one issue rarely discussed by cookbook authors. "All purpose" flour varies quite a bit and a single Italian producer may produce multiple types of "00" flour that have protein content ranges of 10.5 - 14%, obviously this is going to effect the final product.

But, the point is that all these flours will produce pasta, the important bit (as I see it) is that pasta made from durum wheat can be dried, stored and traded. I think that my science background makes me concentrate on the physical properties of the product, but obviously this isn't the entire story.

If it were simply a process of recognition of the superior properties of durum wheat pasta, why didn't fideos explode out of Spain? I have heard of “Fidelanza/Fedelini” in Northern Italy (I assume they are related to fideos and ultimately Fidawsh?), but that is about it. What was the status of durum wheat pasta in areas where it spread to early on, was it a high status produce or was it more something that was useful to trade as a travelling supply, like hardtack?

[archestratus]

I am often confused, all part of the learning process (I hope). I have no doubt that ancient flours differ from modern types, for instance I doubt that ancient crops were a monoculture, most likely they were a mixture of different grain species or an mixture of different strains of the same species. This seems to be true of medieval crops and exant crops where traditional methods are used. A logical consequence of individuals storing grain to use in next years crops. Even modern flours have hugh amounts of variation. This is one issue rarely discussed by cookbook authors. "All purpose" flour varies quite a bit and a single Italian producer may produce multiple types of "00" flour that have protein content ranges of 10.5 - 14%, obviously this is going to effect the final product.

But, the point is that all these flours will produce pasta, the important bit (as I see it) is that pasta made from durum wheat can be dried, stored and traded. I think that my science background makes me concentrate on the physical properties of the product, but obviously this isn't the entire story.

If it were simply a process of recognition of the superior properties of durum wheat pasta, why didn't fideos explode out of Spain? I have heard of “Fidelanza/Fedelini” in Northern Italy (I assume they are related to fideos and ultimately Fidawsh?), but that is about it. What was the status of durum wheat pasta in areas where it spread to early on, was it a high status produce or was it more something that was useful to trade as a travelling supply, like hardtack?

←

There is a huge literature on ancient agriculture and we could find out easily whether ancient crops were monocultures. I just don't happen to have the time right now, but would be willing to pass on to anyone interested some of the literature.

I would prefer to say all these flours produce paste or alimentary paste rather than "pasta." The reason for this is that pasta is either pasta secca (dry pasta) or pasta freca (fresh pasta). Historically we're interested in pasta secca and pasta secca's invention, it's first appearance, seems to be cotemporaneous with the discovery/diffusion/cultivation of hard wheat. Our terms aren't really very precise and that's why these conversations go on ad infinitum. I would love it if we called hard wheat pasta either "pasta" or (generically) "macaroni" and called all pastas made from other flours and starchs including soft wheat, "noodles." That would help.

And fideos did explode out of Spain! Not only as the fidelini of northern Italy as you mention, but throughout Latin American, known as fideos. But remember fideos (and yes, it's derived from the Arabic fidawsh as you mention) is nothing but vermicelli.