Subject: Origin of noodles?

From: [email-masked] (Stuart Siu)
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1993 21:11:12 GMT

Just have a question about the origin of noodles. Growing in a Chinese family,
my parents have always told me that the Italians got their idea for pasta
from the Chinese via Marco Polo. I have found that many Chinese people from
the old country have the same views. I can understand this position because
of one's pride for one's culture and so forth. Recently, the San Jose Mercury
food section did an article on Asian pasta and stated that the idea of noodles
probably developed independently, however no evidence or references were cited. 

My question is, what is the current thought about the origin of noodles in
academia (or archaelogy, or anthropology, or whatever discipline)? And why is
it only the Italians, and the Asian countries closely associated with China
that seems to only have noodles in their cuisine? One would think that any
culture that could make bread could make noodles. Please cite references.
Thanks.

Stuart Siu

I love all noodles.

---

From: [email-masked] (Erik. A Speckman)
Date: 25 Apr 93 21:09:08 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Stuart Siu) writes:
>
>Just have a question about the origin of noodles.
>that seems to only have noodles in their cuisine? Please cite references.
>Thanks.
>Stuart Siu

This info. is from _On Food and Cooking; The Science and Lore of the
Kitchen_, by Harold McGee.ISBN 0-02-034621-2, $19.95-softcover.
(I'll paraphrase.)
He writes that China had noodles by the first century A.D., and special
noodle shops became popular in the Sung dynasty(960-1280.)  An early
Chinese writer wrote that common people invented noodles, but learned the
best way to prepare them from foreigners.  Indication that noodles may have
been developed independently by several peoples.  There is evidence that
India and the Middle East had noodles by 1200 A.D. and probably long before.

On the Italian side, the Marco Polo connection is not likely, although
noodles were in China at that time for him to discover. Some think the
Etruscans had pasta.  There is sense to the idea that this simple form of
grain, which is easier to produce than bread(no fermentation or baking),
would be a natural discovery for primative people to make.  We know from
literature of Marco Polo's time that food called lasagna, macaroni. and
ravioli were known in Italy.  However, they were probably more like
dumplings than long thin noodles.

The average Italian today eats 65 lbs. of pasta a year, more than twice
the figure of any other nationality.  The average person in the U.S. eats
about 8 lbs. a year.

I highly recommend this book.  It is very comprehensive and interesting. 

-Sarah Henderson
by way of [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (David Friedman)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 16:29:27 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
[email-masked] (Stuart Siu) wrote:

> that seems to only have noodles in their cuisine?

1. Noodles of various sorts are common in medieval middle-eastern cuisine.
Claudia Rodin discusses them a little in her book on Middle Eastern
cooking. Charles Perry's translation of Ibn al Mubarrad (15th c cookbook,
translation published in PPC some years back) and Arberry's translation of
al-Baghdadi (13th c.) both have noodle dishes in them. I am pretty sure
there are noodle dishes in the 10th c. collection that was published (in
Arabic only, alas) by Studia Orientalia (Helsinki), but since I do not read
Arabic I am relying on my memory of what Charles Perry has said about it.

2. Charles Perry had an article in PPC some time ago discussing whether
noodles were known in classical antiquity. His conclusion, as I remember,
was that there was no good evidence for them.

3. This question raises another: why do noodles and bread exist? Given that
you have grain, it seems a lot less work to boil it as a porridge than to
grind it, make dough, either make noodles or go through the further steps
of raising and baking. Is there any advantage (beyond variety, taste, etc.)
to the more difficult to make foods? Perhaps more of it can be digested?

David Friedman
Olin Fellow in Law and Economics
University of Chicago Law School

---

From: [email-masked] (thomas wrentmore barnes)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1993 19:54:47 GMT

>to the more difficult to make foods? Perhaps more of it can be digested?

These are guesses:

1) Portability - Bread is easier to carry and to eat than loose grain.
Pasta preserves better than flour, especially in humid conditions.

2) Ease of cooking - pasta cooks faster than porridge. Bread need not
be cooked at all once it's baked.

3) Nutrition - Pasta is often a mixture of eggs and flour (and, so, is a
way of preserving eggs). The action of the yeast might change the
make-up of the carbohydrates in the flour making them more nutritious
(also, the yeast itself might be nutritious).  

4) Prestige - the fact that you can afford to grind flour, bake bread,
etc. means that you either have spare time (hence an easy life) or
servants. Either one might have been a neolithic status symbol.

5) You used whole grain for beer - beer is very old, and does have the
effect of making grain more nutritious (due to the action of the yeast)
There is some speculation that bread and the cultivation of grain might
have come originally from the production of beer! (How sound this
specuation is I do not know.)

6) Ease of eating - processed foods are easier on the teeth (so the very
young and very old could eat them) and have less roughage (meaning less
intestinal gas and discomfort).

tom.