HISTORY OF FOODS
Food is an integral part of the human experience, and because the human experience is long, so must be the story of food. The greater part of the human experience occurred long before the domestication of plants and animals. The invention of writing came considerably after the development of agriculture. For some two million years humanity wrote nothing that would aid us in reconstructing its subsistence. Even after writing was invented some 5500 yrs ago, very little was written about food for a long time. Therefore the history of food is for the most part based on archaeological materials.
A history of food must have a beginning. An anthropologist would choose to begin the story in the dim, distant ages of human prehistory some two million years ago with the earliest fossils human paleontologists place in the genus Homo. From the two-million-year point, our evolving ancestors and their food quests and habits will be traced to the present time. Important aspects of their lifestyles that bear on the evolution of their diets and general subsistence economies will also be briefly sketched. This approach takes us first, into the realms of physical anthropology and archaeology (paleoanthropology); second, into ancient history; and third, into history. We move from the earliest foraging and scavanging subsistence economies through gathering and hunting to the invention of agriculture and beyond. Finally, some modern cuisines will be briefly addressed in order to demonstrate the varied world origins of ingredients in given dishes and meals.
The earliest known writing appeared in the Near East about 5500 yr ago. All human experience before that, there and in the rest of the world, falls under prehistory. Prehistory is the province of the prehistorian. Most prehistorians are archaeologists. All research is archaeological and based on the few imperishable remains left to us. For example, for early times we must rely on stone, bone and antler tools, bones from animals that were consumed, charcoal and ash from campfires, traces of camps, and so on. Much of what people did and ate was not recorded or preserved (see below). Because our data are limited, there are massive holes in our story. Consequently, caution is necessary when presenting it.
For roughly two million years, humans foraged, gathered, and hunted for wild food. As time passed, we grew more efficient in exploiting our planet's wild resources. This was accomplished through the gradual development of more efficient and sophisticated tool technology based on stone, bone, wood, antler, and such and through developments in social and political organization and probably ideology, which allowed greater cooperation within social groups. These developments were accompanied by increasing brain size and intelligence. This long episode in human history is called the Paleolithic or Old Stone Age. The chronological subdivisions of the Paleolithic are used below for ease of presentation of the history of food (Fig. 1).
In the New World, agriculture began independently a few thousand years later than it did in the Near East. There were dramatic developments in Mexico, tropical Central and South America, and in the South American Andes Mountain region. Like those of the Old World, New World domesticates were to have worldwide consequences. Also like that of the Old World, the picture is frustratingly incomplete.
The development of agriculture was revolutionary in several senses: (1) it eliminated dependence on wild resources; (2) in its areas of origin and in areas that ultimately adopted it, it permitted population growth well beyond what wild resources could support; and (3) it laid the economic foundation for the eventual development of civilization. Without agriculture, there would be no cities and nation-states with their centralized government bureaucracies, monumental public works, social class systems and inequities, exact and predictive sciences, and all other civilizational characteristics such as taxes, welfare systems, and terrorists. Humanity could not afford them.
As indicated earlier, the major part of this presentation is based on archaeological research. It is essentially an archaeological odyssey through time and around the globe; thus, and because the reader is most likely not an archaeologist, it is necessary to present a brief discussion of the problems and methods involved in reconstructing the prehistory and history of food.
BACKGROUND
Reconstructing the history of food is fraught with dangers and difficulties. Much of what is written, especially that for prehistoric times, is based on a number of assumptions, some warranted, and some not. Those based on human biological necessities probably have some validity. Those based on archaeological research are subject to two major problems. First, not everything preserves. Second, archaeological interpretation of what does remain is difficult and has itself been based on assumptions. We are all familiar with the image of "man the hunter" and the portrayal of Stone Age humans as mighty, intrepid hunters of massive, dangerous, and cunning game like mammoths and cave bears. This image comes to us through the magnificent Late Stone Age paintings of western Europe, from food bones found in caves and other living sites and from kill and butchery sites found throughout the Stone Age world. Because plant foods rarely preserve and are even more rarely portrayed, incautious interpretation by some has left the impression that prehistoric humans ate mostly meat. Except for environments like the arctic and the subarctic, where edible plants are rare, this is unlikely to be the case for a variety of reasons.
Humans are primates. Most primates are herbivorous and only accidentally omnivorous, and some are omnivorous (1,2). Higher primates tend to be plant eaters, although a few, such as chimpanzees, will deliberately hunt and eat meat (2). Humans are omnivorous today, and it is likely that our hominid ancestors, as primates, were also omnivorous. Early hominid teeth, like those of modern humans, are those of omnivores (2). The greater majority of modern humans cannot extract sufficient vitamins and minerals from meat alone to survive. Eskimos are an exception, but even they eat the stomach contents of the herbivorous animals they kill and take advantage of plant foods during the short growing season (1). Nor can we live on plants alone without bringing together the right combination of plants to supply us with complete proteins. Nutritionists tell us that humans need a diet balanced so that we receive all the vitamins and minerals the body demands for efficient functioning. This means a combination of plant and animal foods with heavy emphasis on plants as opposed to animal protein.
Anthropological study of historic and modern gatherer-hunters shows that, with the exception of the Siberian and North American Eskimos of the subarctic, the ratio of wild plant food gathered is almost always greater than that of hunted or fished animal protein. The actual ratio depends on both available environmental resources and cultural factors and differs between groups. An additional factor affecting the ratio is the seasonality of resources. In some seasons plant foods are more available than in others, such as winter in the temperate northern hemisphere, when, in the absence of plant preservation techniques or even with them, more meat will be eaten—or perhaps, less food will be consumed in general.
In a given environment various small animals are foraged, such as rodents, birds, reptiles, and insects. While larger game may be preferred, it is not always present or present in sufficient quantity to appease human appetites for animal protein.
In short, gatherer-hunters adapt to the environment in which they live and the ratio of plant to animal foods will reflect that adaptation. It will also reflect cultural factors such as religious taboos and the cultural definition of what is and is not food. We also recognize that hunting is high risk and not always successful. Gathering provides an ensured food supply.
Archaeologically, little trace of the plants consumed by recent gatherer-hunters will remain. Without the ethnographic documentation of these living people, we would never have complete knowledge of their subsistence economies. This is because plant material is notoriously perishable and subject to selective preservation. In some dry desert areas, plant remains do preserve. So do human coprolites. Ancient coprolites contain seeds, pollens, and husks or shell parts that aid in reconstructing paleodiet. But human coprolites are rarely found. In wet areas, such as bogs, plants often preserve, as do human bodies. Perhaps one of the most famous and scientifically valuable examples of preservation is Tollund Man, in whose preserved stomach were found the remains of his last meal, a porridge prepared from a wide variety of seeds of domesticated and wild plants (3). A very recent technique of extracting collagen from human bone and conducting traceelement and isotopic analysis enables us to determine whether and what kinds of cereal grasses were being consumed, for example, maize. But, of course, the bone itself must be preserved and unfossilized (4). Fossilized bone is completely mineralized and contains no organic material.
Animal bone is also subject to selective preservation. Large bones survive better than do small bones, and not all bone fossilizes. Acid soil destroys bone. Insect parts rarely preserve. In sum, little of what was originally deposited at a site by human subsistence activity preserves. There is no real way of reconstructing the ratio of plant to animal food consumed by our remote ancestors or even those closest to us in time.
We are left on shaky ground. Our assumptions are: (7) both presapiens and sapiens hominids were omnivorous; (2) they adapted to the varied environments in which they lived and exploited their edible resources using the then current technology and sociopolitical organization; (3) gathering plants and foraging small animals provided them with a more reliable food supply than did hunting large game; and (4) by the Late Stone Age, fully human cultural factors surfaced that led to food selection among the edibles when people could afford it.
Figure 1 is provided as a convenient guide through the time periods discussed below. The chart is highly simplified and applies only to Europe, northern Africa, and the Near East. Although data from other world areas are discussed within the time divisions, it is fully acknowledged that the terms Paleolithic (Old Stone Age), Mesolithic (Middle Stone Age), and Neolithic (New Stone Age) do not apply well to Subsaharan Africa, the Far East and North and South America. With this in mind, the periods used and their finer subdivisions are briefly defined below.
The Paleolithic or Old Stone Age began about 2,500,000 years ago (2.5 mya) and is subdivided into three major chronological stages on the basis of advances in stone tool technology: Lower or Early Paleolithic (2.5 mya-100,000 yr ago), Middle Paleolithic (100,000-40,000 yr ago), and Upper or Late Paleolithic (40,000-12,000 yr ago) (Fig. 1). The Paleolithic ended with the end of the last ice age, called the Wurm or Weichsel in the Old World and the Wisconsin in the New World.
The Mesolithic or Middle Stone Age was a short period that began with the final retreat of the last glacier about 12,000 years ago (Fig. 1). No definitive end date that applies to the planet can be given because the proper end of the period is with the beginning of agriculture. Agriculture began at different times in different parts of the globe. In the Near East, the period fades into what is sometimes called the Proto-Neolithic. The Proto-Neolithic (about 11,000-9000 yr ago) is called such because it was the era of incipient agriculture. Various animals and plants were brought under domestication, but wild animals and plants still constituted an important part of subsistence. There appear to have been some similar developments in Thailand dating to this period.
The Neolithic began in the Near East about 9000 years ago, when human subsistence was based fully on agriculture (Fig. 1). Fully agricultural economies were later in Europe, the Far East, and the New World.
PALEOLITHIC
Lower Paleolithic (Early Stone Age): 2.5 mya-100,000 Years Ago
East Africa; Olduval Gorge, Tanzania between 1.85 and 1.5 mya;
Hominid Form: Homo habilis. A fully bipedal form with a manipulative hand and a complex brain, the upper range of which was more than half the size of the present human brain, H. habilis was probably an omnivore. Although no primate is a carnivore, H. habilis looks like one because of the nature of what has been found on its habitation sites (living floors). Isolated and fragmentary remains of almost every conceivable available animal from mice and turtles to gazelles and saber-toothed tigers have been found. Although some paleoanthropologists argue about just how these bones got there, the consensus is that H. habilis was a scavanger of carnivore kills who brought pieces back to eat raw. In some cases, as at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, and Koobi Fora, Kenya, it camped at large animal carcasses such as elephant and hippopotamus and ate them on the spot, bringing fragments of other scavanged animals to the same place (5). Although there is no way of knowing, it is possible that the meat was not always fresh. The smaller animals could have been hunted and/or foraged, but given the hominid's size (about 4 ft) and rudimentary stone tool technology, it is doubtful the large and more dangerous animals were hunted (2,5). Like historic Australian aborigines and Amazonian Tukanoan Indians, they may also have consumed grubs and insects (6,7). One assumes they would have eaten any eggs they found.
It seems obvious that H. habilis sought meat. Did it also eat plants? There are no remains, but the likelihood is that it did and probably in a higher proportion than meat. Its primate physiology would have demanded this. Seeds, nuts, edible leaves and twigs, and fruits were available.
Europe, Africa, China, and the General Far East; 1.5 mya- 300,000-200,000 years ago.
Homo erectus, the presumed descendant of Homo habilis, took the stage around 1.5 million years ago. Although the size of the H. erectus brain was not yet equal to that of the H. sapiens sapiens brain, H. erectus was otherwise fully human physically. Taller, heavier, more muscular, and with a brain the upper range of which was within the lower range of ours, H. erectus was more intrepid than H. habilis and accomplished more, such as controlling fire. H. erectus preferred warm to temperate cold climates. The latter would be characterized by seasonality of resources and in some cases, seasonal low availability of plant foods. It is likely that in the colder climates a high degree of nomadism was required in pursuit of plant foods. Of course, in the colder environments, more meat could and would have been eaten.
True to form, H. erectus ate everything that was available and edible, including it seems, itself (8). Homo erectus more than likely continued the practice of scavanging carnivore kills and foraging for small animals. However, we know that large game was hunted. Abundant evidence from Spain (elephant and horse) (9), France (10), and the Zhoukoudien Caves in northern China indicate this (5,8). No stone spear points are yet known, but wooden spears with fire-hardened tips would have served well. Evidence from China indicates that at least some meat was cooked, including H. erectus (8).
Evidence from France (10), East Africa (11), and China (8), although scarce, indicates that plants were eaten.
Middle Paleolithic (Middle Stone Age): 100,000-40,000 Years Ago
When this period began depends on what is being emphasized. For present purposes the discussion here begins at 100,000 yr ago and ends 40,000 yr ago. This period is characterized by the emergence of Homo sapiens. The form most commonly known is Neanderthal, but there were other varieties who are given other taxonomic names.
Homo sapiens lived in a variety of environments from the Ice Age northern European subarctic tundra to tropical forests and therefore evolved a variety of environmental adaptations specific to each. The ratio of plant to animal consumption probably reflected differential environmental adaptations. In cold and temperate climates mobility was the main pattern owing to the seasonality of resources. Hunting emerged as an important pattern around the then inhabited world and stone spear points are known. Massive game such as woolly mammoth and woolly rhinoceros were taken in cold climates, but smaller game including such large cold-climate animals as reindeer and warm climate camel and gazelle and small game such as birds and rabbits were also hunted. Harpoon heads and fish bones indicate that some fishing was done on the tundra of northern Europe (9). Opportunistic scavanging probably continued. The diet appears to have been broad-spectrum and unspecialized. Meat was probably roasted.
While no plant food remains have been found except for Kalambo Falls, Zambia (11), digging stick tips from northern Europe (9) and tooth wear patterns indicate plant food consumption. How plant foods were prepared and whether they were cooked remains a mystery, as does the existence of methods of storing them for winter. The proportion of plant to animal foods would have depended on the environment.
Upper Paleolithic (Late Stone Age): 40,000-12,000 Years Ago
The modern human form called Homo sapiens sapiens characterizes this period. During these 30,000 years of the latter part of the last Ice Age, humans expanded into all inhabitable environments from the tropical forests of Africa to the subarctic tundra of Siberia and into Australia and North and South America. A wide variety of macroenvironmental and microenvironmental adaptations were necessary. Humanity — through its flexible mode of adaptation anthropology refers to as culture and society — adapted. The result was the emergence of a great deal of cultural diversity. If we were to emphasize the diversity, a discussion of the history of food would become immediately unmanageable. Therefore, only the broadest picture will be drawn.
Northern peoples made cold climate adaptations that led them to specialize in hunting certain large game. That is not to say they did not take smaller game. It seems, however, that the habits of the animals on which they depended dictated their basic lifestyle. The degree of nomadism a people pursued depended on the migratory patterns of the main animal. Large game ranged from woolly mammoth and woolly rhinoceros to bison, horse, and reindeer (9). The decimation and extinction of horse and bison herds in Europe suggest that meat was stored for the winter. Fishing was carried out, especially of salmon. In southern coastal areas people not only fished for salmon but also gathered large quantities of mollusks and shellfish (12). There are no plant food remains or indisputable evidence for the storage of plants for winter (13). It is possible that more meat was consumed during the ferocious winters. The ratio of plant to animal food is impossible to determine, but at least in some areas, a wide variety of berries and other fruits, roots, tubers, and nuts would have been available in summer and autumn. Given the intelligence, knowledge, and experience of these people, one would assume they had a variety of preservation and storage techniques for at least some plant foods.
Of course, one can never say anything about the consumption of eggs and honey, or even insects, since these have no way of preserving, but their consumption is likely throughout these time periods.
During the last Ice Age, northern Africa and the Middle East enjoyed more temperate climates. The massive cold climate game did not exist. Although temperate cold, temperatures were warmer and seasons more varied than in northern Europe. As a consequence, the ratios of plant to animal food probably reflected that difference. But little can be stated with certainty. Further south, one would expect a high ratio of plant to animal food and in desert regions, the highest. Today, large game is almost absent in most desert regions and, when present, is sparse. Small game such as rodents, birds, and reptiles and a variety of insects are characteristic fauna. The ratio of plant to animal consumption is very heavily in favor of plants.
For late Ice Age North and South America, depending on latitude and altitude, the same picture may be painted. There is a dearth of information on plant food consumption and a great deal bearing on the hunting of massive, large and small game.
Mesolithic: 12,000 Yr Ago to a Regionally Variable End Date
The Mesolithic or Middle Stone Age (sometimes called the Epipaleolithic) began with the final retreat of the last glacier about 12,000 yr ago. The period's end date is variable depending on when agriculture came into being in a given area.
With the end of the last glaciation, the climatic and vegetational picture characteristic of the modern world took over. Consequently, and especially in northern latitudes, there was considerable environmental change. Humanity had to respond and did. The emerging cultural adaptations were more complex than before and an even greater amount of cultural diversity based on, among other things, microenvironmental adaptations came into being. Again, only the broadest picture will be given.
Throughout the world, the Ice Age megafauna disappeared. Mammoths, cave bears, giant sloths, gigantic deer, and their like became extinct. Smaller game, fish and other seafood became the focus of humanity's search for protein. People adapted to forest, grassland, desert, lake, riverine, and seacoast niches (9). Most people exploited several adjacent niches, such as forest and lake, and in most areas, because of the seasonality of resources, were nomadic in their lifestyles. The ratio of plant to animal food would have varied considerably depending on the adaptive strategy in a given set of niches.
One of the consequences of environmental change was the establishment of vast stands of wild wheat and barley extending in appropriate niches from east of the Caspian Sea west and south into the Near East (14). Concurrent with this was the spread of herds of wild sheep and goats in the same region (15).
During what is sometimes called the Proto-Neolithic of the Near East, gatherer-hunters took full advantage of these abundant wild resources. Some even settled down into small, permanent communities and built permanent houses. They were able to gather sufficient wild wheat to do so. Jack Harlan conducted an experiment in the same area (the ancestral wild wheat still grows there) and estimates that in 3 weeks a quantity sufficient to last a full year could be gathered (16). It is likely that it is this that permitted sedentary living. People supplemented these plant resources with hunting sheep, goats, deer, pigs, cattle, and so forth. At some point, perhaps 11000 yr ago, they began managing herds of wild sheep and/or goats and animal husbandry was born (17,18). Somewhere around 9000 yr ago, wheat and barley were domesticated. Shortly thereafter, peas and lentils, the wild varieties of which grow in the same area, were added to the list of domesticates. So were pigs. Agriculture was born in the Near East around 9000 yr ago (7000 BC) (see Tables 1 and 2).
In the Near East, the plant/animal food ratio appears to have been greatly in favor of plants. Sickles, grinding stones, storage pits, and ovens are highly characteristic artifacts of the period. Impressions of wheat and barley kernels appear in mud bricks, hearth materials, and pottery. Bread and porridge probably formed the main part of meals. Sheep and goat herds seem to have been husbanded mainly for wool, hides, and milk. Cheese may have been invented and added to the diet. Animal slaughter was selective by age and sex. Meat, therefore, was not consumed as a daily ration. As in ancient historic times, domesticated sheep and perhaps goats may have been religious feast foods.
Since meat would have been scarce, salt would have become necessary. Without the salt naturally present in meat, humans cannot survive. A substitution is necessary. Salt production and trade became important.
Ultimately, certain fruits such as figs, dates, and grapes came out of the Near East (see Table 2).
Let us look at the development of agriculture elsewhere. Many Near Eastern crops and animals made their ways into Europe and together with native plants (eg, perhaps cherry and plums) ended gathering and hunting there as the major subsistence mode about 6000 BC (19). Northern China domesticated millet, which eventually was adopted by eastern Africa. Rice was domesticated in Southeast Asia and has made its way all over the world. South America gave the world the potato, peanuts, manioc for tapioca, and the sweet potato, among other crops. Regarding animals, southern Europe and/or Turkey gave us cattle, the jungles of India the chicken, and Mexico the turkey (20) (see Tables 1 and 2). Charles Heiser's book, Seed to Civilization: The Story of Food (20), is a valuable source for the geographic origins of domesticated plants and animals.
Mexico has given much to the world. It was one of the planet's primary centers of domestication. It took approximately four thousand years for Mexico to domesticate the wealth of foods it has given (21). Some 21 domesticated plants have their origins in Mexico (22). Maize — corn, as we call it — is the result of 4000 yr of painfully slow selection and hybridization that began around 6000 BC. Corn is a staple food in parts of Africa and South America as well as in Middle America. Mexico has also given us a large variety of beans, chili peppers, and squashes, to say nothing of a variety of tree and cactus fruits. It also gave us the tomato, avocado, and chocolate. With the limitations of space here, it is impossible to list its valuable and varied contributions to the world's diet (see Table 2).
The development of agriculture in Mexico lasted from at least 6000 to 2000 BC, and there were several centers of domestication, some humid tropical, and some semiarid desert. Throughout most of its prehistory and history, plant foods have superseded animal foods in dietary importance. In the desert areas of the southern part of the state of Tamaulipas and in the Tehuacan Valley we have the plant preservation to prove this (21). We also have the historical records from conquest times. Some people rarely, if ever, saw meat prior to the arrival of the Spaniards, and this is true even now in the most poverty-stricken rural areas. Traditionally in Mexico and over much of Middle America, meat is a fiesta food, a special-occasion food eaten only a few times a year. (This has changed among the more affluent populace.) How, then, eating plant foods almost exclusively, did these people survive?
The fortuitous congruence of maize and beans, provided they are eaten together, provides complete protein. Therefore, a meal of tortillas and beans, in terms of protein, is healthful. The lime water in which the dried maize is soaked prior to grinding into flour for tortillas provides calcium. A few chilis and other vegetables or fruits added to the meal provides additional vitamins and minerals. The use of salt provides sodium. Adults do well on such a diet. Small children, however, are often malnourished because they need more animal protein. Infants who are weaned too soon die. Infant mortality is still very high in rural areas of Mexico and Guatemala.
Of course, before the arrival of the Spaniards, the population was not completely without sources of animal protein. Turkey eggs, ant larvae, other insects, and grubs were eaten. Eggs of other birds were probably gathered. In the coastal areas marine resources, including iguana, turtle and turtle eggs, fish, crustaceans, and mollusks were consumed, although perhaps some were not allowed to everyone in these socially stratified societies. In the tropical rainforests reptiles, monkeys, deer, wild pig, and other animals existed and were hunted. But again, the consumption of some of these was probably strictly controlled. Deer, wild pig, and small game such as badger, squirrels of various kinds, rabbit, and hare abounded in the central Mexican highlands, and it is probable that the consumption of the small game was not regulated. Throughout the Middle American region, the common people probably made do with beans and corn as their main source of protein and supplemented these with small game, insects, and eggs and in the region around modern Mexico City, with fish and larvae from lakes now drained.
It is of interest to note that the beginnings of agriculture in the Near East, Far East, and Middle and South America appear to have been roughly concurrent. This is not likely to have been due to any communication of ideas. Why agriculture began is subject to much debate, and there are no clear answers. Environmental change, population pressure, religion, and the human propensity to experiment have all been invoked (1,16,17,20). It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss these debates.
Another interesting fact is that in the probably unintentional search for complete protein in the virtual absence of meat consumption, humanity in various parts of the globe domesticated plants that, when consumed together, provide complete protein. The case for Middle America has been briefly discussed. Rice and beans and other combinations also provide complete proteins (1).
A final fact that should be added is that in all world areas, the development of agriculture was a long, slow process. In a given area, not all plants were domesticated and brought under cultivation at the same time. Nor were all animals domesticated simultaneously. It took centuries and, in some cases, millennia to bring together the agricultural complexes that are prehistorically and historically known.
CONCLUSION
It would appear that for most of humanity's history, we were omnivores like many other primates and that, like other primates, we consumed more plant food than animal. Under special circumstances the ratio might swing in favor of animal over plant, but this is rare and due to special environmental circumstances. Even then, plant food is consumed, even if this means consuming the stomach contents of dead herbivores. Also rare is the society that does not seek some form of animal protein even if it means eating insects, grubs, or raw bird eggs.
The ratio of plant to animal food consumption is probably still in favor of plants around the planet, even for those of us who like our meat so much that we jokingly call ourselves carnivores. If we look at the modern Western diet, we find that even fast foods like hamburgers and pizza are heavy on the plant end. The hamburger comes on a bun made from flour and is accompanied by french fried potatoes, potato chips, or potato salad, is relished by plant products such as tomato catsup, mustard (seed, vinegar), pickles or pickle relish, onions, tomatoes, lettuce, and sometimes mushrooms. The basic pizza is, of course, made from flour and tomato sauce, regardless of the topping on the pizza. If we look at the Far Eastern diets of China, Southeast Asia, and Japan, we find that while meat or seafood may form part of the meal, the major constituent is vegetables and other plan foods like rice or noodles.
We have reached a point in the world where the history of any given dish or meal is utterly fascinating. The ancient northern Chinese somehow received wheat and the idea of flour from the Near East and ultimately invented the noodle. In the thirteenth century, Marco Polo went to China and allegedly, inter alia, encountered the noodle and found it to taste good. He took it back to Italy, where, ultimately, a variety of pastas were developed, including spaghetti. A moderately well-off Mexican sits down to a several-course meal. The first dish is arroz a Ia mexicana (Mexican-style rice). It consists of rice (Southeast Asia) toasted raw in lard (a pork product originating from the Near East) or vegetable oil (an eastern Mediterranean idea) seasoned with a sauce made from tomatoes (Mexico), onion, and garlic (both Near East) and cooked in chicken broth (ultimately India). It is served with corn tortillas (Mexico) or perhaps, flour tortillas (made from wheat flour which has its ultimate origins in the Near East). The next course is carne de cerdo con salsa verde (pork in green sauce). The pork is ultimately Near Eastern. The green sauce is made from tomates (tomatillos or green husk tomatoes) and chilis (Mexico), onion (Near East), and cilantro (Near East). The final course is frijoles, which, if done right, are cooked with lard or oil and also, perhaps, a little onion. Without the fats and onion, the frijoles are thoroughly Mexican. All may be accompanied by beer (a thoroughly European idea incorporating many Near Eastern ingredients) or carbonated soft drinks (a U.S. invention). Many of the "foreign" ingredients in the Mexican cuisine can, of course, be attributed to the sixteenth-century Spanish conquest, one of the results of which was a revolution in cooking. A glance at the history of Spain would illuminate how some of these ingredients got into its cuisine!
The cross-fertilization in our various cuisines is enormous and universal. A simple plate of bacon and hen's eggs served with orange juice, coffee, toast, and jam has its ultimate origins in the Near East, India, Southeast Asia, Ethiopia, and Europe or North America (if the jam is raspberry). If you add hashbrowns or grits, you must acknowledge South America or Mexico. A bowl of vegetable beef soup or chicken and vegetable soup contains ingredients from around the world. A vegan's vegetarian plate is a veritable travelog of time and space.
The history of food and cuisine is, among other needs and things, very much a product of trial and error and the human propensity to travel, trade, and even conquer and to bring home new and delightful products and ideas and to modify and invent new products, new combinations, and new dishes. Humans are indeed omnivores in every sense of the word.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. P. Farb and G. Armelagos, Consuming Passions: The Anthropology of Eating, Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, 1980.
2. R. Jurmain, H. Nelson, and W. A. Turnbaugh, Understanding Physical Anthropology and Archaeology, 4th ed., West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn., 1990.
3. P. V. Glob, The Bog People: Iron Age Man Preserved, Ballentine Books, New York, 1969.
4. A. Sillen, J. C. Sealy, and N. J. Van der Merwe, "Chemistry and Paleodietary Research: No More Easy Answers," American Antiquity 54, 504-512 (1989).
5. E.G. Campbell, Humankind Emerging, Scott, Foresman and Co., Boston, 1988.
6. N. Tindale, Aboriginal Tribes of Australia, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1974.
7. D. L. Dufour, "Insects as Food: A Case Study from the Northwest Amazon," American Anthropologist 89, 383-387 (1987).
8. K. C. Chang, The Archaeology of Ancient China, 4th ed., Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn., 1986.
9. K. W. Butzer, Environment and Archaeology: An Ecological Approach to Prehistory, 2nd ed., Aldine-Atherton, Chicago, 1971.
10. H. de Lumley, "A Paleolithic Camp at Nice," Scientific American 220, 42-50 (1969).
11. D. J. Clark, The Prehistory of Africa, Praeger, New York, 1970.
12. L. G. Straus, G. A. Clark, J. Altuna, and J. A. Ortega, "Ice Age Subsistence in Northern Spain," Scientific American 242, 142-152 (1980).
13. R. Dennell, European Economic Prehistory: A New Approach, Academic Press, Orlando, FIa., 1985.
14. J. R. Harlan and D. Zohary, "Distribution of Wild Wheats and Barley," Science 153, 1074-1080 (1966).
15. J. R. Harlan, "Plant and Animal Distribution in Relation to Domestication," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 275, 13-25 (1976).
16. J. R. Harlan, "A Wild Wheat Harvest in Turkey," Archaeology 20, 197-201 (1967).
17. C. Redman, The Rise of Civilization: From Early Farmers to Urban Society in the Ancient Near East, Freeman, San Francisco,1978.
18. H. J. Nissen, The Early History of the Ancient Near East 9000-2000 B.C., University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1988.
19. A. Whittle, Neolithic Europe: A Survey, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985.
20. C. B. Heiser, Jr., Seed to Civilization: The Story of Food, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1990.
21. R. S. MacNeish and D. S. Byers, The Prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley, Vol. 1, Environment and Subsistence, University of Texas Press, Austin, 1967.
22. R. C. West and J. P. Augeili, Middle America: Its Lands and Peoples, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1989.
0 Response to "HISTORY OF FOODS"
Post a Comment