Yknow, when I saw this story, the two words that stuck out for me were "northwest" and "neolithic". These noodles are from the Lajia site in Qinghai, and date to the Xia/Shang dynasties - which never reached as far as Qinghai, except perhaps in limited trade. The Lajia site was part of Qijia culture, which seems to have had as many links west as they did east. They had jade from Xinjiang and lived a semi-nomadic life like other Central Asian cultures.

I'm trying to get material together to post on just how "Chinese" the Qijia were. The concept of "China" didn't exist at the time, so that limits it right there. Just like some white dude from Boston claiming Lakota artifacts as "American".

The article in the New Scientist doesn't cover this either. I should have said present-day China, of course. The interesting part is that the noodles were made of millet, establishing links with other cultures using that grain.

What you say also goes to explaining why Middle Easterners claim the noodle, too. Perhaps this story is more appropriate in a central asian blog.

4000 year old noodles? That's almost approaching the half-life of Ramen...

if memory serves me right. it is the middle east that first grew wheat. so it is not at all unlikely that noodle was invented while wheat was passing from ME to the yellow river area.

in any case, it seems unlikely that noodle is invented by the italians. :)

about qijia, people moved a lot in 4000 years. the miao/yao used to occupy the yellow river as well, but were driven to the mountains after defeated by the han.

so i am not sure if we can establish solid link between geography and the people who live here in present days. the only evidence that might shed some light on the issue, is probably from the artifact connections.

http://www.hist.pku.edu.cn/person/yanbuke/tongshi/x02/Cankao/lajia01.jpg
http://www.hist.pku.edu.cn/person/yanbuke/tongshi/x02/Cankao/lajia.htm

i found a map of Lajia site, and some other pictures.
it is on the border of Gansu and Qinghai along the Yellow River

Thanks for the link, Sunbin.

Millet noodles, according to the BBC article, are still eaten by the poorer farmers in the region, wheat obviously being preferable. It also says the types millet used are oxtail millet (Setaria italica) and broomcorn millet (Panicum miliaceum), and those are indigeneous.

Sunbin, the fact that they moved around a bit is kind of the point. They were nomadic. I just think it's inaccurate to say that these noodles are Chinese. That's like saying totem poles are American. Either statement is only true in the sense that the artifacts are found within modern day borders of states created by other cultures. There was no such thing as "China" back then and the Qijia aren't really part of the ancestry. They were the neighbors of the Xia dynasty, not part of it.

Dave, I am not if you are right. "Qijia didn't belong to Xia" doesn't mean people at Qijia were related to Chinese. It's actually depending on how you define "Chinese".

If Chinese was already an established concept long before Qijia culture, probably you are right. However if Chinese is only an aggregate of many different tribes and itself was a forming concept at that time, then Qijia people probably belong to one of the ancestor tribe of Chinese. It also should be noted that ancient people at that time were mobile. This culture might migrate from the East or West.

I say it's a very advanced development in Chinese history, if you could prove your argument below
“Qijia aren't really part of the ancestry”

I found a place down in Wanchai that serves this kind of 4,000 year old noodle.

dave,

Points taken. I guess it is better to understand "China" as a geographic concept in today's definition, rather than as a ethnic definition. this applies to all archeological cases. That is how I read it.

example: early homonoid(?) in ZhouKoudian near Beijing, or homo erectus in Kenya - their genetic relationship to present day chinese, africans, americans are probably the same.

OTOH, the descendents of Qijia, might well have moved and mixed with the Han people during the 3-5th century grand migration or later.

---
i missed the millet part. if that is the case, there is a strong case against the ME/Persian theory.

Qijia and other Yangshao tribes probably did enter the gene pool of modern day Chinese to some extent. It was Longshan culture, however, that was sedentary and inhabited the Eastern regions. The Yongshao were nomadic and lived in the north and east. Many aspects of their culture were far closer to that of Central Asian nomads. And I'd love to see what their DNA looks like... there's a distinct possibility they're genetically closer to steppe peoples.

My main point is not that Qijia did not have some influence or connection to modern Chinese (Chinese did not exist as a concept back then Lin). My point is that the Lajia camp was not Chinese. It was Qijia. A woman named Fitzgerald-Huber has apparently written about how the Qijia were a link between the Longshan and Eurasians like, presumably, the Persians. I just don't like the fact that if it's within China's borders, it automatically culturally belongs to China. Just like I don't like modern Americans co-opting totem poles and tomahawks. When you think about it, it's just silly to credit a modern culture with the achievements of an extinct one. And yes, I extend this to modern day Italians and Greeks as well.

Oh, and millet doesn't count against the ME/Persian theory. Someone invented how to make noodles out of some kind of plant. These guys made it with the local plants available. Remember, the poorer farmers in Qinghai still eat millet noodles, presumably because its cheaper and easier to grow there. Millet may simply have been a substitute they used because they didn't have anything else to use.

Also, Lin, my point of ancestry was not about genetics. It was about the fact that the earliest dynasties started in the east, not the west, of China, and they were sedentary, not nomadic. As far as cultural ancestry, there is a more direct line from the Longshan to the Xia and Shang. And let's not forget, the Qinghai region was for foreign barbarians for most of Chinese history. The previous dynasties usually considered this area non-Chinese.

And Sun Bin, if we are saying China is strictly a geographic concept in archaeology... then really all we're talking about is shallow nationalism, aren't we? (I mean when people write things about who gets credit for noodles, Italy or China).

Also, Lin, my point of ancestry was not about genetics. It was about the fact that the earliest dynasties started in the east, not the west, of China, and they were sedentary, not nomadic. As far as cultural ancestry, there is a more direct line from the Longshan to the Xia and Shang. And let's not forget, the Qinghai region was for foreign barbarians for most of Chinese history. The previous dynasties usually considered this area non-Chinese (or at least foreign).

And Sun Bin, if we are saying China is strictly a geographic concept in archaeology... then really all we're talking about is shallow nationalism, aren't we? (I mean when people write things about who gets credit for noodles, Italy or China).

"then really all we're talking about is shallow nationalism, aren't we? (I mean when people write things about who gets credit for noodles, Italy or China)."

yes, it is. the truth is more important than national pride, esp in these cases where what difference does it make? you are not going to get a patent for it.

i am only interested in the scientific implication. who among present people gets the credit, is something i really don't care.
that is my point when i raised the homo erectus issue. genetically, we all are just as close as, and as distant from, those bones in east african rift valley.

how the skill move and get transferred? how these people moved or assimilated, why did they do that? did noodle got invented after pottery bowls (hence soup) was invented? is there any implication/relation to the chopsticks (or the forks?)

these are more interesting questions to ask, and to answer.

"I just don't like the fact that if it's within China's borders, it automatically culturally belongs to China. Just like I don't like modern Americans co-opting totem poles and tomahawks."

if this helps to raise fund and attract attention to academic research, why not use it?
there is really no harm done.
critically minded people are able to separate facts from interpretations.

theoretically, it is possible that Qijia taught the Han (before other) of this technology given the geographic proximity, either by teaching or mixing with them. It is also possible that people in the geographic proximity (Han or people in Yunnan or Tibet) invented the tech and passed to Qijia.
your hypothesis of persian is also possible, though less likely given the difficulty in travelling techonologies.

as i said before, i believe they need to examine the artifact styles to establish the connections.

hey dave,

you said, "millet doesn't count against the ME/Persian theory." could you elaborate?

the noodle found we made on indigeneous millets. if we assume we cannot find noodle earlier than this. that means noodle was first made from millet, near the qinghai/gansu area.
so it is very unlikely than persian invented it?

btw, since the noodle were found inside a pottery bowl. it is very likely it is 'soup noodle'. since we do not have soup spaghetti, maybe we can say it is not favorable for the italian theory?

dave, another question (since you seem to be studying archeology)

if you can read chinese, check this out about qijia
http://www.lx.gansu.gov.cn/printpage.asp?ArticleID=129
it said,
they are agricultural people (you are right that some believe they are a branch of yangshao culture), they grow millet and rear pigs. what was the interpretation that they are nomadic and relate to persian?

-- btw, i read they found a lot of links between qijia and lajia and it is quite sure about the connection. + that lajia site was a result of a major earthquake.

i googles Qijia + Fitzgerald-Huber,
http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/earlychina/publications/ecjournal/ec20/fitzgerald-huber.html

Found her 1995 article abstract:
"This paper investigates the relationships between the Early Metal Age cultures of the Inner Mongolia and Gansu-Qinghai area with the Erlitou culture of the Central Plains region, and addresses the issue whether specific metal objects characteristic of these cultures may have their source of inspiration in areas as remote as southern Siberia and presentday Afghanistan and southern Turkmenistan. The proposal that China at the very beginning of its Bronze Age may have been affected by longdistance cultural transmissions depends upon recent re-evaluations of the early history of the Eurasian steppe, in particular the advent of nomadic pastoralism and horse riding, and upon newly re-calibrated carbon dates ascertained for specific Siberian sites and for the Bactrian-Margiana complex."

So she said the steppe nomad probably influenced (maybe settled as?) Qijia culture. But there is no evidence that Qijia people become/influence the nomad (after settleing). Once Qijia settled in agriculture, I presume it is very unlike they would move West again?

Hey Sun Bin,

all of that looks extremely interesting, thanks for finding it all. That's the discussion I'd much rather hear than the one in the press about Chinese vs. Italians. I'm going to go over the stuff you linked to and try and do a post on it. I'd like to pursue this further and get more of your input - I just happen to be a bit busy this week.

I'm not saying the Qijia didn't invent it first, or that they have no connections to East China. I'm just saying I don't like the way its framed in the media, and that I think there's too much emphasis in both Western and Chinese popular thinking that China is somehow discretely separate from the world. I think more emphasis should be put on grey areas where the two blur together, and I think this is an example where that emphasis is missing when there could be more.

As for your comment about "why not let it be spun that way if it gets money for academic research", I hear that kinda of rationale in the academic community all the time. Don't you find that kind of a cynical and implicitly elitist way of thinking about it? It implies that you do the research only to enlighten some tiny minority. It seems unsavory to me; it may be what academics have to resort to, but I don't think they should accept it as unalterable, which I think some do. That seems a bit hypocritical and, well, suggests the rest of the world is stupid and always will be. I'm not saying that's what you think, just that I get that impression from academia quite often.

good we agree on the priorities.:)

academic funding: i am just a pragmatist and 'black cat/white cat' believer.

let me first admit i am a sympathizer of "elitists", literally. even though i don't understand what you mean by "tiny minority", were you refering to the academics, the sponsors or the audience?
yes, i sympathesize with the tiny group academic/elite, assuming that they pursue truth and knowledge and that benefits all of mankind. we can agree to disagree there.
(was off-topic comment from me originally)

---
We have some common grounds now, I hope you don't mind me venturing into somewhere we may not agree. to continue my pragmatism:

let's assume (HYPOTHEICALLY) there are present day descendents of Qijia, who are "DIFFFERENT" from Hans, and hence discriminated by "Han chauvinism", and people cannot have equal opportunity in finding jobs. now due to this publicity, the "chauvanistic" portion of the Han people become proud of Qijia and they convince themselves they are also Qijia and that Qijia are part of their extended family. they become happy to provide good jobs to them.
As a pragmatist I welcome such outcome and do not mind taking such path to achieve equality.

Don't we all believe in that everybody is equal, and that there should not be your race vs our race? Isn't this the celebrated dream and ideals such as that in American constitution? To me the broader concept of 'chinese'ness is helping this cause.

I know you prefer to equate "Chinese" to "Han", and view the broader definition of "Chinese" to include everybody living inside the current border as CCP conspiracy. My take is rather different. I view this distinction in semantics in a more benign way. It can be turned into something promoting ethnic/racial harmony. Just in the way that native/african/hispanic/white/asian americans are all americans. they are equal.

you may argue for a more neutral name instead of the word 'chinese'/'china', because of historic association and historic Han dominance. e.g. why not "singaporean" or 'east asian'? if that is what you care, i really do not disagree with you, except that as a pragmatist i do not really care. and i view that the benefit far outweighs the downside which bothers you.
because, i worry that being too rigorous on semantics will lead to ethnic distinction and hence ethnic conflict. in such case it would be the minorities who suffer.

yes, i sympathesize with the tiny group academic/elite, assuming that they pursue truth and knowledge and that benefits all of mankind.

Yeah, I agree. It's just that if the truth your pursuing is historical truth, and your funding comes from something that obscures historical truth, then your being funded by something that actually prevents you from sharing the knowledge you discover with mankind, doesn't it?

I don't see the definition of "Chinese" as being a CCP conspiracy. I see nothing wrong with Tibetans or Hui or Miao or whomever being considered "Chinese" as in belonging to the PRC. That's fine, and true. But when talking about history, "China" becomes a more complicated concept - as you pointed out yourself. And there is this pesky habit both within China and without to make things black and white: there's China, and there's everybody else. With Central Asia, particularly, there's this idea - found in Western, Central Asian and Chinese thinking - that as you move east you see, to put it in grossly oversimplified terms, white people, white people, white people BAM Chinese people. The Tarim Mummies in Xinjiang were presented on the Discovery Channel with the emphasis on "How in God's name did a Caucasian end up within the borders of Modern China?!!!??!! This is impossible!!!", when it's not such a sudden shift in genetics or culture at all - there are far more ties and gradations. But common thinking is that Chinese people and Central Asian people (and therefore by association Europe, the Middle East and radiating outward to the rest of humanity) are two completely different people separated forever by a big wall.

I think that this misconception contributes negatively to China's relationship with the world. Too often China is portrayed as "different" from the rest of Eurasia, when China is really part of a continuity. Emphasizing that continuity, I think, is especially necessary as the PRC continues to open up and reform. My experience in China was that Han Chinese students and teachers tended to think of different races and cultures almost as if we were entirely different species. Likewise alot of popular Western notions of China and Asia in general is that, well, they're inscrutable and alien. Saying that historical links and transitional peoples, like the Qijia, are "Chinese" is to miss an opportunity to emphasize that continuity. To reframe Chinese history within world history as one of belonging to a spectrum of the worlds people, rather than a special case, would be of benefit to China and everybody else.

I'm having difficulty expressing this clearly, so I hope that made some sense.

Just to confuse my point further, from my point of view minorities such as the Uyghurs, Mongols or Kazakhs and regions such as Xinjiang or Qinghai become a way of emphasizing inner China's links to the rest of the world and other cultures. But rather than emphasize just how different these minorities are, the PRC goes to ludicrous lengths to emphasize their oneness with the East of China and what is primarily Han history. This is a terrible loss, and actually fails to achieve what they want it to; instead of making minorities feel closer to the center, they recoil instead.

i think we achieve a lot of common grounds. ;)i do agree with what you said, and i think i got your points, esp the "continuity", which is easy to see if one thinks in the context of genetic theory and why i said when i read it, the only assocaition is the geographical context of (present day) china.

p.s. research: my premise is that the funder does not interfere with truth. they can make their own interpretation of the results, but they cannot ask the academic to distort the facts.
otherwise, it is called not academical result, and is no different from those publications commissioned by lobby group

Central Asian blog? Lajia culture is in Minhe County, which is in Eastern Qinghai. Qijia culture itself centers around Eastern Gansu, Ningxia and Western Qinghai. These are not "Central Asian". At most, Xinjiang could be considered related to Central Asia, along with the part of Gansu west of the Jade Gate Pass.
As Lin mentioned, "Chinese" is an aggregate identity, as are many modern ethnic and national identities. It cannot be limited to the tiny patch of purported prehistorical Huaxia territory along the Yellow River. If Qijia is not Chinese, then neither are Longshan, Yangshao, Dawenkou, Peiligang, Liangzhu, Hemudu, Hongshan and every other neolithic culture across China. Then we'd be left to wonder where on Earth all those Chinese came from.