Why not Mesoamerican Influences on Mole?
Some time ago, a commentator (Tim) raised the following question about my thesis that Mexican mole is basically an Islamic dish transported to Mexico (just hit mole in the tags section). Here’s what he said.
Your argument is well and good until you look at the bigger picture. You don’t need a liberal attitude toward multiculturalism for ingredients and techniques to spread between cultures. Were the European colonial powers not trying to enter into the markets of the East Indies to access their spices?
Just look at the history of chocolate. The Mesoamericans had their own native cacao drinks, which the Europeans tweaked with sugar and milk to produce the renowned European chocolate-making traditions we see today. The fact that mole recipes include indigenous ingredients such as cacao and chili peppers indicate that there were definately influences coming from the Mesoamerican side.
In fact, your entire argument is based on cross-cultural influences between Hindu, Muslim, and Christian cultures. Why is it such a stretch to suppose Mesoamerican influences into the picture?
Thanks Tim. Comments always help sharpen ideas. Here’s the short answer.
I do not deny that Mesoamerican ingredients such as cacao and chiles slip into mole. In any culinary exchange, ingredients are the very easiest things to include (see current fusion cooking).
My point is that the Spanish brought an entire cuisine to Mexico–ideas, ingredients, techniques, plants, farming. One of the parts of this cuisine was a way of making a rich spicy stew. If they added cacao and chile to that, fine. It was an easy change to make. But it does not change the point that the cuisine was from al-Andalus and ultimately from the center of Islam.
And I don’t see the adoption of cacao in Europe as being something as easy as tweaking. It was a transformation. Hot not cold, sweet not savory, embedded in a different religion. And I think the milk was a long time coming. But the drinks are another discussion.
Thanks again for an interesting commentary.
Good debate by Tim. But the fact remains that in the medieval world colonialism spread many ideas far and wide including cuisines.
I agree with you, Rachel. Mole may have taken on Islamic touches via the Spanish, but it certainly had to have been a chile paste/meat mixture (when meat was available, that is)
A question — who’s studied the Islamic-Spanish historical culinary connection in depth?
Just wanted to add that it’s impossible for us to know exactly whether or not mole sprung sui generis from Mesoamerican traditions or grew from the impact of the “Columbian exchange.”
So would this mean that all of the chile/meat combinations around the world are directly dependent on Mesoamerican tradions?
I think that it is important to make a distinction between the use of a specific ingredient and the use of that ingredient in a specific technique (along with its associated cultural baggage).
There are many people that now use Chiles that are not participating in a Mesoamerican cultural tradition, other then the fact that they are using a ingredient derived (in the most part) from that background. Nobody claims a Peruvian origin for Irish Stew for instance.
Now I personally think that the Chile/chocolate/meat mole that we are discussing will have diverese influences, which with include Mesoamerican, the Islamic world and European inputs. But I think that it is definately time to start dissecting the various elements of the dish out and determine why were invest specific cultural elements/backgrounds to specific ingredients/techniques.
Why is the Chile/meat combination so invested in Mesoamerican cultural origins, where as the potato/meat combination seems to lack this pre-Columbian association, even though as an ingredient Chiles were accepted around the Old World a lot more readily then the Potato?
“There are many people that now use Chiles that are not participating in a Mesoamerican cultural tradition, other then the fact that they are using a ingredient derived (in the most part) from that background.”
In Korea kochu jang (kochu means chile) is made from chiles, it’s basically a fermented bean paste with chiles in it. Jang is a kind of paste or mother sauce. We also have kan jang (soy sauce), dwen jang (fermented soy beans, kind of like miso). The old fashioned slow food technique for making all three sauces, integral to Korean cooking, are related or rather derivatives of a single, long process. Besides the ingredient, nothing Meso-American here.
“So would this mean that all of the chile/meat combinations around the world are directly dependent on Mesoamerican tradions?”
Kochu jang is used for spicy pork or chicken marinades.
First off… Mole is purely Mesoamerican. The fact that the Colonizers took on the name derived from the Nahuatl is a very good indication that the dish/technique predated the Conquest. Aside from the name we have the descrptions of Aztec culinary traditions from Bernal that confirm a highly developed & refined tradition of making sauces from just about anything… which in effect is the true Mole tradition. And we also know all the ancient cooking tools of Mesoamerica (such as the Colanders & Grinding tools) validate the sophisticated sauce making. Finally, we also know that contemporary Mexico has the most diverse & well developed sauce making tradition in the World… and the majority of its diversity can be found among the highly indigenous communities.
Now, what is open for debate is the degree that Mole Poblano for example takes on outside influences. But lets be clear… that style of Mole is but one of a thousand. If we look at Mole Poblano then we do see the hand of cooks well versed in Al-Andalus / North African spice combinations.
But in the end I think its obvious that even Mole Poblano is more fairly characterized as a Mesoamerican mole that has been enhanced with Old World ingredients… not the other way around.
The term “Mole” seems to be both Nahuatl and used in Iberia independently, there are extant “Mole” dishes in Goa for instance and in Historical Spanish cookbooks. It is an interesting coincidence.
As far as I can determine frying is not a mesoamerican technique. If you take out the Old world ingredients and techniques how many of the thousands of Mole are left?
In response to Adam:
> I don’t think you can point to a single Iberian source prior to the 1530’s that has any reference to any dish named Mole.
> Take out Old World ingredients… and you are still left with 1,000s of Moles. In Mesoamerica there was a unique Mole prepared for every important day on the Calendar.. every chile varient had its mole, every bean variety had its mole, moles were (and are) made from Chayotes, various Squash & fruits… I am not talking about adding these ingredients into a sauce… I am talking about making the sauce from the ingredients.
> Lets play a little game.
What if Mesoamerica had never existed? What would the Catalan Picada or Arabic “Moles” be without Mesoamerican techniques or ingredients? They would have no chiles, no tomatoes, tomatillos, pumpkin seeds, peanuts, chocolate, turkey etc., All the strong & defining flavors of Mole Poblano or just about any Mole for that case would be missing… and it wouldn’t be a Mole.
Now what if the Old World never existed? What would Mole Poblano be? In its classic form… it would never exist. But the combination of Anchos, Chile Negro, Tomatoe, Tomatillo, Peanuts, Candied Endemic Mexican Fruits, & Endemic Anisey herbs, & Allspice + Turkey would almost certainly exist and those are the most defining ingredients… yes the African Plantains, Indian Cinammon, Northern African raisins etc., all added wonderful depth to the dish.. but the basic dish WOULD exist and it WOULD still be wonderful.
So now answer me… what is the Mesoamerican influence in Mole Poblano… I think it is clear as day.
I forgot to address Adam’s comment about frying.
Traditional Frying is a nice technique added to the Mesoamerican kitchen that adds a nice mouthfeel to Moles… but it is not necessary to make a Mole.
If you ever see traditional indigenous cooks in Mexico State, Tlaxcala or Oaxaca (I imagine this is true elsewhere in Mesoamerica) cook you will find a very unique method of searing over volcanic stone & clay that requires no oil.
For example.. in Tlaxcala they will sear Langostines on a very hot volcanic rock by slowly dripping water / liquid to keep the protein from sticking… then once the Langostines are nearly cooked the sauce / Mole is added… and it sears just as beautifully as when you fry it… coating the protein / major ingredient perfectly & reducing just like when you fry…. and the results are delicious. I actually prefer that over frying because the flavor imparted from the Clay or Volcanic rock is amazing and just clubs you in the head with Terroir & the accumulated flavor of a millenary history.
The other non-frying sear method I have seen is to simmer the sauce in a Clay Pan and then drop in super heated stones that sear it from within. In Oaxaca today you see it most prominently in the dish known as Caldo de Piedra as well as the various Moles de Piedra.
When talking about food history, then it is best to stick to what did happen. Modern Mexican cuisine has many influences and contributions. The Old World ingredients and techniques are part of this. As you say, if you did ten minutes of research then you would know this, as it is the denial simply looks like a lack of confidence in the regions foods and traditions.
I will tell you what I will find a pre-1530’s reference to “mole” if you can list give sources for 100 pre-1530’s Mesoamerican Mole recipes. Given the denial of any significant contribution of the Old World to Mexian food, I assume that these historical sources are easy to come by?
Not Pre-1530 (not the Aztec or Maya’s fault as all their books were burned) but…
> The Florentine Codex & Bernal Diaz del Castillo’s description of Tianguis & food ways of the Aztec
+
> The desciriptions of ritual use of food (moles spelled out quite clearly) in the Borgia codices
+
> Archaelogical evidence vis-a-vis mesoamerican cooking tools
+
> Taking the Botanist approach that an ingredient is most likely endemic to the place that has the greatest variety of related genus and applying it to Moles (observing the vast range of Moles, Salsas, Adobos & sophisticated Atoles) to be found in Mexico with particularly concentration among highly Indigenous regions.
It is clear that Mesoamerica was ground zero for Moles. All the techniques & ingredients existed for making identifiable Moles… existence of multiple palace cuisines + the proliferation of religious rituals that intertwine food (Moles & Atoles) with each particular deity… all the elements were there… just because all their books were burned doesn’t mean we should strip the Mesoamerican cultures of their proud achievements.
I don’t not in any way reject the post-columbian culinary contributions whether we are talking the indirect North African, the Asturian / Central Spanish, the Basque, the Micronesian, the African, the Crypto-Jew, the Lebanese, the French Barcelonette, the Veneto Italian, the Menonite, the 20th Century Spanish, the Eastern European… I embrace & relish all of Mexico’s outside culinary influences… but we must start by giving the Mesoamerican their proper place.
I will not stand for the common baseless bias / prejudice / paradigm that is widely held that the Mesoamerican cultures were less developed than the Ancient Old World cultures just because they did not have steel, gunpowder or “germs”.
Issac Newton was the first Old World mathematician to achieve the astronomical calculus the Maya had mastered 1,000 years prior… and it wasn’t until centuries after Newton that the first Europeans were cognizant & able to measure the 26,000 year cycle that is about to complete in 2012.
I propose food historians need to take a new approach when looking at Mesoamerican cuisine.. instead of the assumption of the noble savages… lets realize & give credit to their haute culture… and think about food from that perspective.
EAt Nopales, I really am firing up for a long response. But who are the food historians who doubted that there was a high cuisine in Mexico prior to the Conquest. Any society that hierarchical had a high cuisine whether in the Old World or the New. Not always a good thing, I might say.
But the question is whether and how and with whom it survived the Conquest. Wives?
Hi Rachel,
Almost every cursory synopsis of Mexican culinary history starts with some sweeping statement like Mesoamerican people ate a diet based on Corn, Beans, Squash & Chiles… occassionally supplemented with wild game & fish. The Spanish brought pigs, goats, cows etc., etc., and enriched the Mexican diet.
Everybody just keeps regurgitating the same faulty information from 100 years ago.. and that seems to become a paradigm from which people tend to build from. So when people start looking at the origins of dishes they immediate start with the assumption that if it involved more than corn, beans, squash & chiles it must be a foreign influence.. and then they go franctically looking for facts that substantiate that hypothesis.
People tend to ignore that Mexico is primarily an indigenous country with a modest amount of “other”.
I look forward to your response… I also have lots of information to share. Tomorrow I will get real anecdotal. My parents grew up 6 miles away from each other… my dad’s town was a creole town of which my ancestors were among the founders… my mom’s town is a pre-hispanic nahua town… I am keenly aware of Criollo vs. Local Mexican culinary traditions.
I agree with EatNopales on this one. Having researched the pan-American uses of cacao and chocolate in the “Chocolate in Mesoamerica” book, I find the inventiveness, creativity, ingenuity, and diversity of food and medicinal uses of cacao in Mesoamerica truly impressive.
Generally when a dish or plant is introduced to an area it has a fairly homogenous name (e.g. kakau in Tupi-guarani all across the northern Amazon as evidence that the use of the SEED was introduced to this area from the north, even though the fruit was widely used) whereas if it is native to the area you have a wide diversity of names, ingredients, and recipes, as in the moles, atoles, salsas, and adobos that you mention in Mesoamerica, vs. the few (single?) mole name and recipes in Spain.
Also now studying the movement of food plants from the New World to Asia and vice versa, it appears that many more major food crops have gone West (chile, tomato, papaya, guava, pineapple, dragonfruit, peanuts, corn, cacao) than East (mangos, rice, cinnamon, cloves, citrus). In a dish like mole where the majority of the ingredients (tomatoes, cacao, peanuts, pepitas chiles) are from that area, you have to use Occam’s razor and deduce that it was invented there.
Also agreeing with Eat Nopal, and the quite reliable sources and archealogical evidence.
Corns, beans, and squash is a high school textbook version of Mesoamerica. Mexican cuisine is rooted in the techniques,traditions, and preparations of its indigeonous people. Italian cuisine isn’t rooted in Asian and Mesoamerican cuisines just because of pasta and tomatoes.
The emphasis on mole poblano among the vast array mole preparations throughout Mexico is also an oversight. Yes we all know the 7 moles of Oaxaca, and mole poblano, but even Puebla and Oaxaca have so many more moles, countless. Look beyond the few moles found in the famous cookbooks to the full scope of dishes found in Mexico using Mesoamerican cooking tools. Let’s examine a hundred, or two hundred moles to start from the more indigeonous regions.
The closer you get to the heart of Mesoamerican culture in Mexico, the more emphasis on moles, not so much in the northern states that have more Eoropean influences.Still all regions of Mexico have many moles.
Eat Nopal and Rachel, looking forwrd to both of your responses.
Thanks Nat… I am honored to be in agreement with a distinguished academic expert who researches & teaches about the subject.
In addition to Nat’s support, the prolific & militantly purist Richard Tan pointed me to research by Martha Macri of UC Davis on the infiltration of Nahua words into the Maya vocabulary prior to 500 AD (as documented in Lowland Maya glyphs).. that suggest the consumption of Mul (Mole) in sacred Maya rituals.
If moles are essentially Indo-Islamic sauces (curries) with added local ingredients, why doesn’t the same foundation lead to “moles” in the rest of the Hispanic world? Are there Peruvian or Argentine variations on the basic curry recipe? Also, how much is known about the cuisine of stratified pre-Columbian cultures like the Maya, Aztec, Inca? Did the ruling classes in these societies have elaborate sauces? I think Tim has a good point; I’ll bet the local contribution goes beyond “add chocolate and chillies.”
Hi Bernard, thanks for the comment. Just to be clear, I don’t argue that moles are Indo-Islamic sauces (curries). I argue that moles and curries share a distant common ancestor in Islamic sauces of the period of the Caliphate.
The question about the rest of the Hispanic world is spot on. There are similar sauces in Peruvian colonial cookbooks, though not with the name mole attached, according to Rosario Olivas Weston, the main expert on this. Argentina did not have much of a culinary culture in colonial times. For most of the rest of the Hispanic world we have little evidence about colonial cooking. And don’t forget that much of high colonial cooking (as well as early traditions in Spain) was under serious threat in the late nineteenth century from the Frenchification of world high cuisines.
If only we knew more about the high cuisine of the Mayans, Inka and Aztecs. As highly stratified societies they certainly had high cuisines. But most of what we know comes from later Spanish reports, most of which were neither very knowledgeable nor very sympathetic.