"John Doe" > wrote in message
ups.com...
I keep reading reference to "Traditional" sushi. I believe I
understand that in most cases, it refers to sushi as it is prepared in
Japan, using only those ingredients that are locally available and
have been used for sushi prior to it's becoming popular within western
countries.

Because of the actual history and evolution of sushi to it's present
form as prepared in Japan in the last hundred years, I believe the
word "Traditional" may be a description that is not entirely correct.

As seen in the below article from Wikipedia, sushi has been in
existence in Japan since the time period of year 718 AD.

It has evolved from the fermentation of fish and rice which was
naturally developed to lengthen the edible longevity of the food, to
today's sushi as prepared and eaten in Japan.

Sushi has come a long way. Through the centuries, the preparation and
methods of displaying and eating sushi have changed dramatically.

Perhaps the longest period of uniformity in preparation of sushi was
the 800, or so, years between the 10th century and the 18th century.
Because of the length of this period when sushi virtually remained
unchanged, the popular style of sushi during this period would be
accurately described as "Traditional" sushi.

The changes that have taken place in the last 20 years, mostly in
western countries, in regards to the preparation, display and eating
of sushi are what I believe are referred to as "Non-Traditional" forms
of sushi. This is perhaps because of the rapid addition of many items
that are now used in the preparation, and the newly accepted manner in
which sushi is now eaten in many countries.

Instead of using the word "Traditional", I believe that referencing
Japanese style of sushi that has been popular for the period up to 20
years ago may be best described as "Traditional Japanese sushi of the
early 1900's".

This, I can relate to perfectly. However, I stagger a bit when I see
someone use the term "Traditional" when referring to sushi. Because of
it's history, it really has no traditional methods. It has evolved
tremendously over hundreds of years.

"Traditional Japanese sushi" may be a little better description, but
it also isn't really accurate.

I'm very interested in what others in this group feel about this
terminology.
***

What you say technically is absolutely correct. But from a practical point
of view,
absolute correctness would be quite cumbersome in the west, where even the
fact that "sushi" has a long history, that the older forms of sushi bear
little resemblance to
what is now known as "sushi", or that the word "sushi" in Japanese covers a
wide range
of dishes all using vingered rice as a common denominator is not widely
known at all.

"20th century style Edomae nigirizushi" would probably be the correct term
but simply
too long for common use. I think we are using "Traditional" to cover this
category.
We are also using "Traditional" in the sense of "versus non-traditional",
the latter being
the sushi developed outside of Japan and those with a fusion approach.

By the way, nigirizushi that was around 20 years ago was also around 40 and
50 years ago.
Essentially same types of fish, same size nigiri. I remember as a little kid
seeing Nigirizushi available
(and Americans eating it) at the Japan Pavillion at the New York Worlds Fair
(1964).
There were already "Sushi Restaurants" in Manhattan in the 1970s. (Hatsuhana
opened in 1976).
But it was the 1980s when "sushi" really boomed here.

Musashi