"James Silverton" <not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not> wrote in message
. ..
> barry wrote on Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:10:45 -0700:
>
> ??>> On 2007-04-30 10:29:10 -0700, John Doe
> > said:
> ??>>
> ??>>> On Apr 30, 12:55 pm, "Musashi" >
> wrote:
> ??>>>
> ??>>>> "20th century style Edomae nigirizushi" would probably
> ??>>>> be the correct term
> ??>>>>
> ??>>> Yes, I agree, it would be a perfect way to express what
> ??>>> is meant by "Traditional" if it were referred to as "20th
> ??>>> century style Edomae nigirizushi". That does explain it
> ??>>> very well. From now on when I read a post from you that
> ??>>> refers to "Traditional" sushi, would I be correct in
> ??>>> assuming that this is what you mean?
>
> These erudite discussions of sushi history are doubtless
> essentially correct. My own source of sushi history is Ryuichi
> Yoshii's "Sushi". He indicates that the earliest sushi methods
> came from China and were a fermenting process intended to
> preserve fish. The Chinese appear to have totally lost the
> techniques since fish was not a Mongol food.

Current thinking in Japan is that the practice of fermenting fish together
with rice
is Southeast Asian in origin as examples of it still exist in Thailand,
Burma, Cambodia.
Of course Southeast Asia under the name of Annam was part of China thousands
of
years ago. This fermented fish and rice method did spread through China but
disappeared
sometime in the 1800s.

M