Chickpea curry (before chana masala) Period COrigin theory BVerified

Chana masala as it is eaten today had a predecessor: an older chickpea curry made without tomatoes or chillies, seasoned only with the spices already at hand in the region.

The chickpea itself is one of South Asia's long-established crops. Traces of the legume turn up at Indus Valley sites from around 2500 BCE, and studies of the plant remains left in those settlements have followed its early cultivation. It was a familiar local pulse, on the table from early on. Simmering that chickpea in clarified butter with black pepper, coriander, and asafoetida—these were the seasonings already grown and traded across the subcontinent—is the outline of this dish before tomatoes and chillies were added.

The dish is also written down. A cookery manuscript compiled at a central Indian court at the close of the fifteenth century gives a recipe for chickpeas stewed with pepper, asafoetida, cumin, and soured milk. At the end of the sixteenth century, a Mughal administrative record likewise sets down methods for cooking chickpeas and split pulses with clarified butter and spices. The legume can be traced back to the Indus Valley, but the earliest firmly written form of the cooked dish sits with that late-fifteenth-century manuscript. Firm documentation for this older dish begins there, at the close of the fifteenth century; that is how far back it can be dated with certainty, not how far back the dish itself goes.

What this older dish speaks to is the antiquity of a type of dish—chickpeas simmered in local spices—and not chana masala as it stands today. The tomatoes and chillies that define the modern version arrived later, from the Americas. The answer to how old the dish is depends entirely on which dish one is asking about.

Two positions surround the chickpea stew from before tomatoes and chillies. They do not contradict each other; they differ over which antiquity is being claimed. One is settled scholarship; the other is one reading among several, and the two do not carry the same weight.

The view that the tradition is continuous is the established one. It holds that a chickpea dish simmered in local spices existed from early on and carries through to the masala of today. The cookery manuscripts say as much. The late-sixteenth-century Mughal record collects recipes for cooking chickpeas and split pulses in clarified butter and spices, and the late-fifteenth-century manuscript gives a concrete method for a chickpea curry with pepper, asafoetida, cumin, and soured milk — an entry that places the earliest written form somewhere between about 1469 and 1500. The chickpea itself had been grown in the region ever since the Indus Valley civilisation, as archaeobotanical study of the seeds recovered from those sites shows. A standard reference work on Indian food history gives this native stew the same age. Before any crop crossed from the Americas, chickpea curry simmered in local spices was already there. As a genre of dish, its antiquity can be stated plainly.

The view that there is a break, by contrast, is held more tentatively. It declines to treat the old stew and today's chana masala as one and the same. The tomatoes and chillies that define the modern dish are crops from the Americas, reaching the region by way of Portuguese trade from the sixteenth century onward. On this reading, the earlier stew of local spices alone is not the chana masala of today, and culinary continuity is cut once the American crops arrive. This position is voiced too in scholarship tracing the history of curry.

The two views complement one another. To say that the type of dish—chickpeas simmered in local spices—is old, and to say that the tomato-and-chilli masala of today came later, are claims about the antiquity of two different dishes, and both can hold. When the modern dish took shape, and where its present form came from, are questions about chana masala itself; what the old stew can speak to is narrower — chickpeas simmered in local spices, already set down in writing by the close of the fifteenth century.