A Concise History of the Carrot

While I might prefer a more punny title like "The Roots of the Carrot," I’ve encountered too many such puns in my research.

Carrots have been cultivated in Europe and Southwestern Asia for at least four millennia. Initially, people likely harvested wild carrots but did not consume the roots, using the leaves instead for garnishing and the seeds for consumption. The earliest known account of root consumption dates back to the Roman Empire, where carrots were believed to have aphrodisiac properties. Legends suggest that soldiers consuming carrots before the Trojan Horse incident (which occurred a millennium before the Empire) did so to prevent bowel movements during their prolonged confinement.

The earliest verifiable evidence of carrot cultivation appears in a 10th-century agricultural text written in Arabic, claiming to be a translation of a much older Mesopotamian source, though this claim is dubious. Cultivating the roots would have necessitated selective breeding for larger roots, indicating that some form of carrot cultivation was underway by Roman times.

These modern carrot varieties were introduced to Europe and China by travelers from regions like Afghanistan and Iraq. By the 14th century, carrots were being cultivated in many towns across the Netherlands.

Determining the colors of carrots throughout history is not straightforward, as historical references to colors often differ from contemporary understandings. Specifically, many mentions of "red" carrots likely refer to what we now classify as "purple."

Most historical sources describe at least two carrot color varieties: likely purple and yellow, with some references to "white" carrots, which may have actually been pale yellow or white parsnips. Notably, sources from the 10th century indicate that purple carrots were generally more flavorful.

However, the Juliana Anicia Codex, a 512 AD Byzantine manuscript, features illustrations that closely resemble modern carrots, leading scholars from the World Carrot Museum to conclude that the Dutch could not have invented them. At that time, much of the Netherlands did not even exist.

The Genetic Analysis of Carrots

The aforementioned genetic study sequenced the genomes of 630 carrot samples from around the globe, utilizing a program called TreeMix to infer genetic relationships. This process categorized the samples into five major populations, allowing for further genetic comparisons linking genes to specific traits.

The researchers identified three distinct genetic loci responsible for the orange coloration in carrots: Or, Y2, and a newly identified locus, REC. Carrots with none or only one of these genes are rarely orange, while those with all three are orange about 96% of the time, aligning with the dark orange color preferred by Bugs Bunny. This genetic model supports the historical claim that orange carrots, while uncommon, did occasionally emerge.

The scientists compared their findings to carrot distribution and various historical accounts. A key revelation was that the ancestral branch of modern orange carrots began with yellow carrots, indicating that while the genes for orange existed, they did not dominate until later.

Banga's 1961 work, The Origin and Distribution of the Western Cultivated Carrot, aligns best with the genomic data, positing that yellow carrots arose as a common mutation of purple carrots. When carrots spread to Europe, yellow became more prevalent in certain areas, including the Netherlands, while purple and white varieties persisted but became less common.

At some point, which remains uncertain, orange carrots began to gain popularity. Fortunately, this coincided with the Dutch Renaissance, a period characterized by realistic vegetable depictions in art. Banga noted that we can trace the evolution of carrot colors through paintings. For instance, a 1569 artwork illustrates carrots, albeit in a suggestive context:

I struggle with the urge to color-correct these painted carrots to orange, insisting it’s merely the lighting. However, experts affirm that the lighter tones are yellow and the darker shades are purple.

Later paintings from around 1618 depict more orange carrots:

These show a predominance of orange carrots, alongside three purples and four yellows. (The white roots in the foreground are likely not carrots.)

Yet, not all representations were consistent. Around the same period, artists created works like this:

Displaying the entire painting helps clarify the carrot colors, revealing these are pale yellow with a slight orange tint.

In subsequent decades, uniformly orange carrots became more prevalent, as seen in this detail from a painting dated between 1636 and 1684:

We observe dark orange carrots and a dog, whose black-and-white pattern serves as a reference for color. Additionally, a drawing of the rearing lion from the House of Orange-Nassau coat of arms adorns the barrel, reflecting the growing association between orange iconography and carrots.

The crucial takeaway is that these artworks illustrate the rise of orange carrots alongside the Dutch struggle for independence, led by William of Orange.

The connection between the House of Orange and carrots is further emphasized by anecdotes like this:

> "During the triumph of the anti-stadtholder faction, the populace expressed their loyalty to the House of Orange in peculiar ways. To suppress this sentiment, the ruling faction prohibited market women from selling uncovered carrots, mandating they be concealed under other greens. Efforts were made to eradicate 'carrotty' cats and uproot marigolds. These measures only fueled further expressions of loyalty, with fishwives calling out for 'orange salmon' and marigold seeds being scattered in gardens, particularly of the opposition. Pigeons were even dyed orange and released."

Causation and Correlation

The farmers who bred orange carrots left no written records explaining their motives. There's a tendency, critiqued by Scott Alexander, to equate "no evidence" with "conclusive disproof." This only holds when data that could substantiate the hypothesis is gathered. Conducting extensive trials without finding evidence does not inherently disprove the hypothesis.

Would written reasons for cultivating orange carrots exist if the intent was to honor the House of Orange? Likely not! Dutch agricultural texts from that period are scarce, especially those authored by practitioners. While the Dutch were relatively literate for their time, estimates suggest only about 10% could sign their names in 1500, most of whom lived in urban areas. Moreover, supporting the House of Orange was a revolutionary act; rebels during the Eighty Years' War raised orange flags in cities they captured. The eighty years in question spanned the period from the painting showing no orange carrots to the one depicting a landscape of orange carrots. Writing overtly about support for the House of Orange was a far more dangerous expression than simply breeding orange carrots.

Thus, the absence of written explanations does not definitively argue for or against the hypothesis. Yet, skeptics often treat this lack of documentation as a robust disproof, overlooking the necessity of relying on oral traditions and circumstantial evidence. This is a common oversight; individuals frequently neglect to question skepticism itself.

The argument for the House of Orange hypothesis comprises two main components. Firstly, oral traditions among the descendants of those who created the orange carrot maintain that it was intentionally bred as a symbol of support for the House of Orange. This suggests a straightforward interpretation: it is likely true. The most prevalent alternative theory posits that this narrative emerged because tourists favored it. However, many myths could have attracted tourist interest, making the widespread nature of this account compelling evidence for the hypothesis.

Secondly, the timing is suspicious. Carrots had been domesticated for over eight centuries and present in Europe for more than two centuries, yet orange remained a rarity until exactly when it became a political statement in the Netherlands. The emergence of the orange carrot during the Eighty Years' War provides strong Bayesian evidence. Any explanation for the rise of orange carrots that doesn’t specifically predict this development during the conflict in Holland bears a significant penalty compared to one that does.

Yet coincidences can occur. Thus, let’s examine alternative explanations:

• Hardiness of Orange Carrots: This may hold some truth today, but this is a result of breeding for both color and durability. The genetic study found no inherent link between these traits, suggesting that orange carrots may not have been naturally selected for hardiness in the past.
• Taste of Orange Carrots: Presently, this is also true due to breeding preferences. However, historical evidence from previous carrot-cultivating societies indicates that purple carrots were typically more flavorful than yellow ones. With both varieties present in the Netherlands by 1569, it raises the question of why farmers would start with yellow if they sought to enhance flavor.
• Color as an Arbitrary Marker: This hypothesis, suggested in the genetic study paper, posits that orange might have been chosen as a quality indicator. While plausible, the lack of evidence weakens this theory compared to the House of Orange narrative, as an arbitrary signifier would require communication about its significance. Additionally, if color could have been any hue, why specifically orange?

Thus, we arrive at our current understanding. Historically, the Dutch claimed to have developed orange carrots in the 16th century as a tribute to the House of Orange. However, the discovery of evidence for the existence of orange carrots elsewhere led to skepticism regarding the "invention" claim. Yet, the recent genetic research supports the original Dutch assertion! While orange carrots may have existed before, they indeed created the ancestor of all modern orange carrots during the 16th century. There are no compelling alternative explanations to the traditional narrative, which aligns with the available evidence. This is the type of story we typically accept as likely true.

Originally published at https://outlandishclaims.substack.com.