11 kya brewing troughs found in Turkey

[RichTravsky]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/discovery-of-ancient-breweries-offers-clues-of-primitive-lifestyle/2013/01/07/6c2167b2-5691-11e2-a613-ec8d394535c6_story.html

...
In the December issue of the journal Antiquity, archaeologists describe
evidence of nearly 11,000-year-old brewing troughs at a feasting site
in Turkey. And archaeologists in Cyprus have unearthed the
3,500-year-old ruins of what may have been a primitive brewery and
feasting hall. The excavation, described in the November issue of the
journal Levant, revealed several kilns that may have been used to dry
malt before fermentation.

The findings suggest that alcohol has been a social lubricant for ages,
said Lindy Crewe, an archaeologist who co-authored the Levant paper.

While the cultivation of grain clearly transformed humanity, why it
first happened has been hotly contested.

�This debate has been going on since the 1950s: Is the first cultivation
of grain about making beer, or is it about making bread?� Crewe said.
...

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 14, 9:46 am, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/discovery-of-an...

>
> ...
> In the December issue of the journal Antiquity, archaeologists describe
> evidence of nearly 11,000-year-old brewing troughs at a feasting site
> in Turkey. And archaeologists in Cyprus have unearthed the
> 3,500-year-old ruins of what may have been a primitive brewery and
> feasting hall. The excavation, described in the November issue of the
> journal Levant, revealed several kilns that may have been used to dry
> malt before fermentation.
>
> The findings suggest that alcohol has been a social lubricant for ages,
> said Lindy Crewe, an archaeologist who co-authored the Levant paper.
>
> While the cultivation of grain clearly transformed humanity, why it
> first happened has been hotly contested.
>
> “This debate has been going on since the 1950s: Is the first cultivation
> of grain about making beer, or is it about making bread?” Crewe said.
> ...

Is there anything in this evidence that would indicate that brewing
didn't originate much earlier, let's say 100,000 years ago or even 1
million years ago? Afterall, whenever one puts any kind of sugary or
starchy water into a vessel it begins to ferment naturally. And
evidence of hominid consciousness and intelligence (stone tools) goes
back millions of years. So, to me it seems unlikely that this would
not have been common knowledge going back hundreds of thousands of
years.

Remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[VtSkier]

On 1/14/2013 2:51 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Jan 14, 9:46 am, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/discovery-of-an...
>>
>> ...
>> In the December issue of the journal Antiquity, archaeologists describe
>> evidence of nearly 11,000-year-old brewing troughs at a feasting site
>> in Turkey. And archaeologists in Cyprus have unearthed the
>> 3,500-year-old ruins of what may have been a primitive brewery and
>> feasting hall. The excavation, described in the November issue of the
>> journal Levant, revealed several kilns that may have been used to dry
>> malt before fermentation.
>>
>> The findings suggest that alcohol has been a social lubricant for ages,
>> said Lindy Crewe, an archaeologist who co-authored the Levant paper.
>>
>> While the cultivation of grain clearly transformed humanity, why it
>> first happened has been hotly contested.
>>

>> �This debate has been going on since the 1950s: Is the first cultivation
>> of grain about making beer, or is it about making bread?� Crewe said.
>> ...

Should one happen across a Babylonian recipe for beer, one is taken by
the fact that the grain is first turned into bread, which is then
dampened and malted. That's at least 5000 years ago.

My question wouldn't be about when brewing first took place, it would be
about when the process to turn starch into sugar (malting) was
discovered. This is a rather complex process which is central to
"brewing" but is not necessary to the production of alcohol.

Any sugar in solution will yield a solution with a proportion of alcohol
as long as conditions are right and those conditions are frequently
found naturally so intent is not required. Berry juice yields wine,
apple juice and other similar fruits yield cider and honey with water
added yields mead.

I would think that grain would need to be available in quantities which
would need storage on a fairly large scale would be a requirement with
the grain in the bottom of the storage container "accidentally"
achieving a "malted" status.

In dairy areas of the US grain, specifically corn (maize to those in
Europe) is stored in silos. Say 20 to 30 feet diameter and maybe 50 feet
tall. It is not uncommon to find natural beer in the bottom of this
container come spring. Corn is put in the silo leaves, stalks and all
and it's green so there is a lot of water available even without adding
any. A warm spell and a fair amount of compressed silage to retard air
infiltration creates conditions for malting and beer making.

I would say that intentional alcohol production goes back quite a bit
further than beer making and that accidental production would have gone
back even further.

The other thing I've read is that mildly alcoholic beverages were
something that made civilization in the form of city living possible.
Without some disinfection of the water a city wasn't viable before water
treatment or bringing water from a great distance was available.

And then a bumper sticker I saw a while back...
"Beer; helping ugly people get laid for at least 5000 years."

>
> Is there anything in this evidence that would indicate that brewing
> didn't originate much earlier, let's say 100,000 years ago or even 1
> million years ago? Afterall, whenever one puts any kind of sugary or
> starchy water into a vessel it begins to ferment naturally. And
> evidence of hominid consciousness and intelligence (stone tools) goes
> back millions of years. So, to me it seems unlikely that this would
> not have been common knowledge going back hundreds of thousands of
> years.
>
> Remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Conjecture as I've done above is still all we have. I would hazard a
guess that my conjecture about grain storage is probably right and that
at least the "accidental" production of mildly alcoholic beverages could
go well back in time.
>

[RichTravsky]

Clod is Dense wrote:
>
> On Jan 14, 9:46 am, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/discovery-of-an...
> >
> > ...
> > In the December issue of the journal Antiquity, archaeologists describe
> > evidence of nearly 11,000-year-old brewing troughs at a feasting site
> > in Turkey. And archaeologists in Cyprus have unearthed the
> > 3,500-year-old ruins of what may have been a primitive brewery and
> > feasting hall. The excavation, described in the November issue of the
> > journal Levant, revealed several kilns that may have been used to dry
> > malt before fermentation.
> >
> > The findings suggest that alcohol has been a social lubricant for ages,
> > said Lindy Crewe, an archaeologist who co-authored the Levant paper.
> >
> > While the cultivation of grain clearly transformed humanity, why it
> > first happened has been hotly contested.
> >
> > “This debate has been going on since the 1950s: Is the first cultivation
> > of grain about making beer, or is it about making bread?” Crewe said.
> > ...
>
> Is there anything in this evidence that would indicate that brewing
> didn't originate much earlier, let's say 100,000 years ago or even 1

Yes. The dating eliminates that. DUH

> million years ago? Afterall, whenever one puts any kind of sugary or
> starchy water into a vessel it begins to ferment naturally. And

Afterall, someone has to think of that FIRST. Ape like ancestors would
not.

> evidence of hominid consciousness and intelligence (stone tools) goes
> back millions of years. So, to me it seems unlikely that this would
> not have been common knowledge going back hundreds of thousands of
> years.
>
> Remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So, we have no evidence of nuclear reactors 4 mya, but they could have had
them?

[pete]

VtSkier wrote:
>
> On 1/14/2013 2:51 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 9:46 am, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/discovery-of-an...
> >>
> >> ...
> >> In the December issue of the journal Antiquity, archaeologists describe
> >> evidence of nearly 11,000-year-old brewing troughs at a feasting site
> >> in Turkey. And archaeologists in Cyprus have unearthed the
> >> 3,500-year-old ruins of what may have been a primitive brewery and
> >> feasting hall. The excavation, described in the November issue of the
> >> journal Levant, revealed several kilns that may have been used to dry
> >> malt before fermentation.
> >>
> >> The findings suggest that alcohol has been a social lubricant for ages,
> >> said Lindy Crewe, an archaeologist who co-authored the Levant paper.
> >>
> >> While the cultivation of grain clearly transformed humanity, why it
> >> first happened has been hotly contested.
> >>

> >> “This debate has been going on since the 1950s: Is the first cultivation
> >> of grain about making beer, or is it about making bread?” Crewe said.

I agree that fermentation of fruit juices
is probably much older than brewing from grain,
but there is a lot brewing business making money these days,
so I would expect people to be interested in the origins of brewing.

I also agree with your conjectures
that natural grain fermentation was probably
discovered accidentally
subsequent to improper grain storage
which allowed the grain to sprout and not mature,
and which also allowed to the sprouted grain to express
sweet liquid in such a way that it could collect and ferment.

So, in conclusion,
brewing was probably not deliberately done,
until after people had stored very large quantities of grain.

--
pete

[RichTravsky]

Bear in mind that the grains we have today are the result of a lot
selection. It would be interesting to have enough of these earlier
varieties to uh, experiment with ;)

[VtSkier]

On 1/28/2013 12:28 AM, RichTravsky wrote:
> pete wrote:
>> VtSkier wrote:
>>> On 1/14/2013 2:51 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>>>> On Jan 14, 9:46 am, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/discovery-of-an...
>>>>> ...
>>>>> In the December issue of the journal Antiquity, archaeologists describe
>>>>> evidence of nearly 11,000-year-old brewing troughs at a feasting site
>>>>> in Turkey. And archaeologists in Cyprus have unearthed the
>>>>> 3,500-year-old ruins of what may have been a primitive brewery and
>>>>> feasting hall. The excavation, described in the November issue of the
>>>>> journal Levant, revealed several kilns that may have been used to dry
>>>>> malt before fermentation.
>>>>>
>>>>> The findings suggest that alcohol has been a social lubricant for ages,
>>>>> said Lindy Crewe, an archaeologist who co-authored the Levant paper.
>>>>>
>>>>> While the cultivation of grain clearly transformed humanity, why it
>>>>> first happened has been hotly contested.
>>>>>

>>>>> �This debate has been going on since the 1950s: Is the first cultivation
>>>>> of grain about making beer, or is it about making bread?� Crewe said.

Yes it would and some are actually available commercially such as
Einkhorn and Emmer (sp? for both of those). Barley is not required for
beer and some of the best is made with wheat.

[RichTravsky]

VtSkier wrote:
>
> On 1/28/2013 12:28 AM, RichTravsky wrote:
> > pete wrote:
> >> VtSkier wrote:
> >>> On 1/14/2013 2:51 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> >>>> On Jan 14, 9:46 am, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/discovery-of-an...
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>> In the December issue of the journal Antiquity, archaeologists describe
> >>>>> evidence of nearly 11,000-year-old brewing troughs at a feasting site
> >>>>> in Turkey. And archaeologists in Cyprus have unearthed the
> >>>>> 3,500-year-old ruins of what may have been a primitive brewery and
> >>>>> feasting hall. The excavation, described in the November issue of the
> >>>>> journal Levant, revealed several kilns that may have been used to dry
> >>>>> malt before fermentation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The findings suggest that alcohol has been a social lubricant for ages,
> >>>>> said Lindy Crewe, an archaeologist who co-authored the Levant paper.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> While the cultivation of grain clearly transformed humanity, why it
> >>>>> first happened has been hotly contested.
> >>>>>

> >>>>> �This debate has been going on since the 1950s: Is the first cultivation
> >>>>> of grain about making beer, or is it about making bread?� Crewe said.

Yes, I've read a bit here and there on some recreations of some early
beers. But as I said, "experiment with".

We're going to party like its 10,000 B.C.!

[pete]

I think it is probably much more likely
that the first cultivation of grain,
was about unleavened bread or about porridge.
Those two endeavors are
vastly conceptually simpler than brewing grain.


I'm curious about how it was discovered
that saccharification for brewing,
could be achieved by the addition of salivary amylase
through mastication of grain.


--
pete

[RichTravsky]

Well, it's been speculated that the Quest for Beer was what motivated
agriculture.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/history/did-a-thirst-for-beer-spark-civilization-1869187.html
Did a thirst for beer spark civilization?
Friday 15 January 2010

Drunkenness, hangovers, and debauchery tend to come to mind when
one thinks about alcohol and its effects. But could alcohol also
have been a catalyst for human civilization?

According to archaeologist Patrick McGovern this may have been
the case when early man decided to start farming. Why humans
turned from hunting and gathering to agriculture could be the
result of our ancestors� simple urge for alcoholic beverages.

"Alcohol provided the initial motivation," said McGovern, a
biomolecular archaeologist at the University of Pennsylvania
Museum. "Then it got going the engine of society."


As one of the leading experts on the study of ancient alcoholic
brews, McGovern has found evidence showing that early man was
making the beverage as far back as 9,000 years ago.
...

[pete]

RichTravsky wrote:

>
> pete wrote:

> http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/history/did-a-thirst-for-beer-spark-civilization-1869187.html
> Did a thirst for beer spark civilization?
> Friday 15 January 2010

> As one of the leading experts on the study of ancient alcoholic
> brews, McGovern

If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail
If he had been a baker instead ...

I'm a having problems with his logic.
His argument for beer priority
seems to be that ancient forms of bread
were good enough to make,
but neither good enough to eat nor to cultivate for.
"Humans were only just beginning to cultivate plants,
meaning that any bread made at the time
would have hardly been the edible loafs we see now."

--
pete

[Tom McDonald]

Another problem here is that wild wheat, rye, etc., were used for food
long before they were cultivated. This would mean that humans would have
had long experience making some sort of bread (probably beginning with
flat breads) before they first planted and cultivated cereal crops.

Of course the earliest breads, even after cultivation occurred, would
have been different to the breads we are most familiar with today--not
least of which because it probably took a while to use leavening to make
raised breads. That would not have made them awful or borderline
useless; in fact, I suspect some of them would have been rather tasty.
And, because they would have used the whole grain, they would likely
have been at least as, and probably more than, as nutritious as our
modern breads.

That said, I don't think brewing would have lagged very far behind
baking. It's just too easy to get alcoholic beverages from grains, and
the ingestion is just too much fun to have been ignored.

[VtSkier]

Two points:
Bread making in the Americas never got beyond the flat bread stage and
the native Americans AFAIK, while they made alcoholic beverages, never
used grain as a base. They used other things like agave.

Not to say that maize doesn't make good beer (used in Appalachia as a
base for Bourbon whiskey), they just didn't seem to get that far.

Then, who says bread making has to be an impetus or reason for
cultivation of grasses. They don't call them "cereal" grains for
nothing. Even the Romans, while I'm sure they made bread, didn't seem to
rely on it. Gruel/porridge with a bit of garum for flavor was the meal
of the masses (as an aside, look up "garum sauce" and see what that
flavor might be).

Of course it's not much of a step to take left-over porridge and pour it
on a flat, heated rock and come up with a tortilla or a pita bread.

What I've read about alcohol production is that it may have been a
technology that /allowed/ civilization to develop. Think about it,
what's one of the results of so-called "civilization" which is really
about humans living close together in large numbers with a certain
amount of organization, right? Well one of the results is pollution.
Pollution of drinking water sources specifically. A mild alcohol content
in your beverage disinfects it.

The Romans partly solved the pollution problem by bringing water from
distant sources and piping waste away from population areas, but they
were far from the earliest civilization, who had to cope with pollution
by other means and one of those means is disinfection of drinking water
with alcohol.

[Paul Crowley]

On 17/02/2013 16:36, VtSkier wrote:

> What I've read about alcohol production is that it may have
> been a technology that /allowed/ civilization to develop.
> Think about it, what's one of the results of so-called
> "civilization" which is really about humans living close
> together in large numbers with a certain amount of
> organization, right? Well one of the results is pollution.
> Pollution of drinking water sources specifically. A mild
> alcohol content in your beverage disinfects it.

This is very dubious. It is built on a curious
revisionist historical theory that has been around for
the last 20+ years, which has no basis (that I can
see) in any historical record, and is quite contrary
to common sense.

Firstly, alcohol is very expensive -- for those living
on the margins, as most people at most historical
times have done. If your theory had substance,
every home would have needed its daily delivery of
beer -- much as milk used to be delivered daily in
many countries. (Imagine the cost of that!)
Secondly, many people abstained from it, without
obvious consequences of ill-health (e.g. the whole
of Islam.)
Thirdly, even the weakest beer would hardly ever
have been fed to children (or most women, for that
matter).

London in 1851 had a population of 2.4 million, yet
many drew their drinking water from local wells. In
the 1840s one got contaminated from a nearby cess-
pit and was responsible for a local outbreak of
cholera, as Dr John Snow famously showed:

http://www.victorianweb.org/science/health/johnsnow.html

Prior to the acceptance of Snow's work (20-30
years later) few believed that drinking water could
be a vector for disease. (The medical profession
were, as ever, the last to be convinced.) People
did -- generally -- live healthy lives in large cities
like London. If they put alcohol into their drinking
water, it was because they liked the taste -- and
not for any reasons of health.


Paul.

[VtSkier]

On 2/17/2013 12:37 PM, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On 17/02/2013 16:36, VtSkier wrote:
>
>> What I've read about alcohol production is that it may have
>> been a technology that /allowed/ civilization to develop.
>> Think about it, what's one of the results of so-called
>> "civilization" which is really about humans living close
>> together in large numbers with a certain amount of
>> organization, right? Well one of the results is pollution.
>> Pollution of drinking water sources specifically. A mild
>> alcohol content in your beverage disinfects it.
>
> This is very dubious. It is built on a curious
> revisionist historical theory that has been around for
> the last 20+ years, which has no basis (that I can
> see) in any historical record, and is quite contrary
> to common sense.

First. Not my theory, just sounds plausible and interesting. I'd like
you to point me toward some cites on this "curious revisionist
historical theory". It looks interesting and maybe I can poke some hole
in it too.

>
> Firstly, alcohol is very expensive -- for those living
> on the margins, as most people at most historical
> times have done. If your theory had substance,
> every home would have needed its daily delivery of
> beer -- much as milk used to be delivered daily in
> many countries. (Imagine the cost of that!)

This does not ring true at a time when people didn't even have water
delivered to their homes. They went out and got it (at the local well or
cistern). If you wanted a beer you went out and got it.

Remember beer is not the only alcoholic beverage available. Cider making
is a way of preserving the goodness of apples and alcohol is a
by-product. Constantly in use during medieval times anywhere apples
grow. Then wine of some sort further south.

> Secondly, many people abstained from it, without
> obvious consequences of ill-health (e.g. the whole
> of Islam.)

Islam is a late comer, even later than Rome. They certainly knew of
alcohol in fact the word is Arabic in origin. Besides, Islam sprang from
an agrarian base even though they did build cities. But what cities?
Something taken over from Rome (thinking of Spain in particular having
seen aqueducts there) with proper running water. Also, isn't cleanliness
one of Islam's tenets? It took a very long time for people to learn to
not shit where they eat. IIRC Islamic people were appalled by the
hygiene of Europeans during the crusades.

> Thirdly, even the weakest beer would hardly ever
> have been fed to children (or most women, for that
> matter).

Why not to women? And children were nursed until they were 4 yo, and
then treated like miniature adults, why not them too?

>
> London in 1851 had a population of 2.4 million, yet
> many drew their drinking water from local wells. In
> the 1840s one got contaminated from a nearby cess-
> pit and was responsible for a local outbreak of
> cholera, as Dr John Snow famously showed:
>
> http://www.victorianweb.org/science/health/johnsnow.html
>
> Prior to the acceptance of Snow's work (20-30
> years later) few believed that drinking water could
> be a vector for disease. (The medical profession
> were, as ever, the last to be convinced.) People
> did -- generally -- live healthy lives in large cities
> like London. If they put alcohol into their drinking
> water, it was because they liked the taste -- and
> not for any reasons of health.

I'm not "pushing" any theory. Some of the holes you punch in this one
are valid. Some are not in that they are based on modern prejudices.
>
>
> Paul.
>

[Paul Crowley]

On 17/02/2013 18:51, VtSkier wrote:

>>> What I've read about alcohol production is that it may have
>>> been a technology that /allowed/ civilization to develop.
>>> Think about it, what's one of the results of so-called
>>> "civilization" which is really about humans living close
>>> together in large numbers with a certain amount of
>>> organization, right? Well one of the results is pollution.
>>> Pollution of drinking water sources specifically. A mild
>>> alcohol content in your beverage disinfects it.
>>
>> This is very dubious. It is built on a curious
>> revisionist historical theory that has been around for
>> the last 20+ years, which has no basis (that I can
>> see) in any historical record, and is quite contrary
>> to common sense.
>
> First. Not my theory, just sounds plausible and interesting. I'd
> like you to point me toward some cites on this "curious
> revisionist historical theory". It looks interesting and maybe I can
> poke some hole in it too.

You can find it all over the place. Not developed, or
properly considered or discussed or even questioned
(as far as I know) but just assumed and passed on (as
gospel) -- much like any other urban myth.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_did_people_in_the_Elizabethan_era_eat

" . . . The poorest people would eat 'pottage', a type of rather
bland stew made with vegetables & wild plants/herbs.Beer would
be drunk as water was generally unsafe.There would be different
strengths of beer.The weakest was called 'small beer' & was
made from barley etc that had already been brewed up once or
twice so it would be very weak.Even children would drink this
'small beer'. . . . "

>> Firstly, alcohol is very expensive -- for those living
>> on the margins, as most people at most historical
>> times have done. If your theory had substance,
>> every home would have needed its daily delivery of
>> beer -- much as milk used to be delivered daily in
>> many countries. (Imagine the cost of that!)
>
> This does not ring true at a time when people didn't even have
> water delivered to their homes. They went out and got it (at the
> local well or cistern). If you wanted a beer you went out and got
> it.

Sure -- and you either brewed the beer yourself --
with the usual equipment for brewing that today
you can buy fairly readily -- but was then available
only to the very rich -- OR you bought some from
a brewer. But how did you carry it? And how far
would you need to walk? Beer _was_ delivered by
brewers to the gentry and to inns and ale-houses.
But to the bulk of the population?

In other words, the idea that the general populace
did made it, or bought it, as a matter of course is
not sensible.

> Remember beer is not the only alcoholic beverage available.
> Cider making is a way of preserving the goodness of apples and
> alcohol is a by-product. Constantly in use during medieval times
> anywhere apples grow. Then wine of some sort further south.

Same problems. Either you made your own cider and
wine, or you bought it. The rich (who left all the records)
certainly bought such stuff regularly. The great bulk of
the populace would have thought themselves lucky to
get a taste.

>> Secondly, many people abstained from it, without
>> obvious consequences of ill-health (e.g. the whole
>> of Islam.)
>
> Islam is a late comer, even later than Rome. They certainly knew
> of alcohol in fact the word is Arabic in origin. Besides, Islam
> sprang from an agrarian base even though they did build cities.
> But what cities? Something taken over from Rome (thinking of
> Spain in particular having seen aqueducts there) with proper
> running water. Also, isn't cleanliness one of Islam's tenets? It
> took a very long time for people to learn to not shit where they
> eat. IIRC Islamic people were appalled by the hygiene of
> Europeans during the crusades.

All I'm saying that abstainers were well-known (Dr John
Snow was one.) Their disease levels were not seen as
high (as a result).

>> Thirdly, even the weakest beer would hardly ever
>> have been fed to children (or most women, for that
>> matter).
>
> Why not to women?

Cost.

> And children were nursed until they were 4 yo, and then treated
> like miniature adults, why not them too?

More 'urban myths' -- or, at least, highly dubious
historical statements. There are numerous living
societies, with a huge range of cultures, and all
manner of ways of bringing up children. Do any
behave in the way that historical Europeans
supposedly did?

>> London in 1851 had a population of 2.4 million, yet
>> many drew their drinking water from local wells. In
>> the 1840s one got contaminated from a nearby cess-
>> pit and was responsible for a local outbreak of
>> cholera, as Dr John Snow famously showed:
>>
>> http://www.victorianweb.org/science/health/johnsnow.html
>>
>> Prior to the acceptance of Snow's work (20-30
>> years later) few believed that drinking water could
>> be a vector for disease. (The medical profession
>> were, as ever, the last to be convinced.) People
>> did -- generally -- live healthy lives in large cities
>> like London. If they put alcohol into their drinking
>> water, it was because they liked the taste -- and
>> not for any reasons of health.
>
> I'm not "pushing" any theory.

You accept some naive and unexamined myths about
recent human behaviour.

> Some of the holes you punch in
> this one are valid. Some are not in that they are based on
> modern prejudices.

Which are invalid and based on modern prejudices?


Paul.

[Tom McDonald]

FWIW, beer was a staple of life for poor Egyptians by the Old Kingdom
(pyramid-building times) at least. Beer and bread was a large part of
the common diet for most people of the time, and continued to be fairly
common in many cultures right through to today.

<snip>

[RichTravsky]

Even elephants apparently like to get drunk.

[RichTravsky]

The point here is that they made it. To get drunk. Not to eat, but to
get drunk. That means a surplus beyond just what was needed for food.

[Paul Crowley]

On 17/02/2013 18:51, VtSkier wrote:

Something I overlooked last time:

> It took a very long time for people to learn to not shit
> where they eat.

This is quite false, IMO. Not eating where
you shit is an evolutionary-fixed behaviour
going back to the first terrestrial vertebrates
around 350 mya. I don't know of any bird or
mammal species that breaks this rule. It's
deeply instinctive, and generally the excreta
of a species will smell unpleasant to it -- to
be left or buried some distance from resting
and eating places.

> IIRC Islamic people were appalled by the hygiene of
> Europeans during the crusades.

Probably true -- and more than the usual
distaste of civilised people for campaigning
soldiers. But cultural differences would
explain some of it. Muslims still don't
usually allow the wearing of shoes, or the
presence of dogs, or pork, and all these
things (and many others) bespeak 'lack of
hygiene' to them. But that is still not to say
that Europeans (or any humans) shat where
they ate.


Paul.

[VtSkier]

On 2/18/2013 9:47 AM, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On 17/02/2013 18:51, VtSkier wrote:
>
> Something I overlooked last time:
>
>> It took a very long time for people to learn to not shit
>> where they eat.
>
> This is quite false, IMO. Not eating where
> you shit is an evolutionary-fixed behaviour
> going back to the first terrestrial vertebrates
> around 350 mya. I don't know of any bird or
> mammal species that breaks this rule. It's
> deeply instinctive, and generally the excreta
> of a species will smell unpleasant to it -- to
> be left or buried some distance from resting
> and eating places.

Boy, it this a generalization which is so false that I'm snickering
about the refutations I can think of.

First, no terrestrial species shits /exactly/ where it eats. The intake
is always at the opposite end of the outlet in all terrestrial species
that I know about. So you got that one.

Then find me a bird. Any bird that pays attention to where it shits
except possibly in the nest where it lays its eggs and nurtures its
young. A chicken scratching food up from the ground will shit at the
moment it swallows a morsel into its gizzard. A falcon snatching a
pigeon from mid-air will shit at the moment of contact. A shrike with a
dead nestling draped over a wire fence will shit as it takes a mouthful.

So, no birds have a fixed behavior of not shitting where they eat.

And again, No mammalian species which does not make a nest equally does
not have a behavioral prohibition against shitting where it eats. Simply
observe most farm animals. Herding animals which do not naturally have a
fixed place where the live do not have this prohibition.

Most mammals which make nests do indeed have a behavioral prohibition
against shitting where they eat. This includes most primates including
humans. Humans in the wild do indeed go someplace away from their food
(and sleeping areas) to defecate. No question. This is usually defined
as "some distance away". However this "some distance" can become smaller
as the distance between areas where individual humans live becomes smaller.

In your notations about Dr. Snow, who should be a hero to all of us, you
mention the well/cesspit combination that turned him onto the
probability that sewage contamination was the cause of the cholera
outbreak. Well there was "some distance" between where a person shits
(cesspit) and where he eats or drinks (the well). Clearly the "some
distance" was not great enough and there was cross-contamination.

To get the distance to be great enough, some "LEARNING" was required.
What we learned was that to prevent contamination of our food/water from
waste, we needed to take our waste further away from where we lived. In
London this was solved by building the greatest sewer system the world
had ever seen up to that time.

So the problem of human hygiene is directly connected to where those
humans live and how close to each other they live. Even in the American
Civil War, only 150 years ago, the greatest cause of casualties was
disease, not combat.

It took us a long time to learn to not shit where we eat. I stand behind
that statement. Yes, we have a behavioral prohibition against shitting
where we eat and we DO want to move "some distance" away from where we
eat to defecate. However "some distance" is indeed amorphous, and the
"safe distance" needed to be learned.

And with regards to your earlier reply to other parts of this post, I
still think that most urban living people prior to, oh say, the
beginning of the nineteenth century, did drink mostly mildly alcoholic
beverages.

As for your argument that the ancient equipment to produce beer was
expensive, it's bull. Nothing is required to make beer that any agrarian
household wouldn't have. Other mildly alcoholic drinks take even less
equipment.

>
>> IIRC Islamic people were appalled by the hygiene of
>> Europeans during the crusades.
>
> Probably true -- and more than the usual
> distaste of civilised people for campaigning
> soldiers. But cultural differences would
> explain some of it. Muslims still don't
> usually allow the wearing of shoes, or the
> presence of dogs, or pork, and all these
> things (and many others) bespeak 'lack of
> hygiene' to them. But that is still not to say
> that Europeans (or any humans) shat where
> they ate.

See above. I will give you that nobody INTENTIONALLY shits where they
eat. A sense of smell is the biggest deterrent to this. I will point
out, however, that a constant bad odor can, over time, be tolerated by
almost anyone. Especially if that person has no or little choice in the
matter.

>
>
> Paul.
>

[Paul Crowley]

On 18/02/2013 19:32, VtSkier wrote:

>>> It took a very long time for people to learn to not shit
>>> where they eat.
>>
>> This is quite false, IMO. Not eating where
>> you shit is an evolutionary-fixed behaviour
>> going back to the first terrestrial vertebrates
>> around 350 mya. I don't know of any bird or
>> mammal species that breaks this rule. It's
>> deeply instinctive, and generally the excreta
>> of a species will smell unpleasant to it -- to
>> be left or buried some distance from resting
>> and eating places.
>
> Boy, it this a generalization which is so false that I'm snickering
> about the refutations I can think of.

It's not a generalisation. It's the expression of
an evolutionary principle, or the application of
one. Your criticisms (when they work) only
scratch the edges of my argument, and you
finally agree with my essential point:

> I will give you that nobody INTENTIONALLY shits
> where they eat.

That's all I am saying (in respect of every
species). You quite clearly (if only implicitly)
deny your original statement:

>>> It took a very long time for people to learn to not shit
>>> where they eat.

> Then find me a bird. Any bird that pays attention to where it shits

If you feed (and sleep) in trees and fly from
one to another all day, your shit is unlikely to
finish up on any food you eat. (It would be
interesting to confirm that birds avoided food
contaminated by the excreta of other birds.)

> except possibly in the nest where it lays its eggs and nurtures its
> young.

Indeed, and for most birds this is the only time
it matters.

> A chicken scratching food up from the ground will shit at
> the moment it swallows a morsel into its gizzard.

Chickens in their natural habitat have acres to
roam, and would be unlikely to encounter their
own shit (or even that of others of their own
species).

> So, no birds have a fixed behavior of not shitting where they eat.

For the obvious reason that no special behaviour is
needed -- except when nesting, when it's required
and so has evolved.

> And again, No mammalian species which does not make a nest
> equally does not have a behavioral prohibition against shitting
> where it eats. Simply observe most farm animals.

Farm animals do not present natural evolved behaviour.
Pigs do not lie in sties in the wild.

> Herding animals which do not naturally have a fixed place where
> the live do not have this prohibition.

They move on daily (or nightly) so it's never a problem.

[..]

> In your notations about Dr. Snow, who should be a hero to all of
> us, you mention the well/cesspit combination that turned him
> onto the probability that sewage contamination was the cause of
> the cholera outbreak. Well there was "some distance" between
> where a person shits (cesspit) and where he eats or drinks (the
> well). Clearly the "some distance" was not great enough and
> there was cross-contamination.

Sure -- "shit happens" and we can all get (or
be put) into situations where we are forced to
behave in ways that we find unpleasant.

> To get the distance to be great enough, some "LEARNING" was
> required. What we learned was that to prevent contamination of
> our food/water from waste, we needed to take our waste further
> away from where we lived.

But there was no such 'learning' until the
20th century (or late in the 19th).

[..]

> It took us a long time to learn to not shit where we eat. I stand
> behind that statement. Yes, we have a behavioral prohibition
> against shitting where we eat and we DO want to move "some
> distance" away from where we eat to defecate. However "some
> distance" is indeed amorphous, and the "safe distance" needed
> to be learned.

It became a problem only when cities expanded to
~2 million (i.e. around 1850 A.D,) -- and then not a
great one -- in terms of the numbers of deaths. So
for 6 Myr the instincts (inherited / genetic) among
hominids were more than good enough.

> And with regards to your earlier reply to other parts of this post, I
> still think that most urban living people prior to, oh say, the
> beginning of the nineteenth century, did drink mostly mildly
> alcoholic beverages.

The theory rests on the supposed belief of the
people at the time that they needed to sterilise
their water. But you now accept that they had
no such belief. So you're just hanging on to
an ancient theory which has no basis in fact,
merely because it's found a comfortable place
in your brain, and you don't want the trouble of
re-arranging your thinking.

> As for your argument that the ancient equipment to produce beer
> was expensive, it's bull.

You seem to have no idea of the conditions under
which our ancestors generally lived. Almost every-
thing was expensive. Survival was a constant
struggle. To make beer, you needed a grain
surplus, for a start. Then you needed special
equipment and room to keep it undisturbed, as
well as time, energy and light to work on it.

> Nothing is required to make beer that any
> agrarian household wouldn't have. Other mildly alcoholic drinks
> take even less equipment.

I take it you've never tried to home-brew beer? If you
can find ONE account of this going on in densely-
occupied towns and cities, at any time between (say)
1400 and 1900, you'd have a case. The home brewer
needs to be able to have a covered water-proof container
(of at least 2 gallons) not made of metal. The mix is
readily contaminated, so good sterilisation is desirable,
as is an air-tight seal, allowing the CO2 (one the yeast
starts to work) to escape though a one-way valve.
Steady temperature, under 26 degrees is important.
Before ~1950, the vessel would have to be made of
wood -- maybe something like a barrel or half-barrel.

Unless you have dedicated facilities, and you do it
for a living, then forget it before ~1950. Theoretically
you could have a brewer in every alley, supplying,
say, 20 families (with children making maybe 100
people). But that system did not exist, and there is
no point in pretending it did -- nor anything remotely
like it.

> I will give you that nobody INTENTIONALLY shits
> where they eat. A sense of smell is the biggest deterrent to this.

The 'sense of smell' is entirely genetic, of course.
The faeces of large cats present the strongest
and most obnoxious smell to humans and to all
prey animals. That is in the noses of the potential
prey, not something inherent in the faeces.

> I will point out, however, that a constant bad odor can, over time,
> be tolerated by almost anyone. Especially if that person has no or
> little choice in the matter.

Sure -- but genes evolved for the standard case,
not for rarely encountered ones. As for all other
terrestrial species, our ancestors were 'instructed'
by their genetic inheritance to keep their excreta
buried or far enough away so that its smell was
kept to a minimum. No learning was involved.


Paul.

[VtSkier]

I'm looking into this. It doesn't ring true but I can't speculate and I
need more facts. Off the top of my head, I'd say that in a relatively
small town/village, the local innkeeper would have often been the
brewer. Even in the 19th century, you sent the kid down to the pub with
a growler to be refilled with your favorite libation.

Then the considerations you raise about such things as sterilization and
such really only count if: you are a large brewery and want your product
to be consistent from batch to batch or your taste buds demanded that
your batch was consistent with the last batch.

Most yeast for good or evil are in the atmosphere. You don't add
anything special to your cider to make it hard. You just store it in a
sealed container with a one-way valve. You might put yeast in if you
want the product faster or want a specific taste, but you don't need to.

Beer has been made for 5k years or much more and in that time the source
of the fermentation was pretty much of a mystery and the need for
sterilization was never considered.

Oh, and as for vessels, what else would you use besides wood for most
containers that you didn't need to heat over an open fire?

>
>> I will give you that nobody INTENTIONALLY shits
>> where they eat. A sense of smell is the biggest deterrent to this.
>
> The 'sense of smell' is entirely genetic, of course.
> The faeces of large cats present the strongest
> and most obnoxious smell to humans and to all
> prey animals. That is in the noses of the potential
> prey, not something inherent in the faeces.
>
>> I will point out, however, that a constant bad odor can, over time,
>> be tolerated by almost anyone. Especially if that person has no or
>> little choice in the matter.
>
> Sure -- but genes evolved for the standard case,
> not for rarely encountered ones. As for all other
> terrestrial species, our ancestors were 'instructed'
> by their genetic inheritance to keep their excreta
> buried or far enough away so that its smell was
> kept to a minimum. No learning was involved.
>
>
> Paul.

You wrote:

"This is quite false, IMO. Not eating where you shit is an
evolutionary-fixed behaviour going back to the first terrestrial
vertebrates around 350 mya. I don't know of any bird or mammal species
that breaks this rule. It's deeply instinctive, and generally the
excreta of a species will smell unpleasant to it -- to be left or buried
some distance from resting and eating places."

This is what you wrote. It is quite clear that you are saying that all
terrestrial vertebrates have a natural aversion to shitting and eating
in the same location, or doing both at the same time or whatever.

I pointed out that herd animals who do not have a fixed residence do not
have a natural aversion to shitting and eating together/at the same
time. You countered by saying that said animals don't need a natural
aversion to... i.e. you are agreeing with me. Said animals don't have a
natural aversion to shitting where they eat.

It is not a natural aversion to shitting where you eat to have food go
in one end and waste come out the other. This is common to all
terrestrial vertebrates. No aversion about, just body mechanics. Some
terrestrial vertebrates have indeed developed a natural aversion to....
Some have not. Therefore not all terrestrial vertebrates have a natural
aversion to shitting where they eat.

>