Did ancient cultures drink infected beer?

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

jlanier01

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
I know this is a loaded question, but I've been reading up a bit on the history of beer, and never have I found one ancient culture that expressed the need for a sanitized beer making environment.

Are we being overly anal about sanitizing equipment or is a drop of unsterilized tap water, really able to ruin a 5 gal. batch of wort?

How did Vikings, Sumerians and ancient Iranians sanitize their equipment? If you have made beer outdoors, or in a shack or dirty old garage I want to hear from you.

Thanks,
J
 
Well, I am sure sanitary practices weren't the greatest but beer generally wasn't a leisure beverage like it is today. It was brewed because it was safer than water so perhaps taste wasn't a top priority.
 
Seriously, most of the bacteria that is around now wasn't around back then. 300 years ago even, there weren't half the problems out there that there are now.
 
Well, I am sure sanitary practices weren't the greatest but beer generally wasn't a leisure beverage like it is today. It was brewed because it was safer than water so perhaps taste wasn't a top priority.

You probably haven't tried Midas TOuch or any of the historic recreation brews based on the evidence left behind..they were pretty damn good.

This idea that somehow the beer of ancient times was somehow worse than ours is today always rankles me...it's like the ethnocentric bias, or cultural relativism that led to the native people of this world being sent away to schools to have the culture ripped from them. That somehow their religion, their ideas, their language, their beliefs were somehow "sub par."

And despite the doomsayers who say that ancient beer was consumed young because it would go bad, they forget the fact that most of those beers were usually HOPLESS, and that the biggest reason hops were placed in beers was for it's antisceptic/preservative function.

Or that it was somehow "sub par" compared to today.

So even if the beer had to be consumed young, it still must have tasted good enough to those folks most of the time to survive culturally for 4,000 years, and not go the way of pepsi clear or new coke. I'm sure even a few hundred or thousands of years ago, people were discerning enough to know if something tasted good or nasty...

I hate when people make that argue....because we humans, no matter whether it was 40 million years ago, or yesterday, can choose what they like and dislike. And the stuff that we dislike, often dissapears from our awareness and our culture.

So I'm sure that King Midas wasn't drinking bongwater....we know that his food in the temple was pretty damn good (most middle eastern food that we eat today hasn't changed much since the time of the ancient islamic people, or Jewish people, or Spanish, or Italian or Greek, or any culture that traces itself back to ancient times even.)

SO if their food managed to taste damn good, do you really think that their chosen drink would taste like infected a$$?


Go read the argument/discussion here...https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f11/sanitation-old-days-73146/

BUT...That doesn't mean that our beer can't be BETTER with the simple action of sanitization.....It means that we increase the odds of it being great..and more importantly lasting longer before going bad...That's a bigger factor...most beers in ancient times were consumed young...it wasn;t until Colonization by England that beers were thought in terms of aging or long travels (such as IPAs)

I'm really not sure what your motive is, jlanier01, a rationalization to cut corners in your process? Or just curiosity?
 
Bacteria didn't exist until the US government created it to kill off all of the minorities.

Seriously, most of the bacteria that is around now wasn't around back then. 300 years ago even, there weren't half the problems out there that there are now.

WTF???????

No, back then the bacteria and other things just killed people before they hit 30...like the bubonic plague....:rolleyes:
 
I know this is a loaded question, but I've been reading up a bit on the history of beer, and never have I found one ancient culture that expressed the need for a sanitized beer making environment.


Thanks,
J

Uh..MOST of early brewing was in response to the fact that drinking water could kill them...whether or not they understood anythign about germ theory..usually the shaman figured stuff out.....People drank water, people got sick...people boiled water, and added other things..people no got sick...It was the beer ITSELF that was sanitized and provided an alternative to dying from drinking the water.
 
My more serious answer is that they probably did drink infected beer, and they probably didn't care.

Remember that they didn't even know that yeast was what made wort into beer. I remember reading somewhere too that a lot of batches of wort would get dumped back in the day, because they'd never take off.

Also remember that they didn't use hops. I wonder if the sour flavor balanced out the sweet flavor somehow.
 
Whoa Whoa Whoa... I was implying no cultural bias at all... I was simply saying beer was not a leisure beverage like it is today. People drank it for breakfast, people drank it at work, people drank it before bed... People drank it because it was safe to drink. All I was saying is that taste wasn't the first priority, I didn't say it wasn't a priority or that it tasted bad... In fact I am sure it tasted pretty good.
 
I think that the progression of taste has changed quite a bit in the last few hundred years. Back then, you wouldn't find most of what we eat in America (even the ethnic foods) because the taste combinations or methods for making such food weren't practiced or experimented with as much. The ingredients were raw, whole, and more simple. This goes for their drinks as well. Did they make an oatmeal stout or a cherry wheat ale back then? Most likely not, but what they did make tasted great to them (and I'm sure a lot of us) and was a heck of a lot safer than untreated water.

Different times call for different measures.
 
Get ready to be rankled.

Most of the beer styles are relatively young, most being defined in the mid 1800's.
This coincides with the time that yeast strains were isolated.

Hand washing was still not a common practice at this time, even for things like surgery and child birth.

One of the reasons lagers gained favor moving forward was their clean profile.

So I am of the mind that most ancient beer does not taste like it does today. It had other things going on: some infection; some perhaps pleasant sourness; stuff we would think off-putting or flawed.
 
So I am of the mind that most ancient beer does not taste like it does today. It had other things going on: some infection; some perhaps pleasant sourness; stuff we would think off-putting or flawed.

That's what cracks me up with the train of thought when people say "relax - they've been making beer for thousands of years!"

While that statement is true, I'd rather drink a nice IPA than a moldy, mildly infected, non-carbonated, semi-warm historic "beer."

Just cuz they made beer thousands of years ago, doesn't mean that it was good.
 
I think that the progression of taste has changed quite a bit in the last few hundred years. Back then, you wouldn't find most of what we eat in America (even the ethnic foods) because the taste combinations or methods for making such food weren't practiced or experimented with as much. The ingredients were raw, whole, and more simple. This goes for their drinks as well. Did they make an oatmeal stout or a cherry wheat ale back then? Most likely not, but what they did make tasted great to them (and I'm sure a lot of us) and was a heck of a lot safer than untreated water.

Different times call for different measures.

But brewing actually took the opposite track in America, and most of the world...Beer started off pretty "complex" and "flavorful" when it was "food" but times changed for beer as well.....

America like most of the world had quite an extensive array of beers available prior to the German Invasion of brewer's which later introduced the light lager. They pretty much had the "brewing culture" of all the countries that people immigrated from...Most English beer styles..you know Porters, Stouts, Partigyles, stuff like that. As well as mostly heavy German Styles of beer. Not to mention people from Scotland, Ireland, Russia and other places where beer was drank.

Remember up until then, beer was food.

In fact thew whole history of the light lager is the American populace's (not the brewer's) desire to have a lighter beer to drink, which forced the German brewers to look at adding adjuncts like corn and rice...not as the popular homebrewer's myth has been to make money by peddling and "inferior commercial product" by adding adjuncts, but in order to come up with a style of beer that the American people wanted.

Maureen Ogle proved that in Ambitious Brew it actually made the cost of a bottle of Budweiser cost around 17.00/bottle in today's dollars.

When AH released Budweiser with it's corn and rice adjuncts in the 1860's it was the most expensive beer out there; a single bottle retailed for $1.00 (what would equal in today's Dollars for $17.00) this was quite difference when a schooner of beer usually cost a nickel.

The American populace ate it up!

It wasn't done to save money, it was done because heavy beers (both english style Ales and the heavier Bavarian malty beers) were not being drunk by American consumers any more. Beer initally was seen around the world as food (some even called it liquid bread), but since America, even in the 1800's was a prosperous nation compared to the rest of the world, and americans ate meat with nearly every meal, heavy beers had fallen out of favor...

And American Barley just made for heavy, hazy beer

Bush and other German Brewers started looking at other styles of Beers, and came upon Karl Balling and Anton Schwartz's work at the Prague Polytechnic Institute with the Brewers in Bohemia who when faced with a grain shortage started using adjuncts, which produced the pils which was light, sparkly and fruity tasting...just the thing for American tastebuds.

So the brewers brought Schwartz to America where he went to work for American Brewer Magazine writing articles and technical monographs, teaching American brewers how to use Rice and Corn...

The sad moral of the story is....The big corporate brewers did not foist tasteless adjunct laced fizzy water on us, like the popular mythology all of us beersnobs like to take to bed with us to feel all warm and elitist....it was done because our American ancestors wanted it.

Listen to this from Basic Brewing;

November 30, 2006 - Ambitious Brew Part One
We learn about the history of beer in the USA from Maureen Ogle, author of "Ambitious Brew - The Story of American Beer." Part one takes us from the Pilgrims to Prohibition.

http://media.libsyn.com/media/basicbrewing/bbr11-30-06.mp3

December 7, 2006 - Ambitious Brew Part Two
We continue our discussion about the history of beer in the USA with Maureen Ogle, author of "Ambitious Brew - The Story of American Beer." Part two takes us from Prohibition to the present day.

http://media.libsyn.com/media/basicbrewing/bbr12-07-06.mp3

In fact Ogle talks about how the whole "lite beer" idea rose in the 50's to get the attention of stay at home wives who listened to the radio, would be the ones who would purchase the beer...

An intersting way to see how beer was looked at in Modernt times is through the ads...I posted a thread of some of them a couple years ago...https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f5/more-vintage-beer-ads-72778/
 
As per my understanding, wort was initially a hearty sanitized (boiled) barley tea that people drank for fluids and nutrition, much as was done with tea leaves in the East. As this beverage became more common someone likely left it around and found an old batch that didn't taste 'off' but rather slightly frothy and warming.

Over the course of decades or centuries that process was standardized, likely such that the beer was added to fresh malted barley tea after it had cooled. If the previous beer was hardy, then the new yeast would largely out compete whatever bacteria might have found their way onto the wort. Remember, we sanitize, not sterilize as yeast are our friends in the fight against bacteria. Just as humans (largely) haven't changed, neither (largely) have yeast.

Finally, specifically on sanitation, my mom makes yoghurt at home from a culture passed down through generations (from india no less) and she just boils milk, cools and adds culture, never a bad batch. And no, i mean NO, cheese book would leave you imagine that this was possible.
 
I'm really not sure what your motive is, jlanier01, a rationalization to cut corners in your process? Or just curiosity?

Honestly, I just seriously ponder these sorts of things as I'm acquiring more information about beer. I'm interested in reading more about how beer has changed civilization, became a past time of monks, etc...

Today, I was just wondering how the hell did Vikings make beer without any Starsan, Hydrometers, fancy gear? Now I'm sure that even a master brewer from ancient times had his ritual and process he or she followed to have a better probability of creating a good beer.

During the process of making my first batch I was particularly careful to follow the cleaning/prep tips on this forum, to ensure I give my beer the best chance to be great! Most of my concerns with infecting beer come from transporting it to 2ndy, or taking hydrometer tests. Hopefully by cleaning, rinsing and sanitizing my buckets well, I won't create a batch of 6 week old, carbonated, liquid bong water.

Secondly: The witty responses on this forum are f**kin hilarious.
 
I saw this somewhere else on this board

Creation of Beer.jpg
 
Sausage and meats are foods. Foods that sold very well in the 1900's were famously chronicled in Sinclair's, The Jungle.

Sinclair bitterly admitted his celebrity rose, "not because the public cared anything about the workers, but simply because the public did not want to eat tubercular beef. Sinclair's account of workers' falling into rendering tanks and being ground, along with animal parts, into "Durham's Pure Leaf Lard", gripped public attention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle
 
People also used to drink gin or absinthe that was cut with solvents (essentially poison), so to argue that people don't consume bad tasting things is flawed and certainly no evidence that ancient beer was good.
 
Revvy, I wish I knew how to easily quote multiple entries for reference. I'll just do it this way...

First, just because someone says something is subpar, they are not incorrect. Although almost no one says it, a rational person accepts the "true" meaning of that statement as "In my opinion, it is subpar as it relates to my personal taste" which is perfectly rational and fair.

Second, I don't think hops were placed in beers because of their protective qualities, instead that's why they stayed and became the bittering agent of choice - that, and the fact it didn't poison people as other adjuncts had a tendency to.

btw - maybe their chosen drink did taste like infected ass - I can't say I've ever had any. People eat fermented/rotten unhatched chicks - my guess is they taste like infected cock (ha ha...)

As far as Dougan's comment - it's called a joke (although, it may be deemed inappropriate by some)

And, I'm not a bioligist, but it would not surprise me if bacteria have evolved into more varieties today than there were back then. On the other hand, alot of problems today could probably be attributed to our attempted avoidance/tolerence build up to bacteria. note - you will fail. You are weakening yourself by using anti-bacterial prodiucts all the time. Those crazy people you see on TV eating moldy crap out of their fridge do that because their bodies can tolerate it - because they have never futilely tried to avoid it. All you people with sticky "sanitized" hands are going down if they ever quit making that stuff.

OK, that last one got a little out of hand, but whatever...
 
NOT :off:

Two archaeologists have put forward a theory that one of the most common ancient monuments seen around Ireland may have been used for brewing ale. Fulacht fiadh - horseshoe shaped grass covered mounds - are conventionally thought of as ancient cooking spots.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6941951.stm
"It tasted like a traditional ale, but was sweeter because there were no hops in it."

After achieving an optimum temperature of 60-70°C they began to add milled barley and approximately 45 minutes later simply baled the final product into fermentation vessels.
 
There is nothing in that article that tells us about the source of the recipe or technique.

They recreated, but who is to say what modern ideas about brewing they injected into the process. For example they achieved an optimum temperature of 60-70°C but thermometers weren't yet invented for 3000 plus years.


and
the third was "a disaster"
 
The Jungle was a work of fiction. That is like saying that JK Rowling chronicled the exploits of child wizards around the turn of the 21st century.

It is indeed fiction, but The Grapes of Wrath is a better comparison.
Sinclair did base the work on conditions he witnessed and those were confirmed by Congressional commissions.

So it is in no way like JK Rowling.
 
In ancient times population density was lower than it is today. Agriculture, industry, modern medicine and globalization has widely changed the bacterial profile of households.

Ancient brewers understood little of microbiology. Families always used the "magic stick" to unknowingly pass on the families special yeast. Wild yeasts ruled the roost. Even today some brewers in the right geographic area brew wild beers - allowing wild yeasts and bacteria to take hold and produce funky brews. There's no way they'd drink them if they tasted like rhino ass.

"Infection" is relative. People pay a pretty penny for a lambic....
 
Think about the equipment and methods used back then and not about taste. Undoubtedly, they made some bad batches. They probably drank them, depending on how they tasted to the people of the time and how important the beer was to their survival. At some point in ancient times, people did not have metal containers for boiling their wort. Even heated rocks would only boil wort for a couple of minutes. Probably enough to get conversion started and that was it.

People get used to eating what's available to them, if it satisfies their hunger and keeps them alive. We'd pass on all kinds of foods that many other cultures eat regularly.

People say that the ancients made beer to sanitize the water. I'm not sure. If you boil water, then it is as safe as beer. That is all you need to do to make water safe to drink. Making beer by boiling it, as opposed to simply boiling water, makes no sense unless you believe that they simply preferred beer for it's nutrition and taste (and/or alcohol content).

I doubt that the beer they drank in ancient times was as good as ours today. I would think that it would be possible to make very good beer back then, but the odds of everyone being able to do it consistently is probably not very high.

The big question is how long did it stay good? We know today that unless you seal the beer, it will oxidize, and therefore not taste as good. So young beer might surely have been better tasting than older beer.
 
Beer pre-Pasteur was all "infected". They did not know about isolated yeast strains and did not know to inocculate their wort and worry about contamination. This is why the German Reignheitsgebot called for "Godisgoot" from the stir paddle to magically start fermentation. Is was bacteria or yeast colony that lived in the wooden paddle.

Now many of those beers were likely very good. That is why different breweries were known for good beverages, likely because they had a good yeast strain.

On average, I am positive the quality of beer pre-1800 was awful by today's standards. Were a few houses making a fine beverage? I am sure, but on average it was likely awful.

The idea of good and bad beverages goes WAY back. For example, Hrothgar's mead was known throughout the world to be some of the best (Beowulf). That implies that the other meads were not as good.
 
Of all the thoughts recorded so far in this thread, I find the most satisfactory answers with those of olllllo. Historic brewing fascinates me, and I've been doing some cursory research on the subject (compared to the work of NQ3X, for example).

Whenever you take a look at cultures and practices from yesteryear, you have to be careful not to commit egregious historiographical blunders by assuming that ancient peoples were simpletons. Brewing practice and technique evolved over the centuries - as did 'taste'; most of my interest is in historic UK brewing and there are a multitude of primary sources that document historic receipts, including a medieval ale that I've brewed several times successfully. I've also taken a great interest in the efforts of Ron Pattison and Kristen England to brew from historic recipes English ales of the early 1800s through the turn of the 20th century. You can follow Ron's blog here.

As much as I often reference and discuss the BJCP guidelines, I have to recognize that they are built on 20th century examples. Where Dark Mild is now a session ale of minimal alcoholic strength, some commercial examples from the past were often 7% ABV and beyond.

To the OP, there's lots of conjecture surrounding those ancient recipes and processes pre-thermometer and pre-hydrometer, but I'm confident that good beer (as defined by a cultural milieu of any given time period) was more common that we think in the days before StarSan and Pasteur's Etude de Biere. It's rather difficult to sour ale, frankly.

Some thoughts and commments, please.
 
Very interesting. Both sides have logical arguments. I personally can not accept the fact that people brewed crappy beer just becaused they lacked starsan. Seriously? Now understand that their perception of "tastes" good and ours might be totally different, but I'd still be willing to bet that I could safely get through a pint of historic beer.

These people might not have had the tools necessary to prevent all types of infections and probably had more beers with sour character. Fast forward several hundred years and brewers are tying to intentionally infect their beers to get a certain flavor profile.
 
:off:

I hate when people make that argue....because we humans, no matter whether it was 40 million years ago, or yesterday, can choose what they like and dislike. And the stuff that we dislike, often dissapears from our awareness and our culture.

Its not beer related, but I think you'd be interested in reading "1000 Years of Nonlinear History" by Manuel DeLanda. Its a really interesting take on the philosophy of history and historical bias.

Sorry about the useless post for anyone not interested.
 
There is nothing in that article that tells us about the source of the recipe or technique.

They recreated, but who is to say what modern ideas about brewing they injected into the process. For example they achieved an optimum temperature of 60-70°C but thermometers weren't yet invented for 3000 plus years.


and

That's pretty easy in Ireland... the outside temp is 55-65F for most of the year. Its rare to break 70F
 
Maybe an experiment is in order; brew a simple low-gravity bitter and ferment it in a visually clean but unsanitized vessel. Consume it young at the tail end of the ferment (as in the case of the aforementioned medieval ale). A healthy pitch of yeast does a lot for keeping unwanted microbial action at bay.

I'm speculating here, but I suspect 'laying down' of beer wasn't the norm; consumption would have taken place well before any significant staling or souring was expressed. Open fermentation ain't just for sour beers, BTW. ;)
 
:off:



Its not beer related, but I think you'd be interested in reading "1000 Years of Nonlinear History" by Manuel DeLanda. Its a really interesting take on the philosophy of history and historical bias.

Sorry about the useless post for anyone not interested.

Oh wow, I'm reading reviews and stuff about it now....looks fascinating. Thanks!!!!!!
 
By the idea "no bacteria that can hurt a human can live in beer" who knows if they just drank what they had. Think about trying a new beer from the grocery store. I have had a few that I thought where horrible on the first bottle, but a couple weeks later, that was all that was left in my fridge. I drank those horrible beers and found that I loved them the second time around. Maybe each batch of beer was slightly different than the last because of infection or yeast strain, but it gave them variety. This is clearly just my thory.
 
I have one of these going now. I have been feeding it with random wort for about two years now. It is made with my ambient yeast from under a crabapple tree in my yard. It has a funkiness but is not sour. I will be kegging it in a couple weeks. I am not sure if I will drink it all, but it was a fun experiment. It is a lot how I picture ales brewed with random wild yeast. Fine and you can drink it, but it is not a good clean yeast fermentation like we are used to (aside form the obvious fact that the flavor profile is pretty crazy with over 10 different styles of beer in there).
 
I am interested in old-timey beer, myself, although I've done only a little reasearch on the matter. Just by that little bit, though, I've had a few thoughts on the matter.

Ancient Stuff ---

There is no doubt that the truly ancient beer (i.e., the stuff that started out in the Near and Middle East and during the B.C. times) was "truly awful" by today's standards. However, that is not necessarily because it was spoiled. Rather, it was a very different beverage.

Just like today, beer begins with the grains. They did use, pretty much the same grains (i.e., barley, wheat, and oats, and I understand they also used millet fairly often). However, malting was a different process, and most of the grains were nowhere near "fully" modified. Of course, that's after they actually developed malting. I'm pretty sure everyone is fairly familiar with the lack of "pale" malt, as well, although that may not have been the case with the very ancients, since they may not have even kilned all their malt in the first place. In any event, efficiencies likely were very poor, which was no big deal, since beer was consumed largely for nutrition. As a result, folks went for the thick, starchy stuff.

Beer was a much weaker beverage, as well. Of course, there is absolutely no way to know what the alcohol content was, but many believe the common beers probably clocked in somewhere in the 3% range, with a great deal of variance that depended on the brewer, the area, and the occasion for the beer. It also seems that much beer probably was consumed with even less alcohol, as much of it was consumed before it was fully attenuated. Again, beer was mostly for nutrition. Yeast provided that nutrition. Fermenting beer also may have been preferable to fully fermented, as the carbonation from the fermentation would provide a pleasing mouthfeel and the CO2 in the fermenting vessel (likely an open vessel) would prevent oxidation.

Another large change, as some have pointed out, was that the beer had no hops in it. There are no hops around those parts, so they used other spices to preserve the beer. You might have seen beers spiced with cardamom, ginger, anise, black pepper, fenugreek, or any number of other spices in order to preserve the beer and balance the sweetness.

So, was it "spoiled" or "sour" or "infected," as we think of beer, today? Sure, it was. However, it very likely was not at all wretched. First, again, much of it was consumed very young (if even fully attenuated), so the yeast barely had a chance to take hold -- much less the bacteria that tend to act more slowly in beer. Not only that, but the lower efficiencies did not provide as fertile an environment for the bugs.

Further, as many above have pointed out, beer was not necessarily fermented wildly. Much in the same way the ancients carried out some fairly sophisticated selection among crops without understanding molecular genetics, they also carried out some fairly sophisticated yeast selection without understanding microbiology. Folks used the "magic" stick, or they used the same fermenting pot that made a good batch. They may have innoculated wort with krausen from a "good" brewer or with some of the unfiltered beer from a good batch. They weren't just setting the wort out somewhere and praying for the best. They were working at it.

Just to wrap up the story, as beer moved into Europe, much of the same practices were adopted. However, the Europeans used what they had (i.e., more hops and barley, but less other spices and millet; cooler climates for different fermentation). As European brewing developed, the more eastern beers vanished as Islam spread through the region.


TL
 
Back
Top