How Beer Gave Us Civilization

Hugh Pickens writes "Jeffrey P. Khan writes in the NY Times about how recent anthropological research suggests that human's angst of anxiety and depression ultimately results from our transformation, over tens of thousands of years, from biologically shaped, almost herd-like prehistoric tribes, to rational and independent individuals in modern civilization. The catalyst for suppressing the rigid social codes that kept our clans safe and alive was fermented fruit or grain. 'Once the effects of these early brews were discovered, the value of beer must have become immediately apparent,' writes Khan. 'With the help of the new psychopharmacological brew, humans could quell the angst of defying those herd instincts. Conversations around the campfire, no doubt, took on a new dimension: the painfully shy, their angst suddenly quelled, could now speak their minds.' Examining potential beer-brewing tools in archaeological remains from the Natufian culture in the Eastern Mediterranean, the team concludes that 'brewing of beer was an important aspect of feasting and society in the Late Epipaleolithic' era. In time, humans became more expansive in their thinking, as well as more collaborative and creative. A night of modest tippling may have ushered in these feelings of freedom — though, the morning after, instincts to conform and submit would have kicked back in to restore the social order. Today, many people drink too much because they have more than average social anxiety or panic anxiety to quell — disorders that may result, in fact, from those primeval herd instincts kicking into overdrive. But beer's place in the development of civilization deserves at least a raising of the glass. As the ever rational Ben Franklin supposedly said, 'Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.'"

Comments

Everything gave us civilization

[Anonymous Coward]

Dogs, language, agriculture, evolution... the difficult part is saying what didn't give us civilization.

Re:Everything gave us civilization

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Also, in the fertile crescent lands (Egypt especially), beer was one of the few (health-wise) safe means of hydrating yourself (I wouldn't want to touch the water of Nile, much less drink it), and also an important source of nutrients other than starch. (Of course, "beer" probably meant something slightly different back then, don't imagine the pasteurized clear liquid we're in the habit of drinking nowadays.)

Re:Everything gave us civilization

[MightyMartian]

Agriculture gave us civilization. Agriculture allowed people to transition from fully nomadic or nearly fully nomadic lifestyles to settled ones. It allowed relatively small areas to be settled by sedentary populations and then gave the techniques to support the growth of those civilizations.

Why anyone would attribute booze or dogs, or imagine that somehow we were fucking cattle before we started to drink (and I'm sure humans started to drink a looong time before we ever settled down) is beyond me. I guess you've got to sell something to a newspaper, but there's little enough mystery as to why civilization arose, and certainly there are enough examples to show the same thing over and over again... Agriculture, agriculture, agriculture.

Re:Everything gave us civilization

[K. S. Kyosuke]

That's a little bit too simplified. Truth is that there seems to have been a feedback loop between all of the following: grain agriculture, beer brewing, division of labour, social stratification, record keeping/taxation, and state-organized religion (time keeping/agrarian year planning). I guess one could draw a nice graph showing how every one of these supported all the remaining ones.

Re:Everything gave us civilization

[MightyMartian]

The first evidence of the growing of grain predates the first evidence of beer by a considerable length of time. We don't know all the answers, but we do know that the earliest grain crops were grown in northern Iraq and northern Iran, and that it appears that it started as a sort seasonal planting by semi-nomadic groups that would return to harvest the grain later. The innovation, whatever drove it, was to be able to learn sufficiently advanced techniques to increase yields so that you could stay by the crops; to defend them, to maintain them. That's the feedback right there.

Beer is something that comes along, by the looks of it, after we have pretty much all the basics of sedentary agricultural societies already in place.

Re:Everything gave us civilization

[K. S. Kyosuke]

That is true, but the alcohol content helped preserve the drinking safety, and the yeast contents was important on it own, nutrition-wise.

Re:Everything gave us civilization

[Immerman]

Indeed. *Real* beer needs to be chewed.

Re:Everything gave us civilization

[Immerman]

Actually, considering that many animals show evidence of intentionally seeking out alcohol (overripe fruit, etc.), and some such as elephants actually make it themselves (pulping and burying fruit that they later dig up and consume), I'm willing to bet human alcohol production predates agriculture by a pretty big margin. Admittedly that was probably more stuff like wine, mead, and possibly kefir (fermented milk). Beer is after all a rather complicated and roundabout way of producing alcohol, and I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't get invented until there were a bunch of bored, thirsty folks sitting around one winter wishing they had more wine, and that fruit kept as well as all the worthless low-sugar grain they had stockpiled. Necessity is the mother of invention after all.

Re:Everything gave us civilization

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Beer brewing leaves an archeological trace? All you need is a container.

On ancient Middle-Eastern archaeological sites, you find beer breweries and bread bakeries side by side. It's virtually as regular as the floor plan of post-11th century Benedictine monasteries in Europe.

Re:Everything gave us civilization

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Here's an example of an pre-dynastic Egyptian brewery:

The vats, with a height of at least 65cm and a maximum diameter of 85cm, are estimated to have contained about 16 gallons (65 litres) each. The six vats together could thus hold approximately 100 gallons (390 litres). If used on a full time basis, this brewery could produce 300 gallons a week allowing 2 days for fermentation in the vat. Output could be as high as 300 gallons a day if the liquid was transferred to other vessels for fermentation. This is output clearly far in excess of domestic needs. Using the capacity of the standard beer jar of Dynastic times, the daily output of brewery of 300 gallons a day could provide a daily ration for 454 people if each received one jar, or half that number if they received two (the standard Dynastic ration).

This was a substantial operation by the day's standards.

Re:Everything gave us civilization

[ExploHD]

Vessels that had been used for making beer are identified by beer specific chemical traces on the inside of conatiners. Soot residue is a terrible indicator; and no, you do not need to place a container on the fire to boil water. You can boil water in water-tight weaved baskets by placing rocks that have come off of the fire. They hold a lot of heat and with multiple rocks you can boil for as long as you need.

Re:Everything gave us civilization

[ShanghaiBill]

Actually, considering that many animals show evidence of intentionally seeking out alcohol (overripe fruit, etc.), and some such as elephants actually make it themselves (pulping and burying fruit that they later dig up and consume)

I think this is baloney. When I Googled for information on elephants making their own booze, I instead got a page full of articles debunking the myth that they even get drunk at all, much less make their own. Here is a link from National Geographic. There are plenty more like it.

Re:Everything gave us civilization

[Anonymous Coward]

The alcohol content of beer-as-substitute-for-water was very low, like less than 2%. I don't think it was the alcohol content so much as the preparation and then subsequently storing the beer separate from sources of contamination. Obviously the alcohol and, more importantly, the Ph helped, but it probably wouldn't have been smart to put a cup of unboiled water into a cask of beer before serving.

Wine, as made around the mediterranean, had a much higher alcohol content, closer to modern beer. That was probably much safer to drink. I imagine people still got sick from contaminated beer, just not as often or as severely.

In developing countries its usually safe to drink soda because a) the manner in which it was made and b) it doesn't contaminate as easily because of the CO2 and Ph. You can buy soda in a plastic zip-lock bag tied around a straw and it's relatively safe. That's the modern-day equivalent to beer, and there's no alcohol.

Re:Everything gave us civilization

[AK Marc]

I've seen plenty of grain-processing tools. No, you can't tell 10,000 years later whether the grain ground up was going in beer or flour for baking. But baking and beer could be determined by the oven/stove setup. You sound like a smart person with a large gap of knowledge who is asking stupid questions without any deference to authority. If someone says "it was done this way" don't argue unless you know that to be wrong. Otherwise, it makes you look stupid. Go take a college class if you really want to know. There are thousands of years of anthropology you are asking for in a couple sound bites. It isn't going to work very well, and the ones persistent enough to continue answering are likely ones that don't know that much, but enjoy the arguing.

And yes, sugar-heavy fruits were likely fermented well before grains.

Re:Everything gave us civilization

[HnT]

Aaah yes, they call it "Mudder's Milk"! Now let's hear of our hero Jayne once more!

Re:Everything gave us civilization

[HornWumpus]

I'm not arguing about the oven/stove setup.

I'm saying there is no way of knowing if hunter gatherers had devised a way of making beer like beverages because they would have left no trace.

This is all happening thousands of years before the period that you reference, which is clearly after the agricultural revolution.

If you are discussing which came first ag revolution or beer, citing references clearly after the ag. revolution doesn't really advance the discussion. Permanent bakeries/breweries aren't in question. When you say 'it was done this way' be sure you are talking about the correct era. Otherwise, it makes you look stupid.

How did hunter gatherers process grain to eat? If they made gruel it is easy to imagine they stumbled onto fermentation and made small batches during harvest periods. It's hard to imagine anybody 'inventing' bread without simultaneously inventing 'beer'. Especially in light of drinking natural fruit wines.

Re:Everything gave us civilization

[Immerman]

Sure, alcohol production is easy and probably spectacularly ancient, but alcohol != beer. Fermenting starches is a more involved process than sugars.

It's also not fair to compare modern-day hunter-gatherer societies with pre-agricultural ones - just because some cultures didn't see widespread adoption of particular technologies (agriculture, metalworking, etc) doesn't mean they spent the last 10,000 years in stasis, it just means they weren't subject to the same pressures that drove other cultures to embrace them. For example there's no shortage of food in a rainforest, and so no incentive to pursue agriculture beyond encouraging particularly tasty or useful plants to grow in convenient locations. Ironworking appears to have been known in North America, but very few iron tools were made, possibly because stone tools had evolved far beyond anything seen in Eurasia. The wheel was known in Central America, but apparently only used for children's toys, who knows why.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that civilization advances along some particular path - if not for the combination of gunpowder and potent bioweapons bred in European cities the Americas would look far different today, and quite possibly have taught Europeans a thing to two in their own right.

Re:Everything gave us civilization

[Ocker3]

Except that soda is usually made in a local factory from local water supplies, that may not be properly treated. Coke in Pakistan for many years was made with polluted and unsafe water, sickening many drinkers before there was a huge public outcry.

Re:Everything gave us civilization

[NeutronCowboy]

You can make some pretty good alcohol from honey, which is already known during the hunter/gatherer phase of civilization. Technically not beer, but as quite a few similar properties, especially when it comes to drinking safety.

Re:Everything gave us civilization

[OldSport]

Macrobrews, maybe. But the USA has an unbelievable variety of extremely high quality microbrews and craft beers. Might be hard to find them abroad, but if you look at beer contest winners the world over, you will see USA brews in the top spots constantly.

Re:Everything gave us civilization

[Sulphur]

Except that soda is usually made in a local factory from local water supplies, that may not be properly treated. Coke in Pakistan for many years was made with polluted and unsafe water, sickening many drinkers before there was a huge public outcry.

So there was a Pakistani Bloomberg?

Re:Everything gave us civilization

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the alcohol content but the boiling that makes beer safe to consume. Ancient beers probably didn't go over 4% ABV, well within the tolerance range of many bacteria. Boiling, however, kills any enteric bacteria, worms, and any other bugs / critters in the water likely to cause disease. Wine tends to be safe without boiling since it's made from fruit juice, not fruit + water from that filthy pond over by the latrine.

A more technical answer is that, if you simply toss water and milled (cracked, but not ground into flour) grains together, you don't get a particularly lively fermentation. Boiling gelatinizes the grains and helps break down long chain starches into shorter ones that are chewed up by yeast and bacteria faster than they would otherwise be. From there, you take some of the sludge from your previous, best tasting batch of beer and use that to kick start the fermentation of the new beer. Supposedly, ancient Egyptians boiled loaves of bread to make their beer.

FWIW, ancient brews were probably a LOT like kefir -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kefir

Homer said it best.

[Tristao]

"To alcohol! The cause of--and solution to--all of life's problems." Homer (the one not from Greece).

It might be true but

[peragrin]

The real reason beer was important was that it was clean water. brewing beer kills off most of the bad things in fresh water supplies.

Lower inhibitions isn't a factor until after we had started forming cities and groups of more than a couple hundred.

Re:It might be true but

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Why do you think that beer and (watered) wine were so popular with ancient and medieval populations? In most places, you could basically only choose between being constantly tipsy, or getting killed by some nasty infection (it you were lucky you'd "only" get some progressively debilitating parasitic infection instead). It wasn't until the Roman period that people bothered to provide large masses of population with water that was actually safe to drink, and even then, the conditions in the Middle East never allowed for that with contemporary level of technology. (Romans at least had hills, clean mountain streams, and lots of building stone for aqueducts.)

Re:It might be true but

[dargaud]

Well, beer in the old days wasn't as strong as know, so yes you could leave mostly drinking only beer. Check out 'small beer'. Workers had two gallons or so of the stuff to drink daily!

Re:It might be true but

[MightyMartian]

The early beers and wines had pretty low alcohol levels, so the downside of alcohol consumption was likely pretty minimal. I agree that if they'd gone around drinking some of the wild high alcohol beers and wines out on the market now, hydration would have been a massive problem.

Re:It might be true but

[Intrepid imaginaut]

From the article: "Qanats are also called krz (or krz from Persian: ) (Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia, derived from Persian: ), kahan (from Persian: ), kahriz/khriz (Azerbaijan); khettara (Morocco); galería (Spain); falaj (United Arab Emirates and Oman); Kahn (Baloch) or foggara/fughara (North Africa).[1] Alternative terms for qanats in Asia and North Africa are kakuriz, chin-avulz, and mayun. Common variants of qanat in English include kanat, khanat, kunut, kona, konait, ghanat, ghundat.

The qanat technology is known to have been developed by the Persian people sometime in the early 1st millennium BC and to have spread from there slowly west- and eastward.[2][3][4][5][6]

The value of a qanat is directly related to the quality, volume and regularity of the water flow. Much of the population of Iran and other arid countries in Asia and North Africa historically depended upon the water from qanats; the areas of population corresponded closely to the areas where qanats are possible."

For my money substituting beer for water is a non runner.

Book on beer archeology

[dargaud]

For those who want to know more, I just read this interesting and quite complete book on the archeology of alcohol. It would be worth a book review on /., but I'm not good at writing those.

Beer doesn't make you more creative

[93 Escort Wagon]

But it certainly makes you think you are!

And handsomer, too!

Re:Beer doesn't make you more creative

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Then why were so many great writers drinkers?

Because all writers are great drinkers.

Jared Diamond covered this in his book about what a civilization needs to succeed, titled:

"Guns, Germans and Beer"

You lost me at...

[Kwyj1b0]

" ... to rational and independent individuals in modern civilization"

I'm not sure where the author is really coming from, but he seems to claim that modern individuals are (a) less herd-like, and (b) innovation was helped by drinking

The only reason we are less herd-like (and we still are very herd like in our thinking - just look at how certain topics are still taboo) is that our survival doesn't directly depend on acceptance by those around us. Sure, I might not have a job if I'm a douche-bag, but chances are I can still find a way to survive. On the other hand, getting kicked out of a prehistoric tribe meant you would pretty much have to hunt alone (assuming you ran away from the tribe before they butchered you), and you wouldn't survive for long.

Also, the reaction to alcohol varies by culture. You have this idea that people lose inhibition when they drink, but in some cultures they become more harmonious (less likely to cause trouble or act out - see here).

I'd say that the leaps and bounds in infrastructure and tech have allowed us to lead more solitary lives, which also means we have less inclination to conform. Now, if you can claim that a lot of innovation/changes was created under the influence (Windows 8 design? ;) ), that would be cool (I'm not an alcoholic, I'm just creative).

Perfect St Patrick's day story!

[mcgrew]

TFS says "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." That goes along with an old Irish saying: "God invented alcohol to keep the Irish from conquering the world."

Errant twaddle

[Stirling Newberry]

Domestication of grains starts 2000 years, at latest, from the earliest brewing of beer. The "beer hypothesis" also lacks skeletal evidence, and also genomic evidence. More interesting is the rapid spread of later lactose tolerance, which has an extremely high selective index. Also contradicting the reductive understanding of the role of beer is the lack of pottery containers for it in many early cultures, or lack of evidence for brewing in places such as China, even though rice and grain cultivation were quite early there.

So summary: beer is late, it is missing from many cultures, and the genomics would support a much higher selection for digesting of it –as they do with milk –if a small area invented brewing and this was the core civilizing agent.

further, linguistic convergence argues for language being close to 100,000 years old, and cultural progressions, that is "fashion" are as much as 70,000 years old. The understanding of band organization - that is groups smaller than tribes that do not produce a surplus, and there fore have little to no "state" apparatus or long term castes - is not the placid realm before angst. The Australian aboriginal mythology is filled with a sense of angst as their climate changed, and they are band organized.

There are many better hypotheses for the role of intoxication in human history. Far more likely beer takes off as soon as agriculture becomes intertwined with water, because over the long term the water becomes fouled. It also has an important role when economic castes in settlements start to become forces in themselves. It may have been used as part of combat, as the only medication they had.

This doesn't even pass a simple date match of events to create a timeline.

Ben Franklin didn't say that

[the eric conspiracy]

For the record, here, in a letter addressed to André Morellet in 1779, is what Benjamin Franklin actually did say:

Behold the rain which descends from heaven upon our vineyards, there it enters the roots of the vines, to be changed into wine, a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy.

Re:Uh - no

[RussR42]

Nope. They came along much too late to be relevant to this discussion.

old news..

[houbou]

Seriously, I remember myself reading this stuff over 35 yrs ago in various books and magazines. Why is this news today?

Nowadays we have anti-alcohol culture

[Taco Cowboy]

While it might be the alcohol that had helped jump start the human society, in places around the world alcohol is being banned

If this anti-alcohol trend is to continue, we might even seen a reverse course of human civilization ... from individualistic behavior back to the herd-like behavior

Re:Nowadays we have anti-alcohol culture

[tqk]

While it might be the alcohol that had helped jump start the human society, in places around the world alcohol is being banned

Moonshiners will save us.

Re:Advanced?

[dwye]

Mormons love humans, whereas AC thinks that they are wretched things no better than monkeys. AC is just a killjoy.

I consider any form of intoxication to be depraved

Seriously a killjoy. Probably against sex because it can lead to more humans even with the best birth control, as well.