The great medieval water myth (2013)(leslefts.blogspot.com) |
The great medieval water myth (2013)(leslefts.blogspot.com) |
Watering down wine was also common in the era though, and the mechanism there implies the alcohol and acidity of the wine acted as a minor sterilizer.
Alpha-Amylase conversion is optimal (for beer production) at about 140 F/60 C. Second and third extractions occur at about 155 and 175 F, respectively, well below the boiling point.
More importantly, the first extraction only marginally reaches pasteurization temperatures (using low-temp long time parameters), so the majority of liquid in beer inhibits, but does not completely kill, pathogens.
Hops are antibiotic and antifungal in nature. That, combined with their mild flavor (compared to things like wormwood), is why they are synonymous with beer production today.
- Medieval people DID drink constantly (mostly in the form of small drinks)
- SOME medieval didn't have access to consistently good water.
- Even good water supplies can be tainted
There are cases were it was noted that a disease would outbreak from the local water supply, but no one from the brewery next door would get sick. This was not lost on most people, so water was drunk but with some risks assumed.
And most notably, we still see this exact dichotomy today in the third world where dysentery and diarrea are still common causes of death. And people with the means or preference towards prepared drinks often fare better.
Sounds like a straw man, or at least a weak man [1], debunked, and then the debunking is falsely applied to the whole category.
[1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweap...
"What's so unpleasant about being drunk?"
"You ask a glass of water.”
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
By analogy, Coke and mineral spring water both provide safe hydration. Yet more Coke is consumed by the average American.
It would be a myth to say Americans avoid Coke and prefer mineral water, because of the (random variable that doesn't wildly vary between the two drinks).
If you've ever tried home brewing, you'll know that non-sterile conditions lead to foul rancid filth due to all the bacteria etc.
I'd find it odd if the people then knew to sterlise the water and equipment to make beer, but then not do the same to drink it.
I can think of a fiction book that rather heavily pushed the idea, but it seems like a few minutes of thought would show that there's no way to produce/transport/store enough beer-type liquid for people working on a farm.
Conversely, an aristocrat/noble who travelled to a different continent might conceivably attempt to only drink beers/etc.
It's like there are two parallel arguments:
"Medieval Europeans exclusively drank alcoholic beverages, because the water was so bad." And,
"We currently over-estimate the degree to which people in the Medieval-era consumed alcohol, and under-estimate the degree to which they drank pure water."
The author seems to conflate the two willy-nilly, claims the first to be widely held, and that he has disproved it (while, among others, citing Classical rather than Medieval sources).
Mass production and transportation of everything at scales we have is very recent. So adding water to wine made it last longer.
Yes, people did drink water frequently, but those societies and groups that regularly consumed fermented drinks like wine or beer, had on average a lower chance of consuming polluted water.
As a result behavior that favored drinking slightly alcoholic drinks became more widespread by selection.
This doesn’t require that people actually knew their water sources were polluted.
I used to believe that we could determine a basis for most decisions from first principles. However, that requires a level of complete a priori knowledge that’s simply unattainable except for extremely niche situations.
I used to have these arguments with an older relative, some acute, some chronic, about a) whether the edible part of an urchin is eggs or genitals [1], b) whether urchins with little pebbles and bits of seaweed on them are males, ornamented thusly to attract females [2], c) whether cypress tree sex can be determined by how open wide are their branches [3], d) whether the ruins discovered by Heinrich Schleimann on the coast of Asia Minor are really the ruins of the mythical Troy [4], and, e) whether ascent blackout during free-diving is a thing or not [5].
I've given up. People know what they know, either because their mother told them so when they were young, or because everyone knows, or because they know better than you. If someone's made up their mind that they're right and you're wrong, then they're right, you're wrong and you can't change their mind.
_______________
[1] Genitals.
[2] No, sea urchins do not have eyes.
[3] No, cypress trees have both male and female parts.
[4] Undetermined.
[5] It is.
My mother from rural north-west Ireland drank water from a stream for the first 25 years of her life. There was no running water in her home-place until the late 70s (after she had moved out). Rain water was collected from the gutters in barrels for washing and other uses but water for drinking had to be carried by bucket from a stream 1km away across fields on the side of a hill that were muddy when it rained. I’m guessing drinking water from a stream would have been even more common in the preceding decades and centuries.
Beer and wine, watered down, are medieval forms of soft drinks. People simply got tired of just drinking boring water. On top of that, you got a little buzz or it made you feel good like a soft drink might
Now, beer consumed for recreational purposes certainly had effects!
Maybe it’s just like a soft drink then
I’ll die on this hill, just because I love it so much.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/guest-blog/a-sip-for...
The reason that water in beer is sterilised is that beer is brewed — i.e. boiled.
> If you've ever tried home brewing, you'll know that non-sterile conditions lead to foul rancid filth due to all the bacteria etc.
I believe that pre–germ-theory brewing practices tended to discourage unwanted microbial activity, in part through inoculation with large amounts of fresh barm. Did they put two and two together and connect those practices in the context of brewing to the broader context of water or food safety? Maybe.
> I'd find it odd if the people then knew to sterilise the water and equipment to make beer, but then not do the same to drink it.
Indeed, the article quotes Paulus: ‘But waters which contain impurities, have a fetid smell, or any bad quality, may be so improved by boiling as to be fit to be drunk.’
Not that beer is immune against making you ill, but chances are random beer in some random village is better than random water in some random village, since the village people would use the good water for the beer.
Beer also makes water a more pleasant color. That too could be a reason to drink it. Or, either idea could be irrelevant.
People know beer needs specific conditions or it doesn't sell. So they are careful about that.
If you ask for water you might get the water they use for cooking soup or cleaning the mugs and they might not boil it beforehand.
In absence of temperature measurement, they would time how long the water had been off the boil before it would be used.
They also commonly believed that the boil was integral to the carbonation in the final product. That the amount of time spent boiling the water correlated to more bubbles in the beer, and would often do things like boil the water until it was half gone.
I think that you are confused. Mashing is used to convert the starches in malted barley into sugars, and is done at temperatures below under boiling (well, with decoction mashes a portion of the mash is boiled, but the mash as a whole is not). But then the sweet wort produced from mashing is pulled off, hops are added and the wort is — yes — boiled, typically for quite awhile, and generally quite vigourously. Then the wort is chilled, yeast is pitched in and it ferments.
The brewing process most definitely involves boiling in every beer style I am aware of. It’s definitely possible that there is some style out there which doesn’t do it, of course, but the vast, vast majority are.
however, grape cultivation was more difficult/technical than grain cultivation which elevated the class of wine. it was also prized for its relative stability when diluted, with some maintaining the same (or better) flavor profile when diluted 1:2 water:wine. it was a true show of wealth to serve wine that was less than 1:1. (a history of the world in 6 glasses)
i’ve tried this with a few wine varietals and i can see what he’s saying in some regard, but it definitely alters the profile in ways.
Did you mean 2:1 water:wine? If you meant 1:2 water:wine, then 1:1 would be weaker and I'm not sure how that would show wealth more than stronger wine.
i was trying to say that i read that it was a show of wealth to serve wine that was less than 50% diluted, but that the norm was to serve 1 part wine to 2 parts water. thank you for the clarification.