How Beer Gave Us Civilization 325
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.'"
You lost me at... (Score:5, Interesting)
" ... 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 [sirc.org]).
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).
Re:It might be true but (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It might be true but (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Everything gave us civilization (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Everything gave us civilization (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Everything gave us civilization (Score:5, Interesting)
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:It might be true but (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
old news.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Everything gave us civilization (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.