The first farmers may have grown barley to brew ale. Merryn Dineley reports
Our traditional view
of the Neolithic is
that it was the period
in which people first
learned to grow cereal
crops, such as barley, in order to make
bread and porridge. In a recent article in
British Archaeology, however, the archaeological
scientist Mike Richards wrote
that, on the evidence of bone analysis, meat
was more important than grain in the
British Neolithic diet (`First farmers with
no taste for grain', March).
He postulated an animal-based Neolithic
economy, but pointed nevertheless to the
evidence for small-scale grain production.
This grain, he suggested, was grown for
ritual purposes - but he hazarded no
guesses as to what these rituals actually
involved. Might the grain have been
grown, in fact, for brewing? And might ale
have been a significant part of these rituals?
My research suggests that brewing could
well have been an important part of British
Neolithic domestic and ritual life. We
know that the Sumerians were making ale
in the 3rd millennium BC and that the
Egyptians were fermenting date wine and
ale at a similar time. The Sumerians had a
goddess of brewing, Ninkasi, and a tablet
inscribed with a verse singing her praises
has been found at Nippur, dated to
c 1800BC. It seems to describe Sumerian
brewing methods; and this `recipe' was
followed by Solomon Katz and Fritz
Maytag of the Anchor Breweries of California
in 1991, producing a drinkable and
effective brew that was aptly called
`Ninkasi'. More recently, Scottish and
Newcastle Breweries, in association with
researchers from Cambridge University,
made Tutankhamun Ale, again a drinkable
and sweet brew.
But what of brewing in Britain and
Europe? Whereas in Egypt, dry conditions
allow organic residues, even yeasts, to survive
and be analysed, in Britain acidic soils
and wet climate conspire to destroy the
fragile evidence of brewing. However, a
deposit of organic material identified as the
possible remains of a brewed drink was
found in a beaker at North Mains, Strathallan,
during excavations in 1978/9. The site
was a timber circle, bank and ditch (dated
to 2330 ± 60BC, in the transitional period
between the Neolithic and the Bronze
Age) together with several later Bronze
Age cist burials. The beaker lay in one of
these, accompanying the skeleton of a
young woman aged around 25 years. The
cist, situated in the centre of the timber
circle, had remained partially sealed,
hence the unusual survival of the organic
material. Pollen analysis revealed a cereal-based
drink flavoured with meadowsweet -
perhaps something between mead and ale
since meadowsweet is known as a flavouring
of mead. The radiocarbon date was
1540 ± 65BC.
In addition, plant debris
survived inside a beaker
in a Bronze Age cist at
Ashgrove in Fife, the slabs
of which had been carefully
sealed with clay. Pollen analysis revealed
large amounts of immature lime pollen and
meadowsweet, which again was interpreted
as the possible remains of mead, but
was unfortunately not radiocarbon-dated.
Analysis of organic residues on pottery
found near the stone circle at Machrie
Moor, Arran, also revealed immature pollen - probably from broken-up flower
heads - interpreted as possibly indicating
the presence of mead or honey; although
it was not possible to recreate recipes
from the remains, nor to accurately date
them.
Each of these examples of the organic
residues of Bronze Age brewing - the only
ones I know from Britain - was found in a
ritual rather than a domestic context. So
what significance could ale have had in
Bronze Age or Neolithic ritual? Maybe it
was believed to have healing properties, or
it was drunk to reach a state of intoxication
on special occasions such as funerals or
other ceremonial events.
The process of brewing itself could also
have given the brew a `magical' significance.
The fundamental methods of
brewing have remained unchanged for
millennia. Raw barley grain contains
`locked' sugar in the form of starch. During
germination, enzymes are formed which
can convert this starch into sugars which
can be fermented; but germination has to
be stopped at the right point and the grain
dried out. In the next process, medieval
and modern European brewers mixed the
dried grain with warm water, in order to
convert the remaining starch to sugars, but
Sumerian and Egyptian brewers made barley
cakes which were baked, mixed with
water, sieved, and the resulting sweet liquor
fermented in large jars.
Fermentation was not understood until
1857, when Pasteur discovered it was caused
by a living microorganism, yeast. His work
was continued by John Tyndall who, in
1876, delivered a lecture in which he
referred to the `art and practice of prehistoric
brewers' being based on `empirical
observation' - they knew what to do, but
not why. It is easy to imagine an element
of magic, and a potential ritual significance,
being given to the `magical transformation'
that was the art of brewing.
Merryn Dineley is a post-graduate student
of archaeology at Manchester University
Return to Table of Contents
Return to CBA Homepage
Medieval graves often contained symbolic artefacts, writes Chris
Daniell
Since the establishment of Christianity
in Britain, Christian graves have
been largely - though not entirely -
devoid of grave-goods. Gone are the
sumptuous burials of the pagan early medieval
era, or of the pre-Roman Iron Age.
Yet some enigmatic grave-goods remain
throughout the medieval period, strange
objects of metal, textile or stone for
which only tentative explanations are
available.
Given the near-silence of contemporary
documentary sources, it is unlikely that we
will ever know for sure whether these
mid-later medieval objects were meant to
aid the deceased in the afterlife, to bolster
the status of the family left behind, or to
achieve some other aim. My own research
into documentary records and archaeological
evidence, however, seems to
suggest that a number of these objects may
have been included as religious symbols
often connected to notions of penance.
An example can be found at the Welsh
monastery of Llandough, near Penarth in
South Glamorgan, where a skeleton was
found during excavations in 1994 wearing
an iron band around its stomach. The
monastery flourished from the Late Roman
period to the 11th century, but the skeleton
itself was undated. The bands were
interpreted as a medical aid for a hernia or
bad back (see BA March 1995). This is a
possibility, but a medieval German collector
of miracles, Caesarius of Heisterbach,
recorded two instances of `sinful women'
who wore iron bands as a punishment.
One woman, Clementina, `committed a
sin of the flesh', and when she died `there
were found round her body nine iron
bands', taken by Caesarius to have been
worn as a penance. His religious interpretation
offers a second possibility to set beside
the medical explanation.
A religious interpretation can also be
attributed, perhaps, to the remains of a belt
discovered on a 14th century body in the
Dominican cemetery in Carlisle. The medieval
author Eadmer, in his Life of St
Anselm, described how the knight Humphrey
was cured of dropsy by Anselm's
belt. When Eadmer asked for it back,
Humphrey pleaded with him to allow him
to keep a length of the belt to keep him
well. Belts from holy men, it seems, were
sometimes used to cure disease; and what is
interesting about the Carlisle skeleton is
that the person was clearly ill - he suffered
from Paget's disease.
Equally enigmatic are the stones sometimes found cradling a skeleton's head,
known to archaeologists as `pillow stones'
or `ear-muffs'. The standard archaeological
explanation is they kept the face up-right,
so that at Judgement Day, when the body
literally rose from the grave, the resurrected
body would be looking east at the
risen Christ. Yet there is one historical
source that suggests the stones were connected
with penance. The normal medieval
symbols of penance were sack-cloth
and ashes, on which monks were laid
before they died. (Charcoal in 9th-12th
century `charcoal burials', where bodies
were laid on top of, or surrounded by, a
layer of charcoal, may represent the ashes.)
In the Chronicon Lemovicense by Geoffrey of
Vigeosis, however, stones are mentioned
together with sack-cloth and ashes. In this
account, when Henry, eldest son of Henry
II, lay dying he was put onto the usual
sack-cloth and ashes, but also had stones
placed under his head and feet, and the noose
of a condemned criminal around his neck.
Taken together, all the elements add up to a
powerful impression of penance. Although
only a single example, the inclusion
of stones perhaps as a symbol of penance
may cast light on the archaeological discovery
of pillow stones in the grave.
Medieval priests were often buried with
their chalice and paten. These are usually
thought to have been buried merely as a
symbol of the deceased's priestly office, but
it may be that these objects also carried a
specific religious symbolism as well. Two
inscriptions, one on the paten buried at
Canterbury with Archbishop Hubert Walter,
d 1205, and the other on a 12th century
portable altar from Cologne (in addition to
a handful of manuscript references) indicate
that the chalice symbolises Christ's
tomb, and the paten the stone before the
tomb. One manuscript, the Mitrale by Sicardus
Bishop of Cremona (d 1215), records
further that the `chalice [signifies] the body,
because wine is in the chalice, blood is in
the body', suggesting that wine may sometimes
have been poured into the chalice
before burial - an idea that archaeology
may one day confirm.
Documentary records reveal alternative
explanations of the obscurer rituals of
medieval death, and they should certainly
not be ignored as archaeologists try to
understand the objects they find in
graves.
Chris Daniell is an archaeologist with Past
Forward in York. His book, `Death and Burial
in Medieval England', is published next month
by Routledge at UKP35.00.
Return to Table of Contents
Return to CBA Homepage
In the second of two articles, Mark Roberts describes the origin of the
first Europeans, and argues they were more advanced than we thought
Why was Europe colonised by
hominids half a million years
ago? And what sort of people
were these first colonisers?
There may be evidence, as some claim,
for a sporadic occupation of Spain around
a million years ago at sites such as Atapuerca
and Orce (see BA, September
1995). However, without doubt the main
colonising event began in the interglacial,
or warm period, of 524-478,000 years ago.
During this period incontestable sites are
found throughout the western part of the
continent. The originators of this colonis-ing
thrust are thought to have come from
Africa and the Levant, and their principal
tool was the stone handaxe. They are
referred to generally as archaic modern
humans or specifically as Homo cf heidelbergensis,
although some researchers still see
them as Homo erectus rather than an evolved
form of this lineage.
As for why these hominids moved into
Europe, hypotheses have been postulated
such as a change in the composition of the
carnivore populations of Europe, thus reducing
competition for food resources; or
climatic and hence environmental change
in Africa, forcing a general population
movement. It is feasible that these populations
met up with other colonisers coming
from the east via Asia and the Caucasus.
But what forces were driving the colonisers
steadily northwards and east? The
archaeological record suggests it was unlikely
to be because of competition with a
remnant population, or population pressure
amongst the colonisers. One
explanation may be recolonisation of the
continent by flora and fauna, as the inter-glacial
climate began to take effect -
hominids may well have moved in conjunction
with expanding ecological zones
that satisfied their subsistence requirements.
There exists too, the possibility that
the migration route may have been around
the European coastline, which would have
avoided many of the natural obstacles of a
direct route, although access to large grazing
herds would have been restricted.
A great deal has been made in recent
literature of the shock to early hominids
that the move out of Africa must have
entailed. Indeed, the absence of handaxes
among the first occupants of sites such as
Orce and Atapuerca has been explained on
the grounds that they could not maintain
their social networks, group memory and
hence the knowledge of how to make this
particular tool. The severity of the European
climate, compared to Africa, is also
said to have probably played a large part in
influencing hominid behaviour.
In my view, the European climate is
unlikely to have troubled the early colonisers
dramatically. If we assume that
colonisation began around the beginning
of the interglacial, say 520,000 years ago,
then to reach Britain by half a million years
ago from say Ubeidiya in Israel (the nearest
site outside Europe which we know was
occupied in the period), requires only a
yearly range expansion of 0.5km per annum
for a coastal route or 0.2km per
annum on a direct route across the continent.
Expansion would not have been
steady, but would have been faster through
areas low in resources and vice versa; but the
important point is to understand the long
timescales involved, and to appreciate the
amount of time available for the hominids
to adjust to the different climate, geography
and seasonality of Europe.
Moreover, the night-time and winter
cold of the upland areas and deserts of
Africa, not to mention the extreme seasonality
of northern and north-eastern Africa,
would probably have made the climate
along the northern shores of the Mediterranean
seem quite equitable by comparison.
Surely this is the key to hominid
success in Europe - namely, that on the
whole the extremes of climate in the western
end of the continent are not particularly
marked, with the effect that food resources
are rarely under the stresses they are often
put to in Africa both north and south of the
Sahara. An Afrocentric viewpoint, with
other regions seen as the poor relations, has
predominated over many years of Palaeolithic
research and deserves to be brought
up short. Africa may have been the cradle
and nursery of humankind, but Europe and
Asia were the schools of learning that saw
humankind into adulthood.
So by whatever route and after many
thousands of years the colonisers
walked into southern Britain via the
chalk downland that connected England to
France. Some of them presumably followed
the coast round to the west; and at
Boxgrove, the evidence of some of their
activities has been preserved in situ. What
further insights, then, does it allow us into
their behaviour and lifestyle?
At present it is not possible to assign any
seasonality in the killing of large mammals
at Boxgrove, especially as many of the
remains are so fragmentary. However,
given that the interglacial climate was very
similar to today's, and that the resident
animals would not have needed to move
off in winter, we may assume a year-round
occupation of the area. It is almost certain
that with or without fire, for which there
is no evidence at Boxgrove, clothing
would have been needed to survive even a
normal southern English winter.
Of course this clothing is likely to have
been rudimentary, in the form of hides and
skins. The interesting point is that these
`clothes' would have required a degree of
preparation to make them wearable. Unless
a skin is treated very quickly it will either
go as stiff as a board or attract every insect
and parasite for miles, and eventually rot.
The evidence for careful skinning of the
carcasses, and the discovery of a handaxe
this summer with the distinctive wear-pattern
you get from scraping a hide, confirm
that the skins were a valuable commodity.
It must be stressed, however, that the
skin was probably only part-cleaned at the
kill-site while the butchery was being carried
out, and that as soon as butchery was
complete the skin and meat were taken
back to more permanent and safer areas on
the high ground above the cliff. At
Boxgrove we only rarely find `retouched'
flake tools designed for specialist jobs such
as the working of hide, wood and bone.
Most types are represented - side scrapers,
end scrapers, notch scrapers, and so on -
but in total they number no more than 20.
One explanation is that they were primarily
used in more settled woodland camps
on the Downs, an idea reinforced by the
lack of campsites in front of the cliff and the
removal of very large amounts of meat and
skins away from the kill areas (see last
month's article). At and around these
woodland sites it is likely that wood was
worked into spears and other tools and that
shed antlers were collected and fashioned
into soft hammers, as well as stored for
many months. The amount of wear on
these hammers shows they were used for
long periods, and therefore that they must
have been kept and carefully looked after
over this time.
I find it hard to envisage all these activities
taking place without a form of
communication that was more advanced
than that of our primate relatives. Hunting
and butchering large mammals in open
environments would have, in hominids,
required a level of planning and co-operation
that could only be serviced by speech.
The presence of stone tools in sediments
at Boxgrove dating from the
beginning of the subsequent Anglian
cold period (c 478-423,000 years
ago), and from cold sediments at sites like
Swanscombe and Clacton, dating from the
very end of the Anglian period, point to
an adaptability amongst these hominids
not previously thought possible. It is not
yet known whether they survived in
southern England throughout the cold period,
but their presence at the beginning
and end suggests that populations never
moved too far away.
Conversely, they are not yet fully `modern'
humans. This is the puzzling
conundrum - because contrary to established
views they were organised, they
could plan and were adaptable. However,
unless we are missing a great deal from the
non-surviving organic record, they don't
appear to have been particularly innovative,
probably as a result of a lack of competition.
It appears highly likely that hominids
did exactly the same sorts of thing during
the following two interglacials and even
the one after that, the first visible technological
change being the introduction,
300-250,000 years ago, of the `Levallois'
technique of stone working throughout
North Africa and Europe - in which flakes
are removed from a prepared stone core.
It begins to look as if the increasing
complexity of Middle and early Upper
Palaeolithic tool kits (c 100-30,000 years
ago) was the result of environmental or
climatic pressure, forcing adaptation and
innovation during the long cold stages after
the last interglacial (c 125,000 years ago),
and I infer from this that the earlier cold
stages, of around 700-250,000 years ago,
were not as severe in their effects on large
mammals as we have previously envisaged.
It is also difficult to imagine speech
without any manifestation of art or ceremony
but at present none has been found.
It appears that like the Neanderthals, into
which species the Boxgrove hominids
evolved, these hominids combined physical
prowess with a `partly modern'
behavioural pattern in order to survive
successfully in Europe for over 400,000
years. Whether they were actually human
or not depends on our definition of the
term; but it is certainly time to study them
as a species in their own right, rather than
to position them either as tool-assisted apes
or as a failed model of ourselves.
Mark Roberts is the Director of the Boxgrove Project
Return to the British Archaeology homepage
© Council for British Archaeology, 1997
Finding magic in Stone Age real ale
When penance continued in the grave
And then came clothing and speech