The implication here is that honey is a cheap additive used to mimic the effects of a long process. However honey isn't a trivial component to produce
I suspect they added in honey as a source of sugar for fermentation. Honey is a pretty common component of making fermented drinks (mead being a well known one). So this sounds like a natural coupling to me.
It's tough to tell without someone making a couple test batches for us to get tanked on
If they were interested in increasing sweetness, they likely would have been adding the honey after fermentation, not before. But either way, I suspect the supposition at the end of the article is the correct one, whether they were getting the sweetness from raisins or honey, the consumers wouldn't have cared. I went down an exploration of trying to approximate Roman wine a little while ago, and what I discovered reading a bunch about it (and subsequently creating and tasting the best replica I could), Roman wines were by and large some really nasty swill. They didn't fully understand how fermentation worked, the pine pitch the used to seal the amphoras leeched into the wines, and they typically attempted to hide the bad character of the wines by watering it down and then adding all kinds of sweet and spicy additives to it.
If the wines were sweetened after fermentation, then how were they stabilized? Something needs to be added to stop fermentation (or it must be fermented very strong).
Another way: Let ferment it to the max. If fermentation doesn't consume all the sugar, then it's somewhat stable.
Ancient wines also had resins added. Today these would probably have tasted almost medicinal, but often they are diluted before serving. Wine dilution is still a custom in some parts of Italy. I was invited to a party in Tuscany and they served a lot of Lambrusco amabile and for the children they diluted it and because Lambrusco amabile is rather sweet it was a little bit an oldfashioned soft drink. I tried it, too, and it's refreshing. I don't know whether it's sacrilegous but as one says, in Rome do as Romans do.
> However honey isn't a trivial component to produce
And you think grapes are?
We were probably farming honey long before we were farming grapes.
> I suspect they added in honey as a source of sugar for fermentation. Honey is a pretty common component of making fermented drinks (mead being a well known one). So this sounds like a natural coupling to me.
They definitely knew about mead. Pliny the Elder (one of the article's sources lol) even talks about mead (Hydromeli/Hidromel), and observes "it is nowhere more highly esteemed than in Phrygia (Turkey)". He also points out honey is sometimes added to "artifical wines", which seem to be just ancient-roman talk for foreigner-booze.
"However honey isn't a trivial component to produce"....indeed it is not, apiaries were built on boats in roman times as a means to insure polenation for crops along water ways and increase honey production with an eye on shipping logistics to get it to the highest paying markets.
there is cave art that depicts honey gathering from truely ancient times and it is impossible to think that humanities ancestors were not oportunistic honey gatherers, with the bee's wax having a multitude of good uses as well.
the liklyhood is that honey and wax were sometimes scarce and sometimes in abundance, and sometimes popular as additives and loathed by others.
there are various claims and evidence for the earliest deliberate fermentation, but a general agreement that fermentation is truely ancient, with some evidence to suggest that fermentation
was the impetus for the first permanent settlements, and as (some) humans ability to metabolise alcohol is a recent genetic adaptation to produce the nessesary enzymes, we will get more evidence as to who, where and when that happened, or kept happening.....
edit: my point(if I have one) is that it could be argued that grapes were first to be snuck in as an aduterant, with honey and other ingredients having much longer prior use
The author fails to understand modern wines to begin with. Amarone is not a raisin wine at all, the link to the appassimento method correctly explains that the Amarone process is initially based on dried grapes, but the result is a dry wine.
Yeah, and apassimento is not a modern day luxury. Maybe the author is right about Cretans using chaptalization, but that’s very far from “faking” wine.
A single hive with 50,000 bees can make 100lbs of honey, but you need maybe 1,000 lbs of grapes to make that much wine in roughly the same amount of time (a single vine might give you 10lbs of grapes)
Define recently? Domesticated bees are mentioned explicitly in Plato’s laws, with instructions on how people should be compensated if someone kills someone else’s bees, so it must have been around for quite a while before then.
Nonsense. There is no definition of "relatively recently" that has anything to do with humans where that is true. Bees were probably one of the first things we humans ever made farms for:
The hives ought to have an aspect due east, but never looking towards the north-east or the west. The best hives are those made of bark, the next best those of fennel-giant, and the next of osier: many persons, too, have them made of mirror-stone, for the purpose of watching the bees at work within. It is the best plan to anoint the hives all over with cow-dung. The lid of the hive should be made to slide from behind, so as to admit of being shut to within, in case the hive should prove too large or their labours unproductive; for, if this is not done, the bees are apt to become discouraged and abandon their work. The slide may then be gradually withdrawn, the increase of space being imperceptible to the bees as the work progresses. In winter, too, the hives should be covered with straw, and subjected to repeated fumigations, with burnt cow- dung more particularly. As this is of kindred origin with the bees, the smoke produced by it is particularly beneficial in killing all such insects as may happen to breed there, such as spiders, for instance, moths, and wood-worms; while, at the same time, it stimulates the bees themselves to increased activity. In fact, there is little difficulty in getting rid of the spiders, but to destroy the moths, which are a much greater plague, a night must be chosen in spring, just when the mallow is ripening, there being no moon, but a clear sky: flam- beaux are then lighted before the hives, upon which the moths precipitate themselves in swarms into the flame.
> likely cared less about authenticity than we do today.
I’m not so sure that folks care that much about “authenticity,” these days.
There’s an enormous knockoff market. Many folks buy fakes, knowing full well, that they aren’t the real thing (the “Times Square Rolex” is pretty much a meme), and some of the fakes are good enough, that regular people have no idea they aren’t real.
I have also heard that “premium fakes,” often produced by the same factories that make the originals, are fooling even experts.
There's no way to know. And that concrete uncertainty means they are different more-than-legally from the legitimate artifact, which generally has some sort of quality floor.
Like the ancient Romans I couldn't care less about the authenticity of any wine so long as it tasted reasonably well. Anyone making a fuss over provence outside of whether or not it's safe to drink, tastes good and a few basic criteria is just a snob.
"Oh dear boy, how can you drink that Burgundy, it's not even from Chateaux le Snob".
I'm not sure this is the right interpretation...
The implication here is that honey is a cheap additive used to mimic the effects of a long process. However honey isn't a trivial component to produce
I suspect they added in honey as a source of sugar for fermentation. Honey is a pretty common component of making fermented drinks (mead being a well known one). So this sounds like a natural coupling to me.
It's tough to tell without someone making a couple test batches for us to get tanked on
If they were interested in increasing sweetness, they likely would have been adding the honey after fermentation, not before. But either way, I suspect the supposition at the end of the article is the correct one, whether they were getting the sweetness from raisins or honey, the consumers wouldn't have cared. I went down an exploration of trying to approximate Roman wine a little while ago, and what I discovered reading a bunch about it (and subsequently creating and tasting the best replica I could), Roman wines were by and large some really nasty swill. They didn't fully understand how fermentation worked, the pine pitch the used to seal the amphoras leeched into the wines, and they typically attempted to hide the bad character of the wines by watering it down and then adding all kinds of sweet and spicy additives to it.
If the wines were sweetened after fermentation, then how were they stabilized? Something needs to be added to stop fermentation (or it must be fermented very strong).
Or add spirits.
Another way: Let ferment it to the max. If fermentation doesn't consume all the sugar, then it's somewhat stable.
Ancient wines also had resins added. Today these would probably have tasted almost medicinal, but often they are diluted before serving. Wine dilution is still a custom in some parts of Italy. I was invited to a party in Tuscany and they served a lot of Lambrusco amabile and for the children they diluted it and because Lambrusco amabile is rather sweet it was a little bit an oldfashioned soft drink. I tried it, too, and it's refreshing. I don't know whether it's sacrilegous but as one says, in Rome do as Romans do.
> However honey isn't a trivial component to produce
And you think grapes are?
We were probably farming honey long before we were farming grapes.
> I suspect they added in honey as a source of sugar for fermentation. Honey is a pretty common component of making fermented drinks (mead being a well known one). So this sounds like a natural coupling to me.
They definitely knew about mead. Pliny the Elder (one of the article's sources lol) even talks about mead (Hydromeli/Hidromel), and observes "it is nowhere more highly esteemed than in Phrygia (Turkey)". He also points out honey is sometimes added to "artifical wines", which seem to be just ancient-roman talk for foreigner-booze.
- https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext...
- https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext...
> It's tough to tell without someone making a couple test batches for us to get tanked on
I'm down.
"However honey isn't a trivial component to produce"....indeed it is not, apiaries were built on boats in roman times as a means to insure polenation for crops along water ways and increase honey production with an eye on shipping logistics to get it to the highest paying markets. there is cave art that depicts honey gathering from truely ancient times and it is impossible to think that humanities ancestors were not oportunistic honey gatherers, with the bee's wax having a multitude of good uses as well. the liklyhood is that honey and wax were sometimes scarce and sometimes in abundance, and sometimes popular as additives and loathed by others. there are various claims and evidence for the earliest deliberate fermentation, but a general agreement that fermentation is truely ancient, with some evidence to suggest that fermentation was the impetus for the first permanent settlements, and as (some) humans ability to metabolise alcohol is a recent genetic adaptation to produce the nessesary enzymes, we will get more evidence as to who, where and when that happened, or kept happening..... edit: my point(if I have one) is that it could be argued that grapes were first to be snuck in as an aduterant, with honey and other ingredients having much longer prior use
I do wonder if the motivation was more about speeding up production or just experimenting with flavor profiles
The author fails to understand modern wines to begin with. Amarone is not a raisin wine at all, the link to the appassimento method correctly explains that the Amarone process is initially based on dried grapes, but the result is a dry wine.
Yeah, and apassimento is not a modern day luxury. Maybe the author is right about Cretans using chaptalization, but that’s very far from “faking” wine.
> This method would have been quicker and cheaper than drying grapes for weeks.
do the economics make sense? Honey is quite cheap in today's world but I'm not sure this was always true.
I think so.
A single hive with 50,000 bees can make 100lbs of honey, but you need maybe 1,000 lbs of grapes to make that much wine in roughly the same amount of time (a single vine might give you 10lbs of grapes)
Honey is also easier to transport than grapes.
We didnt invent manmade beehives until relatively recently so honey harvesting was a lot more effort in the past
Define recently? Domesticated bees are mentioned explicitly in Plato’s laws, with instructions on how people should be compensated if someone kills someone else’s bees, so it must have been around for quite a while before then.
Nonsense. There is no definition of "relatively recently" that has anything to do with humans where that is true. Bees were probably one of the first things we humans ever made farms for:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34749846
We have been doing it before we had written language and even perhaps before our spoken language had evolved past the imperative.
So yeah, the romans absolutely kept bees, and they made "manmade beehives" like this:
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext...
The hives ought to have an aspect due east, but never looking towards the north-east or the west. The best hives are those made of bark, the next best those of fennel-giant, and the next of osier: many persons, too, have them made of mirror-stone, for the purpose of watching the bees at work within. It is the best plan to anoint the hives all over with cow-dung. The lid of the hive should be made to slide from behind, so as to admit of being shut to within, in case the hive should prove too large or their labours unproductive; for, if this is not done, the bees are apt to become discouraged and abandon their work. The slide may then be gradually withdrawn, the increase of space being imperceptible to the bees as the work progresses. In winter, too, the hives should be covered with straw, and subjected to repeated fumigations, with burnt cow- dung more particularly. As this is of kindred origin with the bees, the smoke produced by it is particularly beneficial in killing all such insects as may happen to breed there, such as spiders, for instance, moths, and wood-worms; while, at the same time, it stimulates the bees themselves to increased activity. In fact, there is little difficulty in getting rid of the spiders, but to destroy the moths, which are a much greater plague, a night must be chosen in spring, just when the mallow is ripening, there being no moon, but a clear sky: flam- beaux are then lighted before the hives, upon which the moths precipitate themselves in swarms into the flame.
The article specifically discusses how it's common to find ceramic beehives.
> likely cared less about authenticity than we do today.
I’m not so sure that folks care that much about “authenticity,” these days.
There’s an enormous knockoff market. Many folks buy fakes, knowing full well, that they aren’t the real thing (the “Times Square Rolex” is pretty much a meme), and some of the fakes are good enough, that regular people have no idea they aren’t real.
I have also heard that “premium fakes,” often produced by the same factories that make the originals, are fooling even experts.
> I have also heard that “premium fakes,” often produced by the same factories that make the originals, are fooling even experts.
Because they aren’t fake in any physical sense, they’re fake only in an abstract legal sense. Unauthorized.
Actually, they are often made with "leftover stock," or stock that was rejected by the real manufacturer.
I suspect that's a big problem, with fake chips.
Yes, that’s what I said.
So they are not “only different in a legal sense.”
They are actually lower quality.
I could see this becoming a real issue, in things like climbing carabiners.
Items may be rejected for all kinds of reasons that may not directly affect the quality, if they’re even rejects at all.
Yes, may.
Or may not.
There's no way to know. And that concrete uncertainty means they are different more-than-legally from the legitimate artifact, which generally has some sort of quality floor.
> Because they aren’t fake in any physical sense, they’re fake only in an abstract legal sense. Unauthorized.
And this is an example of fake thinking, citizen. Legal boundaries define reality, right?
Makes me wonder what modern food & drink would pass the ancient "authenticity" test
So the whole thesis here is based on the fact they also made honey? Seems like a really weak argument…
Like the ancient Romans I couldn't care less about the authenticity of any wine so long as it tasted reasonably well. Anyone making a fuss over provence outside of whether or not it's safe to drink, tastes good and a few basic criteria is just a snob.
"Oh dear boy, how can you drink that Burgundy, it's not even from Chateaux le Snob".
Ancient people certainly cared about quality. (1) But as the article concludes, it seem they were not to concerned in this case
(1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complaint_tablet_to_Ea-nāṣir
It would be worth trying to make the mixture to further test the theory.
The wheels of justice turn slowly indeed...