Israelites and are not part of Mosaic Law of the Hebrew Bible. The Talmud consists of a
separate body of later adopted rules. The Babylonian Talmud was designed to help the
Israelites follow the Mesoretic Text-Hebrew Bible.
Homan extracts his word Shekhar as barley beer from the Hebrew Bible.
In contrast, Broshi translates the term “Beer” from the Talmud, as a “wine” made from dates;
“…indeed it is wine.”
As my final comment on Michael Homan’s misleading reference to Magen Broshi, the following
statement by Broshi is noteworthy.
Broshi states in his footnote three, at page 59, the following,
"3 It is interesting to note that the word
cider is derived, through Latin and Greek, from the
Semitic shechar."
Therefore, the philology of the word “shechar” is cider. This derivative tracing of the Semitic “Shechar” is hardly an adoption of Homan’s translation of Shekhar as meaning beer in the Hebrew Bible.
Clearly, author Michael Homan misleads us.
Furthermore, in footnote 11 above, Homan also tells us that he reached "…the best translation, based on linguistic and archaeological sources.” What are those “linguistic and archaeological sources” that he cited as footnote 11?
Here is Homan’s footnoted support for “the best translation…” and the “linguistic and archaeological sources.”
"11. “Ale” is actually more accurate, as “beer” typically refers to a beverage made from malted grains flavored with hops and carbonated. Like ale, ancient beer had no carbonation, though ancient beer was not flavored with hops as beer and ale are. Due to the malt, ancient beer was sweet and flavored with a variety of fruits and spices."
Obviously, Homan’s footnote 11 is also a misleading citation. Homan does not provide any support for his unsubstantiated assertion of being the best translation based on linguistic sources.
Homan provides an entirely irrelevant paragraph on the flavoring and distinction between ale and beer. Homan does not give any support to his statement that his interpretation is “the best translation” or on the “linguistic and archaeological sources” on which he bases his translations.
It is my personal opinion, that these two infractions of bibliographic standards are serious in academia. They are also serious deficiencies in vetted journals and magazines. Misleading citations would generally prevent publication of an article in academic journals. Worse yet, these types of infractions in some academic settings would cause departmental hearings on the propriety of the published paper.
Even Homan’s first footnoted statement is questionable.
"Humans have been making beer for at least 5,000 years, and most likely much longer. 1"
However, contrary to Homan’s footnote one, Katz and Voigt do not make any statement about the age of beer production.
Katz and Voigt’s study is a qualitative analysis of botanist Jonathan Sauer’s suggestion that the earliest plant domestication and use of cereals may have been for fermentation of grains, rather than for the production of flour and bread. Katz and Voigt discuss the survey of distinguished anthropologists and archaeologists, which Robert Braidenwood conducted on Sauer’s question of whether grains were domesticated first for beer or for bread..
The group of scientists,
“…tentatively concluded that people never lived by beer alone, but must have
lived first by gruel, then by bread, and finally by bread and beer."
The Katz and Voigt paper is a documented analysis of Katz’s “biocultural evolution of cuisine.”
With respect to Homan’s publication, nowhere in pages 23 and 24 or anywhere in the Katz and Voigt article is there support for Homan’s statement that humans developed beer production, “…at least 5000 years, and most likely much longer.”
Simply, the Katz and Voigt paper does not identify the origins or date of beer production.
The origin of beer production is not the subject of the study, nor is it mentioned.
If a date were given for the origin of beer production, the footnote would have cited the page
number where the statement could be found.
This is just another example of questionable use of citations. The citation gives an appearance of support to Homan’s novel ideas on biblical Jews and on the hypothesis of widespread consumption of beer.
I am not saying here, that the absence of a reliable bibliographic citation by author Homan means that humans did not produce beer at least 5000 years ago. There is credible evidence of beer production dating back to at least 5000 bc. However, Katz and Voigt are not sources, which support a 5000-year-old beer producing culture.
Even if we assume, without any bibliographic support, that humans developed beer production 5000 years ago, an early human practice is not evidence of the ancient Jewish practices dating to the 15 century bc and later. The Torah itself is convincing evidence that societies developed myth, magic and religion which altered and governed the actions of members of specific tribes and societies.
Ancient human practices were profoundly altered by subsequently adopted tribal rules over the course of millennia during human development. We are all the product of those changes.
My criticism of Homan’s first footnote is not to dispute the statement that “humans have been making beer for at least 5000 years…” I am familiar with the micro-biological samples obtained by the University of Pennsylvania which revealed chemical evidence of beer production attributed to Iran in 3500-3100 years bc. There is other epigraphic evidence, which demonstrates that beer production has been a practice of Mesopotamians, Asiatic and Europeans for thousands of years.
Rather, my point is to reveal Homan’s apparent indifference to reliable bibliographic support for his readers.
The point is that, on one level, Homan’s thesis is unproven and unreliable because of his deficient citations and the absence of literary support for his statements.
There are many more examples of misplaced citations by Assistant Professor Homan.
In footnote two (2), Homan again cites Katz and Voigt as support for his statement that,
"Some anthropologists have argued that it was a thirst for beer, rather than a hunger for bread, that led to the Neolithic Revolution (c. 9500–8000 B.C.E.), during which humans gradually abandoned a huntergatherer lifestyle in favor of sedentary farming.2"
Homan does not cite a page number for reference in his footnote.
Again, Homan’s reference to the “entire article” by Katz and Voigt as support for his statement is misleading. There is no argument made by any anthropologist in the Katz and Voigt article that asserts that the gathering of wild cereals during the Paleolithic age had transformed into Neolithic age because humans domesticated grain plants to satisfy a “thirst for beer.”
Here is what Katz and Voigt wrote in their article,
"Robert Braidenwood’s field work at Jarmo…led the botanist Jonathan D. Sauer to suggest that the earliest use of wheat and barley may not have been as flour for bread, but for beer. Braidenwood posed Sauer’s question to his colleagues as follows. "
I have previously noted what Braidenwood’s distinguished colleagues decided as their “tentative” answer to botanist Sauer’s question on whether beer or bread came first.Katz and Voigt do not make an argument that a “thirst for beer” was the stimulant for domestication of plants.
Contrary to Homan’s citation, “a thirst for beer” is not the subject of Katz and Voigt’s paper. The subject of Katz’ Biocultural Evolution of Cuisine is about the decreasing number of edible plants used by humans, and the increasing number of ways those plants are used in food preparation.
Katz and Voigt point out that humans use less edible plants, but that the ways in which those plants are prepared for food, has increased.
The thesis of Katz’s article is that humans have a greater variety in the way foods are prepared, with a corresponding lower use in the variety of edible plants.
Moreover, Homan makes the following statement, supposedly based on the Amarna Letters,
which he cites as footnote four (4),
"4 Nobody disputes the importance of beer in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, where it was the national drink. Beer was used to pay laborers and the fathers of brides."
Excavations at the Amarna Work Village do not support Homan’s statement that “beer was used to pay laborers and…(for) brides.”
Archaeologists and anthropologists have not determined the nature of the Amarna Work Village.
The only interpretation made in situ at the Amarna excavations is that some households in the segregated work village of Amarna contained bread-making ovens and others did not. Some in situ excavations of bread ovens were in common areas, apparently for general inhabitant use. The anthropological interpretation is that there must have been a bread manufacturing process at Amarna, which was dependent on interaction and cooperation between the Amarna inhabitants. From this mutual dependency and cooperation between Amarna inhabitants, the inference is that, it appears, that there was a division of labor at Amarna.
However, the purpose and inhabitants of Amarna are riddles, which remain unsolved.
The overriding concern here is that neither the footnoted work of D. Samuel or the Amarna excavations and its recovered artifacts, support Homan’s statement that beer was so valuable a commodity that it bought Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Israelite brides.
Amarna is not support for interpretations relating to beer as a commodity.
In fact the text of the Amarna report which is cited by Homan as support for his statement, that Egyptian beer was "used to pay...the fathers of brides," further evidences Homan's callous disregard for the truth or accuracy in summarizing important archaeological studies.
The reader of Homan's article should note that the word "Beer" is only used twice in Samuel's report, "Bread making and social interactions at the Amarna Workmen's Village, Egypt," at page 125. The word beer is only used parenthetically and is not part of the study on the Amarna's workmen's village.
Here is the text that Homan cites as support for his statement that Egyptians used beer to "pay the fathers of brides."
"Bread, together with beer, was used as an economic yardstick in a
moneyless economy. Although based on barter, the ancient Egyptian
economy was sophisticated (Jansen 1975). Commodities were frequently
valued in relation to measures of grain or loaves of bread. As part of
this system, bread (along with beer) was provided as rations, and was
an important part of the payment system by those who had access to
people's labour (Kemp 1989: 117ff). pg. 125 italics added.
Clearly, Michael Homan distorts and misrepresents the reference to beer, in Delwen Samuel's important work. Michael Homan falsely attributes Samuel's work as support for the
statement that Egypt used beer to buy brides.
This is another example of Homan's use of false footnotes to his article.
Further, it is specious reasoning for Homan to state that beer production and drinking was widespread and common, but on the other hand, beer was such a rare and treasured commodity at Amarna that it had a monetary value in a system of bartering for women.
Homan is also self-contradictory by stating that women were the major beer producers.
Apparently, for Homan, women were producing a commodity that was used for their purchase by potential husbands. In Homan’s micro-economy, the more beer the women produced, the lower their net value became. What economic incentive would beer manufacturing women have to produce more beer, when their liberty and family estate value was directly affected by the quantity of beer they produced?
The problem here is that Homan “stretches the fact” that women made beer in ancient households. It is well evidenced that women made beer in ancient times. Women were also tavern-keepers during Hammurabi’s reign. One ancient Babylonian artifact illustrates a woman, presumptively drinking beer from a jug, while having sexual intercourse from behind.
However, Homan stretches the fact that ancient women made and drank beer, by claiming that
women were the major beer producers. Homan exhibits a propensity towards illusionary attempts to elevate women in ancient (and modern) society by making disjointed associations to reach his preferred conclusion.
To borrow a phrase from Homan, “I am certainly not the only” reviewer to see a clear pattern of disjointed associations made by Michael Homan. In the Bryn Mawr Classical Review, (2009), Stephanie L. Budin, of Rutgers University, Camden made the following comment on Jennie R. Ebeling and Michael M. Homan’s, "Baking and Brewing Beer in the Israelite Household: A Study of Women's Cooking Technology."
"However, the authors also had to relate all this to ancient women. To engender the paper, they include somewhat weaker sections on ANE beer goddesses, make an argument that beer brewing was predominantly in women's hands in ancient times, and end with a statement that control over brewing, like control over baking, empowered ancient women, as they were responsible for providing vital nutrition to their families."
Considering the extent to which kitchen duty has not empowered women at any other point in
history, I'm not sure if this is really a valid argument. Nevertheless, the article is a good
place to begin for anyone interested in the history and archaeology of beer.
A similar kind of dis-junction occurs…
The current archaeological evidence indicates that Egyptians paid laborers for construction of the pyramids with beer. There is also epigraphic evidence that beer was sold to a person, public official or government purchaser and a sales receipt was given to the buyer.
If our current understanding that Israelite slave labor constructed the pyramids during the Torah’s account of 430 years of Egyptian “degrading” were accurate, then the practice of paying Israelite indentured laborers with beer, would lend further support to the notion that Israelites did not have a beer producing culture of their own.
Beer as a commodity has little exchange value to a person who produces that same commodity on a personal and societal scale.
Moreover, King Hammurabi’s Law codified rules for tavern keepers for the sale of beer to patrons. Hammurabi’s Law did not impose a general rule on the “strength and price of beer” on the general population, as Homan seems to imply.
Taken together, this bibliographic deficiency questions the reliability of Homan’s statements.
There emerges an indisputable pattern of misinformation by Homan.
In the first nine footnotes, (one through nine), Homan cites himself as a “source to himself,” five (5) times. As demonstrated above, Homan incorrectly cites the materials authored by Katz and Voigt, twice. He misstates D. Samuel and the Armana Work Village as having something to do with beer as payment for brides.
In footnote nine (9) Homan clearly misrepresents the statements of Richard Friedman in Commentary on the Torah Homan further distorts Magen Broshi's work, that Date Palm wine was being called beer.
Homan hides from his readers, Broshi's philological conclusion that Shechar was cider.
The net result is that all of Homan’s statements made up to that point in his article, beginning from footnote one through nine, are unreliable and false references. His bibliographic citations merely give the appearance of support to his thesis that biblical Jews drank lots of beer. The actual texts of those references tell us a different story.
There is no need to burden the reader here with additional examples of Homan’s questionable use of footnotes. Be assured that there are many more examples throughout his article.
For readers, this emerging pattern is a sufficient basis to dismiss Homan’s article entirely, because of Homan’s unreliability and indifference to accuracy for his readers.
On this first level, Homan’s article does not give us any reason to overturn our current understanding of biblical Jews.
The policy statement of the Jewish Museum in New York remains as the correct statement of the current state of archaeological eividence concerning Israelites and beer in the Ancient Near East.
“Beer originated in at least the fourth millennium BCE in the warm lands of
the ancient Near East, particularly in grain-rich Egypt and Mesopotamia.
Over time, the beer industry spread throughout the East. In Mesopotamia,
beer was drunk by people of all strata, in cultic contexts as well as in
taverns and private homes. Beer-making was the only profession considered
to be under divine protection. In Egypt, beer was not offered to the gods,
since it was considered a drink of the common folk. As a dietary staple,
it was included among the daily rations distributed to laborers, soldiers,
and even schoolchildren. Beer never played an important role among the
drinking customs of the land of Israel. The ancient Greeks and Romans
regarded it as a barbarian drink, and thus it was not popular in these
lands either…” (bold italic added)
Quoted from, DRINK AND BE MERRY: WINE AND BEER IN ANCIENT TIMES, June 30, 2000.
The curator of the exhibition…Michal Dayagi-Mendels, Frieder Burda
Curator of Israelite and Persian Archaeology at The Israel Museum,
Jerusalem. The New York installation of Drink and Be Merry is being
coordinated at The Jewish Museum by Dr. Susan L. Braunstein, Curator of
Archaeology and Judaica and Head of The Jewish Museum’s Judaica
Department.
Currently, there is no verifiable evidence of an ancient Israelite beer producing and drinking culture. Neither the Israeli Antiquities Authority, The Jewish Museum, The Universities of Tel Aviv, Chicago, Pennsylvania, Harvard, Cambridge, Cairo or The Smithsonian Institute hold a single artifact which evidences an Israelite beer producing and consuming culture.
There are no textual Hebraic artifacts, no tablets, no beer jugs, no vessels with
chemical remnants of organic barley and beer, no stele, no pottery shards and no ethnographic references to a neighboring Israelite beer culture. We do not have an iota of archaeological evidence, which could be interpreted as an artifact of an ancient Israelite beer producing custom
Michael Homan’s assertions and misleading references for support, stand against these facts.
[This letter to the editor is an abridged version of the full article.
I will discuss the following topics at a later date, as a supplement to this article.]
LINGUISTICS OF “SHEKHAR” ( שכר ) AS VARIGATED WINES
ECONOMIC MODELS OF WHEAT AND BARLEY IN 500 BC
SCRIPTURAL TRANSLATIONS AND BOUGOIS WINE CONSPIRATORS
HOMAN’S TRAGIC ALBOIN TOAST FROM THE SKULL OF OUR FOREFATHERS
A FINAL TOAST
Does the historical and scriptural record contain an echo of an ancient Israelite beer drinker’s toast?
There is no echo in the global halls of Jewish antiquity collections.
In contrast to Homan’s whimsical words of an ancient Hebraic beer toast, the beer toaster’s echo, which jumps from the historical record that we hear resounding outside of the Jerusalem Temple gate is (Egyptian Hieroglyphs for Beer).
Be confident that the elusive diving duck for truth is in a river of beer flowing through the various Gentile cultures of the Ancient Near East, with devotional Israelites watching from the viticultural riverbanks.
Ultimately, Homan’s only contribution is that he saw the elusive diving duck. He just needs to give us a truthful account of his sighting.
In final toast to author Michael Homan’s beer quest, I offer him to “have another one on me.”
Mazel tov.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I have chosen not to burden the reader with footnotes for this “letter to the editor.” Necessary references and citations are contained within the text of this article. The biblical references here are common knowledge for students of theology and of related fields. I will include footnotes and the bibliography on a later date, on publication of the full article. This is an abridged version submitted as a letter to the editor.
2. Michael Homan's article, Did The Ancient Israelites Drink Beer?, published by Biblical Archaeology Review can be found at this site:
3. NOTE: Additional misrepresentation by Homan: A further investigation was conducted into Homan's assertion that the image of 20 perforated clay jar stoppers, was evidence of Israelite beer drinking. The credit to the photograph cites Homan as the photographer and the excavation is identified as Tel Zayit (Hebrew pronunciation). Official name of the excavation is Tel Zeitah (Arabic). Ron E. Tappy is director of the Tel Zeitah excavation.
http://www.zeitah.net/ Here is the official and relevant statement from Dr. Tappy on finding the 20 clay jar stoppers, that Homan attributes to Ancient Israelite beer drinking,
"When our volunteers reached the bottom of Pit 1477, they found nearly 20 perforated clay balls.
Inside and around the perforations on these items we could see the imprint of woven cloth. This observation likely indicates that these balls were used as stoppers that were placed in the mouths of jars and stuffed with cloth to assist in the controlled release of gases during the process of fermentation. In Pit 1476, we even found one of the stoppers still in the bottom of a broken jar. It seems, therefore, that the ancient inhabitants of Zeitah were producing wine, vinegar, and other similar commodities in these rooms."
Despite the insistence of BAR publisher, Hershel Shanks in an interview for BAR, Dr. Tappy did not attribute the site to Israelite origins. In fact, Tel Zeitah has NOT revealed any artifact which would indicate that Jerusalem or Judah existed at the time of Tel Zeitah. The inhabitants of Tel Zeitah are thus far, unknown.
The major find at Tel Zeitah is a tablet with early Phoenician alphabetic writing. The tablet is attributed to "Syria-Palestine."
However, despite the unknown inhabitants of the Tel Zeitah site, publisher Shanks solicited Homan to submit an article. As demonstrated above, Homan's article contains unsubstantiated and false assertion that the stoppers were Israelite. The overwhelming falsity of Homan's article lends strong support to the suspicion that BAR publisher Shanks and Homan had intentionally or consequentially engaged in nationalistic archaeology, which intended to confuse or misappropriate other cultures for the political agenda of a modern day Israel. To assert falsely that the stoppers were Israelite, results in a false historical tie and cultural root to a site which may very likely belong to another civilization. False historical roots seemingly legitimizes the expropriation of another people's land and cultural history. Therefore, nationalistic archaeology creates a false legacy to disputed lands and cultural practices. This note added: July 19, 2011 edited: September 13, 2011
It is also important to note, that nationalistic archaeology as demonstrated above is inherently inaccurate. The driving motivation for "archaeological discoveries" in nationalistic archaeology is to legitimize a political agenda. I do not take any political position in this paper. I am unconcerned whether artifacts or epigraphic evidence supports a Jewish or Gentile beer drinking culture. I am exclusively concerned with accuracy and intellectual honesty in archaeology, in order to correctly understand the historical record of civilization. There is no room in academia for people like associate professor Michael Homan. This note added July 27, 2011.
© copyright oliver 2011
About the author:
Ray Oliver is an attorney admitted to NJ & Washington, DC bars. He is a graduate of Loyola University Chicago in Political Science, with emphasis in philosophy & social sciences and graduate level research work in the Sociology of Religion with distinguished sociologist, Tom Gannon, SJ. He attended New York University, Graduate School of Politics, Political Philosophy Division and simultaneously studied at the graduate level at the New School for Social Research, where he studied with visiting distinguished economist from Cornell University, Thomas Vietoriz and with internationally renowned political theorist, Hannah Arendt. He received his juris doctorate from John Marshall Law, Chicago and took various advanced legal instruction courses at Harvard Law School, including International Litigation with Ann Marie Slaughter, now dean of Princeton University Woodrow Wilson School.
Some of his previous writings on Middle Eastern affairs have appeared in international newspapers, including the Al Riyadh and the previous newspaper, the Riyadh English Daily of Saudi Arabia. Ray Oliver is attributed credit for legal representation in filmmaker Jake Gorst’s 2007 Emmy award winning nationally broadcast PBS documentary, Farmboy. Additional information about the author is available by internet key search: “rayoliveresq.”
*The author is greatly indebted to the director of the Warren County Public Library, New Jersey for her patience and assistance and to the library staffs of Drew University and the Sussex County Public Library, New Jersey for their invaluable research support. 
