Content uploaded by Susan Verberg
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Susan Verberg on Dec 10, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
9
FROM HERBAL TO HOPPED BEER: THE DISPLACEMENT OF REGIONAL HERBAL
BEER TRADITIONS BY COMMERCIAL EXPORT BREWING IN MEDIEVAL EUROPE
SUSAN VERBERG
Abstract
The history of the use of hops as a beer additive differs only
partially from the use of bog myrtle. For centuries hopped
beer existed side by side with other native beers; apparently
the different types of beer were functionally comparable.
This balance changed with the development of full isomeri-
zation techniques of brewing with hop, which opened up the
possibility of long-term storage and international export.
Archaeological evidence points to the use of bog myrtle and
other herbs in brewing at a much earlier date than hops. The
history of the use of bog myrtle can be solidly placed in the
pre-Roman Iron Age, while the history of hops is only tenta-
tive in the Roman period and does not truly take hold until
the Early Middle Ages. Most of the hop records of the early
and later Middle Ages do not come from monastic sites.
This would indicate beer production was not dominated by
monasteries, as is often thought today.1 Similarly, the pro-
duction of gruit beer under the right to gruit was not solely
in hands of the Church either. The right to (sell) gruit (to
produce gruit beer) was a medieval franchise2 granted by the
empire of Charlemagne that over time changed hands to the
rich and influential, which included monasteries, church
dioceses, as well as nobility and, later, city governments.
Archaeological evidence for the use of hops in brewing also
places the practice before the first records of the right to
gruit. This is in stark contrast to the commonly accepted idea
that the discovery of the superiority of hops in the Late Mid-
dle Ages quickly supplanted the use of inferior gruit, as well
as all other botanical brewing additives.
Introduction
Botanical additives to alcoholic beverages have been used
since prehistoric times in western Europe. Finds from pre-
history indicate fermentation with a variety of fermentable
sugars and botanicals. The earliest trace evidence for alco-
holic beverages dates to 9,000 years ago from the ancient
Chinese village of Jiahu where residue analysis of ceramic
vessel indicates a mixed beverage made with grapes, haw-
thorn fruit, rice and honey. 3The Bronze Age burial mound
at Egtveld, Denmark, dated to 1500-1300 BCE, contained a
birch-bark container with dried up traces of a mixed bever-
age on the inside. The residue was identified as fermented
cowberries (Vaccinium vitis-idaea) and cranberries
(Vaccinium oxycoccus), wheat grains, bog myrtle (Myrica
gale) as well as honey – making for a mix between beer and
fruit wine, sweetened with honey.4 Prehistoric fermenters
used anything that could preserve, alter perception, heal the
body, improve the flavour and that could ferment due to its
sugar and/or yeast content. This way of fermentation result-
ed in a mash of fruits, malted and unmalted cereals and hon-
ey, combined with various regionally available herbs.
Where at first the different sources of fermentable sugar
were combined into a sort of super-brew, over time these
different base-sugars evolved into distinct beverages, with
their own names; wine, mead, braggot (honey beer), and
beer/ale.5 Due to the high sugar content of grapes and honey,
wine and mead could be fermented with fairly high alcoholic
content and thus did not spoil as easily, negating the need
for preserving additives. The Egyptians are credited with
fine tuning the production of the beer, optimizing malting
and yeast techniques to create a beverage to be enjoyed
within a reasonable amount of time. The alcoholic content of
beer is much lower and thus is more perishable, creating a
need for added preservatives. The botanicals bog myrtle,
hops and several others played an important role in this
function.
Many different botanicals were used as beer additives over
the centuries. Several with clear preservative properties,
some with perceived medicinal properties, some with de-
sired psychotropic or adulterating effects, and some perhaps
just for an enjoyable flavour. Throughout the Middle Ages
the two botanicals used consistently throughout Europe were
bog myrtle and hops.6 They could both be combined with
The journal is © 2020
The Brewery History Society
Brewery History (2020) 183, 9-23
10
Journal of the Brewery History Society
other herbal additives, whether for taste or for other purpos-
es is not always entirely clear. Bog myrtle is mostly found in
combination with other preservative herbs, likely to boost
the combined preservative effect. Hops was mostly used by
itself, sometimes with bog myrtle, and as a base ingredient
for medicinal beers with many other botanical ingredients
added for health benefits rather than flavour.
The early history of bog myrtle
It seems surprising that bog myrtle, which played such an
important role in the brewing in several countries, was near-
ly forgotten as a beer ingredient.7 Also known as sweet gale
in the United States and gagel and pors in Dutch and
German as well as many other local variants, bog myrtle is
an oceanic species and grows in acidic bogs and sandy soils.
Its area of distribution includes the northernmost parts of
central Europe, north-west Europe and the coastal zone of
the Baltic Sea.8 It blooms with a cluster of flowers on the top
of one stem, called an inflorescence, and its flowers fruit as
an infructescence, a cluster of fruits from an inflorescence
flower. Generally, bog myrtle has male and female flowers
on separate plants, but not always. The fruit is a dry drupe, a
single-seed stone fruit, born in cone-like groups; a fruitlet is
the single part of the multiple fruit catkin, and could contain
one stone or pit (the seed is inside the pit). All parts of the
shrub are aromatic due to the essential oils and resins excret-
ed through glands in the leaves and catkins; the catkins are
significantly more concentrated. The archaeological records
of finds plausibly connected to brewing indicate the use of
predominantly the catkins, and only sometimes the leaves.9
Archaeological evidence for bog myrtle seems to indicate it
has been used in the context of brewing as early as the
centuries immediately before and around the start of the
common era in a small area around the Rhine estuary, in the
north of the Netherlands. There, remains of fruitlets (single
pits with fruit remnants) were found at seven sites dating
from pre-Roman Iron Age. Large amount of leaf and catkin
remnants, undoubtedly employed for brewing, were recov-
ered from Roman age Nieuwenhorn, the Netherlands, as
well as from the 9th/10th - 13th century northwest Germany.
Other large finds include 10th - 13th century and 8th - 12th/13th
century finds from Viborg and Ribe, Denmark, as well as
11th - 15th century finds from Lund, Sweden, and 10th - 12th
century finds from Lincoln, England.10
The regular occurrence and number of archaeological finds
leads to the conclusion bog myrtle was already in use during
the pre-Roman Iron Age, presumably for beer making. Bog
myrtle is mentioned in 10th century Anglo-Saxon Leech-
doms as a medicinal ingredient, with and without the use of
ale.11 By the 12th century written evidence for bog myrtle
used in brewing is found in German Abbess Hildegard von
Bingen’s treatise Physica Sacra (c.1158 CE) in which she
recommends the use of Mirtelbaum for making beer: ‘If you
want to brew beer, cook the leaves and fruits, the drink will
be all the healthier’.12 It is likely that Mirtelbaum indicates
native bog myrtle.13 Bog myrtle was an important plant is a
traditional Scandinavian brewing traditions and is thought to
be used before hops.14 Some of the oldest written sources on
Scandinavian plants mention ‘gardens’ of bog myrtle, likely
referring to managed wild-growing areas.15
From the 13th century onwards, the use of bog myrtle is
found in several Low Country city accounts, as part of
purchases made by city gruit houses (production and distri-
bution centres) to produce the brewing additive gruit. The
ingredients are near-identical from one gruit house to anoth-
er, centring around the purchasing of grain (generally oat or
barley malt, chaff or flour), bog myrtle, laurel berries
Figure 1. Bog Myrtle as illustrated in Dodoens, Cruijdeboeck
(1554). With permission of www.biolib.de
11
Brewery History Number 183
(Laurus nobilis L.), laserwort (Laserpitium siler L.) and pine
resin. The odd one out is Cologne, Germany, where in
1391/93 the local gruit house purchased malt, bog myrtle,
laurel berries, as well as hops, anise (Pimpinella anisum L.),
caraway (Carum carvi L.) and juniper (Juniperus communis
L.).16 What is often overlooked is that the gruit master also
made note of two items not available: both laserwort and
resin are in the purchase list but marked as non-available.
Apparently, the Cologne gruit house tried to purchase the
same ingredients for their gruit as their surrounding col-
leagues but for some reason did not succeed.17 The out-of-
the-ordinary ingredients could be alternatives for the
preferred items, likely in the hope to replicate the standard-
ized end product of gruit, or perhaps are unrelated to the
production of gruit.18 Either way, in the words of their
contemporaries as found in a Cologne charter of 1408: ‘so
is the gruit from Neuss much better than the gruit from
Cologne’.19
Like Hildegard, the German Konrad von Megenberg also
mentions Mirtelbaum in connection with brewing in his 14th
century manuscript Das Buch der Natur. Assuming he also
meant bog myrtle, he offers a bit more detail on the brew:
‘man likes to lay this flower in beer, which one makes of
water and of rye or barley’.20 Sixteenth century Dutch bota-
nist Matthias l’Obel wrote about gagel in his Kruydtboeck
(1581) ‘The same flower also sometimes, for lack of hops, is
added to beer,’ and goes on to include ‘sometimes also to
make the drunkards happy, because bog myrtle makes one
dim in the head and makes people happy of spirit’.21 This
strong reputation is reiterated by Dutch professor Martin
Schook, who wrote one of the first books on beer, Libre de
cervisiæ (1661), and has the following to say about gruit
beer: ‘but he, having not had scent and taste of this bever-
age, especially of the bog myrtle, then quickly soak it, for
those who are not habituated to it’.22
There are several historic accounts of condensing wort into a
concentrated malt extract to ‘strengthen’ another brew.
There are reasons for this: the malt extract would boost the
ABV, it would boost yeast activity and thus fermentation,
and it could carbonate the brew through secondary fermenta-
tion inside the barrel.23 The medieval British grout is such a
wort additive and was thought to enhance fermentation24 to
produce a heavy beer known in certain regions as White Ale.
Current research indicates Low Country gruit is plausibly
also a malt extract, similar to British grout except it also
includes specific preserving botanicals, as well as the spent
grains.25 The addition of malt extract to a standard wort
would promote vigorous fermentation, explaining the repu-
Figures 2,3 & 4. Bay laurel (Laurus nobilis L.), caraway (Carum carvi L.) and juniper (Juniperus communis L.). Fig. 2: Lobel (1581)
googlebooks; Fig 3 & 4: Dodoens (1644/1554) with permission of www.biolib.de.
12
Journal of the Brewery History Society
tation of gruit as a fermentum, as well as raise the ABV.
This higher ABV would help preserve the beer, but could
also contribute to drunkenness.
Modern research has failed to find elements within bog
myrtle that enhance drunkenness.26 Bog myrtle was used as
a beer additive over an area coinciding with the natural dis-
tribution of the plant. It was probably not a cultivated, but
rather a managed wild-growing resource.27 City accounts
indicate bog myrtle was not wild-harvested by the gruithuis
producers but purchased at local trade centers alongside the
non-native ingredients. It does not seem long-distance trade
in this beer additive occurred.28
The early history of hops
Archaeological finds and written records relating to hops are
a little less clear. Bog myrtle is generally not used for any-
thing else but brewing whereas hops can also be used for
food,29 as a dye stuff,30 as livestock bedding,31 as rope and as
a fibre or yarn to create fabric.32 Generally, the stems and
leaves are used for foodstuffs and fibre, and the cones for
brewing. In traditional Scandinavian brewing, a concentrat-
ed infusion made from hop stalks was used to dye/darken
the beer.33 There also exists an intriguing medieval Musco-
vite mead recipe using hops leaves.34 As these seem to be
isolated occurrences, one can generally assume that when
copious remnants of cones (fruitlets) are found then those
were likely used in a brewing context.
The hop (Humulus lupulus L.) is an inland species, occur-
ring naturally in flood-plain forests and fen woods, as well
as forest edges and man-made habitats like hedges and
buildings. Its natural distribution includes the temperate
regions of Europe, up north into mid-Scandinavia as well as
down south into the Mediterranean region. Like bog myrtle,
hop plants generally flower with male and female flowers on
separate plants. The flowers are shaped as an inflorescence,
and fruit as infructescence, also in a cone shape. Unlike bog
myrtle, hops produce nuts and are generally difficult to ger-
minate. Modern hop plants are cultivated for females that
produce neither fruit nor pollen. It is not possible to distin-
guish between cones from wild plants and from cultivated
stock.35 The cone is made up of protective leaves or petals
(bract) that grow along the central stem (stig) which form
small nooks (bracteoles). The bracteoles contain lupulin
glands that produce yellow sticky globs of essential oils and
resins – concentrated chemical bombs containing about 500
different substances including the bittering agents lupulone
and humulone. Apart from the oils and resins, the hop cone
also contains polyphenols, proteins, cellulose and tannins.36
The typical hop scent comes from its fugitive essential oils
which, combined with the resins, results in fragrant, sticky
hand-picking. Perhaps not coincidentally, harvesting ripe
bog myrtle catkins leaves similar yellow-greenish sticky
marks with a similar scent, reminding the harvester of a
sparkling cold pilsner on a bright sunny terrace.
Several archaeological sites, including some of an early
date, recovered large numbers of cone fragments, plausibly
pointing to their use in brewing. These includes sites such as
6-8th century Develier, Switzerland; 7-9th century Serris-Les
Ruelles, France; 8-9th century Mikulčice, Czech Republic;
Figure 5. Hops as illustrated in Dodoens’ Cruijdeboeck
(1554). With permission of www.biolib.de
13
Brewery History Number 183
the medieval-period finds in Wolin, Poland, and the 13th
century finds in Lübeck, Germany.37 Scandinavian finds of
cone fragments from the Viking Age were found at the 7th
century Royal estate of Järrestad, Scania, Sweden;38 early 8th
century Ribe, Denmark;39 9th century Birka, Sweden; 9-10th
century Hedeby (Haithabu),40 in Schleswig, Germany
(formerly Denmark) and early 11th century Viborg Søndersø,
Denmark.41 Throughout the Viking Age the available culti-
vated plants in southern Scandinavia diversifies, and many
seem to have originated in south and central Europe – in-
cluding the hops.42
Surprisingly, there are also several Viking Age finds of hops
in suspected brewing contexts in Britain. The 10th century
Graveney boat with the significant find of 411 nuts and 136
bracteoles43 is the better known; other sites are the late Sax-
on site of Hungate, York,44 and Viking Age Coppergate,
York.45 The Graveney boat is of a type used for Channel
crossings, and while it is not possible to establish if the hops
were native, or imported, what is important is that hops were
deemed important enough to be traded.46 Medieval sites with
hop finds are common in central Europe as well as to the
west and north, and the number of specimens per site is
often high. The diversity of sites also indicates the use of
hops in the brewing of beer was not restricted to monaster-
ies, as is sometimes thought.47 There are only a few finds
from the Neolithic, pre-Roman Iron Age and Roman period.
As hops are native to these areas it is unlikely these finds
indicate household use of hops. In the Middle Ages a sharp
increase takes place in the number of sites and finds. From
an average number of cone fragments of 1.3 in Roman times
to 209.9 during the early middle ages, this increase points to
intentional use of hops, and that can best be explained by
assuming that hops were now being used in brewing.48
Records indicate hops were grown as a crop in 736 CE in
the garden of a Wendish prisoner at Greisenfeld, in the Hal-
lertau region of Bavaria, Germany.49 During the Middle
Ages, German-speaking Europe used the term ‘Wends’ to
indicate Eastern European West Slavs and South Slavs liv-
ing within the Roman Empire. Corran, in A History of Brew-
ing, believes it might be possible that the cultivation of hops
dispersed when the Slavs reached the Caucasus and moved
into Eastern Europe during the great migration north of peo-
ples after the decline of the Roman Empire.50 Another theo-
ry is that hops were first used in Western Asia and Central
Europe and that the practice then spread westwards.51 Cen-
tral and Eastern European as well as Scandinavian oral tradi-
tions of brewing with hops – in beer and in mead – are prev-
alent and could be ancient. Finland, on the Continental side
of the Scandinavian peninsula, had cultural connections with
Central and Eastern Europe (the Finnish language is part of
the Finnic group of the Uralic family of languages, which
includes Eastern European Estonian and Hungarian). The
Finnish saga, The Kalevala, is dated to the pre-Christian era
with parts from the 11th and 14th century, but was not written
down until the 17th century. It describes the making of beer,
including the use of hops, and the boiling of the liquor. The
folklore and etymology of The Kalevala suggest a timeline
of when the Finns inhabited the Caucasus region,52 suggest-
ing there might be merit to the Central and Eastern European
origin story of brewing with hops. The saga states: ‘The
origin of beer is barley, of the superior drink the hop plant;
Though that is not produced without water or a good hot
fire’.53 The boiling step describes the process of mashing. It
is unlikely the hops were boiled for any length of time be-
cause boiling grain would result in porridge, not mash. As
we will see later, short-term heat would result in low-level
isomerization, which reduces the preserving benefits to the
brew. The saga goes on: ‘ … An Osmo descendant, a brewer
of beer, a maiden, maker of table beers, took some grains [a
measure] of barley, six grains of barley, seven hop pods,
eight dippers of water; then she put the pot on the fire,
brought the liquor to the boil …’ 54
Then, in 768 CE, hops are mentioned in a grant to the Abbey
of St. Denis, near Paris, by Pepin le Bref, the father of Char-
lemagne. Part of the grant consisted of a donation of
‘Humulinarias cum integritate’ lands in the forest of Iveline,
which contain areas known for wild hops. Interestingly,
hops are not mentioned in Charlemagne’s Capitulare de
Villis (ca. 800); not as part of the quite specific directions on
what each domain should plant and produce, and neither in
the descriptions of who was responsible for brewing which
beverages.55 It is not clear if this only means hops were not
yet cultivated as a matter of practice, and that the harvest of
wild hops was enough to sustain demand, or that hops were
not yet used in the brewing of beer in these areas. Large
parts of Charlemagne’s empire would embrace the practice
of the right of gruit, which emphasized the use of bog myr-
tle, and that could explain this omission.
The first dated written reference specifying the use of hops
in brewing comes from 9th century Germany. In 822 CE
Abbot Adalhardus of the French monastery of Corvey (also
known as new Corbie) defined the duties of millers on their
monastic estate, releasing said millers from the gathering of
wood and hops.56
De humlone quoque, postquam ad monasterium venerit, decima
ei portio … detur. Si hoc ei non suffit, ipse … sibi adquirat unde ad
cervisas suas faciendas sufficienter habeat.57
The description indicates that hops were gathered from the
wild, just like fire wood, and that they were used in brewing.
It states that a tithe (a tenth) of each malting was to be given
14
Journal of the Brewery History Society
by the tenants to the porter of the monastery, as well as each
hops harvest, and that in case the amount was insufficient to
cover the needs of the monastery, the porter should take
measures to obtain enough raw material elsewhere. The
Benedictine monks from Hochstift monastery in Freising,
Bavaria (Germany), are generally credited as the first to
cultivate hops. Monastery records for the years 859-875 CE
mention orchards, fields, and humularia, i.e. hop gardens,
alluding to the possibility the hop gardens are cultivated, just
as orchards and fields are.58 Unfortunately, the presence of
hop-gardens is not automatically evidence for the use of
hops in brewing, as hops could be used in different ways,
including medicinally.59 Other monasteries of the same
century also allude to the presence of hop cultivation.
Documents from the French monasteries at St. Remi and
St. Germain, and the Abbey at Lobbes relate to hop duties
levied on the tenants of the monastic lands, implying
intentional cultivation.60
Supporting the late Saxon and Viking Age archaeological
finds in Britain, Anglo-Saxon leechdoms from predominant-
ly the 10th century mention both bog myrtle and hops in
connection with brewing. In regards to hops there is some
confusion as several plants are indicated with ‘hymele’ alt-
hough it is fairly certain ‘hegehymele’ (hedge hops) and
‘humulus femina’ (female hops) indicated hops.61 An old
Irish poem, dating prior to the 12th century, describes Saxon
ale as bitter – whether this indicates the use of hops, or other
bittering agents is not certain.
The Saxon ale of bitterness,
is drank with pleasure about Inber in Rig.62
For unknown reasons, the use of hops did not take hold in
Britain the way it did in Continental Europe. It is possible
the use of hops in Britain was no more than a local phenom-
enon without much national impact.63 The lack of evidence
for the use of hops between the Anglo-Saxon era and the late
middle ages is also found in the English word now used for
hops. The Anglo-Saxon hymele (Old English) is derived
from the Frankish humilo which corresponds to several simi-
lar words in the Germanic languages, including the Middle
Dutch hommel, Old Norwegian humli, and Old Swedish
humbli. Variants of this are still used in modern Scandinavi-
an languages. The other Germanic languages adopted a dif-
ferent word, the Dutch (Low German) hop and (High) Ger-
man Hopfen.64 The English word hop(s) is not found before
the 15th century and is likely a loan word from the Dutch
from when hopped beer was reintroduced by Dutch immi-
grants around the same time. The word hymele is not the
only word related to brewing that disappeared from the Eng-
lish language. The word beor disappeared as well,65 to also
be reintroduced by the Dutch. The English-Latin dictionary
Promptorium parvulorum (1440) speaks of beer as a hopped
beverage, in contrast to ale – a historic example of one of the
now-modern distinctions between hopped beer and un-
hopped ale.
It is not until the 12th century that written proof is found for
hops being used in a brewing context. The previously men-
tioned Abbess Hildegard from Bingen, Germany, also men-
tions the preservative properties of hops in beverages in her
c.1158 CE treatise Physica Sacra.
It is warm and dry, and has a moderate moisture, and is not very
useful in benefiting man, Hops (hoppho) is a hot and dry herb,
with a bit of moisture It is not much use for a human being, since
it causes his melancholy to increase, gives him a sad mind, and
makes his intestines heavy. Nevertheless, its bitterness inhibits
some spoilage in beverages to which it is added, making them
last longer.66
Albertus Magnus mentions the general preservative effects
of hops in beverages as well, and that they cause headaches,
in his 13th century De Vegetabilitus: ‘et conservat a putredi-
ne liquores, quibus inmiscetur, sed gravat caput’.67 Simon
of Genoa's clavis sanationis, a medical dictionary from the
late thirteenth century, describes hops in detail, and men-
tions that the flower is used to brew mead.68
Lupulus est secundum Aben mesue species volubilis et est habens
folia similia foliis vitis asperrima, flos eius est sicut ampule
adherentes simul et ipsa planta serpit in sepibus, a gallis et
theotonicis humulus vocatur cuius florem in medone ponunt.’
Lupulus is according to Aben mesue a species of volubilis
[‘climbing plant’], and it has leaves similar to the leaves of a very
rough vine; its flower is like little flasks [ampulle; here: seed cones]
clinging together, and this plant spreads in the hedges. It is called
humulus by the French [Galli] and the Germans [Theotonici] who
put its flower in mead.69
Until the 13th century, hops and bog myrtle are described as
brewing herbs with comparable functions and apparently
comparable preserving effects. Some brewers preferred the
one, and some preferred the other. This balance tipped in
favour of hops when it became possible to export hopped
beer. Herbal beer commerce was mostly confined to its local
and perhaps regional area as it did not travel well and would
spoil quickly. The improved hopped beer could travel far
and wide without ill effects and could keep for months. This
made exported hopped beer one of the few foodstuffs of the
Middle Ages that could keep for an extended period, which
made it a very valuable commodity. Surprisingly, it would
take until the 13th century for the export of hopped beer to
take off. By this time, hops were widely cultivated in north-
ern Europe. Was it the increase in hop cultivation and the
15
Brewery History Number 183
increased output of hop cones that resulted in the possibility
of commercial export? Or was this increase in cultivation
and output a direct result of an increase in demand, because
hopped beer had become a superior product?
Hopped beer from Bremen, Germany,70 was exported in
large quantities to the Netherlands and Belgium by the 13th
century. Hamburg followed Bremen as a major beer produc-
er and exporter, became the beer town of the Hanseatic
League, and by 1369 boasted 457 hop breweries.71 German
or Prussian beer, hopped beer from Lubeck, Wismar or Dan-
zig, was exported in large quantities to Denmark and Swe-
den and by the 14th century hop beer was common. It is
likely that by the first half of the 13th century the cultivation
of hops had spread to Denmark, to then jump over to
Sweden by the end of that century. 72 By the early 14th
century, brewers in the northern parts of the Netherlands,
recognizing the commercial possibilities, switched over
from gruit beer and began producing hopped beer them-
selves.73 By 1320 several cities in the northern parts of the
Netherlands received the right to produce hopped beer, taxed
under the right-to-gruit system,74 and around the 1360s
Dutch towns started growing hops for local production. In
1429 the monastery of Huize Bethlehem asked of the city of
Roermond to pay gruitgeld in coin instead of brewing gruit beer,
as the nuns ‘now preferred to drink beer brewed with hop’.75
Complaints about the success of hopped beer in continental
Europe start around the beginning of the 14th century; some
100 years later the same sort of comments are to be heard in
Britain.76 By the end of the 14th century the Dutch brewed
hopped beer to compete with German hopped beer. This
Low Countries beer was probably the first foreign hopped
beer to enter Britain at around 1362/63. Once again, the
English brewers did not adopt this new product as enthu-
siastically as the rest of Europe. English beer trade and
production stayed in the hands of immigrants from the Low
Countries for the next century. Caxton, in his 15th century
Boke for Travellers, distinguishes ‘Ale of England, Byre of
Ale-mayne [Germany]’.77 By the beginning of the 16th cen-
tury, an early British beer recipe can be found in Arnold’s
Chronicle dating to 1503: ‘To brewe Beer. X. quarters
malte, ij. quarters wheet, ij. quarters ootes, xl. II'. weight of
hoppys, To make Ix. harellj of sengyll beer’.78 In 1531, hops
were mentioned among various misuses in the royal house-
hold of Henry VIII, and the Royal brewer was instructed
‘not to put any hops or brimstone into the ale’.79 But no
matter how conservative the locals were in regards to their
unhopped ale, by the early part of the 16th century the first
hop plants were cultivated on English soil, most likely in
Kent.80 By 1557 the first instructions for hops cultivation are
found in Tusser’s poetic Husbandry. The first dedicated
publication on hops cultivation is published in 1574 by Re-
ginald Scot, called A Perfite Platform of a Hoppe Garden.
The production of hopped beer followed its export and so
did the cultivation of hops, expanding to the north and west.
Hops itself had become a valuable traded commodity.81
Other botanical beer additives
The archaeological record contains many plants that might
have been used in brewing in a similar way to hops and bog
myrtle, but there is no clear evidence. Several ancient and
medieval herbals and medical manuscripts refer to the me-
dicinal use of botanicals in connection with brewing. With
the introduction of printing in the 16th century, the distribu-
tion of information became commercialized. Ancient botani-
cal writings reappeared in book form, often under a new title
and pretending to be original work.82 The first books written
specifically for brewers were printed in Germany and men-
tion the addition of many botanicals.83 The question arises:
were the botanical additives only added to enhance taste,
add medicinal properties - or did they have other, perhaps
technical, purposes?
The various reasons attributed to the addition of herbs to
beer are myriad, including the tempering of the overly sweet
taste of malt-only beer (to explain why bitter herbs like hops
were added because ‘bitter’ is not a naturally pleasant taste);
enhancing otherwise bland beer when malt does not add
much taste;84 for personal taste preference; for perceived
medical benefits; to make spoiling beer palatable85 and, last
but not the least: for their preserving properties. The answer
probably lies somewhere in between: many of the botanicals
attributed to brewing are aromatic but also have preserva-
tive / medicinal qualities ascribed to them. And many are
aromatic due to their essential oils and resin content, and just
like hops and bog myrtle, it is these essential oils and resins
that have antimicrobial properties.
For instance, areas of northern Germany were part of the
gruit tradition but did not have access to local bog myrtle as
they were beyond its natural distribution range. Marsh rose-
mary was used instead of bog myrtle – often indicated under
the same name of pors.86 Reputedly, the leaves are more
powerful than Labrador tea (Ledum latifolium JACQ.) and
have some narcotic properties. There is a supposedly wide-
spread belief in Sweden that elks in rutting season get intox-
icated and fierce as a result of eating marsh rosemary. Elks
eat bog myrtle and are on occasion observed to eat marsh
rosemary, but quite rarely, and then only in the spring. The
myth could have been inspired by the old tales of the effect
of marsh rosemary, and by association bog myrtle, in beer.87
Marsh rosemary (Ledum palustre L.) is a circumpolar aro-
matic shrub with similar preservative effects to bog myrtle,
16
Journal of the Brewery History Society
and in West Europe is found in swamps and wet places in
northern Germany and Scandinavia. Archaeobotanist Karl-
Ernst Behre in his The History of Beer Additives in Europe,
states that while bog myrtle and hops are used as beer pre-
servatives, the other botanicals – including marsh rosemary
– found in the context of brewing ‘did not act as preserva-
tives.’ This statement contradicts both modern research88 as
well as contemporary accounts. Botanist Tabernaemontanus
mentioned in his Neuw Kreuterbuch (1588):
This art of making beer taste better [by preventing it going sour]
which our beer brewers seem to have learned from the Flemings
and Netherlanders seems still to be carried on, as also the
strengthening of beer with laurel, ivy or Dutch myrtle so that
it stays well preserved and does not rapidly deteriorate or go
sour.89
And 16th century botanist Dodonaeus wrote about marsh
rosemary specifically, and mentions that: “this rosemary is
cooked in the beer; from which it receives a lovely taste, and
preserves it well’.90
Current research indicates marsh rosemary, as well as lau-
rel berries (Laurus nobilis L.),91 juniper (Juniperus com-
munis L.), yarrow (Achillea millefolium L.), mugwort
(Artemisia vulgaris L.),92 broom (Cytisus scoparius L.),
caraway (Carum carvi L.), Iris sp. and pine resin all add
preservative properties to brewing, and they were suppos-
edly often used in combination to boost this effect. Early
written mentions of botanicals used in brewing in Britain
are scarce, although there are a few. Scandinavian brewers
used hops as well as bog myrtle, yarrow and pine resin and
Low Country gruit brewers used a similar combination of
bog myrtle, laurel berries, laserwort and pine resin. Other
botanicals included in Behre’s list of beer ‘flavourings’
include rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.), sage (Salvia
officinalis L.), thyme (Thymus serpyllum L.), oregano
(Origanum vulgare L.) and lavender (Lavandula angustifo-
lia L.)93 - all fragrant herbs used in the kitchen as well as
medicinally for the antioxidant and antimicrobial proper-
ties of their essential oils. Perhaps the use of beer additives
in historic brewing was not solely for ‘a lovely taste,’ per-
haps function also guided the choice of ingredients. When
English botanist Culpepper discusses hops in his 17th cen-
tury publication Complete Herbal he concludes ‘By all
these testimonies [hopped] beer appears to be better than
[unhopped] ale,’ and does not mention flavour, only its
perceived health benefits.94
Figures 6, 7 & 8. Mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris L.), yarrow (Achillea millefolium L.) and marsh rosemary (Ledum palustre L.). Fig. 7
& 8: Dodoens (1554) with permission of www.biolib.de; Fig. 9: Lobel (1581) googlebooks.
17
Brewery History Number 183
An alternate, and intriguing, reason to use botanical addi-
tives in brewing is for intended intoxicating side-effects.
Wormwood (Artemisia absinthium L.) is used to make the
drink absinthe and might be the best known of the toxic
herbal additives. Other, more deadly additives were henbane
(Hyoscyamus niger L.),95 deadly nightshade (Atropa bella-
donna L.), jimsonweed (Datura stramonium L.) and Ana-
mirta cocculus, the source of the medieval cocculus indicus
- all connected to the production of psychotropic beverages.
Where henbane has a prehistoric reputation for hallucinating
brews,96 Cocculus indicus is a more recent historic adultera-
tion. The berry cocculus indicus is the source of picrotoxin,
a poisonous alkaloid with stimulant properties, which
simulated the warming effects of alcohol giving the im-
pression of a heavier beer. Other additives, in this case
fraudulent adulterations, like horseradish, black pepper,
cinnamon and ginger could in a similar fashion create the
illusion of strength, enticing the customer to pay more for
their brew.97 16th century German Tabernaemontanus men-
tioned in his Neuw Kreuterbuch under ‘brewing beer’:
But those who strengthen the beer with seeds or soot, Indian beans
[cocculus indicus] and other similar harmful things should be
scorned or condemned.98
Dutch botanist Dodonaeus of the same era also had a low
opinion of these adulterated brews, and laments on this High
and Low Country (German and Dutch Low Countries) brew-
ing of beer:
[Brewed] with sometimes hops, gentian, laurel berries, zedoar
[Curcuma zedoaria], bog myrtle, Inula sp. root, lavender, sage,
flowers of Horminum or scharley [Horminum pyrenaicum],
Cocculus indicus [Anamirta cocculus] or some of the species of
dimming nightshade [Atropa sp.], Physalis sp., ground pine [Ajuga
chamaepitys] and cooked with other similar herbs: and from this
the beers become so diverse of force, that they should be called
mixed drinks, and not beers.99
Perhaps to counteract brewing with fraudulent, and toxic,
ingredients, beer laws stipulating which ingredients were
allowed in brewing commercial beer came into being. The
most well-known of these beer purity laws is the 1516 Rein-
heitsgebot, instated by Bavarian Duke Wilhelm IV and stip-
ulating that only barley, water and hops could be used to
brew beer,100 but it is not always realized it was preceded by
other purity laws. No less than 248 years earlier, in 1268,
King Louis IX of France passed a beer purity law that stipu-
lated that, in his realm, only malt and hops were to be used
for brewing beer.101 And in 1447, Munich, Germany, instat-
ed their version regulating brewers to only use malt, water
and hops.102 The fraudulent practice of adding psychotropic
botanicals to beer might also account for the dangerous rep-
utation of bog myrtle. As modern research has failed to find
ingredients in bog myrtle that are poisonous,103 perhaps, this
harmful reputation had more to do with negative propaganda
than with factual toxicity.
How hops outcompeted other herbal beers
By now, it should be well established that both hops and bog
myrtle were in use as beer additives throughout the Middle
Ages. In its natural distribution area of the Low Countries
(currently the Netherlands, Belgium, a sliver of northern
Figure 9. Wormwood (Artemisia absinthium L.) as illustrated
by Dodoens (1554). with permission of www.biolib.de
18
Journal of the Brewery History Society
France and northern Germany), as well as Britain and
southern Scandinavia, bog myrtle was often the main addi-
tive to the brewing of beer. During that same time, the rest
of Europe, including eastern Europe and likely beyond,
which was outside bog myrtle’s habitat, commonly used
hops as their main brewing additive. The history of bog
myrtle and hops ran side by side for centuries. This makes it
unlikely hops alone outcompeted bog myrtle, and all other
botanical additives. Something else changed, which is what
we will look at next.
The hop cone bracteoles contain lupulin glands that produce
essential oils and resins - the main source of bittering agents
lupulone and humulone. Humulone is a type of alpha-acid,
one of several produced by hops, and alpha-acids do not
dissolve easily in water. Undissolved alpha-acids do not get
into contact with bacteria very easily and are not very bitter.
Heating the liquid containing the hops makes the water mol-
ecules vibrate faster, causing them to collide with each other
and the alpha-acids, more often and more strongly. This
causes one of the alpha-acid chemical bonds to change an-
gle, creating an iso-alpha acid. In this process of isomeriza-
tion, the alpha acid molecule continues to be composed of
the same atoms, indicated by the same formula, but with a
different molecular shape. The level of isomerization, the
amount of iso-alpha acids, is measured in IBUs. More heat,
and more time, increases the stimulation, causing more of
the alpha acids to become isomerized (a typical one-hour
boil on average only causes about a 30% conversion). Iso-
alpha acids dissolve much more effectively into beer, bring-
ing them into closer contact with spoilage bacteria and thus
significantly enhancing their inhibiting effects.104
Research into prehistoric and early modern brewing indi-
cates pre-hop brewers likely did not boil wort as part of their
brewing process – they brewed ‘raw ale’ which saves time,
resources and can be done with limited equipment.105 During
the mash, the temperatures of the grain infusion would only
be raised high enough for the best temperature for starch
conversion. Once this stage finished the mash is filtered, and
the run-out of the mash, the wort, would be immediately
cooled down to prepare for fermentation, instead of first
boiled and then cooled down. The starch conversion temper-
atures pasteurized the wort and boiling it as well would
generally not be an effective use of resources. Any additives
could be added either during the heating process in the
mash, during the cool-down period in the wort, or in the
fermenting tun.106 Active boiling of the wort requires large
equipment (large kettles were huge investments) and large
amounts of resources (fuel) and why do so if there was no
Figure 10. Brewing beer in wooden vats; illustration from the Historia de Gentibus Septentrionalibus (A Description of the North-
ern Peoples) (1555) by Olaus Magnus. With permission from the Silver Special Collections Library, University of Vermont,
Burlington VT
19
Brewery History Number 183
perceived benefit. After the superior preservative effects of
boiled hops became common knowledge, Eastern European
brewers utilized an ingenious work-around as out of the way
areas did not have easy access to large kettles. Rural brewers
would mash using for instance heated rocks in wooden tuns,
but then also boil a separate concentrated hop tisane in a
smaller cooking vessel. This hop-tea would then be added
back to the wort prior to fermentation.107
By the 13th century, hopped beer became an export product,
even to areas that traditionally used gruit. This strong com-
petition in frontier areas where both beers were available is
visible in the many regulations set forth in historic docu-
ments. From the 14th century onwards, beer brewed with
gruit and bog myrtle was in decline throughout the Low
Countries. Local producers did not give up easily, as the
right to gruit was very profitable to those in possession of it.
By this time many cities had managed to come into posses-
sion of the right to gruit from the local nobility and church-
es, which meant city governments acquired a reliable system
to generate city income by taxing the production of beer – a
very lucrative endeavour indeed.108 Then, in 1364 Bishop
John of Utrecht complained that for the past 30 or 40 years a
new method of brewing had been introduced, with the addi-
tion of a certain plant called humulus or hoppa, and that his
income from gruitgeld had declined drastically as a result.
Nunc autem de novo triginta vel quadraginta annis nondum elapsis
novus modus fermentandi cervisiam, videlicet per appositionem
cujusdam herbæ, qua humulus vel hoppa vocatur, per incolas
in tantum invaluit, ut episcopus Trajectensis in magna parte
emolumenti, quod ex distributione fermenti sibi evenire
conseuverat,diminutionem patiatur.109
As we’ve seen that hops had been used in brewing for centu-
ries, the significance of this passage is not ‘the addition of a
certain plant called humulus’ - what is significant is the
‘novus modus fermentandi.’ This ‘new method of brewing’
with hops, possibly alluding to the discovery of optimal
isomerization and the resulting possibility of export, was a
significant threat to the existing small-scale regional beer
trade. Not wanting anything to interfere with the lucrative
franchise of gruit, at first hopped beer and later hops were
banned from import and sale. This ban was not feasible, and
instead hops was absorbed into the taxation system of gruit,
and gruit taxation itself evolved into excise taxation. Late
medieval city accounts show purchases of hops alongside
the typical gruit ingredients of malt, bog myrtle, laurel ber-
ries, laserwort and pine resin.110
As indicated previously, to hasten the transition to hopped
beers into non-hop areas, rumours were spread that beer
made with bog myrtle was harmful for drinkers; that exces-
sive drinking could lead to blindness and even death.111 One
would assume these rumours came from the area having the
most to gain from the sales of hopped beer in areas other-
wise drinking something else. And indeed, not only did
Germany excel at producing and exporting hopped beer, it
also first fined and then forbade altogether the production of
bog myrtle and other herbal beers.112 In the fine tradition of
propaganda, this smear campaign turned around in Britain,
where hopped beer was introduced a few centuries later to
compete with the local ale. According to Andrew Boorde
(1567) ‘Ale for an englysh man is a natural drynke’ as op-
posed to hopped beer which ‘doth make a man fat, & doth
inflate the bely, as it doth appere by the dutche mens faces &
belyes’.113 In London, Dutch brewers were forcibly prevent-
ed from brewing beer on the grounds it was not fit to drink,
it was poisonous and caused drunkenness. But then, in 1436,
the London sheriffs were informed all brewers of beer
should continue their art as ‘it is a wholesome drink, espe-
cially in summer’.114 The commercial advantage of hopped
beer proved too much for unhopped beer and ale. Hopped
beer, brewed correctly, keeps much longer than unhopped
beers, making it possible for the production of beer to be-
come a professional occupation and the scale of brewing to
increase. Gruit beer and other herbal beers had a relatively
high alcohol content to preserve it for a reasonable amount
of time. This required a larger amount of expensive malted
grain, or the addition of concentrated malt extract, to boost
the level of fermentable sugars. Hop farmer Reginald Scot
proclaimed in his A Perfite Platform of a Hoppe Garden
(1576):
And in the favor of the Hoppe thus much more I say that whereas
you cannot make above eyght or nyne gallons of indifferent Ale, out
of one bushell of Mault, you may draw XVIII or XX gallons of very
good Beere.115
Throughout the Middle Ages, grain shortages were common
in the Low Countries and its scarcity had to be overcome by
increased imports. Because the preservative effects of hops
reduces contamination, the alcohol levels (and thus grain
content) could be lower, making hopped beer more cost-
effective to brew, as well as having significant shelf-life.116
Summary
During the Middle Ages, hopped and other botanical based
beers were brewed side by side. Until the 13th century, bog
myrtle was the prevailing beer additive inside its natural
distribution area, and hops the most common additive be-
yond it.117 Not until strong competition developed between
hopped and native beers in the Late Middle Ages did this
balance between the two types of brewing tip to favour hops.
20
Journal of the Brewery History Society
The embrace, with occasional challenges, of a competing
product previously ignored by regions invested in a different
technique can be explained if the new and improved product
brings something to the table that the native products did
not. For centuries hopped beer existed side by side with
other native beers, because all were functionally compara-
ble. Not until the discovery and development of full isomeri-
zation techniques did this equilibrium change, and hopped
beer rose head and shoulders above its competitors – out-
competing all other herbal beers to the point the existence of
unhopped beers was nearly forgotten.
References
1. Behre, K.-E. (1999) ‘The history of beer additives in Europe - a
review.’ Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. 8, p.44
https://www.academia.edu/17566335/
The_history_of_beer_additives_in_Europe_-_a_review
2. The dictionary description: ‘an authorization granted by a
government or company to an individual or group enabling them
to carry out specified commercial activities’ which adequately
describes the right to gruit.
3. McGovern, P.E. et al (2004) ‘Fermented beverages of pre- and
proto-historic China’, PNAS. http://www.pnas.org/content/101/
51/17593.full.pdf
4. Hornsey, I.S. (2003) A History of Beer and Brewing.
Cambridge: The Royal Society of Chemistry. p.363
https://www.academia.edu/22980855/
A_History_of_Beer_and_Brewing; Dineley, M. (2004) ‘Barley
Malt and Ale in the Neolithic’, British Archaeological Report.
S1213, p.7.
https://www.academia.edu/209786/
Barley_Malt_and_Ale_in_the_Neolithic
5. The author chose to use the medieval definition of beer and ale
throughout this paper, in which beer indicates hopped and non-
hopped Continental malt beverages, and ale indicates the British
non-hopped malt beverage.
6. Behre, K.-E. (1999) op. cit. p.36.
7. ibid., p.36.
8. ibid.
9. ibid.
10. ibid., p.39.
11. Cockayne, T.O. (1864-6) Leechdoms, Wortcunning, and
Starcraft of Early England: Being a Collection of Documents, for
the Most Part Never Before Printed, Illustrating the History of
Science in this Country Before the Norman Conquest. Vol. I (1864).
London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts, and Green, p.265-6
https://books.google.com/books?id=s8tdBaajK_wC&source
=gbs_navlinks_s Vol. III (1866): Longman & Company https://
books.google.com/books?id=UNU9AAAAcAAJ: ‘A light drink;
take gagel, or sweet gale, boil it in wort of beer, then let it stand a
little, remove the gagel, then add new yeast, then wrap it up that it
may rise well, then add helenium, and wormwood, and betony, and
marche, and ontre; give the man this to drink.’
12. Berendes in Goslar, J. (1896 & 7) Die Physica der heiligen
Hildegard. pp.62-63 https://publikationsserver.tu-braunschweig.de/
receive/dbbs_mods_00036485
13. Throop did not provide modern identifications for the
botanicals listed in her translation Hildegard von Bingen's Physica:
The Complete English Translation of Her Classic Work on Health
and Healing (1998). 19th century pharmaceutical historian Julius
von Berendes did and provides Myrtle communis in his publication
Die Physica der heiligen Hildegard (1896 & 7) pp.62-63: https://
publikationsserver.tu-braunschweig.de/servlets/
MCRFileNodeServlet/dbbs_derivate_00015880/gesamtwerk.pdf He
identified Mirtelbaum as Myrtle communis, the common or true
myrtle, a fragrant small tree native to the Mediterranean region,
which is also the common modern German definition. True myrtle
is comparable to the bay laurel, of which the leaves are used in
cooking (bay leaves), and the berries in brewing (laurel berries).
This makes Hildegards’ description plausible for both true myrtle
and bog myrtle. But as Mirtelbaum is listed as a local alternate for
bog myrtle (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gagelstrauch) and the
treatise does not contain an alternate entry for bog myrtle, it stands
to reason Hildegard meant bog myrtle in her treatise.
14. Hofsten, N. von (1960) Pors och andra humleersättningar och
ölkryddor i äldre tider (Summary) Bog myrtle '(Myrica gale)' and
other substitutes for hops in former times. Acta Academiae Regiae
Gustavi Adolphi, 36. Uppsala: A.-B. Lundequist i distr. Kbh.: Ejnar
Munksgaard; Nordland, O. (1969) Brewing and Beer Traditions in
Norway. Oslo: Universitesforlaget. p.216.
15. Nordland O. (1969) op. cit., p.216; Sloth, P.R. Hansen, U.L.
& Karg, S. (2012) ‘Viking Age garden plants from southern
Scandinavia – diversity, taphonomy and cultural aspects,’ Danish
Journal of Archaeology. 1:1, p.28.
16. Verberg, S. (2018) ‘The Rise and Fall of Gruit,’ Brewery His-
tory. 174, p.60.
17. Technically, the different grout houses are not competitors as
they are legally not allowed to sell in each other’s territories.
18. Anise and caraway are of the same family as laserwort; juniper
is a well-known source of resin.
19. Jappe Alberts, W. (1951) ‘Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis der
accijnzen te Arnhem in de Middeleeuwen,’ Tijdschrift voor geschie-
denis. p.338.
20. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=rbc3&fileName=
rbc0001_2008rosen0080page.db&recNum=282
21. Lobel, M. de (L’Obel; Lobelius) (1581) Kruydtboeck oft
beschryvinghe van allerleye ghewassen, kruyderen, hesteren, ende
gheboomten. Christoffel Plantyn. (1st ed. 1551) https://
books.google.com/books?id=77Z0c6tG6B8C; Meussdoerffer, F.G.
(2009) ‘A Comprehensive History of Beer Brewing’ in Eßlinger,
H.M. (ed.) Handbook of Brewing: Process, Technology, Markets.
Weinheim: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. p.12; Verberg, S.
(2018) op. cit., p.62.
22. Schookius, M. (Schook) Libre de cervisiae (1661) p.216;
21
Brewery History Number 183
Verberg, S. (2018) op. cit., p.62.
23. Verberg, S. (2018) op. cit., pp.58-59 Nimweegse Mol is an
example of 16th century Dutch barrel-carbonated beer through the
addition of malt extract naerbier just before barreling.
24. Karkeek, P.Q. (1877) ‘White Ale’, Reports and Transactions
of the Devonshire Association for the Advancement of Science,
Literature and Art. Vol. IX. Plymouth: W. Brendon & Son. p.188.
https://archive.org/details/reportandtransa19artgoog/page/n5/
mode/2up; Verberg, S. (2018) op. cit. pp.50-51.
25. There is no record of British grout including botanicals;
Verberg, S. (2018) op. cit. pp.52-53.
26. Behre, K.-E. (1999) op. cit. p.43.
27. Sloth, P.R et al (2012) op. cit. p.28.
28. Behre, K.-E. (1999) op. cit. p.39.
29. Hop shoots were known in Sweden as ‘poor man’s asparagus’
and were eaten like asparagus in the Low Countries. Dewes (1578)
p.431: ‘For the same purpose serueth the young springes and tender
croppes, at their first comming foorth of the grounde in Marche and
Aprill, to be eaten in Salade.’ See ‘The World’s Most Expensive
Vegetable’ (2012) at https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/
the-worlds-most-expensive-vegetable-72826862/ for modern
consumption of hop shoots.
30. Wilson, D.G. (1975) ‘Plant Remains from the Graveney boat
and the early history of Humulus lupulus L. in W. Europe’, New
Phytology. 75, p.638: the leaves and cones yield a yellow dye.
31. ibid., p.637.
32. Like hemp and nettles (both fiber crops), hops is part of the
Cannabaceae family; Wilson, D.G (1975) op. cit. p.634:
Macrofossils of H. lupulus are not easily confused with those of
Cannabis sativa L. Unfortunately, pollen is very similar to hemp,
complicating conclusive archaeological identification.
33. Nordland, O. (1969) op. cit. pp.205-227.
34. Suggs, M. (2018): https://mishabrews.com/2018/06/17/brew-
day-june-2018-hopleaf-mead/ As part of the Venetian Embassy to
the Shah of Iran from 1472-1475, Ambrosio Contarini visited
Moscow for about six months. The following entry was found in
their travelogue: ‘They have no wine of any kind, but drink a
beverage made of honey and the leaves of the hop, which is
certainly not a bad drink, especially when aged.’
35. Behre, K.-E. (1999) op. cit. p.39.
36. http://www.brianstechschulte.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/
08/Hop-Anatomy-BS.jpg
37. Behre, K.-E. (1999) op. cit. pp.39-40.
38. Sloth, P.R et al (2012) op. cit. p.31.
39. ibid.
40. Behre, K.-E. (1999) op. cit. p.40; Meussdoerffer, F.G. (2009)
op. cit. p.11; Sloth, P.R. et al. (2012) op. cit. p.29; Wilson, D.G
(1975) op. cit. p.637.
41. Sloth, P.R. et al. (2012) op. cit. p.29.
42. ibid. p.33
43. Behre, K.-E. (1999) op. cit. p. 40; Meussdoerffer, F.G. (2009)
op. cit. p.11; Wilson, D.G (1975) op. cit.
Processing, Distribution and Consumption. Ely: Anglo-Saxon
Books, p.206; Wilson, D.G (1975) op. cit. p.637.
45. Hagen, A. (2010) op. cit. p.206.
46. Cockayne, T.O. (1864-6) op. cit. p.393; Hagen, A. (2010) op.
cit. p.206.
47. Behre, K.-E. (1999) op. cit. p.41; Hornsey, I.S. (2003) op. cit.
p.307; Meussdoerffer, F.G. (2009) op. cit. p.11.
48. Behre, K.-E. (1999) op. cit. pp.39-41.
49. Hornsey, I.S. (2003) op. cit. p.304.
50. Corran, H.S (1975) A History of Brewing. Newton Abbot:
David and Charles. p.42
51. Hornsey, I.S. (2003) op. cit. pp.306-7.
52. Wilson, D.G (1975) op. cit. p.640: The beer-words and
intoxication-words used are linked with hop-words in Old Slavic,
Estonian, Lettic, Finnish etc and not to the Germanic or Romance
languages, but as the Kalevala was not written down until the 17th
century, Wilson is not convinced the connection is conclusive. He
goes on to say: ‘If hopped beer was known at this time, trade links
between the Roman world, Denmark and the Baltic, and C. Europe,
including Bohemia and Hungary would have enabled the knowledge
to spread throughout Europe.’
53. Hornsey, I.S. (2003) op. cit. p.304.
54. ibid.
55. ibid. pp.304-5.
56. Behre, K.-E. (1999) op. cit. p.42; Hornsey, I.S. (2003) op. cit.
p.305; Meussdoerffer, F.G. (2009) op. cit. p.11.
57. Hornsey, I.S. (2003) op. cit. p.305.
58. Behre, K.-E. (1999) op. cit. p.42; Hornsey, I.S. (2003) op. cit.
p.307; Wilson, D.G (1975) op. cit. p.644.
59. Cockayne, T.O. (1864-6) op. cit. p.50; The following 10th
century medicinal salve recipe includes several brewing related
plants: ‘This is the green salve ; betony, rue, lovage, fennel, sage,
stitchwort, savine, tansy, roots of comfrey, sclarea, marche, chervil,
ravens foot, mugwort, origanum, orache, cinqfoil, valerian, burdock,
meadwort [meadowsweet], pennyroyal, pimpernel, turnsol, bishop-
wort, hazel, quince, hedgecliver, groundsel, brookmint, and other
mints, chicken meat, sweet gale, hedge hop plant, costmary
[alecost], earth navel or asparagus, nut beams leaves, laurel berries,
cumin, oil, wax.’
60. Behre, K.-E. (1999) op. cit. p.42; Hornsey, I.S. (2003) op. cit.
p.305.
61. Cockayne, T.O. (1864-6) op. cit. p.392-93.
62. Arnold, J.P. (1911) [2005] Origin and History of Beer and
Brewing. Cleveland, Ohio: Beer Books.p.371
63. Wilson, D.G (1975) op. cit. p.645
64. http://www.simonofgenoa.org/index.php?title=Lupulus
65. Arnold, J.P. (1911) [2005] op. cit. p.373.
66. Throop, P. (1998) Hildegard von Bingen's Physica: The
Complete English Translation of Her Classic Work on Health and
Healing. New York: Simon and Schuster.
67. Saint Albertus (Magnus) Alberti Magni ex ordine praedicato-
rum de vegetabilibus libri VII. G. Reimeri (1867) pp.525-526:
44. Hagen, A. (2010) Anglo-Saxon Food and Drink: Production, https://books.google.com/books?id=euAHAAAAIAAJ
22
Journal of the Brewery History Society
&source=gbs_navlinks_s
68. Central Europe as well as Scandinavia have long-standing
traditions of brewing mead with hops, but a surprising lack of
written evidence. The following publications mention mead recipes
including hops: Historia de Gentibus Septentrionalibus (1555) (The
History of the Northern People), Le Thresor de santé (1607), the
Danish Koge Bog (1616) and the anonymous Domostroi (1600-
1625): Rules for Russian Households in the Time of Ivan the
Terrible.
69. http://www.simonofgenoa.org/index.php?title=Lupulus
70. Behre, K.-E. (1999) op. cit. p.42; Meussdoerffer, F.G. (2009)
op. cit. p.16: beer from Bremen is mentioned in the Netherlands in
the provinces of Holland in 1252 and in the city of Groningen in
1278.
71. Behre, K.-E. (1999) op. cit. p.42; Meussdoerffer, F.G. (2009)
op. cit. p.16.
72. Hornsey, I.S. (2003) op. cit. p.307; Nordland O. (1969) op. cit.,
p.203.
73. Hornsey, I.S. (2003) op. cit. pp.359-60: ‘The difficulties
experienced by brewers wishing to utilise hops in Holland must
have been quite marked, however, for, not only did Dutch brewers
leave their native land to ply their trade in Hamburg but, in other
locations in Europe as well [...] and it becomes unsurprising that
they sought pastures new, thus helping to disseminate the
technology associated with brewing beer.’
74. Verberg, S. (2018) op. cit., p.57: ‘The Dutch [provinces of
Holland] production of hopped beer was permitted from 1321 and by
1322 Dordrecht brewed hopped beer called ael. Delft was brewing
hopped beer by 1326 and Haarlem by 1327 all three northern cities
went on to have great brewing and trading traditions.’
75. ibid. p.57.
76. Hornsey, I.S. (2003) op. cit. p.306.
77. Way, A. (1843) Promptorium pravulorum sive clericorum:
dictionarius anglo-latinus princeps, Vol. 1. sumptibus Societatis
camdenensis. https://books.google.com/books?
id=G_DgAAAAMAAJ p.245.
78. Richard Arnold (1503) The Customs of London, otherwise
called Arnold’s Chronicle (To brew beer: 10 quarters of malt, 2
quarters of wheat, and 2 quarters of oats, with 40 pounds of hops.
To make 60 barrels of single beer). https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/
pt?id=gri.ark:/13960/t8sb6k294;view=1up;seq=349
79. Way, A. (1843) op. cit. p.245: A similar quote mentioned that
the ‘the wicked weed called hops’ was forbidden by Henry VI but
Way found no record of the prohibition, the petition does not appear
on the Rolls of Parliament.
80. Cornell, M. (2009): http://zythophile.co.uk/2009/11/20/a-short-
history-of-hops/; Way, A. (1843) op. cit. p.245: Bullein, in the
‘Bulwarke of defence,’ (ca. 1550) speaks of hops as growing in
Suffolk. Hops are mentioned in statutes 5 and 6 by Edward VI,
1552, as cultivated in England.
81. Behre, K.-E. (1999) op. cit. p.42.
82. Wilson, D.G (1975) op. cit. p.638.
83. Behre, K.-E. (1999) op. cit. p.43.
84. ibid. p.35: ‘Starch, however, does not have much taste, so
additional flavouring agents are necessary to improve the quality
and taste of beer.’
85. De Vreese, W. (1894) Middelnederlandsche geneeskundige
recepten en tractaten, zegeningen en tooverformules: ‘For to make
beer, that went bad, better and taste like herlantsbier, take powder
of bay[berries], powder of juniper, powder of bog myrtle seeds, and
powder of the nuts of nutmegs. Do this in the barrel or the pitcher,
let stand 1 night.’
86. ibid. p.61: ‘In Western Germany gagel ordinarily meant marsh
rosemary but could also refer bog myrtle, and in Germany and
Scandinavia pors ordinarily meant marsh rosemary but could also
refer to bog myrtle. This made identification rather confusing, until
their habitats are checked: the two plants mostly grow in exclusive
habitats.’
87. Von Hofsten, N. (1960) Pors och andra humleersättningar och
ölkryddor i äldre tider (Summary) Bog myrtle '(Myrica gale)' and
other substitutes for hops in former times. Acta Academiae Regiae
Gustavi Adolphi, 36. Uppsala: A.-B. Lundequist i distr. Kbh.: Ejnar
Munksgaard. p.216.
88. Cursory internet queries confirm the antimicrobial effects of
these and many of the botanicals mentioned by name by Behre.
89. Hornsey, I.S. (2003) op. cit. pp.357-58.
90. De Vreese, W. (1894) op. cit. p.62.
91. The use of bayberries (the berries of the bay laurel) was not
restricted to Continental Europe, Britain also was familiar with this
now forgotten brewing additive: ‘Two amusing notes are of the
rainy season of 1563, which caused such a dearth of hops that beer
was brewed with broom (Cytisus scoparius L.) and bay-berries, and
of the abundance of fruit in the following summer.’ Stow, John
(1910) A Brief London Chronicle: 1547-1564. Camden Miscellany
Vol XII. Reprint of the 1564 ed. Edited by Charles Lethbridge
Kingsford. London: Royal Historical Society. https://archive.org/
details/twolondonchronic00stowrich/page/n0 as well as ‘she addeth
to her brackwoort or charwoort half an ounce of arras [orris or Iris
root], and half a quarter of an ounce of bayberries, finely powdered,
and then, putting the same into her woort,’ in William Harrison
(1577) Description of Elizabethan England.
92. Dodoens, R. (Dodonaeus) (1554) Cruijdeboek.
https://leesmaar.nl/cruijdeboeck/index.htm p.20: ‘Byvoet es oock
van dijer cracht dat zy bier daer zy in ghehanghen oft gheworpen
wordt bewaert dattet niet lichtelijcken suer en wordt.’ Mugwort is
also of such strength that it suspended or thrown in beer prevents
that it does not somewhat sours; Dewes (1578), p.17: ‘mugworte. If
it be hanged or cast into barrels or hoggesheads of Bier, it will
preserue the same from sowring.’
93. Behre, K.-E. (1999) op. cit. p.42.
94. http://www.complete-herbal.com/culpepper/hops.htm; the
health benefits mentioned include the curing of various skin
diseases (due to its antimicrobial effect) and the killing of intestinal
worms (pesticide). This function as a pesticide is also found for bog
myrtle, marsh rosemary and other botanicals with preserving
effects.
23
Brewery History Number 183
95. Dewes (1578), p.451: ‘The leaues, seede, and iuyce of
Henbane, but especially of the blacke kinde, the which is very
common in this Countrie, taken either alone or with wine, causeth
raging, and long sleepe, almost like unto dronkenesse, which
remayneth a long space, and afterwarde killeth the partie.’
96. Dineley, M. (2004) op. cit. http://merryn.dineley.com/2014/05/
controversy-in-grooved-ware-bucket.html
97. https://beerandbrewing.com/dictionary/qNVpX9ISBa/
98. Hornsey, I.S. (2003) op. cit. p.358.
99. Dodonaeus, R. (1644) p.815, 2nd column, top; also found in
Lobel (1581) p.42.
100. Corran, H.S (1975) op. cit. p.47; https://beerandbrewing.com/
dictionary/7SMpZlapQl/
101. https://beerandbrewing.com/dictionary/pWIUh7fyhy/
102. Corran, H.S (1975) op. cit. p.47: again in 1487 for Munich,
and in 1493 for the Landsheit area; https://beerandbrewing.com/
dictionary/JE21QkzMmR/
103. Behre, K.-E. (1999) op. cit. p.43.
104. Garshol, L.M. (2015): http://www.garshol.priv.no/
blog/337.html
105. Dineley, M. (2004) op. cit.: ‘ancient style ales, when the wort
is not boiled, a raw ale.’ http://merryn.dineley.com/2018/03/
mashing-and-bit-on-fermentation.html More on traditional
Scandinavian raw ale, regarded as a living-history example of
ancient brewing techniques: Laitinen, M. (2019) Viking Age Brew:
The Craft of Brewing Sahti Farmhouse Ale. Chicago, IL: Chicago
Review Press; Nordland, O. (1969) op. cit. pp.190-94 and Garshol,
L.M. (2015): http://www.garshol.priv.no/blog/331.html
106. Cornell, M. (2009): http://zythophile.co.uk/2009/11/20/a-
short-history-of-hops/
107. Laitinen, M. (2019) op. cit.; Nordland, O. (1969) op. cit.
pp.226-27.
108. Unger, R.W. (2004) Beer in the Middle Ages and the Renais-
sance. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; p.197: The
income from the taxation of beer could be more than 50% of the
total tax income for towns and cities, even up to 88.5% for 1437-
1438 in Haarlem, the Netherlands.
109. Corran, H.S (1975) op. cit. p. 44; Verberg (2018) pp.56/74:
‘But now, these past 30 or 40 years, a new method of fermenting
beer has been found. By the addition of certain plants or the
humulus or hop as called by the natives, [the beer] is much stronger
and it diminishes [the income] of the bishop of Utrecht, a big
recipient of the benefit and distributor of gruit, and the result
conserves [the beer] and diminishes things [i.e gruit].’
110. Verberg, S. (2018) op. cit., p.60.
111. Behre, K.-E. (1999) op. cit. p.43; Hornsey, I.S. (2003) op. cit.
p.260.
112. Hornsey, I.S. (2003) op. cit. p.361: ‘In some parts of Europe,
notably Germany, pro-active measures were taken with a view to
ensuring the universal popularity of the hop. Provincial laws in
Bavaria, of 1553 and 1616, imposed severe penalties on anyone
brewing ale with herbs and seeds not normally used for ale. Similar
laws were passed in Holstein, one of which, in 1623, specifically
banned the use of Post (bog myrtle) and other “unhealthy material”,
whilst as late as 1723, the laws of Brunswick-Luneburg prohibited
the brewer from having Post, or other potent herbs, in his brewery.’
113. Andrewe Boorde (1567) A compendyous regyment or a dye-
tary of healthe https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/
A16471.0001.001/1:12.3?rgn=div2;view=fulltext ‘Bere is made of
malte, of hoppes, and wa|ter, it is a naturall drynke for a dutche
man. And nowe of late dayes it is moche vsed in Englande to the
detrime¯t of many englysshe me¯, specially it kylleth the¯ the
which be trou¦bled with the colyke & the stone & the stra¯gu|lyon,
for the drynke is a colde drynke: yet it doth make a man fat, & doth
inflate the bely, as it doth appere by the dutche mens faces & belyes.
If the bere be wel brude and fyned, it dothe qualyfye the heate of the
iyuer.’ Verberg, S. (2018) op. cit., p.57: ‘This point of view changed
swiftly and within a century their own ale was seen as an unmanly
drink, fit only for women and the sick’; Wubs-Mrozewicz, J. (2005)
‘Hopped Beer as an Innovation’ in Brand, H. (ed.) Trade, diplomacy
and cultural exchange. Continuity and change in the North Sea area
and the Baltic c.1350-1750. Hilversum: Uitgeverij Verloren.
https://www.academia.edu/3388347/_Hopped_beer_as
_an_innovation._The_Bergen_beer_market_around_1200-
1600_in_the_European_context_in_H._Brand_ed._Trade_Diplomac
y_and_Cultural_Exchange_2005_pp._152-168 pp.155-6.
114. Corran, H.S (1975) op. cit. p.44.
115. ibid. p.45; Scot, R. (1576) A perfite platforme of a hoppe
garden: and necessarie instructions for the making and
mayntenaunce thereof: with notes and rules for reformation of all
abuses, commonly practised therein, very necessarie and expedient
for all men to haue, which in any wise haue to doe with hops.
London: Henrie Denham (first edition 1574)
https://www.loc.gov/item/2004574086/
116. Verberg, S. (2018) op. cit., p.56; Wubs-Mrozewicz, J. (2005)
op. cit. pp.155-6, 167.
117. Behre, K.-E. (1999) op. cit. p.44.
