Yes indeed. And not an acrospire in sight! Thought there might be more
response than this. It is, indeed, quite tricky to spot the malt from
the not malt, even with modern samples.
The maltster has several non visual techniques. One is to taste a grain,
if it is slightly sweet then it has been malted. Another is to rub a
grain against a wall and if it leaves a chalky mark, it is malt.
Nice story: itinerent maltsters in Britain during the the Middle Ages
had quite a bad reputation. They would sell unmalted grain as malt and
would have left town before the brewer realised it was not, in fact,
malted and so useless for making ale! So regulations were put in place
by Edward VI stipulating the time required for steeping, malting and
drying. (Stopes, H. Malt and Malting 1885).
Merryn
Stefanie Jacomet wrote:
> B ist the malt!? S.
>
> Prof. Dr. Stefanie Jacomet
> IPNA / IPAS
> Institute of Prehistory and Archaeological Science
> Dept. of Environmental Sciences
> Basel University
> Spalenring 145
> CH-4055 Basel
> http://pages.unibas.ch/arch/
> [log in to unmask]
> +41 61 201 02 11
>
> private:
> Dorfstrasse 50
> CH-4452 Itingen
> Switzerland
> mobile +41 79 322 39 17
>
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: The archaeobotany mailing list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Im Auftrag von Merryn Dineley
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 17. April 2008 21:29
> An: [log in to unmask]
> Betreff: Spot the malt
>
> Identification of malting is difficult. The acrospire is very
delicate and rarely survives kilning. I would be surprised if it
survived cabonisation.
>
> See attached pictures. Which is the malt?
>
> Merryn
>
> Nicholson, K.E. wrote:
>
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestions, but malting doesn't seem to quite fit with
>
>
> this assemblage.
>
>> The sample is dominated by grain with very little chaff (some glume
>
>
> bases are present) and very few weeds. The grains are well developed
> and show no signs of germination. The detached items I'm finding are
> embryos rather than developed sprouts/coleoptiles. Any alternative
> suggestions would be welcome!
>
>> The context is the lower fill of an early Iron Age pit, and there is
>
>
> some suggestion that the grain might have been cointained in a ceramic
> vessel, though we're working with old (1970s) site records that are not
> entirely clear on this point.
>
>> Kate Nichoson
>>
>> PhD Candidate,
>> Dept. of Archaeology and Ancient History
>> University of Leicester
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Merryn Dineley [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: 16 April 2008 22:15
>> To: The archaeobotany mailing list; Nicholson, K.E.
>> Subject: Re:
>>
>> Probably indicative of malted grain.
>>
>> What is the context?
>> Merryn
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Kate,
>>
>> An assemblage with a high proportion of detached embryos and
>
>
> hulled wheat glumes can be malting waste from the rubbing of sprouted
> grain after drying and before rough milling. Roman corndriers sometimes
> contain sprouts and spelt glumes as at the Bancroft Villa, Milton
> Keynes. You should however have a few sprouted and somewhat depleted
> looking grains in your assemblage if this is the case.
>
>> Best wishes,
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> Nicholson, K.E. wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>> Does anyone know the significance (if any) of large numbers of
>>> detached embryos in an assemblage of carbonised emmer wheat?
>>> Kate Nicholson
>>
>>
>>
>
>
|