>A note on grain hardness and particle size, pearling and published caloric
>values:
>
>- grain hardness in wheat is controlled by specific types of protein which
>determine how the cells of the endosperm "stick" together. If the protein
>group is absent, as in many tetraploid wheats, the cells stick together and
>the cell walls tend not to shatter when exposed to pressure as in milling or
>grinding. Thus the grain tends to fall apart in chunks and little of the
>cell contents are released. If the protein is present, the cell walls don't
>stick and they shear apart upon pressure, so that small starchy particles of
>shattered cell contents are easily produced. This produces a finer flour.
>These different grain textures, at least in the extremes of very hard
>compared to very soft, would affect density of flour. Barley has similar
>proteins but they are not so extreme in their effects. Thus barley is a soft
>grain and has much less variation in texture compared to wheat. So grain
>texture may not be a key issue for barley flour quality.
>
>- pearling: is a modern process in which the bran as well as the hull has
>been removed from barley grain. In ancient times the hull would have been
>removed or largely removed for human food and the technology available
>(abrasion by pounding or by shearing action of grinding stones) would have
>been imprecise, removing some part of the bran and abrading the grain. So
>grain shape would have been somewhat altered, especially the finer more
>fragile tips of the grain. Variable amounts of the outer layers of the
>barley grain and its hull would have been removed. An interesting area to
>apply some experimental research.
>
>- caloric values: depend on the proportions of fat, protein, carbohydrate
>and inorganic (mineral) constituents of a foodstuff. In food plants these
>components vary according to genetic make-up and environmental variables.
>One would therefore expect a range of caloric values to be produced.
>Although we can make some guesses about environmental variables in ancient
>farming, we don't know which crop varieties were grown - many are probably
>now extinct - and so we will never know exact caloric values of cereals (and
>other commodities) for the ancient world. But should anyone undertake the
>requisite research, we could measure the ranges of modern unimproved
>varieties grown under different conditions to make some estimates about
>ranges of caloric values. Meanwhile judicious estimates based on available
>sources are a good start.
>
>Best wishes,
>Delwen
>
>On 3/20/07, Sabine Beckmann <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>  Dear all,
>>
>> first for the fertilizer: I'm working with some ethnographic data gathered
>> from Cretan mountain farmer/shepherds of the 'just before industrial era'
>> times (i.e. till the fifties). They had usually some 35-50 animals (mixed
>> sheep/goats), possibly sharing a cow (not an ox - for ploughing!) and a
>> donkey with several families. After the harvest of the (in the mountains
>> mainly barley) fields they would let their animals go eat what was left for
>> a while per day. The dung falling was minimal and never really qualified as
>> fertilizer. Other kinds of fertilizing were not practiced. Travellers in
>> Crete in the 19th century (e.g. Siebers) describe similar situations.
>> So may be this shows another of the relative problems with that subject.
>> By the way the fifties farmer/shepherds say barley often (because of the
>> lack of fertilizer and sometimes even water) didn't grow higher than 25cm.
>>
>> As for flour: In Crete a well known traditional bread (or rather biscuit,
>> as its twice baked and hard/dry), 'dako' (elsewhere also called paximadi,
>> or, if its in a round shape, kouloures) is made from hulled, roughly milled
>> barley (that's visible on the bread, too). Thus it is specified
>> as 'kritharenio'.
>> Stephen, I'm sure you can find that in Athens, too, may be even the flour
>> needed for it - otherwise: I can send you some from Crete, but you're also
>> welcome to pass by and use my mill - I even have a grinding stone if you
>> want to try! :-))
>> As for the caloric data: It seems that different Internet sites give
>> different numbers, so I had lost my trust in that...
>>
>> Sabine
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* John (Mac) Marston <[log in to unmask]>
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 19, 2007 6:05 PM
>> *Subject:* more on barley and barley-flour
>>
>> A reply from Stephen on the topic:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> First off, thank you all for your e-mails on this topic.  They are
>> much appreciated.  The question I have posed has brought up a lot
>> of suggestions and questions, and I e-mail again to provide more
>> context for my original question, which I think will add more focus
>> to the discussion, and clear up a few things.
>>
>> 1.  As to Sabine's suggestion, that I buy barley and barley-flour
>> from a health food store, and measure them by volume to come up
>> with the figures I am looking for, this won't work for a couple of
>> reasons.  Firstly, there is no way of knowing if the sample of
>> barley-flour we are measuring was milled from the same barley that
>> the sample of barley grains we are measuring comes from.  Secondly,
>> and more importantly, barley-flour today is most often milled from
>> barley grains that have been pearled before the milling process,
>> whereas in, classical antiquity, barley grains were not pearled
>> before milling.
>>
>> 2.  As for Sabine's question on the amount of grain needed for human
>> caloric requirements, the caloric content of grains can easily be
>> found on www.fao.org/infoods/.  In the list of contents on the left
>> of the screen, go to 'tables and databases' for a directory of
>> international food composition tables, and all the information you
>> need can be found there.
>>
>> 3.  As I indicated in my first message, there are quite a few
>> figures for rations, mostly for soldiers and sailors, but sometimes
>> also for 'civilians', in classical antiquity (see H. Forbes and L.
>> Foxhall, 'Sitometreia:  The Role of Grain as a Staple Food in
>> Classical Antiquity', Chiron 12 (1982):  41-90, 86-89, for these).
>> They seem to indicate that one choinix (1.087 liters) of wheat or 2
>> choinikes (2.174 liters) of barley-flour was a relatively standard
>> daily ration in the Classical and Hellenistic periods.  There is
>> some controversy about this amongst ancient historians, since most
>> scholars follow Foxhall and Forbes in thinking that 2 liters or so
>> of barley-flour would provide far too many calories for an active
>> male, but others (including myself) believe that the many mentions
>> of this figure in the literary and epigraphical sources must bear
>> some weight.  This is why it is crucial to find out the
>> relationship for weights of volume of barley and barley-flour, even
>> if, as Delwen rightly says, this is a question fraught with
>> difficulties (and this is even before one gets into the question of
>> extraction rates).  (While we're on subject of rations, I had read
>> those articles that a google search of Mesopotamian barley rations
>> throws up, but unfortunately none of them have anything to say
>> about barley-flour.)
>>
>> 4.  This discussion has confirmed me in my opinion (and Mac's, if I
>> may so) that I will have to determine this question experimentally.
>>  I think Delwen's suggestion that approaching this problem by
>> contacting a specialist miller who stone mills barley flour is an
>> excellent one.  As Mac noted in his first e-mail, I am in Athens at
>> the moment and will hopefully have a decent chance of contacting
>> such a miller.  If not, Sabine, would you mind if I flew down to
>> Crete and ground some barley grains with you?
>>
>> Again, thank you all for taking the time to write on this topic, and
>> for your many suggestions, all of which have been extremely helpful
>> and thought-provoking.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Stephen.
>>
>>  Mac Marston
>>
>> Cotsen Institute of Archaeology
>>
>> University of California, Los Angeles
>>
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>> C: (310) 923-0640
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.14/727 - Release Date:
>> 19.03.2007 11:49
>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>
>*******************************************************
>              [log in to unmask]
>*******************************************************
>