Rum Historian by Marco Pierini
Fermentation, Distillation, and Rum
in Premodern India Part 3
In the World of Rum, there is a story about India, which is very different from what I have been telling you in my two previous articles, a story according to which alcoholic distillation existed in India centuries, maybe even millennia, earlier than in the West. McHugh dedicates a whole essay – “Too Big To Fail” – to refute it, and he starts, yet again, from the real meanings of words.
“Let us start with how dictionaries contribute to the notion that there was ancient distillation. In his Sanskrit-English Dictionary, composed in the late nineteenth century, Monier Williams translates madya as ‘spiritous liquor, wine’ and he translates a term meaning ‘a jar for madya’ as ‘a vessel for intoxicating liquors, brandy jar’. Another important dictionary, that of Apte (1892), also translates madya as ‘spiritous liquor, wine, any intoxicating drink’. Apte even foregrounds the term ‘spirituous’. These are both excellent dictionaries, and thus some readers and translators of Sanskrit texts might well think words such as surā in text from all times and in all places refer to distilled drinks. Why did these scholars translate Sanskrit with English words that suggest distilled drinks? Words in ancient, ‘dead’ languages are not in fact stable in meaning when the language in question is still in use.” Actually, in late 1800s’ India, when they lived and wrote, the word madya had been used for some centuries to indicate also distilled drinks. “So, in Sanskrit texts as composed or as read in the nineteenth century, words such as madya, surā, etc. could indeed refer to a distilled drink. Compare to how the English word ‘corn’ changed reference over time, from cereal grain to maize, especially in American English.”
After the dictionaries, we have to deal with archaeology too, and things get even more complicated.
“This updating of Sanskrit is separate from the vigorous discussion concerning the origins of distillation in South Asia based on archeological finds. We can mostly trace this debate to John Marshall’s publication in 1951 of an illustrated account of archeological excavations at the ancient city of Taxila, in what is now Pakistan. Here, he reported finds of some pottery vessels dating from around a century before or after the turn of the Common Era, which he lists as ‘water condensers’. About these vessels he wrote: ‘The precise use made of these vessels is not certain, but it seems probable that the condensing was done as shown in the sketch.’ In the related pages of plates, three vessels are illustrated both separately ad also in a diagram that shows two of them assembled into a still that involved other types of vessels.” (43)
“On first appearance it seems quite clear that we have an excavated still here. But on closer examination it is clear that the three vessels illustrated were not all found together, rather they were found in quite different places at different strata. Thus, given his own notes on the finds, Marshall did not excavate the ‘water condenser’ as illustrated, with all the components present in one place, as an assemblage of distillation equipment.”(44)
“Marshall assembled (i.e. created) the so-called ‘condenser’. To reiterate: the ‘still’ in his well-known illustration (and subsequent museum reconstructions) is not an assemblage he excavated with all the parts together in one place. Rather this ‘still’ is the product of his imagination, as informed by what some types of still look like today. Thus, of course, Marshall’s grouping of vessels looks like a still – that is because it is based on a modern still! So, at that point in the history of this research, no one had ‘found’ a still, or even anything that looks conclusively like it was as part of a still. And none of the early texts point to distillation. We should look at the next development with this in mind.”(45-6)
By the way, this is not the first time I have come across situations like that. Archaeology is a crucial instrument to understand history, but it has to be used with caution, alongside other instrument, in order to reconstruct the past.
“In 1979 the late F.R. Allchin, a famous archaeologist of early South Asia, published a paper entitled ‘India: The Ancient Home of Distillation’ in which he considerably expanded Marshall’s theory of such vessels as water condensers. … Over a hundred vessels of Marshall’s ‘condenser’ type were discovered at the site called Shaikhān Ḍherī, and these vessels were dated from c.150 BCE until the end of the occupation of the site in the fourth-fifth century CE. “(46)
“Where Marshall tells us almost nothing of the find context of his vessels, Allchin describes the find site at Shaikhān Ḍherī in some detail. These vessels were used in a context where people probably used to drink something. The site was an open or partly open area in the heart of the city, by a narrow street, with houses at the north and south. There were two hearths, one inside a single room structure. A large number of shallow bowls were found stacked up here, impressed with the design of an ear of corn. There was also much wood ash, and several large jars and bowls of the variety Marshall incorporated into his ‘still’ (though bear in mind that these are common shapes for vessels, even today): One terracotta tuber was found which Allchin suggests connected the parts of the still, though at a length of approximately 15 cm this is a poor candidate for a condenser tube.”(47)
“If Marshall had never presented his imaginary/hypothetical ‘still’, would Allchin, on the basis of these liquid-storage vessels, cups, bowls, jars, and evidence of fire have concluded that this assemblage might be a site of distillation? The finds are easily compatible with this being a drinking-ground of some sort” (47) like a shop or a tavern where common fermented beverages were conserved, sold and consumed. “In Allchin’s account of the site he repeatedly uses the word ‘condenser’, which, despite his use of inverted commas, gives the impression that there are condensers everywhere.” Yet, for the first part of his essay, Allchin is prudent, and he avoids drawing any definitive conclusions.
“Allchin provides some extra arguments for an ancient South Asia still. First, he suggests that the presence of a type of technology among so-called primitive people in a given area suggests its great antiquity there, and he notes the abundance of ethnographic evidence for distillation technology among ‘primitive people’ in South Asia today. Presumably he holds that it is unlikely that such people might ever learn a new technology, and therefore this technology for distilling alcohol must be quite ancient.” This ethnographic inference lacks sense. Distilling alcohol is difficult, it requires firstly a complex mental process and then a suitable technology. If at present, or a century ago, isolated, primitive communities use crude, rudimentary, makeshift stills it doesn’t necessarily mean that they invented them. They might simply have copied, with the scant means at their disposal, what they had seen in more advanced realities.
Later, abandoning all caution, Allchin writes that the “archeological evidence” supports ancient distillation, in spite of the lack of written sources. Indeed, interpreting some words in ancient texts in the light of this alleged “archaeological evidence” he concludes that ancient Indian literature does, after all, contain numerous references to distillation, although one could scarcely have recognized them until the archaeological evidence was available.
Allchin attributes the reluctance of authors of Sanskrit texts to furnish explicit descriptions of distilled alcohol to three facts. “First, he writes that Sanskrit texts are generally to discuss alcohol, even fermentation – which is utterly untrue. Second, he says such sources do not discuss craft practices- again totally incorrect. And third, he claims there was a general secrecy surrounding alcohol owing to its ‘ritual and sacramental aspect’ which I abundantly (even tediously) demonstrated not to be the case elsewhere. In fact, we have abundant detailed descriptions of making all sorts of drinks, from grains, sugar cane, and other sources, over a long period from the Vedic Śrautasūtras until the early modern period, even later.” But clearly these recipes describe fermentation processes, not alcoholic distillation. Actually, when people in India finally started distilling they were quite explicit about it. “To conclude: the archaeological evidence is at best very weak, and the textual evidence/theory of conspiracy of silence Allchin provides is no good either. We still have no still.”
Other authors use a different argument. Ancient Indian texts speak about drunkenness, its harshness and its often terrible consequences. Therefore, they argue, it must have been very strong, as only a distilled drink can be, because a fermented beverage can’t provoke such a state of intoxication. False. I was born and live in a country – Italy – where wine is an integral part of daily life and drinking good wine during a meal with family and friends is one of the great pleasures of life. However, I can assure you that it is possible to get drunk on wine too, and even ruin your life and your health. Not to mention the ancient Greeks, who at symposia got drunk on heavily diluted wine. Last, but not least, why did this presumptive ancient distillation disappear? Why didn’t it give rise to a commercial production? Why hasn’t such a precious commodity spread everywhere? Every spirit lends itself easily to trade over long distances: it takes up relatively little space and does not deteriorate with time and transport. The Roman Empire traded regularly with India across the Indian Ocean and also on land routes. The ancient Romans, as everyone knows, enjoyed eating and drinking and the wealthy spent huge sums in order to amaze and delight the guests to their banquets. And yet, over centuries of trading no Indian merchant, no official, like those we saw at work in the Arthaśāstra and in the “Charter of Viṣṇuṣena, ever thought of selling this specialty to the Romans at an expensive price?
To conclude, the evidence for ancient alcoholic distillation in South Asia is hardly compelling. “This is not to say there may not have been some vaporizing-condensing processes used in some context in early India, but the Taxila vessels are probably not part of a still, and we know very well how alcoholic drinks were made in early India, and that did not involve distillation until a later period.”In a recent work, “Technology in Medieval India” 2016, Habib writes: “The modifications that were introduced in Italy in the twelfth century (possibly in close exchange of ideas with the Arab world, as some terms tend to show) were designed to improve cooling in the still so as to increase pure alcohol collection at a low level of heat. … Travelling through the Islamic world, the new stills soon reached India. The fresh wave of alcohol extraction, then, which India seems to have witnessed by the late thirteenth century, probably obtained its impetus from the improved still now received. The historian Ẓiya Baranī, writing in 1357, speaks of the occupation of obtaining liquor ‘made to fall drop to drop (chakānīdana) from stills (bhaṭṭīs) established as an industry in Dehli and surrounding towns already by 1290.”
“Yet the notion of very ancient Indian distillation is still commonly encountered both in academia and beyond. Sometimes this is simply a matter of secondary sources relying on certain dictionaries and previous translations (sometimes based on said dictionaries …), yet Marshall’s invention, the ‘Taxila still’ informs most more considered work on the topic … (and being displaced in many a museum, reaching a more popular audience). Yet on close examination this archaeological evidence (and inference) is very weak at the best, and not supported by clear textual record. There was probably no alcoholic distillation in ancient India”.
But it is a good story, too good indeed, and many people like it, not to mention the circular character of much information. So, probably, this story will continue to circulate and to have its followers.
While probably India is NOT the ancient home of distillation, is it the ancient home of sugarcane spirit, our Rum? The fermentation of sugarcane juice was ancient and widespread. Consequently, the earliest distillers had at their disposal a fermented drink, Sīdhu, which was plentiful and well - known. It is reasonable to suppose that they tried distilling it. Irfan Habib presents a fascinating passage. Sultan ‘Alā’ uddin Khalji reigned in Dehli from 1296 to 1316 CE and expanded his empire greatly; thus, while the Sultan and his entourage were Muslins, most of the population he ruled on was Hindu. Apparently, ‘Alā’ uddin Khalji prohibited the sale of grape wine, I don’t know whether for religious or tax reasons. His subjects reacted in a very creative way:
“They ‘set up boilers (bhaṭṭīs) in their houses and made wine out of sugar (quand), and distilled it (chakānīdans), drank it and sold it at high prices’.”
This happened two centuries before the colonization of Brazil and three centuries before the earliest Brazilian sources about rum. Of course, it is just a single source, but it is consistent with all that we have learnt here on sugarcane, fermentation and distillation in India. Further research is necessary, but for now, we can maintain that probably yes, India IS the ancient home of Rum.
Marco Pierini
