The primary evidence for dietary consumption from Roman London is largely derived from palaeobotanical and palaeofaunal evidence recovered from archaeological deposits and environmental samples. While this evidence, summarised below, gives us an indication of the types of foodstuffs present within the town, it does not allow us to ascertain the exact proportions they represented within the diet nor evaluate potential differences associated with age, sex or social status. Another issue with this form of evidence that must also be acknowledged is that the sampling strategy adopted at excavation and the poor preservation of organic materials may lead to biases in the food items recovered.
4.4.1 Cereals and Pulses
A principal part of the diet consumed during the Roman period would have been provided by cereals, and evidence for their consumption across London is widespread (Cool 2006: 69). Spelt wheat is the most abundant cereal recovered from London and would have been ground to make bread and cakes or added to water to make porridge (puls) (Cowan and Wardle 2009: 113; Davis 2011a). Barley, considered by Romans as unfit for human consumption, is also commonly recovered across London, albeit in smaller quantities than wheat (Cowan and Wardle 2009: 114; Davis 2011a). As it makes poor-quality bread, barley was more likely to have been used to make porridges, pottages and griddle cakes (Cool 2006: 78; Davis 2011a). In addition, barley could also be brewed to make beer, although as yet no evidence for brewing has been recovered from the city (Cool 2006: 140-3). Other grains, such as oats and rye, are seldom recovered, suggesting that they were rarely exploited (Cowan and Wardle 2009: 114; Davis 2011a). The only evidence recovered for imported cereal species is a single grain of millet from a second century deposit in Southwark (Willcox 1978).
In comparison to cereals, pulses are less commonly recovered in London, although this may be due to their poor preservation rather than a lack of their exploitation. Nevertheless, a small number of cultivated pulses seem to have been available including varieties of peas, beans, and lentils (Willcox 1978; Cowan and Wardle 2009: 114; Davis 2011a). Lentils in particular seem to have been an important part of the diet, as large numbers have been recovered where conditions are favourable to preservation, such as waterlogged deposits in Southwark (Willcox 1978), and destruction deposits associated with the Boudiccan and Hadrianic fires on both the north and south bank (Tyers 1988; Davis 2011b). Whilst most of these pulses were
99
not native to Britain, they could have been locally cultivated, with the exception of lentils which would have been imported from the Mediterranean (Callender 1965: 37; Davis 2011a).
4.4.2 Meat and Dairy
While cereals and pulses certainly formed a staple part of the Roman diet, it is often assumed that they dominated it, with historical evidence from Rome indicating that most of the “non- elite” individuals ate an almost vegetarian diet with very limited meat (Garnsey 1999; Alcock 2006). However, large collections of butchered animal bones (e.g. Pipe 2011c) and isotopic investigations of diet at other Romano-British settlements (Cummings 2009) attest to the regular consumption of meat during this period within the province.
From its initial occupation, beef appears to have been the most popular meat consumed in London, with cattle accounting for 70-90% of the animal bone assemblage, followed by pork and mutton respectively (Cowan and Wardle 2009: 116; Pipe 2011b: 411). While it is often not possible to distinguish between sheep and goat osteologically, evidence suggests that goats were not utilised as a food source at this time and therefore most of the sheep/goat bones are thought to be sheep (Cool 2006). A high proportion of cattle and pig within the diet is
identified as a “Romanised” diet, compared to the more typical sheep-based diet found at Iron Age settlements, and is a feature of most urban and military sites throughout Roman Britain (King 1984; 1999). However, the high proportion of cattle seen in the Romano-British diet is thought to be a reflection of the “militarisation” of the native diet, influenced by the Gallo- Germanic army, as pork not cattle was the most utilised meat in Roman Italy (Ibid). While cattle remain the most utilised species, fluctuations are observed across London throughout the Roman period, perhaps reflecting possible social and ethnic differences in consumption (King 1999; Bluer et al. 2006: 164; Cowan and Wardle 2009: 116). Evidence for the
consumption of goat and horse meat appears to have been rare both in Roman London and the rest of Roman Britain, suggesting neither formed a substantial part of the townspeople’s diet (Bluer et al. 2006: 166; Cool 2006: 87, 91-2; Hill and Rowsome 2011: 320). Whilst hunting was a popular leisure activity at this time, evidence for the consumption of game is also rare in London, and the province as a whole, being mostly confined to high status contexts (Bluer et
al. 2006: 166; Cool 2006: 83; Cowan and Wardle 2009: 117; Hill and Rowsome 2011: 385). Of
the game species, deer is the most common, with instances of hare, woodcock, partridge, teal, small passerine and common crane also observed (Bluer et al. 2006: 166; Cowan and Wardle 2009: 117; Hill and Rowsome 2011: 385).
In addition to the three main domesticates, another source of meat available in London was poultry and domestic fowl. Chicken bones dominate the poultry and fowl represented in the
100
animal bone assemblages in London (c.90%), with ducks and especially geese being much rarer (Cowan et al. 2009: 173; Hill and Rowsome 2011: 320). While it has been suggested that poultry could have been easily kept by most in the gardens and yards of the town, there are indications that the actual consumption of poultry was linked to high status occupations and the elite Roman lifestyles (Cool 2006: 101). This is further supported by the presence of chicken bones and whole skeletons within ritual deposits and graves within the city (Cowan 1992; Barber and Bowsher 2000; Mackinder 2000; Watson 2003), and Roman Britain more generally (Philpott 1991). Instead, the consumption of eggs, a particular feature of urban rather than rural environments during this time (Cool 2006: 102), appears to have been much more common, with eggshells recovered from areas across the settlement (Drummond- Murray and Thompson 2002: 51; Cool 2006: 102; Sidell 2011).
As the production of dairy items often leaves little archaeological traces, and evidence for their incorporation into the diet at Roman London is sparse. While it is certain that milk-producing animals were present within the town and its hinterland, the extent to which they were exploited for milk production is unknown (Cool 2006: 93). The identification of small numbers of neonate and very young calves within archaeological deposits at sites on the Cornhill provides some evidence for local milk production, albeit tentative (Bluer et al. 2006: 168). Goats are another animal that could have also been exploited, perhaps explaining their presence within the archaeozoological record of the town (Cool 2006: 94). Although little evidence for cheese production has been recovered from Roman London itself, evidence of a ceramic cheese press from Threadneedle Street, as well as other presses and strainers at other post-conquest Roman towns, suggests that cheese may have also been a favoured food item (Cool 2006: 94-7).
4.4.3 Fish
The extent to which fish were exploited in the past is often difficult to determine as they are commonly underrepresented in the archaeological record due to the need to wet-sieve soil samples in order to recover their bones. Despite this, the available evidence suggests that the level of fish consumption in Roman London was considerably lower than in later medieval contexts (Locker 2007). The most commonly exploited fish appear to have been freshwater and estuarine species, with eel and flounder/flatfish being the most prevalent (Locker 2007). Other such species recovered include: pike, cyprinid, dace, roach, gudgeon, chub and trout (Locker 2007). Salmonids are less well represented and found in lower proportions than in any other Roman town, perhaps due to the increasingly polluted nature of the Thames and Walbrook (Locker 2007: 151). Marine species, including cod, mackerel, haddock, herring, sea bream, smelt, grey mullet, and sprat, are also present in the fish bone assemblages (Locker
101
2007; Cowan and Wardle 2009: 105; Hill and Rowsome 2011: 264, 320; Wardle and Rayner 2011: 290). There is little evidence for imported fish, with the discovery of Spanish mackerel in an amphora containing garum (see below) the only notable exception (RIB II.6 no. 2 2492.24). Overall, it appears that the exploitation of fish within Roman London was casual and based on what was readily available (Cool 2006: 105; Cowan and Wardle 2009: 168). However, against this backdrop of sporadic consumption, isotopic and archaeozoological studies of fish
consumption in the Romano-British period have linked increased consumption of marine fish to higher status occupations (Richards et al. 1998; Locker 2007), although this is not universally upheld (Cheung et al. 2012 ).This connection is also observed in London, with fish particularly seen as a luxury, such as cod and sturgeon, and only being recovered in high status settlement contexts (Drummond-Murray and Thompson 2002: 121; Cowan and Wardle 2009: 116). Another source of fish consumption was through the use of garum, a pungent sauce made from fermented oily fish. Used as a seasoning, evidence from amphorae suggests that it was originally imported from Spain until the third century, when supplies came from provinces in North Africa instead (Cool 2006: 59). While it appears that the importation of garum may have decreased in the third century, evidence for local production in London at this time near Bishopsgate suggests that it still remained an important foodstuff here (Bateman and Locker 1982). The consumption of oysters also increased throughout the Roman period, both in Roman London and across the rest of the province (Cool 2006: 106-9), and large first and second century AD dumps of oyster shells have been recovered from Roman London’s waterfront (Milne 1985: 91-3).
4.4.4 Fruit, Nuts, Vegetables, Herbs and Spices
Throughout its occupation, the inhabitants of Roman London appear to have had access to a wide variety of both native and imported fruits and nuts (Van der Veen 2008). Of the non- native fruit species, fig and grape are the most frequently observed, with figs in particular being ubiquitous throughout the Roman period (Cool 2006: 121; Cowan and Wardle 2009: 101; Davis 2011a: 404; Davis 2011b: 410; Wardle and Rayner 2011: 290). Other non-native species commonly observed include: dates, mulberry, damsons, walnuts, and stone pine, alongside new varieties of apple, cherry, and plums (Cool 2006: 119-125; Van der Veen et al. 2008; Cowan and Wardle 2009: 101-2, 114; Davis 2011a: 403; Davis 2011b: 410). Less commonly recovered imports include olives and almonds, and species only observed in London includes peach, for which a single stone has been recovered, and cucumber, originally native to Africa (Willcox 1977). These imported fruits had a variety of uses and were probably imported either fresh or dried, or as wine in the case of grapes (Cowan and Wardle 2009: 101, 114; Wardle and Rayner 2011: 290). While it is possible that many of these species could have been cultivated
102
locally, dates and olives were certainly imported amphorae-borne commodities (Davis 2011b: 410; Wardle and Rayner 2011: 290). In addition to these “exotic” fruit and nut species, native species such as blackberry/raspberry, crab apples, sloe/blackthorn, wild strawberry, cherry and hazelnut are also commonly observed in London’s Roman deposits (Cool 2006: 123; Cowan and Wardle 2009: 115; Davis 2011b: 410).
Unlike fruit and nuts, the range of vegetables available is more difficult to ascertain due to their poor preservation archaeologically. Nevertheless, seed and pollen evidence suggests that vegetable species such as parsnips, carrots, beets, and the Brassica/Sinapis family (which includes cabbage, turnip, swede, cauliflower and sprouts) were not uncommon at most sites (Cool 2006: 126-8; Cowan and Wardle 2009: 115; Davis 2011b: 410; Wardle and Rayner 2011: 290). The extent to which these vegetables were consumed and cultivated is uncertain, as it is often not possible to identify whether the species were domestic or wild varieties (Davis 2011b: 410). Another group of plant species recovered from Roman London are herbs and spices. Non-native species observed include: coriander, dill, fennel, white mustard, poppy seeds, summer savoury, black cumin and anise (Willcox 1977). As well as having a number of culinary uses, such as the seasoning of bread and meats, evidence for a rare pottery strainer from a pre-Boudiccan context suggests that spices may have also been infused into wine (Cool 2006: 143-7). The presence of these imported herbs and spices in early pre-Boudiccan deposits identifies they were available soon after the town’s inception, with their addition to the diet seen as a particularly Roman introduction (Davis 2011a: 403).
While most of the culinary plant species discussed above are observed within deposits across Roman London throughout its occupation, recent evidence from the western suburbs suggests a possible contraction in the abundance of non-native species that would have been available after the mid second century AD (Davis 2011a: 403). This decline has been attributed to a decline in commercial activity at the site, concomitant with a reduction of amphora-borne trade with the Mediterranean at the same time (Milne 1985: 112). It is uncertain to what extent this contraction was borne out in the remaining areas of the town, and the truncation of later Roman deposits and the environmental sampling strategies undertaken at other areas of the town must be considered as potential biases in the archaeological record.