A Brief History of Food: Inside the Roman Kitchen

Food and cooking

There is a universality to food, its preparation and cooking that unites us all. The same basic utensils found in modern kitchens were known to the Babylonians. Colanders, strainers, saucepans and skillets are among the many artefacts recovered from excavations in the Roman city of Pompeii. While in Britain, the archaeological record reveals the daily business of preparing and serving food was, and remains, one of the main social activities for these islands’ inhabitants.

A typical domestic kitchen would look very similar to the one pictured. Arrangements would have been made to supply water for cooking and cleaning, and stone or wooden tables for food preparation. The Romans typically cooked on a raised flat, stone topped hearth, a masonry construction about table height, upon which one or more charcoal or wood fires were lit. Many examples of these “cookers” can be seen in the archaeological sites of Ostia, Pompeii and Herculaneum in Italy. From practical experience, cooking pots can be heated next to the hot fire, placed in or be surrounded by its embers or coals, or set above the fire on iron trivets. By adjusting the vessel’s height above the fire or the pot’s proximity to the heat source, the cooking temperature can be easily regulated to boil, simmer or simply warm foods. Cooking vessels, whether ceramic or metal, were supported on grid-irons known in Latin as craticulae (sing. craticula) or suspended on chains from iron tripods.

Ovens

Ovens used for baking were generally beehive-shaped, constructed from a wicker frame encased in layers of clay which is initially sun-dried before being fire-hardened. The example shown right is from Augusta Raurica, a Roman archaeological site and open-air museum in Switzerland located on the south bank of the river Rhein about 20 km east of Basel near the villages of Augst and Kaiseraugst. It is the site of the oldest known Roman colony on the Rhein, Colonia Augusta Rauracorum. As with pizza ovens today, wood was burnt until sufficient heat had been generated whereupon the ashes were raked out and bread, meats or pastries placed inside. The aperture at the front was sealed to retain the heat during cooking.

As an aside, the modern practice of “roasting” meat in an oven is somewhat of a misnomer although it does fit with the definition of cooking by dry heat. Historically roasting meant using an open flame to surround the food (meat, fish, etc.) with hot air so it cooked evenly on all sides. While roasting on a spit undoubtedly served Roman soldiers well on campaign, the evidence for spit-roasts or rotisseries in domestic Roman kitchens is sadly lacking.

Alongside the more substantial ovens, there were also different types of ancient baking covers sometimes referred to as “portable ovens”. They are generally called either clibanus or testum, with both terms mentioned so frequently in Roman literary sources that there can be little doubt they were a fundamental element of the Roman kitchen at many levels of society. The former term, clibanus, is the more fashionable Latinised Greek word, while testum represents the Italian tradition for these ovens. From practical experiments undertaken with replicas, the testum is cleverly designed to apply heat above and around the food being cooked. Indeed, written clues for this technique are hinted at in the surviving collection of Roman recipes known as Apicius. In one recipe the fire’s embers are described as being “…above and below [the dish].” While the description does not explicitly explain how this may happen, one can imagine the dish must have been lidded for the fire to be on top of the food.

Utensils

Just as today, a variety of kitchen utensils are known from the archaeological record and therefore were available to the Roman cook. Frying pans (Latin: pl. fretālia; sing. fretāle) made of iron or bronze are well attested. Oval or round in shape, some examples feature an integrated pouring lip as shown below left. This reconstruction also has a folding handle that is locked in place by a collar that clamps the handle to an extension of the pan. Hinged forward as shown makes the fretāle compact for carrying or storage. Pictured below right is a reconstruction of an unusual pan with a long handle rivetted to a square pan with four domed recesses. The replica is based on examples found in Pompeii and a version housed in the British Museum. The latter, bequeathed to the Museum’s collection by Sir William Temple in 1856, has six circular depressions and is 431.80 mm (17 in) long. Dated to the 1st-century AD, it was found in Torre Annunziata, Campania, Italy and is described as a bronze baking pan for cakes and bread rolls.

Various forms of shallow pan made of bronze or brass were commonly used for cooking. In the Roman army they are synonymous with soldiers’ mess tin. Along with various earthenware dishes, these pans could also be used to serve food from cooker to table. Apicius refers to them as patellae or patinae (sing. patella or patina) - a replica pan is shown far right. The design is very similar to a ceremonial libation bowls, known as a patera, that frequently feature on Roman dedicatory altars. Not all of these libation bowls, however, have handles, but they often have a bulbous indentation (omphalos, “belly button”) in the centre underside. Next to the patina, and below three examples of colanders or sieves, is a wooden-framed grater. The brass sheet has been punch pierced to leave one side with raised metal burrs ideal for grating.

As pictured right, knives of all shapes and sizes were used. Typically made with iron blades, they were fitted with wood, bone or bronze handles. Hefty cleavers would be useful for jointing large pieces of meat, while more delicate work required the smaller cook’s knives shown in the centre of the image.

Within the group of objects are two spoons. Made of bronze, brass, wood or horn, along with ladles and dippers, spoons are essential in any kitchen. The uppermost recreates a common example from the Roman period. A modern replica, pictured below left, that features in the British Museum collection was inspired by a spoon found in Aquae Sulis (Bath). It is made of silver with pear-shaped offset bowl and twisted handle. Of note is the curved hook where the handle joins the bowl. It is not immediately obvious what function this performed. Possibly decorative, it can however be used to hook the spoon onto the rim of a pan when cooking which makes locating the spoon that much easier in a busy kitchen.

The other spoon-like replica copies an artefact housed in the collection of The Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. Nicknamed the “Roman Swiss Army Knife”, this folding eating gadget, pictured above right, has a three-pronged fork, a spoon, a spatula, a pick, a spike, and an iron knife although the latter is badly eroded. Each element is hinged to fold out when needed, or fold away for ease of carriage. The pick or spike might have helped extract snails from their shells or, in the case of the spike, prising open oysters. The spatula is remarkably like those often found as part of hygiene sets where they are typically described for removing earwax. Given this multi-purpose knife’s potential use as an eating utensil, this seems unlikely in this instance but cannot be ruled out. Many less elaborate bronze folding knives have been discovered from antiquity, but this one's complex design and it being made from silver suggests it was possibly a luxury item. With silver being a relatively soft and pliable metal, it may not have been intended for regular use but rather something a wealthy traveller or soldier might show off.

One ubiquitous utensil common in Roman kitchens were mortaria (sing. mortarium) used for grinding, pounding, mixing or blending ingredients. Roman tastes in food favoured the use of sauces, relishes and subtly blended herbs and spices. With stone or wooden pestles, such ingredients often needed to be ground or puréed, and a strong mixing-bowl with a grit-roughened interior was, therefore, essential. Those shown below are replicas of mortaria copying the form and function of a plethora of examples recovered from across the Roman world.

Mortaria could be used to make cheese. Milk could be left in the bowl to curdle; the whey then being poured off through the spout on the rim. The grit on the inner surface would retain curd-forming bacteria from one cheese-making day to the next obviating the need to use rennet or old whey to set the milk working.

It is likely that no kitchen functioned without amphorae (sing. amphora), the two-handled ceramic jars used in enormous quantities across the Roman world to transport and store such things as wine, olive oil and fish sauce. The remains of many hundreds have been found in Britain. There are many styles known from the archaeological record but in general, tall amphorae contain wine or fish sauce, while globular ones were for olive oil. Amphorae often have tituli picti (painted inscriptions) or are stamped with a marker’s mark, what they contain, and import marks. As pictured right, the amphorae in the crates are for wine, while those in front, from left to right, are two for wine, one for fish sauce, one for olive oil, and one for preserved fruits respectively. The shapes are quite distinct which means one does not necessarily need to be literate to know the content of different amphorae.

The drawing (below left), from the Archaeology Data Service, is a summary table produced by Heinrich Dressel in the late 19th-century. It shows a group of amphorae recovered from the Castro Pretorio in Rome (Dressel, 1899). The main purpose of the table was to illustrate the vessels upon which stamps and tituli picti from the site were found. Dressel’s work represented in outline form some forty-five individual shapes which has gone on to provide a framework for much further study of amphorae [1].

Many of these vessels have a tapered design with a similarly tapered foot. As most observers point out, the design seems flawed as individual amphora cannot stand unsupported without toppling over. Yet, the design was immensely successful over several centuries. For transportation around and across the Mediterranean Sea, as evidenced from several ancient shipwrecks, rows of amphorae were stacked against ships’ hulls as shown in the reconstruction above right. Inserting the foot between four other amphorae permits additional rows to be safely and securely stacked on top. Plying a rope through the handles adds security to the cargo. When loading or unloading in port, the foot, particularly the ones on the larger amphorae, enable easier carriage on and off a transport ship, to marketplace and onward to a shop, eating or drinking establishment, or to a residence. The body of the amphora can be carried on the shoulder supported by an enveloping arm and a hand gripping the foot. Usefully, any sediment in the content is able to settle in a hollow foot, and the foot also acts to keep the body raised above any damp surface thus preventing moisture permeating through the porous clay. And finally, to empty larger amphorae becomes much easier if the foot is used to lift and help pour out the content.

Ingredients

When the province of Britannia was integrated into the Roman Empire the inhabitants of these isles were given access to a new world of ingredients, flavours and tastes. Some of the imported additions to British diets included dates, almonds, olives and olive oil, pine kernels (pine nuts), and the fermented fish sauce commonly used in ancient Mediterranean cooking. Evidence for these introductions comes from the physical remains of, for example, bones and seeds excavated on Roman or Romano-British sites. Adding to our knowledge is also evidence from two literary forms. Firstly, there are the letters preserved at Vindolanda written by the soldiers serving along Hadrian’s Wall to their families. Some record foods available such as one example that lists “spice, goats’ milk, salt, young pig, ham, corn, venison and flour”. Another letter mentions both ordinary and vintage wines, the local beer, the ubiquitous fish sauce [garum or liquamen], and pork fat. The other form of literary evidence survives in the “recipe book” of Apicius [2], the agricultural treatises of Marcus Porcius Cato (De agri cultura “On Farming” or “On Agriculture”), Marcus Terentius Varro (De re rustica “On Agriculture”), Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella (De re rustica) and the 4th-century writer Rutilius Taurus Aemilianus Palladius (Opus Agriculturae). Similarly, further testimony is provided by Gaius Plinius Secundus (Pliny the Elder) who wrote the encyclopaedic Naturalis Historia (“Natural History”), a comprehensive 37-volume work covering a vast array of topics on human knowledge and the natural world. Information on food and dining can also be gleaned from non-fiction works such as Gaius Petronius Arbiter’s Satyricon within which the feast of Trimalchio is notable. Finally, surviving mosaics and frescoes depict hunting scenes, flora and fauna, dining and foodstuffs.

The daily diet varied considerably between rich and poor. For the wealthy, there were few restrictions. Country villa owners in Roman Britain might enjoy freshly made bread perhaps using home-ground flour, home-grown fruits and vegetables, meat from pigs, sheep and oxen, and an abundance of fish and wild game. Pork was valued by Roman soldiers, with lard forming part of their daily ration. Auxiliaries manning Hadrian’s Wall also consumed large quantities of mutton given the number of sheep bones found at Corbridge, a Roman frontier town that supplied the Wall’s garrison. The poor, however, would have relied on a rather unvaried diet of coarse bread, cereal-based porridge or gruel, pulses, legumes and other vegetables, with meat only an occasional addition. That said, many new vegetables were introduced to British kitchens during the Roman period. These included some very familiar produce such as asparagus, cabbage, celery, cucumber, cultivated garlic supplementing the indigenous wild version, lettuce, leek, marrow, onion, parsnip, radish, shallots, and turnip.

Snails were a delicacy and were fed on milk, wine must and spelt wheat to enhance both their size and flavour. Initially kept on parcels of land surrounded by water to prevent their escape, their final fattening involved the snails being kept in jars with air holes. When they had become so fat they could not get back into their shells, they were fried in oil and served with wine. Snail shells have been found on many Romano-British villa sites suggesting snails were a popular food source. 

Honey was the main form of sweetening. It also served as a preservative for meat and fruit and was a common ingredient in many recipes and sauces. The Apician recipe Porcellum assum Tractomelinum (lit. “Suckling pig treated with honey”) differs very little from that found in cookery books today. Beekeeping (“apiculture”) was therefore an important industry with most farms retaining the service of an apiarius (“beekeeper”) to care for the hives.

Apicius also gives us a recipe for honey and cottage cheese (mel et caseum). As today, cheeses were many and varied and were widely enjoyed. Fresh curd cheese or caseum is attested in antiquity. However, having observed that soft cheeses tended to spoil rather quickly, the Romans introduced rennet, or coagulum as they called it, into their cheese making process. So, both soft and hard cheeses were known. To the eternal chagrin of modern Italians, Pliny the Elder wrote very enthusiastically about a cheese from Nemausus (Nîmes) in France as being the most popular in Rome. Around AD 40, he also describes a recipe clearly resembling a blue cheese like Roquefort. Moreover, the French Cantal and English Cheddar [3] are clearly the descendants of Roman cheese making practices.

Seafood

Shellfish were highly prized as food in Roman Britain. Oysters were especially important with those from the coast near Colchester, Essex and Richborough, Kent being particularly famous and even valued in Rome. Live oysters may well have been transported inland in tanks judging by the quantity of oyster shells frequently encountered in the archaeological record at inland Roman sites. The consumption of oysters was so great that more than a million shells were recovered in a single deposit in Silchester Roman town near Reading, Berkshire. Other shellfish valued as food included periwinkles, mussels, whelks, cockles and scallops. Like oysters, crabs and lobsters were also taken inland. Sea fish were also popular with cod, grey mullet, haddock, herring, ling and sea bream all being line caught as evidenced by barbed bronze fishing hooks recovered in Roman contexts.

Fish Sauce

The most characteristic ingredient in Roman cooking was the fermented fish sauce known either as liquamen or more popularly garum, although the two products are not synonymous. In truth liquamen is the standard term for fish sauce used in Roman texts, such as “Apicius”. The Romans, and the Greeks before them, used it to enhance dishes with an umami flavour [4]. While Garum appears to be the Roman transliteration from the Greek garos or garon, in Latin liquamen means “to be liquid; to liquefy” (Grocock and Grainger, 2006, Appendix 4). Both terms refer to fish and salt but the difference, according to Sally Grainger (Grainger, 2021), appears to be whether the mixture contained only blood and viscera (garum) or if it also contained whole small fish (liquamen). The former (garum) was used as a condiment at the table, while liquamen was used more widely as an ingredient in recipes. Usefully, Book XX of Geoponica, a 10th-century AD collection of agricultural lore, gives us the main recipe for liquamen: “fish blood and entrails as well as small fish such as sprat, smelt, mullet were all salted and shaken and fermented in the sun” (Grocock and Grainger, 2006, Appendix 4, 375). The liquid drawn from the fermenting process is comparable with today’s Thai nam pla or Vietnamese nuc nam fish sauces. In fact, the process of fermenting fish to make liquamen is akin to the processes of fermenting all kinds of other foods such as beer, sour dough, sauerkraut or kimchi.

Two other fish products often mentioned with garum are muria and allec. Muria is Latin for brine rather than a sauce and refers to the liquid drawn off fish packed in salt. The resulting muria salsamenti (“brine of salted fish”) was “quite pale in colour and also very clear and free flowing” (Grocock and Grainger, 2006, Appendix 4, 374). It was the inexpensive version of fish sauce widely available to poorer households. Allec, meanwhile, was what remained after all the liquids had been drawn off the fermented mass. This paste, which would contain anything the enzymes did not break down, was also used as a table condiment of varying quality (Pliny, Naturalis Historia, 31.44).

Spices

Any mention of spices being used to disguise the taste of foods that had become rancid through over-storage is a very outdated notion. Until more recent times and their widespread availability, spices were expensive luxuries unaffordable to the masses. This was particularly true during the Mediæval period where the use of spices ensured guests were aware of the expense the host had incurred in providing their meal. In other words, spices were a demonstrator of power and wealth. In 80 BC, however, when Ptolemy XI bequeathed Alexandria to the Romans, the revenues from taxes levied on the spice trade between Egypt and India in this major Mediterranean port were enormous. Under Roman rule Alexandria became the greatest commercial centre of the world. It was the leading emporium for the aromatic spices of India, all of which found their way to the markets of Greece and the Roman Empire. The trade with India was extensive for more than three hundred years. It allowed exotic spices, for example black pepper, to be far more commonplace than in later centuries. Other popular spices frequenting Roman recipes include cardamon, cinnamon, cumin, ginger, and saffron.

Herbs

A very common alternative to exotic spices were the various herbs that could be grown either commercially or by households in what we might recognise as “cottage gardens”. Herbs mentioned in Roman recipes, especially in sauces, include alexanders (“wild celery”), aniseed, bay-leaf, borage, chervil, coriander, dill, fennel, hyssop, lovage, mint, parsley, pennyroyal, rosemary, rue, sage, savoury, sweet marjoram and thyme to name but a few. To this list could be added silphium, a highly prized aromatic herb. Tapped from the root of this fennel-like plant and dried, in Roman haute cuisine silphium resin was used as a seasoning, as a condiment, or grated liberally over dishes. The stem was also considered a delicacy for those who could get it where the crunchy stalks were roasted, sautéed or boiled and eaten as a vegetable. Even its roots were eaten fresh, dipped in vinegar.

The wonder plant was an excellent preservative for lentils and when fed to sheep, it was said their flesh became delectably tender. Even in medicine, silphium was a veritable panacea. It could treat coughs, sore throats, fever, indigestion, aches and pains, warts, and all kinds of maladies. It was also thought to be both an aphrodisiac and, rather conveniently, a contraceptive. All of this from a weed that grew wild in a region of North Africa known as Cyrenaica.

Mismanagement and over-tapping led to silphium’s catastrophic decline in the 1st-century BC. Eventually the plant became extinct in the 1st-century AD. Indeed, in the 70s AD, Pliny (the Elder) writes that while silphium was “worth its weight in silver”, but that “for many years now it had not been seen in the region...The single stem found within living memory was sent to the Emperor Nero”. Although we cannot be entirely certain, presumably the bon viveur Nero consumed the last silphium, and that was that. The Romans were, however, familiar with an alternative aromatic resin from central Asia known as asafoetida. It had been brought to Mediterranean Europe from Iran by an expedition of Alexander the Great. Returning from a trip to north-eastern ancient Persia he thought that he had found a plant almost identical, albeit less tasty, to the famed silphium of Cyrenaica.

Asafoetida is a dried latex (gum oleoresin) obtained from the rhizome or tap root of several species of the Ferula plant, which belongs to the carrot family. It is primarily produced in regions like Iran, Afghanistan, and India. In its raw form the spice is known for its strong, pungent odour that some might find off-putting. When used as a condiment in cooking, and in pickling, it imparts a flavour reminiscent of leek or garlic. Today asafoetida plays a critical flavouring role in Indian cuisine by acting as a savoury flavour enhancer.

Wine

Probably the most important fruit introduced to Britannia was the grape. Britain lies at the northernmost limit for ripening grapes in Europe, so their cultivation was restricted to the southern half of England. Grape pips along with grape skins found in Gloucester are highly suggestive of winemaking in the area. It seems the Romans established vineyards as far north as Lincolnshire, capitalising on Britain’s milder climate during this period. Historical evidence suggests the wine produced was of varying quality, but its presence marked an early chapter in British winemaking.

Before the Roman occupation tribal chieftains, keen on luxury goods, imported wine from the continent. Post-invasion, wine was initially imported from Gaul (modern-day France) and the Mediterranean. Excavations from various sites in, for example, London, Bath, and Colchester reveal countless shards of amphorae filled with robust reds and fragrant whites from Spain and south-west France. Later the Romans systematically introduced organised winemaking, or “viticulture,” as well as popularising wine-drinking. Wine merchants’ shops have been identified in the Roman towns of Verulamium (St Albans), Eboracum (York) and Lindum (Lincoln) through the presence of large numbers of broken wine amphorae.

Wine intended for use in cooking was reduced by boiling before use to concentrate its sugars and help preserve it while in storage. Similarly, defrutum is a sweet, syrupy reduction of grape juice commonly used as a sweetener in ancient Roman cuisine. It adds a rich, fruity flavour to both sweet and savoury dishes.

Vinegar was another very important by-product of winemaking. Historically it was produced from wine that had gone sour or had been attacked by acetic acid-producing bacteria during fermentation with yeast, salt and honey. Vinegar sharpened sauces and dressings and was used in the preservation of fruits, vegetables and fish. Raw oysters were said to keep well if washed in vinegar. By adding a little vinegar to water the Romans created Posca, an everyday drink popular in the army and also amongst the urban poor. It has a refreshingly sour taste, but one that would have also disguised the smell and taste of stale water. The Roman’s development of posca was also convenient economically since the faulty storage of wine tends to result in vinegar.

Trade links to the continent meant grapes in the form of raisins, sultanas and currants, sun-dried in the Mediterranean sun, could be imported. Dates found in Colchester and olives recovered in London also must have been traded into Roman Britain. Besides grapes, other fruits were introduced by the Romans including the orchard crops of medlars, mulberry, damsons, plums and cultivated cherries. Native crab apples were joined by larger, sweeter cultivars grown in orchards alongside newly introduced pears. Various nut-bearing trees were brought from Europe including walnut and almond but not sweet chestnut. The latter is native to southern Europe, western Asia and North Africa but the story of how sweet chestnut trees came to be in Britain is unclear. It has long been thought of as a Roman introduction, but science does not definitively back this up. It may be that sweet chestnut trees are a far more recent introduction.

The colour-coded table below hopefully helps to visualise which foods were available or known to the Romans or not:

The foods highlighted in RED were not known to the Romans as most were native to either North or South America. So, for the Romans there were:

• No cocoa beans and therefore no chocolate!

• No potatoes, so no crisps or chips!

• No tomatoes which meant the modern pizza with its tomato sauce did not exist.

The foods highlighted in ORANGE were native to Asia:

• Bananas in SE Asia (Indonesia, Vietnam, etc.) and Papua New Guinea.

• Oranges in southern China, north-eastern India, and perhaps south-eastern Asia. They were first cultivated in China around 2,500 BC, with sweet oranges not arriving in Europe until the late 15th- or early 16th-century courtesy of Italian and Portuguese merchants.

• Rice, noodles and pasta from China. Rice was introduced to Europe through western Asia, and much later to the Americas through European colonisation. As for pasta, that quintessential Italian food, in the 1st-century BC the Roman poet Horace wrote of fried sheets of dough called lagana. Unfortunately, the method of cooking these sheets does not match the current definition of either a fresh or dry pasta product. Perhaps lagana only had similar basic ingredients and perhaps the shape. In the 2nd-century AD, the Greek physician Galen mentioned itrion, referring to all homogenous mixtures from flour and water. The Latinised itrium was used as a reference to a kind of boiled dough.

The food highlighted in GREEN, namely ice cream, has an unusual history. Ancient civilisations had used ice to chill foods for thousands of years. So, a kind of ice-cream was supposedly “invented” in China about 200 BC when a milk and rice mixture became frozen after it had been packed in snow to keep it chilled. Much later the Roman Emperor Nero (AD 37-68) is supposed to have sent slaves to nearby mountain tops to bring back fresh snow that was then flavoured with fruit toppings and served as an early form of “slushy”. The truth of either tale is uncertain at best, but it is not beyond possibility that our ancestors discovered “ice cream” or “invented” the slushy by accident. 

In Summary

The cooking methods, utensils and gadgets used in Roman kitchens 2,000 years ago ought to be familiar to us today. Technological innovation may have enabled us to harness gas, electricity and microwaves but fundamentally we still boil, bake, roast and fry. Even the many foods we eat today in Britain, and perhaps are guilty of taking for granted, were introduced from much further afield during the Roman period. Some ingredients the Romans would never have known but the recipes that do survive remain a source of delicious meals. Bon appétit!

References:

Grainger, S., (2021), “The Story of Garum: Fermented fish sauce and salted fish in the ancient world”, London: Routledge.

Grocock, C. & Grainger, S., (2006), “Apicius: A critical edition with an introduction and English translation”, Totnes: Prospect Books.

Endnotes:

1. University of Southampton (2014) Roman Amphorae: a digital resource [data-set]. York: Archaeology Data Service [distributor] https://doi.org/10.5284/1028192.

2. The work conventionally known by the name “Apicius” is officially titled De re coquinaria (“The Art of Cooking”). Likely not compiled until the 4th-century, the book comprises more than 400 recipes collected and collated into its final form. It not thought that “Apicius” was the name of a single author, but rather serves as a convenient name by which we can refer to this surviving collection of practical Roman-era recipes. Follow the link for more on “Who is Apicius?”

3. The semi-hard Cantal cheese originates from the Cantal region in the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes area of France. It is alleged, but without any corroborating evidence, that Cantal has its origins in Gaul and thus contemporary with the Romans. By contrast Cheddar cheese was first attested in the early 12th-century, likely being created in the village of Cheddar in Somerset, England. In 1107, King Henry II reputedly bought some 10,000 pounds of cheddar.

4. Umami is recognized as the fifth basic taste, alongside salty, sweet, bitter, and sour. It is often described as a pleasant, savoury taste that is associated with the presence of amino acids like L-glutamate and nucleotides such as guanosine monophosphate (GMP) and inosine monophosphate (IMP). Foods rich in umami include cheese, cooked meats, mushrooms, soy sauce, and ripe tomatoes. The term “umami” translates from Japanese to mean “pleasant savoury taste”, and it enhances the overall flavour profile of dishes.

How To: Dress as an Anglo-Saxon or Viking

Overheard in a classroom during a discussion on the preponderance of leopard print costumes being worn for a Stone Age history day a comment was made that the same outfit would do for an Anglo-Saxon day. Clearly the speaker had no idea of the clothing worn in early Mediæval Europe, but then why would they? How many of us really need to know what an Anglo-Saxon man or a Viking woman would have sported a thousand years ago. Perhaps those teaching children ought to know something so Tastes Of History hopes to help.

This “How to:” guide is therefore meant for those wishing to recreate simple yet effective historically-themed costume. It is primarily aimed at teachers wishing to inspire their pupils on “Wow Days” when dressing up is the order of the day. Previously Tastes Of History has tackled “How to: Make Simple Egyptian, Greek or Roman Costume”, so this time we going to address the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings [1] of the 8th- to the 11th-century. Let us start at the feet and finish with what to wear on the head.

Footwear  From practical experience obtaining well-fitting footwear is essential for comfort. Remember you may be on your feet all day so although it is tempting to buy some shiny armour or a new sword, we would strongly advise spending money on good quality boots or shoes first. Early Mediæval footwear seems to some form of ankle boot, known as a “turn shoe”, enclosing the foot and fastened with either leather laces or one or two toggles. Men and women wore ankle boots, Historical examples of which have been recovered from Viking-era Jorvik (York). Those pictured are very similar to those worn by the author and, to name but two online retailers, may be purchased from the likes Get Dressed for Battle or Merchant of Menace [2]. Retailing for ca. £70-75 (at time of writing) a pair these boots may not be a viable purchase for, say, teachers. So, to achieve the “look”, any form of brown leather ankle boot will suffice as they can be disguised by leg wraps.

Leg wraps  Bandage-like leg bindings worn by Anglo-Saxon and Viking men resemble the puttees worn by late 19th- and early 20th-century soldiers. Known in Old English as “winingas” (the plural of “wining”) the word is related to the act of “winding”. The equivalent term in Old Norse is “vindingr”. These woollen leg wraps are typically 2.5 m long (8 ft) and ca. 5 cm (2 in) wide and by far the most illustrated method of wearing them reveals they were wound from the ankle around the leg and fastened just below the knee. The loose end appears to be tucked in, or they were secured either by hooks or by tapes for tying. The exact method is not known. Winingas/vindingr are not only a good way of keeping the lower extremities warm but also protect the trouser legs from wear and from rough undergrowth, preventing tears from brambles, etc. They also provide support to the muscles of the leg, which may have been the primary reason for their use, but it would also make sense to use leg bindings as cold weather clothing. Wrapped over the top of the shoe or boot, winingas/vindingr are effective at keeping mud, stones and snow out and keeping one's feet and legs drier in wintery conditions. As stated above, woollen material wrapped around the lower leg can also be used to disguise modern ankle boots.

Trousers  The Romans noted that ankle-length trousers (Latin: bracae) were worn by tribesmen in NW Europe (Germans, Gauls, Britons, etc.) and by those further East such as the Persians or their successors, the Parthians. No complete pair of Viking trousers, known as “brækr” in Old Norse, has ever been found. The earlier (1st- to 5th-century) leggings found at Thorsbjerg Mose in the 19th-century have been used by museums and re-enactors as a pattern for Viking-age trousers, not least due to the paucity of other evidence. Of very strong construction, these should be generally straight legged and reasonably close fitting, not unlike modern jeans. For those on a budget, woollen leggings would be an acceptable compromise to achieve the “look”.

Shirt  The shirts worn by Anglo-Saxons and Vikings were largely identical differing only in the way the name was pronounced. In Old English scyrte was pronounced “shirta” while the Old Norse word skyrta was pronounced “skirta”. Both words originate from Proto-Germanic *skurtjon meaning “a short garment”. Shirts can be of wool or linen, quite voluminous and typically long-sleeved. In terms of length, it seems that shirts typically reached to the mid-thigh or were knee-length. Tablet woven decoration or embroidery often adorned the neckline, sleeve cuffs and hemline but this is not essential in any recreation.

Dresses  Anglo-Saxon and Viking women wore ankle length linen under-dresses known also as skyrta in Old Norse. This could be long-sleeved, short-sleeved or sleeveless; a woman’s arms were considered a point of attraction, and young women probably preferred to show them off when appropriate. In cold or wet weather, a similarly styled woollen dress would have been worn over the skyrta, but in winter, a doubled outer tunic or coat could be worn over her other garments.

To protect her skyrta, an “apron-skirt” or hangerock (proun. “han-ye-rok”) was typically worn over it. A hangerock is another type of dress, wider at the bottom than at the top and held up by straps passing over the shoulders from the back to the front. The straps were fastened by brœkr (“brooches”), with oval-style “tortoise” brooches appearing to have been very popular. Depending on the woman’s status or wealth, these might by silver or gold. Finds have revealed a high degree of craftsmanship in the decorative designs. Such brooches are often connected by chains of glass beads and amber pendants; the latter thought to have magical properties.

Belts  Leather belts are worn by both men and women round the waist to suspend useful items like knives, keys or a pouch to hold small valuables. Women may have also elected to wear decorative tablet woven belts instead of leather ones.

Headwear  Married women tied their hair up in a knot and covered it with a headscarf. Unmarried girls wore their hair loose or simply confined by a piece of braid. Simple skullcaps made of wool or leather were worn by both sexes. Caps could be edged with tablet-woven braid or trimmed with fur. Both men and women also wore caped hoods covering the neck and giving excellent protection from inclement weather. A lining of looser-woven cloth was not uncommon, and some hoods even had a filling of down between the two layers. The basic design survived all over Europe for many centuries. 

Material to use  For accurate ancient or Mediæval costume, cloth should be made only from the natural fibres of linen or wool. It is recognised, however, that sometimes modern cloth contains a mixture of these and cotton. This is acceptable compromise for those seeking to be as accurate as possible since the mix of fibres will not adversely affect the appearance or the draping qualities of the base material. In the early Mediæval period wool was the dominate fabric worn by most people so ideally that should be the first choice for any Anglo-Saxon or Viking costume.

Colours  It may come as a shock, but television dramas and movies are not the best source of inspiration for what colours to wear. Even today, costume and wardrobe departments seemingly cannot divorce themselves from the very outdated idea that ancient and Mediæval clothing was almost exclusively dull browns and subdued colours. This is despite overwhelming evidence from contemporary paintings, embroideries and tapestries all showing a wealth of vibrant colour. Admittedly, modern chemical dyes produce consistent and vivid hues which probably could not have been achieved so perfectly in the past when using plant-based dyes. Yet, from just the small selection of plants as shown right, a variety of colours and shades clearly can be achieved.

And finally  If tempted to add to your ensemble, then be aware that no cow-horns ever graced a Viking helmet before the last quarter of the 19th-century. There is simply no evidence whatsoever, historically or archaeologically - the end. Should you, dear reader, remain unconvinced, then follow the link to Roberta Frank’s article on “The Invention of the Viking Horned Helmet”. Bon appétit!

Endnotes:

1. In the Old Norse tongue, the word viking meant something like raiding or piracy, and vikingr meant a raider. Today, however, this word is used as a general term for the Nordic peoples of the 8th- to the 11th-centuries, it was used more rarely in the mediaeval period. Their fellow Europeans used to speak rather of “Norsemen” - men from the North (a term which lives on in “Norman”, since Normandy was founded by Scandinavian colonists). The peoples of eastern Europe and the Balkans, however, used the terms “Rus” and “Varangians” for the Norse invaders, traders, colonists and mercenaries.

2. Tastes Of History is neither affiliated with either company named nor endorsing their products. We are merely pointing interested parties to two possible sources of clothing and footwear. Other retailers and suppliers are available.

On This Day: Draconian Norman “forest laws” repealed

November 6th, 1217: England’s longest-lasting law, the Charter of the Forest, is sealed extending freedoms to the common people.

A mere two years after King John affixed the Royal Seal to Magna Carta Libertatum (the “Great Charter of Freedoms”) thereby subjecting the sovereign’s power to the law, England’s people gained another extension to their liberties. In November 1217, the 10-year-old King Henry III granted his assent to the Charter of the Forest marking a radical change to more than 100 years of royal tradition. For the first time in England’s history the common people gained legal rights.

Post AD 1066, with the Normans ruling the country, much of the kingdom had been converted into vast hunting estates known as “royal forests”. These included, for example, Sherwood, the New Forest and the whole of Essex. To the Normans a “forest” was a legally defined area where the “beasts of the chase [deer & wild pig] and their habitats including the vert” were for the pleasure of the monarch [1]. In AD 1079, for example, the New Forest in southern England was set aside by William I as his right, primarily for hunting deer. By 1217 it is estimated that royal estates encompassed nearly one-third of southern England.

These royal estates existed beyond the boundaries of the kingdom and were thus places where ordinary rules did not apply. Indeed, the draconian “forest laws” imposed across England by King William I forbade the cutting down of trees and regulated the gathering of fallen timber for firewood, the collection of berries or indeed anything growing within the forest. The Norman system ousted earlier Anglo-Saxon laws in which rights to the forest were not exclusive to the king or nobles but shared among the people (Woodbury, 2012). The common people’s access to their ancestral environment was drastically curtailed.

William’s forest laws established that taking wood from the forest or hunting in banned areas were crimes, the latter specifically known as poaching. Unsurprisingly, the laws were despised by the commonfolk as they were prevented from using the woodland to provide food, fuel and building materials. They were also banned from enclosing their land by fencing or other means, ostensibly to protect crops, as this restricted the hunt. Likewise, they could not use the timber from the woodland for building houses and were not allowed to hunt game, especially the king’s deer, to provide food for their families. For those living in the forest, they were explicitly not allowed to own dogs or a bow and arrows, and, as the “underwood” was also protected, commoners also faced a severe restriction on the availability of fuel. The punishments for breaking the laws could range from fines to, in the most severe cases, death. Repeat offenders, for example, were blinded or executed. In cases where a culprit could not be found, then whole communities might be penalised. Such punishments provided a lucrative income for England’s early Mediæval kings coincidently at a time when taxation was beyond the crown’s control.

In 1215 King John was coerced into adopting Magna Carta but this did not improve relations with his barons. When the king renounced the “Great Charter”, England was quickly cast back into turmoil. The following year, 1216, saw the untimely death (for him at least) of John and the succession of his infant son, Henry; Magna Carta was back on the table. In 1217, the new Charter of the Forest was sealed on behalf of the child king by his regent, William Marshall, Earl of Pembroke, and a papal emissary. Within it were four provisions concerning the royal forests which, across 17 clauses, restricted the crown’s authority over the forests, reduced their size and restored many of the ancient rights enjoyed by commoners before 1066. The charter became the longest-surviving law in English history remaining on the statute books until 1971 when it was superseded by the Wild Creatures and Forest Laws Act. Bon appétit!

Reference:

Woodbury, S. (2012), “Forest Laws in the Middle Ages”, Available online (accessed 18 September 2024).

Endnote:

1. The “vert” in this case is a late Middle English adjective for flora or greenery. The term entered English via Old French from the Latin viridis meaning “green”.

Dispelling Some Myths: A Union Flag in distress

In April 2024 Tastes Of History wrote an article to dispel a couple of popular myths concerning the flying of the Union Flag upside down. The article has received some comments; some more enlightened than others. One deserves an addendum to the original article to clarify that “[I]f hung horizontally or vertically [on a flat surface], the broad white diagonal should be uppermost in the top-left corner.” So, technically whoever hung the flag may have unintentionally done so upside down. But to be charitable, this flag is in a primary school, and if you know anything about the educational sphere then you will know teachers face far too many pressures in multiple different areas for simple mistakes like this to happen. So, while first forgiving whoever made this easily made mistake let us turn to one of the other comments challenging our claim that flying the Union Flag upside down as a distress signal was a myth.

“No names, no pack drill” [1] but the comment in question reads as follows:

“You can not [sic] prove if it was or was not used upside down as a distress signal. Saying it would not be noticed from a distance is moot. It was meant to be a subtle warning so the enemy very probably would not notice it. As I remember it, it was done if the building/base had infiltrators in it to warn those approaching it. It may not have been an official thing to do, but appears to have been done somewhere at some point due to the widespread stories of it.”

The writer of this comment will remain anonymous, but the content gives us an opportunity to critically think about the claims being made. We stress that what follows is not an attack on the person - a roasting if you prefer - since Tastes Of History believes that sort of approach is negative, unnecessary and perpetuates ignorance. Rather we contend that dissecting the claims made will reveal the fragility of the argument but perhaps offer us all a chance to learn. We hope, dear reader, you will agree.

With that caveat in mind, let us begin. The comment writer’s reference to “the enemy” and “the building/base” strongly suggests they are thinking largely in military terms so let us stick with that premise. For many decades now modern armed forces have used encrypted communications. Were a “Forward Operating Base” (FOB) or “Fire Support Base” (FSB) in a hostile or a semi-permissive environment be under attack, being infiltrated or about to be overwhelmed, then the communications network(s) would be awash with information, situation reports (sitreps), updates and requests for support. On operations to hear the phrase “troops in contact” (or something similar) focuses all attention on the troops in question such that friendly forces will be instantly aware of any actual or developing situation, and ready to help. The need to issue a “subtle warning so the enemy very probably would not notice it” does not therefore stand up to scrutiny. Firstly, noticing a Union Flag being flown upside down from a distance is not exactly moot. As we said in the earlier article: “to a casual observer or someone unfamiliar with the flag’s design it is not very easy to spot whether it is orientated correctly”. The chances with the enemy’s focus wholly on assaulting the base and, if under fire, they would care little for an upside down flag whether they realised its supposed significance as a “distress signal” or not.

One would like to think that military personnel would notice but would they see it was a “subtle warning” something was amiss, or would the typical “squaddie” simply think that someone had made a massive, punishable mistake (while perhaps thankful they had not done it). After serving for nearly a quarter of a century in the British Army, alongside Royal Navy and Royal Air Force personnel, the author has never encountered this idea that flying the flag upside down was a distress signal. No official Ministry of Defence (MoD) or individual service standing orders were issued, no operational orders for deployments included such direction, no unit standard operating procedures (SOPs) mentioned it, there were no unofficial “gentlemen’s” agreements, in fact nothing to substantiate the “distress signal” claim.

The closest reference we could find to date with any proven military connection was on the website of BFBS Forces News [2]. An article published ahead of King Charles III’s coronation celebrations in 2022 questioned, in a country awash with Union Jacks, how many people would unknowingly hang them upside down. Within said article author, Julian Perreira, wrote:

“It is often said that when the Union Flag is flown upside down, it is a form of distress signal – a coded signal – and should only be used as such.”

It is worth highlighting that Mr Perreira did not categorically state that an upside down flag is a distress signal, he merely notes that “it is often said”. In other words, while many people may believe this to be the case, that is not the same as there being any officially recognised, documented proof. Rather the whole “distress signal” notion is predicated on hearsay and uncorroborated word-of-mouth. It is, therefore, just another urban myth, which the Cambridge Dictionary defines as “a story or statement that is not true but is often repeated, and believed by many to be true”.

Returning to our military analogy, where a base is at the very real risk of being overrun, then the defenders undoubtedly will have far more pressing concerns. The most obvious would be directly engaging the enemy and resisting infiltration, but other actions would include destroying cryptographic material and devices, destroying protectively marked (classified) documents, hard drives and recording devices, and generally taking every possible action to deny the enemy any exploitable information and materiel. The belief that someone has time to disengage from the firefight to strike a flag, flip it upside down and fly it once more as a “distress signal”, subtle or not, is just nonsensical.

If still not convinced, then let us consider the weakness of the final sentence in this particular comment which reads:

“It may not have been an official thing to do, but appears to have been done somewhere at some point due to the widespread stories of it.”

Firstly, the writer states using an upside flag as a distress signal was not an officially recognised thing to do. In most mainstream militaries, unofficial actions are frowned upon and not encouraged. Moreover, if not a recognised practice, then that implies leaving a lot of service personnel completely ignorant of said “distress signal”. In other words, if personnel are not briefed or trained to look for this subtle signal then they will not recognise the significance, nor take the appropriate action (whatever that might be), and more dangerously could walk straight into an ambush. Despite this the comment writer contests that flying flags upside down was done somewhere, by someone, at some time, so it must be true. Yet in providing no evidence to support this ambiguous statement, the writer rather neatly commits the very thing they accuse Tastes Of History of doing at the comment’s beginning, that is, not providing evidence for or against the distress signal idea. Except we did.

We stated quite clearly that the authoritative publication on “Flying Flags in the United Kingdom” makes no mention of the practice. Indeed, we can find no official UK governmental or MoD documentation that establishes definitively the practice of flying a Union Flag upside down as a distress signal applicable to the armed forces or anyone else. There are, however, many mentions of the upside down flag as a distress signal in online discussions or articles on the correct way to fly the Union Flag. Are these frequent mentions “the widespread stories of it” happening? If so, then we return to the very definition of an urban myth. Flying the Union Flag upside down as a distress signal may be often repeated and believed by many, but it is simply not true.

If, dear reader, you know otherwise and can provide documentary evidence from an official source, then let us know because every day should be a learning day. Bon appétit!

References:

Cambridge Dictionary, (2025), “Urban Myth”, Cambridge University Press & Assessment website, available online (accessed 8 October 2025).

Perreira, J, (2022), “Union Jack: Do you know the correct way up?”, bfbs Forces News, available online (accessed 8 October 2025).

Endnotes:

1. “No names, no pack drill” has its origins in the British Army where “pack drill” refers to a punishment involving soldiers carrying heavy packs during exercise or drills. The phrase implies that if an individual is not named then there can be no recriminations or punishment for their actions.

2. The British Forces Broadcasting Service (BFBS) provides radio and television programmes for His Majesty's Armed Forces and their dependents worldwide.

On This Day: Caesar’s assassins’ last stand

October 23rd, 42 BC: After two days of fighting near Philippi in northeast Greece the self-styled Libertores (“the Liberators”) met their fate. Having absconded to the eastern provinces of the Roman Republic following the murder of Gaius Julius Caesar on Idibus Martiis [1] two years earlier (44 BC), the leading assassins Gaius Cassius Longinus and Marcus Junius Brutus controlled much of the eastern Mediterranean. Meanwhile a triumvirate was forged between Caesar’s right-hand man, Marcus Antonius (“Mark Antony”); his named heir and great-nephew, Gaius Octavius (“Octavian”); and Legatus (general) Marcus Aemilius Lepidus. Together they secured control of Rome and its western provinces. Leaving Lepidus in Italy, Antony and Octavian set out to confront their enemies.

On October 3rd, with Octavian’s army in danger of being overwhelmed by Brutus’ legions outside Philippi, Antony was compelled to divert his forces away from a clash with Cassius’ flank. The latter mistook the ensuing confusion for defeat and promptly committed suicide. Thus, the first battle of Philippi ended with no clear victor.

Aware that his legions were contemptuous of his command but needing their continued support, and that the Caesarians were reliant on supplies shipped from Italy across the Adriatic, Brutus resolved to wait it out. Battle re-joined on October 23rd, however. A savage encounter ensued until Antony’s cavalry routed the remnant of Brutus’ legions. Fleeing into the surrounding hills, Brutus followed his fellow Liberator’s example and fell on his sword. Eventually Antony discovered the lifeless body and, so the sources claim, ordered that it be wrapped in a purple tunic and cremated. Brutus’ ashes were returned to his mother in Rome. The civil war that rent Rome after Caesar’s murder had ended in defeat for his assassins.

Bon appétit!

Endnote:

1. Idibus Martiis or the “Ides of March” equates to the 15th of that month.

The Bayeux Tapestry

The Bayeux Museum in Normandy which houses The Bayeux Tapestry is set to close for renovation from 1st September 2025 until October 2027. There has been a rumour for a while now that the Tapestry might return to England so the perfect opportunity for this to happen is created by the museum’s refurbishment. Indeed, on 8th July 2025 the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) confirmed the Bayeux Tapestry will be displayed in a special exhibition in the British Museum from next Autumn until July 2027. Coincidentally, 2027 is also the 1000th anniversary of the birth of William I, the Conqueror. Regardless, now there is no excuse for Tastes Of History not to see in person this iconic historical record.

Tapestry? Surely, it’s an embroidery?

For those not familiar with the Bayeux Tapestry, it is an embroidered cloth measuring nearly 70 metres (230 ft) long and 500 mm (20 in) tall. It depicts, in “cartoon”-like form, the events leading up to the Norman conquest of England in 1066. In that year William, Duke of Normandy, challenged King Harold II for the English throne, a challenge that culminated in the day long fight now known as the Battle of Hastings on October 14th. For centuries the tapestry has been preserved in Bayeux, Normandy.

The Tapestry is thought to date to the 11th-century having been completed within a few years of the pivotal battle. Widely accepted as being made in England in the 1070s, possibly as a gift for William, it tells the story from the Norman point of view. The cloth comprises 58 scenes, many with accompanying Latin text (tituli [1]), embroidered on linen using coloured woollen yarns. Significantly the designs are embroidered rather than woven and thus the cloth does not meet the narrower definitions of a tapestry. Despite this it has been referred to as a tapestry for so long that, perhaps to the annoyance of many pedants, changing the name to “The Bayeux Embroidery” has yet to gain popular traction.

Scholarly analysis in the 20th-century concluded that the Tapestry was probably commissioned by William's maternal half-brother, Bishop Odo of Bayeux who, after the Conquest, became Earl of Kent and, when William was absent in Normandy, regent of England. Odo as the commissioner is hypothesised because, firstly, three of his followers mentioned in the Domesday Book appear on the tapestry; secondly, it was found in Bayeux Cathedral also commissioned by Odo, and finally it may have been fashioned at the same time as the cathedral's construction in the 1070s. It is thus thought that the Tapestry was possibly completed by 1077 in time to be displayed at the cathedral's dedication.

Whether or not the tapestry was commissioned by Bishop Odo, it is widely held to have been designed and constructed in England by Anglo-Saxon embroiderers. This makes some sense since Odo's main power base was by then in Kent and there are other, similar embroideries originating in England around the same time. Moreover, the vegetable dyes used to colour the woollen threads can also be found in cloth traditionally woven in England, and even the Latin text contains hints of Anglo-Saxon expressions.

Construction

Nine embroidered tabby-woven linen panels, between 3 m and 14 m long, were sewn together to produce one continuous cloth. At the very first join the borders do not align neatly but as the embroiderers’ technique improved, the joins became invisible especially where they were subsequently disguised with needlework. The design has a broad central zone with narrow decorative borders top and bottom. Two methods of stitching in crewel (wool yarn) were used: outline or stem stitch for lettering and the outlines of figures, and couching or laid work for filling in figures.

The start of the tapestry has been restored somewhat and over the centuries the cloth has been patched in numerous places. Some of the embroidery, especially in the final scene, has also been reworked, albeit with some regard for the original stitching. That final scene, however, does not mark the end of the tapestry; that has been missing from time immemorial, and the final titulus “Et fuga verterunt Angli” (“and the English left fleeing”) is said to be “entirely spurious”. It is thought to have been added shortly before 1814 at a time of anti-English sentiment. Despite the repairs and reworking, the tapestry seems to have maintained much of its original appearance when compared closely with a detailed drawing made in 1730.

What does it depict?

The tapestry tells the story of the events of 1064–1066, culminating in the Battle of Hastings, through a series of pictures with supporting Latin text. The two main protagonists are Harold Godwinson, recently crowned King of England, leading the Anglo-Saxon English, and William, Duke of Normandy, leading a mainly Norman army.

William was born in 1027, or more likely towards the end of 1028, in Falaise in the Duchy of Normandy. As the illegitimate son of Robert I, Duke of Normandy, and Herleva (or Arlette), a daughter of Fulbert of Falaise who may have been a tanner or embalmer, for much of his life he was known as “William the Bastard”. His mother may have been a member of the ducal household but did not marry Robert. She did, however, later marry Herluin de Conteville with whom she had two sons – Odo of Bayeux and Count Robert of Mortain – and a daughter whose name is unknown. During William’s minority one of Herleva's brothers, Walter, became his supporter and protector until, as the only son of Robert I, William became Duke of Normandy at the age of seven. By the age of nineteen he was in control of Normandy.

At the time the tapestry starts its narration, England’s king, Edward the Confessor, was about sixty years old, childless and without any clear successor. In the 11th-century accession to the English throne was not by primogeniture whereby the firstborn son succeeded his father. Rather, succession was decided jointly by the king and an assembly of the Anglo-Saxon nobility known as the Witenagemot. The most powerful member of that council was Godwin, Earl of Wessex. As part of the complex ties of kinship and familial relationships, Edward had married Edith, Godwin’s daughter, in 1043 thus making Godwin’s son, Harold Godwinson, Edward's brother-in-law. By 1050 relations between the King and the Earl Godwin had soured, escalating to a crisis in 1051 and the resultant exile of Godwin and his family from England. It was during this exile that, in 1051, Edward offered the throne to William whose great aunt, Emma of Normandy, was Edward's mother. In 1052 Godwin returned from exile with an armed force whereupon a settlement was reached between the King and the Earl restoring the latter and his family to their lands. Earl Godwin died a year later, and Harold succeeded to his father's earldom. Harold’s brother, Tostig, became Earl of Northumbria and later his other brothers were also given earldoms: Gyrth as Earl of East Anglia in 1057 and Leofwine as Earl of Kent sometime between 1055 and 1057.

According to the Norman chronicler William of Poitiers, Harold had reputedly sworn to honour William’s succession to the English throne in accordance with the wishes of King Edward. Some sources even claim that Harold, having taken part in William's Breton campaign of 1064, had sworn on holy relics to uphold William's claim. No English source, however, records the trip and it remains unclear if it, and the related oathtaking, occurred at all. It is just possible that the whole episode was Norman propaganda intended to discredit Harold who, by early 1066, had emerged as the main contender to succeed King Edward.

1066 and all that

On 5th January 1066, after 24 years as king, Edward died. Shortly before he had probably entrusted the kingdom to his wife, Edith of Wessex, and to Edith’s brother, none other than Harold Godwinson. Indeed, Harold claimed Edward, on his deathbed, had made him heir over William. Whether true or not, the Anglo-Saxon nobles of the Witenagemot convened and confirmed Harold’s succession. The following day, January 6th, Edward was buried in Westminster Abbey and Harold was crowned becoming, it is believed, the first English monarch to be crowned in the Abbey.

According once more to the account of William of Poitiers, King Harold II sent an envoy to Duke William shortly before the Battle of Hastings. On behalf of Harold, the envoy admitted that Edward had promised the throne to William but argued that this was over-ridden by his deathbed promise to Harold. In reply, William did not dispute the deathbed promise but argued that Edward's prior promise to him took precedence.

On hearing of Harold's coronation, Duke William began plans to invade England. Seven hundred 700 warships and transports were built at Dives-sur-Mer on the Normandy coast, but William lacked Papal support for the invasion. However, by claiming that Harold had sworn on sacred relics to support William’s claim to the English throne, he eventually received the Church's blessing and Norman nobles flocked to his cause. Across the Channel and in anticipation of the invasion, Harold assembled 1,400 men of the Fyrd on the Isle of Wight. These men only expected to serve for two months under command of their respective Eorl, Bishop or Shire Reeve (sheriff) but, possibly because of unfavourable winds, William’s invasion fleet remained in port for almost seven months. After waiting all summer on the South coast for William’s expected invasion, and with provisions running out, on September 8th Harold was forced to disband the Fyrd. As his army returned to their villages to bring in the harvest, Harold headed to London.

Four days later, on September 12th, Duke William's fleet sailed from Normandy. Several ships sank in storms, which forced the fleet to take shelter at Saint-Valery-sur-Somme and to wait once more for the wind to change.

Vikings!

What follows next is not recorded on the Tapestry as it does not involve William or his fellow Normans. For completeness, however, on the very same day the King of Norway, Harald Hardrada, who also claimed the English crown, invaded. According to most contemporary sources, the Norwegian king and Tostig, King Harold’s brother, met at Tynemouth, a town literally at the mouth of the River Tyne. Harald Hardrada had a force of, at the most, around 10,000 to 15,000 men on between 240 and 300 longships, while Tostig had a mere 12 ships with soldiers.

Meanwhile, on September 20th, the invading forces of Hardrada, which means “hard ruler”, and Tostig defeated the English earls Edwin of Mercia and Morcar of Northumbria at the Battle of Fulford 2 miles South of York. The battle was a decisive victory for Harald and Tostig and led the people of York to surrender to them four days later. This would be the last time a Scandinavian army defeated English forces. however.

Learning of the Viking invasion, King Harold had led his army North on a forced march from London, reaching Yorkshire in four days. The same day as York surrendered to Harald and Tostig, Harold Godwinson arrived with his army in Tadcaster, just seven miles from the anchored Norwegian fleet at Riccall. From there he probably scouted the Norwegian fleet in preparation for a surprise attack but, as Hardrada had left no forces in York, King Harold marched right through the town to Stamford Bridge.

Early on September 25th, Hardrada and Tostig departed their landing place at Riccall with most of their forces, leaving a third behind to protect the ships. The Norwegians wore light armour as they were only expecting to meet the citizens of York at Stamford Bridge, as agreed the day before, to decide who should manage the town under Hardrada. At the meeting point the Norwegians saw King Harold's host approaching, heavily armed and armoured, and greatly outnumbering Hardrada's force. The Anglo-Saxon’s forced march had caught Hardrada and Tostig by surprise.

According to Snorri Sturluson, before the battle a single man rode up to Harald Hardrada and Tostig. He gave no name, but spoke to Tostig, offering the return of his earldom if he would turn against Hardrada. Tostig asked what his brother Harold would be willing to give Hardrada for his trouble. The rider replied: “Seven feet of English ground, as he is taller than other men” before riding back to the Saxon host. Hardrada was impressed by the rider's boldness, and asked Tostig who he was. Tostig replied that the rider was Harold Godwinson himself.

The Norwegian army was decisively beaten, with both Hardrada and Tostig killed. Hardrada wearing no body armour fought in a state of berserkergang (berserker fury) with his sword in two hands until he was struck in the throat by an arrow and killed early in the battle. Although sources state that Hardrada's remaining army only filled 20 to 25 ships on the return to Norway, it is likely that this number only accounts for the Norwegian forces. Most of the men hailing from Scotland and Orkney probably remained at Riccall throughout the battle and were not counted in the traditional figure. Even so, this was the last Viking invasion of England.

The Battle of Hastings

Delayed by wind and tides the Norman fleet finally set sail for England on September 27th. William’s force arrived the following day at Pevensey on the coast of East Sussex where perhaps 7,000 men were landed. Meanwhile, celebrations over the Battle of Stamford Bridge were short-lived. With the Normans arrival, King Harold was forced to march his army South, covering 27 miles/day for 241 miles, to intercept William. On October 13th Harold established his army in hastily built earthworks at Caldbec Hill some 8 miles from William’s castle in Hastings. The following day, October 14th, the Anglo-Saxon army took position on Senlac Hill (near the present town of Battle) near Hastings. From his base, now only 6 miles away, William’s army advanced to meet Harold’s clashing in what we now call the “Battle of Hastings”. After nine hours of hard fighting, Harold was killed, and his forces defeated. Harold’s brothers Gyrth and Leofwine were also killed in the battle, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

Arrow in the eye

The notion that Harold died by an arrow to the eye is a popular belief today, but the identification of England’s king in the vignette depicting his death is disputed. A Norman account of the battle, Carmen de Hastingae Proelio (“Song of the Battle of Hastings”), said to have been written shortly after the battle by Guy, Bishop of Amiens, says that Harold was killed by four knights, probably including Duke William, and his body dismembered. Much later (12th-century) Anglo-Norman histories (such as William of Malmesbury's Gesta Regum Anglorum and Henry of Huntingdon's Historia Anglorum) recount that Harold died by an arrow wound to his head. Later accounts reflect one or both of these two versions.

The figure in the panel of the Bayeux Tapestry containing the inscription “hic Harold Rex Interfectus Est” (“here Harold the King has been killed”) is certainly depicted gripping an arrow that has struck his eye. Many believe the figure with an arrow in his eye must be the king because he is directly beneath the name “Harold”. However, examination of other examples from the Tapestry reveal that the visual centre of a scene, not the location of the inscription, identifies named figures. Some historians, therefore, have questioned whether this man is intended to be Harold or if Harold is supposedly the next figure lying to the right almost supine, being mutilated beneath a horse's hooves. Moreover, some contest that the arrow is a later 18th- or 19th-century modification following a period of repair. In Benoît's engraving of 1729, for example, and in Bernard de Montfaucon's engravings of the tapestry as it was in 1730, a spear or lance is shown in place of the arrow and certainly no fletching. On close inspection, needle holes in the linen suggest something has been removed, or shortened, and fletching added to form an arrow.

A figure is slain with a sword in the subsequent panel, and the titulus above this figure refers to Harold's death (interfectus est, “he was killed”). It is more likely that this figure is intended to be the king slain by the Norman knights attested in the Carmen de Hastingae Proelio. The reference to Harold’s body being dismembered is supported by one account stating: “the two brothers of the King were found near him and Harold himself, stripped of all badges of honour, could not be identified by his face but only by certain marks on his body.” Another source states that Harold's widow, Edith Swanneck [2], was called to identify the body, which she did by some private mark known only to her. Either way, evidence from the Tapestry clearly shows Norman archers at work and it was a tried and tested tactic to loose a volley of arrows at the enemy before a Norman cavalry charge. Perhaps both accounts are accurate and that Harold suffered first the eye wound, then the mutilation, and the Tapestry is depicting both in one scene. Bon appétit!

Endnotes:

1. The term tituli (Latin “inscriptions” or “labels”, sing. titulus) refers to the labels or captions that name figures or subjects that were commonly added to classical and medieval art.

2. “Swanneck” comes from the folk etymology which made her in Old English as swann hnecca, “swan neck”, which was most likely a corrupted form of swann hnesce, “gentle swan”.