How To: Make a simple Egyptian, Greek or Roman costume

This “How to:” guide is for those readers wishing to recreate simple yet effective historical costume. It is primarily aimed at teachers wishing to inspire their pupils on “Wow Days” when dressing up is the order of the day. In our experience, in most UK schools, that might be for history topics on the ancient Egyptians, Greeks or Romans.

The basics  Our evidence for ancient costume comes from the interpretation of statues, relief carvings in stone, frescoes, mosaics and many other forms of imagery. Surviving examples of textiles are incredibly rare, and often later in date, but can guide a recreation. Depictions of ancient Egyptian costume show a wide variety of styles, many with elaborate cuts, decorative pleats, fringed edging and intricate belting. Some examples are clearly made of very sheer, revealing material. For most people we suspect a far simpler design would suffice so we suggest using the same basic style for Egyptian, Greek and Roman costume.

We are calling this “Greco-Roman” style not to ignore the Egyptians but because the ancient Greeks and Romans essentially wore the same basic garment. Both men and women wore a tunic (Gr: khiton; Lat: tunica); a rectangle of cloth attached or sewn at the shoulders and sewn from the underarm to the hem. The difference between the sexes is the overall length of the garment and where the hemline ends. For women, dresses are typically shown full length with the hemline at least to the ankle. By contrast, Greek men tended to wear their khiton (tunic) quite short and above the knee. The same can be said for Roman soldiers where the hemline is roughly three to four finger widths above the knee. Quite simply, a short tunic allows more freedom of movement in exercise, manual labour and in warfare. For ordinary Roman men, however, their tunic typically ended about midcalf. This might be slightly higher for children and young men, or if you are portraying a “servant".

Material  For most people, tunics were made of wool, predominantly, or linen. The wealthy could afford very finely woven cloth, with some examples being especially sheer or translucent. For our purposes, the basic garment is easily reproduced from a single (c. 180 cm x 275 cm), double (c. 230 cm x 275 cm) or king size (c. 275 cm x 275 cm) bedsheet that provides a ready-made, and hemmed, starting point. For the more authentic look we recommend using linen in preference to cotton. The latter was known in the ancient world [1] but because it is a tropical and subtropical plant, cotton agriculture did not spread outside the Indian subcontinent until thousands of years after its domestication [2]. Cotton, therefore, would have been a luxury item for most Egyptians, Greeks and Romans.

A simple pattern  We will focus on a pattern for a woman’s dress as the men’s tunic is essentially a shortened form either with or without short sleeves. In its simplest form the dress is a folded rectangle of cloth with the two halves attached in several ways. Dresses worn by ancient Greek women may well have been left open along the line B-C (refer to the diagram below), with the two halves of the dress belted in place. If you are feeling particularly risqué then you could follow the ancient example, but we would suggest, for modesty’s sake alone, that the seam along B-C is sewn.

In the diagram below, the head hole is formed between D-E which, from experience, needs to be at least 25 cm to 30 cm (c. 10 to 12 inches) wide. When folded in half, and if you decide to sew the shoulders together between A-D and E-F, then the cloth must be cut at F-G to allow the right arm to go through. If you prefer to simply pin the garment at the shoulders with brooches at D-D and E-E, then the cloth would fall on each side and cutting the F-G armhole would not be necessary [3].

Belts  At a minimum the garment should belted at the waist. Excess material can be pulled up and bloused over the belt to achieve the desired length of the tunic. Sometimes women’s dresses were belted twice, once at the waist and again at the hips, giving a double-bloused effect. Similarly, they are also depicted belted high under the breasts, or cross-belted over the chest and tied at the waist.

Colour  In terms of colour, white is the simplest colour but not necessarily one favoured by the ancients. The popular impression from television and film is that white clothing predominated, but this is something of a mistake stemming from the prejudices of antiquarians in the past who deliberately removed paint from statues because they considered white marble more aesthetically pleasing. In more recent (enlightened?) times, scientific research has revealed that, particularly on Greco-Roman statues, bold colours were used to create a life-like appearance. Do not be afraid, therefore, to choose solid colours to reflect dyed woollen cloth. If possible, “pastel” shades are preferable to reflect ancient wool dyeing techniques as modern dyes produce colours that are too vivid.

In contrast to wool, ancient linen did not take dye well so most Egyptian linen kept its natural shade or was bleached white. Depending on what is available or your budget, it really does not matter whether you choose a colourful look or a simple white cloth, but do try to avoid printed patterned fabrics.

Sashes  For some inexplicable reason many Greek and Roman "costumes" for sale come complete with sashes that are either pinned and draped over one shoulder passing through the belt, carried in the arms like a shawl, or looped diagonally about the body from one shoulder. Examples are shown below that we think have been inspired by various costume designers creating a certain “look” for film and television. Said designers were probably trying to create the palla as shown worn by our Roman matron above, but singularly failed to understand its significance or how it should have been worn. No respectable Greek or Roman woman would leave the house without being modestly dressed. The palla therefore covered the body, and probably the head too, both to protect her against the cold or indecent display, and against any “evil eye” or improper advance. Naturally the palla would have been a heavier woollen cloth in cold weather and of thinner material (linen, cotton, or silk) in warm weather. Having said it was worn about the body, it can be loosely draped over the arm when a woman was seated or in a more relaxed pose.

A final note on underwear  From our imagery sources it is nigh impossible to know whether underwear was typically worn. It is highly likely that in hotter climates, such as Egypt and around the Mediterranean, underwear was forsaken to keep cool. Now we are all for “authenticity” but in a school or at a public event this might not be a wise choice. Lycra shorts or something similar are recommended but just be aware that dark coloured underwear can be visible beneath white garments. Again this may not be the look you are after.

We hope this “How to:” guide proves useful. If so, feel free to like, comment or share.

Notes:

1. Cotton fabric has been found at Nimrud in Iraq (8th to 7th-centuries BC), Arjan in Iran (late 7th to early 6th-centuries BC) and Kerameikos in Greece (5th-century BC).
2. Maestri, N., (February 2021), "The Domestication History of Cotton (Gossypium)", ThoughtCo., retrieved July 3rd, 2021.
3. In other words the arms pass through the gaps A-D and E-F.

Dispelling Some Myths: The Amazons

For those studying the ancient Greeks, you will undoubtedly come across tales of the Amazons, the fearsome, man-hating warrior women of Greek legend. Ignoring the obvious connection to a large online retailer, popular interest in the Amazons was given a boost with the release of the film "Wonder Woman" (2017) and its more recent spin-offs. Based on the DC comic book heroine, the film mashes several "facts" into the narrative, but just how much is true. For example, were the Amazons a solely female based society? Where did they come from? Did the Amazons really hate men, and did they really cut off a breast to be better archers?

Greek mythology  The Greek legend of the Amazons first emerged “more than twenty-five centuries ago [when they] appeared in the writings of some classical scholars and writers” (Guliaev, p. 113). These early writings created a foundational mythology and remained popular throughout Greek history.

To the Greeks, the Amazons were a tribe of warrior women thought to dwell in Asia Minor at the edge of what the Greeks considered their “civilized” world. According to Apollonius Rhodius and other ancient authors [1], the Amazons were the daughters of Ares, the god of war, and his lover Harmonia [2], a nymph [3] of the Akmonian Wood. In his “Argonautica”, Rhodius described the Amazons as brutal and aggressive, and their main concern in life was war.

Homeland  To the Greeks, the story of the Amazons represented a distant land populated by a people whose culture was organised oppositely from their own (Kuiper, 1998). Precisely where the Amazons resided necessarily became more remote as Greek geographic knowledge developed. Most ancient Greek authors associated them with the area around the southern coast of the Black Sea, particularly the city-state of Themiskyra. For the historians Herodotus, and later Strabo, this was on the plains of the Thermodon River [4] in Asia Minor. Indeed, the foundation of many settlements in Asia Minor were credited to the Amazons most notably Ephesus where it was thought they had sacrificed at the temple to the goddess of hunting, Artemis, and performed war dances, a ceremony repeated annually thereafter. Other Amazonian settlements included Cyme, Sinope, Priene, Myrina, Smyrna, and Mytilene on the island of Lesbos. When Greek colonists first reached Amazon territory, however, none were found there and so it became necessary to explain their apparent disappearance. Thus, when the Greek hero Herakles (Hercules) was tasked with his Labour to obtain the girdle of Queen Hippolyte, he was said to have conquered and, conveniently, expelled the Amazons from their homeland.

In the 1st-century BC the Greek geographer, philosopher and historian Strabo confirmed the original homeland of the Amazons on the plains by the Thermodon river. Discovering, however, that they were long gone and not seen again during his lifetime, it was alleged that the Amazons had retreated into the mountains. Strabo, however, added that other authors, among them Metrodorus of Scepsis and Hypsicrates, claimed that, after abandoning Themiskyra, the Amazons had chosen to resettle beyond the borders of the Gargareans. Once again, this explanation resolves the problem of procreation for a women-only society. The Amazons and Gargareans, an all-male tribe native to the northern foothills of the Ceraunian Mountains, had met in secrecy once a year during two months in spring for many generations with the aim of producing children. These encounters would take place in accordance with ancient tribal customs and collective offers of sacrifices. Accordingly, all female infants were retained by the Amazons themselves, while boys were returned to the Gargareans.

Warrior women-only Regardless of where they resided, Amazon society was thought of as Greek male-society in reverse and so they were attributed traditionally male-dominated activities such as horse-riding, hunting, and warfare. This warlike society of women, living on the borders of the known world, were thus renowned for their archery and riding skills, and considered experts at ambush and cavalry charges. According to Lefkowitz, Amazon women who could “hunt on horseback alongside men, often wear men’s clothing, and even fight in wars” were only hunters and warriors while virgins and were not allowed to marry until they had killed one to three men (Lefkowitz, p. 18). Yet the idea that this women-only society, where men were welcomed only for breeding purposes and all male infants were killed (Cartwright, 2017), has a significant problem. If the whole nation consisted of women, how did it not die out in a generation? Subsidiary tales therefore grew to explain why. The most common of these we have met before: the Amazons mated with men of another people (the Gargareans?), kept the resulting female children, and sending the male children away to their fathers (Guliaev, p. 113).

Such tales clearly became ever more gruesome in the retelling. Accordingly, it was said the Amazons would disjoint the lower extremities of male infants to render them lame (Lefkowitz, p. 18). While any captured male soldiers would sometimes be used to conceive Amazon children, but always be killed (Guliaev, p. 113). Without corroborating evidence, it is conceivable that these stories are fabrications intended to shock and titillate readers. Consequently, whether they have any basis in truth is debatable, but it does raise the question as to why lurid tales of the Amazons were told.

Much of the surviving myth stems from Athens and would have been created by men, which seems a compelling argument. Lefkowitz, for example, suggests (p. 26): “it is possible to view the myths of Amazons and other wild and destructive women who oppose men […] as expressions of the psychological conflict imposed by the customary segregation of the sexes in Athenian society and men’s apprehensions about female sexuality”. Consequently, and despite describing the Amazons as a race of warriors, almost every myth of them depicts them losing to male-dominant armies, especially those from Greece (Lefkowitz, p. 20). In this light, the portrayals of legendary battles between Greeks and Amazons, known as Amazonomachiai (Ancient Greek Ἀμαζονομαχίαι, or Amazonomachies), becomes part of Athenian propaganda to portray their enemies as weak [5].

Yet, the fascination with the Amazons extends beyond just Athens to many other Greek city-states where the myths may have had an underlying message. Perhaps these fearsome, destructive warrior-women were a warning to Greeks not to disrupt the traditional family structure (Lefkowitz, p. 27). Many ancient Greeks, especially the men, may have been alarmed by a race of extremely tough and unforgiving women. It follows that one possible counter would have been to promote traditional Greek culture and reinforce the distinctive roles between men and women.

In contrast to Amazons, Athenian women were not traditionally educated and only learned skills while in the home (Seltman, p. 97). An Athenian wife and her daughters were tied to the home, as they were expected to do domestic work, such as caring for the children, running the home and controlling the servants (Seltman, p. 94-97). She could not own property and great importance was placed on her fertility and chastity. Pressured by society to conceive, for the typical Athenian woman, her lifestyle was far more restricted than the Amazons or even the Spartans.

Mastectomy myth  One example of just how different these warrior women were is revealed by the belief the Amazons burnt off their right breast to better use a bow and throw a spear. At first sight one might be tempted to think such stories make some sense but take a moment longer and this lurid tale begins to unravel. Consider how many modern-day female archers or javelin throwers have elected for this extreme procedure to improve their skills - very few, if any. With proper archery form, it is common to draw the bowstring to the chest. This is especially true when shooting the sort of recurve bow typically seen in depictions of ancient archers. Today, therefore, many archers, both women and men, use a chest guard to help keep their chest out of the way. Perhaps some form breast binding may have been employed by an Amazon archer to the same effect. Yet, with an appropriate technique and practice even this would not be essential. So, where might the legend come from?

The explanation is not as straight forward a tale as one might think. The ancient Greeks gave the name “Amazon” a popular origin from the combination of a- (ἀ-) and mazos (μαζός) to mean "without breast” or “breastless” [6]. Alternative meanings include “one breast” or “not breast-fed" (Cartwright, 2017). Much later this sense of the meaning was given further credence by Roman historian Marcus Junianus Justinus [7]. He followed the practise giving credence to the allegation that Amazons cut off or burnt out their right breast. Even with Justinus’ assertion, it seems the myth most likely came from the false etymology, especially as there is no supporting historical evidence and certainly no indication of the practice in ancient Greek art.

In the latter, Amazons were often depicted in battle (“amazonomachies”) with Greek male warriors; the confrontation between Theseus and the Amazons was a particular favourite.
In early classical art the women are most often depicted riding a horse and wearing hoplite armour similar in style to that worn by the goddess Athena. Interestingly, the most common weapons shown are the bow and spear, but there are also examples where Amazons carry axes and crescent-shaped shields. In later artworks Amazons were portrayed more like the goddess Artemis wearing a thin dress, girded high for better freedom of movement [8]. On painted vases their dress is often peculiarly Persian presumably in an attempt to link the Amazons with another enemy of the Greeks. Significantly, from such artwork it appears that Amazons were more likely to have been fully breasted, horse-riding Scythian warriors.

The link to the Scythians As we have seen, the precise location of the Amazonian homeland remained elusive. Originally placed “in the north east of Asia Minor, on the southern coast of the Black Sea, between Sinop and Trabzon” (Guliaev, p. 113), its whereabouts continued to change, moving continuously farther from the Mediterranean to regions such as Ethiopia or Scythia (Lefkowitz, p. 22). The latter location is all the more interesting because in modern times, archaeological discoveries of burial sites with female warriors on the Eurasian Steppes hints that Scythian women may have inspired the Amazon myth. Herodotus (c. 484 BC - 425/413 BC), writing in his Histories (Book IV, 110-117), gives a lengthy description of a meeting between Amazons and Scythians. Young warriors of the latter group persuaded several visiting Amazons to set up a new society together, with the women insisting neither they nor their offspring would change their lifestyles at all. This new race was considered the origins of the Sarmatians in southern Russia, appropriately enough, a people famous for their horses and military aggression (Cartwright, 2019).

Archaeological excavation of Sarmatian tombs and those of other nomadic tribes elsewhere, especially in Kazakhstan, and dating to the time of Herodotus suggests some of these women were indeed warriors. Female skeletons were found not only with weapons, armour, and horse trappings but also signs of injury from blades and arrowheads. One particular Scythian grave, dating to the 4th-century BC and located near ancient Tyras on the Dniester River on the northern coast of the Black Sea, contained a female skeleton with a wound in the skull probably caused by a battle-axe and a bronze arrowhead firmly stuck in one knee. The deceased had been surrounded by two iron spears, twenty arrows with bronze arrowheads and a bronze knife, as well as pieces of body armour. Far from being unique, however, some 370 steppe nomad graves, spread across territories from Turkey to Russia, contain the remains of women. Dated to the 5th- to 4th-century BC, many of the women had survived or succumbed to injuries typical of violent one-on-one combat. The parallels with the Amazons of Greek mythology are uncanny so it is just possible that tales of these Scythian women, or actual contact with them, were the inspiration for the legend.

Conclusions  It seems that Greek myth-makers, historians and artists were inspired not only by their imaginations when they created and depicted the Amazon legends but perhaps by the historical reality of Scythian fighting women. That said, it seems that only the Greeks were aware of their existence (Lefkowitz, p. 22) as other contemporary cultures appear not to mention Amazons in their histories. So, despite the many ancient Greek pseudo-historical narratives that survive, the origin of the Amazons and the existence of their culture remains largely a fiction. Mythical they may be, but there is something about the idea of strong, independent women threatening the “established patriarchy” that resonates even today. In the struggle for equality in the largely male-dominated western societies, perhaps that is why the Amazons endure as inspiring icons.

Notes:

1. Lysias, Isocrates and Philostratus the Elder also say that their father was Ares.
2. In Greek mythology, Harmonia (Ancient Greek: Ἁρμονία) is the immortal goddess of harmony and concord. Her Roman counterpart is Concordia. Her Greek opposite is Eris, whose Roman counterpart is, perhaps unsurprisingly, Discordia.
3. Apollonius of Rhodes claims Harmonia was a naiad, a type of female spirit, or nymph, presiding over fountains, wells, springs, streams, brooks and other bodies of fresh water.
4. A short river, now known as the river Terme, in Samsun Province, Turkey that drains into the Black Sea
5. It was popular in ancient Athenian literature to compare various races in Asia to the Amazons so that they would seem weaker and more effeminate (Lefkowitz, p. 19). Using the myth in this way meant the Athenians could affect opinions on foreign and domestic issues.
6. The historian Adrienne Mayor suggests the literary confusion comes from the similarity between mazon and the Greek word for breast mastos.
7. Marcus Junianus Justinus was a Roman historian who flourished 3rd-century AD and was the author of Epitome. This work was an abridgment of the Historiae Philippicae et totius mundi origines et terrae situs (known as the “Philippic Histories”) by Pompeius Trogus, whose work is lost. Nothing is known of Justin’s personal history other than his work on Trogus’s book (chiefly a history of Macedonia and the Hellenistic monarchies, with Parthia), which preserves material that has proved valuable to students of the Hellenistic world.
8. In some depictions one breast, quite often the right, is uncovered.

Sources:

Wikipedia, "Amazons", retrieved May 3rd, 2020.
Cartwright, M. (1998), "Amazon Women", Ancient History Encyclopaedia, retrieved May 3rd, 2020.
Fennell, D. (2017), "The (Not-So) Ancient Amazons", retrieved May 3rd, 2020.
Lefkowitz, M. R., (1986), Women in Greek Myth, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (in Fennell, D., op. cit.).
Kuiper, K., "Amazon Greek Mythology", Encyclopædia Britannica, retrieved May 3rd, 2020. Seltman, C., (1956), “Women in Antiquity”, Pan Books Ltd, London (in Fennell, D., op. cit.).
Guliaev, V., (2003), “Amazons in the Scythia: New Finds at the Middle Don, Southern Russia”, World Archaeology 35(1), pp. 112-125 (in Fennell, D., op. cit.).

Dispelling Some Myths: Dirty water? Drink beer!

For some reason it is often stated on popular television programmes that Mediæval Europeans drank lots of wine, ale or beer all day, every day because the local water was dirty or somehow fouled. Unfortunately for those repeating this myth, there is plenty of evidence that people regularly drank water. After all, what was the town, village or castle well for?

Water is a basic need for human survival, together with food and shelter. What is true today has been so since antiquity. In truth, very few civilisations have not been established near a source of clean water. The ancient Egyptians had the river Nile. The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires flourished between the rivers Euphrates and Tigris in Mesopotamia [1].

The Spartans had the Eurotas, while for the Romans it was the Tiber. Nearly all European capitals are founded on or near rivers. To name but three: Parisiennes have the Seine, Londoners the Thames, and Buda and Pest sitting on either bank of the mighty Danube became the Hungarian capital of Budapest.

Medieval cities and water supply  There was a very good reason why the Mediæval forerunners of these modern capitals were sited near a water supply. As the 15th-century architect Leon Battista Alberti noted: “a city required a large amount of water not only for drinking, but also for washing, for gardens, tanners and fullers, and drains, and in case of sudden outbreak of fire, the best should be reserved for drinking, and the remainder distributed according to need” [2].

The importance of drinking water is evidenced by the recorded efforts of local leaders to give people access to it. Writing in the 7th-/8th-century AD, the Benedictine monk, Bede noted that King Edwin of Northumbria, “established a benefit for his people in that in many places where clear springs or streams ran by well-used roads, where they were most frequented he ordered posts with bronze cups hung on them to be set up for the refreshment of travellers.” Scroll forward in time and it becomes clear that cities in Mediæval Europe were spending large amounts of money on creating and maintaining water supplies. In 1237, for example, the City of London acquired the springs of the Tyburn and built a small reservoir, a head of water, to help serve the city with a steady, free, flowing supply. Eight years later work began on the Great Conduit, a man-made underground channel that brought drinking water from the Tyburn to Cheapside in the City. Londoners were at liberty to draw water but even so wardens were appointed to stop them taking too much, the unpermitted taking or diversion, and to repair pipes. There are also records for the City noting the expenses related to maintaining and cleaning the Great Conduit. Yet despite this example, the myth of constant beer drinking persists.

Absence of evidence  There may be a simple explanation. There are few references to people drinking water in the surviving Mediæval letters and chronicles. Instead, such sources speak of drinking ale or wine. Perhaps water drinking was so mundane it was just not worth mentioning. If truth be told few historians in the past rarely recorded the ordinary things that would be familiar to their readers. Rather, they focused on relating the novel, different or strange. That Mediæval authors seldom wrote about a love of water, does not mean people avoided drinking it.

The benefits of drinking water from a good source are often noted in Mediæval medical texts and health manuals. There are numerous references to when one should drink water or add it to another drink. The 7th-century Byzantine physician, Paul of Aegina, for example wrote: “of all things water is of most use in every mode of regimen. It is necessary to know that the best water is devoid of quality as regards taste and smell, is most pleasant to drink, and pure to the sight; and when it passes through the praecordia [stomach] quickly, one cannot find a better drink” [2]. In a similar vein, the Regimen sanitatis Salernitanum [3] advises drinking from a cool spring was good for thirst but adds that rainwater was even better. The treatise does caution against drinking water during a meal to avoid its chilling effect on the stomach. Wine, it notes, should be preferred.

Being on bread and water  As well as medical texts, Mediæval religious manuscripts also mention provide further evidence of drinking water. Many of the saints, for example, are chronicled abstaining from drinking alcohol preferring water instead. Some of the more austere monastic communities advocated relying solely on water. Moreover, it became a standard practice throughout the Mediæval period for people to atone for their sins on a diet of bread and water. If said water was polluted, then it would be rather sadistic of the church to compel the penitent to risk illness or death. Rather, the idea of “bread and water” was clearly intended to limit those seeking repentance to a bland diet, but one sufficient to sustain life while discouraging further minor transgressions [4].

Ale or Water?  Water has always been the stuff of life. Access to good sources of clean water was prized and throughout history great efforts were undertaken to supply people with water not only for drinking but for washing, sewerage, firefighting and so on. People in the Middle Ages clearly understood that not all water was safe to drink. It was common knowledge that obtaining water from marshy areas or places of standing water was to be avoided. They also knew that, when making ale or beer, the boiling of the mash during the brewing process usefully killed any harmful bacteria in the water. Moreover, the mash gains nutrients from the barley and other ingredients, and the microorganisms can also produce vitamins as they ferment. For many people, therefore, the drinking of ale or beer was an excellent nutritional supplement.

So, it is true that people in Mediæval Europe drank large quantities of ale or beer during the day [5], but not necessarily for inebriation or because the water was unfit to drink. Rather beer drinking provided daily sustenance. Of course, where a water source was polluted, then it made perfect sense to consume ale or beer. But if water could be drawn from a good source, then people would commonly drink it. The myth it seems reveals more about our misunderstanding of the past. With more contemporary references to wine, ale and beer drinking than to water it would be easy to see how the “dirty water” idea might take hold. But people in the Mediæval period did drink water and, because it was such a normal and mundane thing to do, they, like us, simply did not boast about it.

Notes:

1. Literally “[land] between rivers” from the ancient Greek Μεσοποταμία which is formed by the root words μέσος (mesos, “middle”) and ποταμός (potamos, “river”).
2. “Did people drink water in the Middle Ages?”, Medievalist.net, retrieved April 17th, 2021.
3. The Regimen sanitatis Salernitanum is a Mediæval didactic poem believed to have been written in the 12th- or 13th-century. Even though the book bears the name of the famous mediæval medical school, the Schola Medica Salernitana, it is not certain if it originated there.
4. Chevalier, J., (2013), “The great Mediæval water myth”, Les Leftovers, retrieved April 17th, 2021.
5. In the 12th-century, the strength of ales and beers varied and were identified by marking with single, double or triple X’s. Lighter ales might be drunk earlier in the day and the heavier, stronger one later.
6. Marks, T., (2018), “A sip of history: ancient Egyptian beer”, The British Museum Blog, retrieved April 18th, 2021.

Today, April 23rd, marks the 457th birthday of William Shakespeare (1564-1616). As he is famously thought to have been born and died on the same date, so April 23rd is also the 405th anniversary of his death on St George's Day 1616.

This day was once celebrated with feasts much like those we enjoy at Christmas, but its popularity waned in the 18th-century after England's union with Scotland. Parts of England do still honour George with annual fetes and pageants, perhaps with traditional entertainments like Morris dancing or Punch and Judy shows. Most will undoubtedly involve dragons of some persuasion, but very few will involve feasting.

Unlike in December, where we dine on roast turkey and Christmas pudding, there do not appear to be any traditional recipes associated with St George's Day. Undeterred, back in 2018 we set about producing some sweet and some savoury Mediaeval dishes for the visitors to The Potteries Museum and Art Gallery to try. If you would like to recreate these tasty dishes, then here are the recipes:

We hope you have a very merrie St George's Day with our Tastes Of History. Enjoy!

Dispelling Some Myths: Mediæval Peasants ate Bland Food

The first thing to note is that what people ate was heavily dependent on where they lived and at what time. For example, Europe covers a large area with many different countries and peoples living within its boundaries, and the Mediæval period in Europe lasted a long time, roughly ten centuries. Much as today trends in food came and went, and access to particular foods may have been restricted by a multitude of factors such as the climate affecting harvests, war and pestilence, trade links, cost and a person’s disposable wealth, religious observance, personal preference and so on.

New research  Much is known of the medieval dietary practices of the nobility and ecclesiastical institutions, but less about what foods the medieval peasantry consumed. A 2019 study by a team from the University of Bristol examined a range of historical documents and found that medieval peasants ate meat, fish, dairy products, fruit and vegetables. Before this study, there had been little direct evidence that this was the case.

Yet, even though we now have a better understanding of what Mediæval peasants and the poorer social classes ate, the notion persists that food was bland or tasteless. This is a myth, so what is the truth?

What did Mediæval peasants eat?  In some respects, the Mediæval diet was much healthier than ours today. There was little or no processed food and far less sugar. Bread remained a staple food for all, but what did Mediæval peasants actually eat? The University of Bristol team analysed food residues from the remains of cooking pots found at the small medieval village of West Cotton in Northamptonshire [1]. By identifying the lipids, fats, oils and natural waxes still present on the porous ceramics, the team found that stews (or pottages) of mutton and beef with vegetables such as cabbage and leek were a mainstay of the medieval peasant diet. The research also showed that dairy products, likely the “green cheeses” [2] known to be eaten by the peasantry, also played an important role in their diet.

A rural diet  It should be borne in mind that, unlike today, for most of the Mediæval period people did not live in towns and cities. While reliant on good harvests, a predominantly rural existence meant people could forage for wild fruits, nuts, fungi, plants and herbs. For those with a little piece of land, then homegrown produce was available. Cottage gardens were common but unlike today’s obsession with cultivating flowers, people would focus on growing vegetables and plants with useful culinary or medicinal properties. Unsurprisingly, herbaceous borders were for herbs!

Fish could be dried or salted, but fresh fish, like herring or mackerel, was popularly eaten by people living near the sea. Those living near rivers could eat freshwater fish such as eels, pike, perch, trout, sturgeon, roach, and salmon. Indeed, in the Mediæval period, English rivers had a plentiful supply of salmon making it a cheap source of food. So cheap in fact that some towns passed laws to limit the feeding of apprentices (trainees) with salmon to no more than three times a week. Today, the introduction of fish farms has made salmon more affordable, but it is still considered a luxury by many.

Farming was one way of providing meat, but unlike today meat remained a luxury unaffordable to the majority. For those who could, the rich and privileged, hunting game (deer, pheasant, rabbit and so on) was a popular pastime that added to their diet. But for those poorer folk who could, they might keep animals all year round. Cows, for example, could provide milk for producing cheese, while chickens could be reared for their eggs or for their meat. When they had the money a Mediæval peasant might buy some meat from the local market, while game animals, like rabbits, they could catch for themselves - but beware of being caught poaching (see right).

Added flavours  Herbs and plants such as parsley, rosemary, thyme, basil, garlic, chives and many others were, just as now, added to recipes to develop and improve flavour. Spices, however, were expensive and beyond the means of the ordinary Mediæval peasant.

The spice trade has a long and lucrative ancestry. Although there was an overland trade route across Asia, it was mainly by sea that the trade grew. Voyages from Roman Egypt to India, for example, soon brought vast quantities of aromatic spices to the markets of Greece and the Roman Empire. Roman trade with India continued for more than three hundred years and allowed exotic spices, such as black pepper, to be far more commonplace than in later centuries. As Roman influence waned, however, the trade in spices followed suit. A short-lived resurgence in the 5th-century AD did not prevent trade declining once more in the 6th-century.

The Arab traders, who had always been sailing directly to spice-producing lands, kept their albeit weakened hold on the spice trade in the post-Roman period and through the Middle Ages. But by the tenth century both Venice and Genoa had begun to prosper through their trade with the Levant. The bitter rivalry that developed between the two cities ended with Genoa's defeat and Venice securing a monopoly of trade in the Middle east for the next century. In so doing, the Venetians made vast sums of money by trading spices with buyer-distributors from northern and western Europe. Nonetheless, this trade did little to reduce the price and few ordinary folk could afford spices.

Bland and tasteless food  Today many of us have to hand a wide variety of spices from across the globe and we use them almost daily to flavour our meals. From that familiarity it is easy to see why, if Mediæval peasants lacked access to such spices, many might assume their food was bland and tasteless. But, as we have seen, this was far from the case. The Mediæval peasant had a well-rounded, healthy diet which, while dependent on good harvests, kept them properly nourished. Apart from bread, they ate stews (adding meat when it could be afforded), fish, a wide variety of fruit and vegetables, eggs, and dairy products. By adding herbs from their garden plots, their meals could be as flavoursome as ours.

Notes:

1. The pottery analysed covered a period of around 500 years during the Middle Ages.
2. In this instance the cheeses are not “green” by reason of colour but for its newness or under-ripened state. The whey has not fully pressed out of it and the cheese has not been thoroughly dried nor aged. “Green cheese”, therefore, is typically white in colour and usually round in shape.

Roman Fast Food

The popular representation of Roman dining is that of reclining on benches enjoying a buffet style meal. This image, however, only really reflects the practice of wealthier families, those who could afford a home with a triclinium (dining room) and slaves to prepare, cook and serve them. So, what of the ordinary city folk? What was their dining experience and how would one go about recreating it?

Walk through the remains of ancient Pompeii, Herculaneum or Ostia and you will encounter some form of food or drink outlet on virtually every street corner. They are easily recognisable from their distinctive masonry counters, which in fancier thermopolia (sing. thermopolium) might be decorated with frescoes. Embedded in the counters were earthenware jars (called dolia; sing. dolium) used to store drink or dried foods, as shown in the example from Herculaneum below right. A dolium in the thermopolium attached to the House of Neptune and Amphitrite also in Herculaneum had the carbonized remains of nuts [1]. It is not thought that hot food was kept in these dolia. Firstly, because there does not appear to be a way to heat the jar embedded in the counter and secondly because it would be difficult for the dolia to be cleaned out after use [1].

Archaeologists tend to refer to all such places as “thermopolia” which, in the ancient Greco-Roman world, was a commercial establishment where it was possible to purchase ready-to-eat food. The name derives from Greek θερμοπώλιον (thermopōlion), or “cook-shop”, but literally means "a place where something hot is sold". In Latin literature thermopolia were also called:

· Popinae (sing. popina), a general name for a restaurant.

· Tabernae (sing. taberna, “tavern”) or street-side snack bars that often featured a thermopolium or a tavola calda (“hot table”), which might be accessible from the pavement. Sometimes a taberna was simply called a thermopolium.

· Cauponae (sing. caupona) which were predominantly drinking establishments where food was also available.

· Hospitia (sing. hospitium) a hotel that typically had a ground floor popina.

· Stabula (sing. stabulum) an alternative name for a tavern, public house or hostelry.

Thermopolia were the forerunners of, and comparable with, today's restaurants serving modern fast food. They ought to be likened to a cross between a hamburger fast food restaurant and a British pub or a Spanish tapas bar. Directly accessible from the street, each had a large counter with a receptacle in the middle from which a variety of food and drink was served to ordinary Romans. Many were the inhabitants of multi-storey insulae who simply could not afford a private kitchen. Significantly, excavations of entire neighbourhood blocks in Pompeii have revealed an unusual lack of tableware and formal dining or kitchen areas within the homes [2]. Penelope Allison of the University of Leicester, for example, did find isolated plates here and there, such as in sleeping quarters suggesting Romans would eat food in certain areas where they possibly engaged in other activities [2]. What she did find in the homes were multiple mini barbecue-type fire boxes, suggesting that "BBQ or fondue-style dining" often took place [3]. Allison concluded that the majority of Pompeii’s population consumed food "on the run".

Historians often extend findings from Pompeii to other parts of Italy, particularly Rome, given the former's proximity to the Eternal City. Indeed, the numerous fast-food restaurants identified in Pompeii are mirrored in other parts of Italy and across the Rome Empire. It seems, therefore, that most Romans, living in apartment blocks or in rather confined spaces, lacked the room for stoves and other cooking equipment. It makes eminent sense, therefore, to use smaller brazier-style cookers as these would not require large quantities of fuel to be carried up several flights of steps. Smaller cookers, like the Greek-style version shown above, also mitigated the risk of fire which, after the Great fire of Rome in AD 64, remained a major concern in densely packed urban centres. After due consideration, therefore, one might theorise three possible scenarios by which metropolitan Romans fed themselves:

1. Produce, bought daily, was taken upstairs to be prepared and cooked on small brazier style cookers.

2. Meals were purchased from a street vendor, taken upstairs and reheated before consumption.

3. Meals were purchased from a thermopolium and eaten either on the move or at the street side food outlet.

"Fast food" restaurants became popular because they were plentiful. Thermopolia offered a panoply of affordable choices for Rome's and Pompeii's residents, many of whom made enough money as artisans, shopkeepers, and weavers to support these places. Besides, grabbing food to go, either in a house or on the street, seems to match the energy and flexibility of the Italian mindset. The vibrant street and bar scenes today, together with the multi-purpose design of Italian homes, with bedsteads stacked in a corner or kitchenettes in surprising places, reflect the wonderful, slightly chaotic, qualities of early Roman life.

Notes:

1. Berry, J., (2007), The Complete Pompeii, Thames & Hudson.
2. Allison, P.M., (2007), "The Insula of the Menander at Pompeii Volume III: The Finds, a Contextual Study", Oxford University Press.
3. Viegas, J., (2017) “Ancient Romans Preferred Fast Food”, Discovery News.

Pompeii, Bodies and Assumptions

Last year, on Saturday November 21st, 2020, the Italian culture ministry announced to the world’s media that archaeologists have discovered the exceptionally well-preserved remains of two men scalded to death by the volcanic eruption that destroyed the ancient Roman city of Pompeii in AD 79. Unsurprisingly this led to usual flurry of media stories.

Those shown are only a small sample but all have one thing in common: all pronounced the younger man was a "slave". He may well have been, but that is a bold claim. So, we thought we would read the news releases and gather the evidence, What quickly becomes apparent is that each media outlet is simply rewording a single press release from the Archaeological Park of Pompeii. So, despite the appearance of multiple sources, the presented evidence is, well, uncorroborated.

The new find is located in Civita Giuliana, about 686 metres (750 yards) northwest of Pompeii’s city walls. Being on private property, government-commissioned excavations only began at the villa in 2017, when archaeologists stepped in to help prevent looters from tunnelling into the site and stealing artefacts. During this latest series of excavations the two bodies were found. It is likely that the victims were seeking refuge from the inundation of ash and pumice resulting from the eruption of Mount Vesuvius. At about 9 o'clock on that fateful morning, the two were caught in the pyroclastic current of superheated volcanic debris that swept through the town, Their clenched feet and hands - the "pugilists stance" [1] - clearly demonstrates how the men died.

The intense heat destroyed soft tissue, but the men's teeth and bones were preserved. The subsequent voids left by the soft tissue was filled with plaster, left to harden, and then excavated to reveal the outline of their bodies. Examination of the resulting plaster casts has allowed researchers to evaluate the clues. The researchers believe the figures are those of a young slave and a richer older man, presumed to be his owner, based on the vestiges of clothing and their physical appearance. One of the men is described as aged between 30 and 40, and of "high-status". This assessment seems to be based on his "stronger" bone structure, particularly around his chest area, and that he was wearing a tunic and had traces of a woollen cloak under his neck. The stronger build might be indicative of a better diet but that is speculative at best; there is no guarantee that both men did not have access to similar food. As to his clothing, he is wearing garments typical of most Roman men in the first century AD. The cloak, for example, is sensible outer wear for someone contemplating or attempting to escape the town. So, the only way to link his apparel to a "higher-status" would be by analysis of the weave to show it was of finer quality. This, however, has either not happened, perhaps because the casting does not provide the necessary detail, or the results have yet to be made public. There is no suggestion that the actual material survived.

It was revealed that the younger man was probably aged between 18 and 25. Like the older man, he too is thought to have been wearing a pleated tunic, possibly made of wool. Again, it would be extremely difficult to determine the younger man's status based on his clothing. However, it was noted that he exhibited several compressed vertebrae, and it is this observation that seems to be the only reason the experts to believe he was a manual labourer or slave. Both explanations are clearly plausible, but neither can be definitively proven. One could speculate that by being a labourer he may have been susceptible to just such a back injury. Certainly, osteoarchaeologists note that repetitive manual tasks, performed over time, often result in identifiable skeletal joint wear. Equally, of course, it may have been an accidental injury. The point is that neither of these simple premises lead to a conclusion that he was a "slave". The honest answer is that we will never truly know who these two men were or their relationship. But that does not sell the story.

Notes:

1. The "pugilists stance" is typically seen in severely burned bodies and characterised by flexion of elbows, knees, hips and neck, and clenching of hands into fists. This is caused by high-temperatures from fires, resulting in muscle stiffening and shortening.