Talk:Ancient Roman cuisine

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2019 and 19 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ski-Doo800, Luke2639, AaronNeumeyer2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cannon98, Askarzenski.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Strawberries

I thought strawberries came from the New World and that they were not cultivated until the 1700s. How did the ancient Romans eat them? That seems made up. Source?

It can possibly be Fragaria vesca that was consumed by Romans, though I have no ref for this. But this plant was present in Europe before 1700s, so it's possible. Artem.G (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Wine

"for example, there were recipes for making white wine out of red and vice versa"

If memory serves this is from Apicius (repeated by the well known Harold McGee), but I thought this was more of a chemistry experiment than something you would actually drink after "transforming" it. --Chinasaur 06:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Vomitorium

What about vomitoriums (vomitoria?) ? The Trolls of Navarone 20:36, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What about them? --cprompt 21:15, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

They are famous, probably erroneously so. Should there be a redirect to this page? Perhaps more of a note explaining why this feature came to typify the common understanding of roman food? The Trolls of Navarone 15:26, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good point...I added a bit about vomitoriums, and what they really are (to the best of my knowledge). I'm not really sure how the myth developed, though, other than people just assuming that a word with "vomit" in it has to due with literally vomitting, coupled with the stereotypical excesses of the Roman empire. --cprompt 04:47, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

Right now vomitorium redirects to this article. While there should be a note about it here, shouldn't vomitorium itself be about the architectural feature? Or redirect to an article about amphitheaters or roman achitecture? --Logotu 20:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, vomitorium should be its own article.

I recall, on a visit to the Roman city of Volubilis in Morocco, finding a "Vomitorium" marked on the floor plan, and it most certainly was not a passage, but something the size and shape of a fireplace, so a good size for a basin. - While we're at it, any news of modern-day "barf basins"? Only recently, I saw a porcelain bowl with handles and a tap mounted at about 1,5 metres above the ground in a restaurant loo in Zell, Germany, and could think of no other purpose for it than as a "vomitorium" (all the more so given that said town is known for booze tourism). --Humphrey20020 09:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: See de:Speibecken.--Humphrey20020 (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Translations

List of missing translations in the article:

• Blutwurst: blood sausage?
• Meerbarbe: a kind of fish.

Cat 19:45, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Meerbarbe = red mullet, corrected that
Blutwurst : dictionary says blood sausage or black pudding; I think blood sausage is better to use here because as far as i know black pudding is a name for a specific british blood sausage that not everyone knows and "blood sausage" is more descriptive. German Blutwurst often means a specific sausage (which is only lots of clotted blood with pieces of pork fat in it, of course nicely spiced) but it's also used for all sausages made with blood.
Thanks for the vomitorium stuff, i'll add that to the german article
look what i've just found:
http://www.dict.leo.org
it's run by a german university, the best and easiest to use online dictionary i've seen so far. may be the link should be on the translations page
Tenar

I'd like to add the phrase "from eggs to apples" (ab ovo usque ad mala), but in which section? starters or desserts? -- Lisa Paul 20:56, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

There are three more as yet untranslated paragraphs in the Bestandteile der Hauptmahlzeit section of the German article. I'll shortly be giving them a go unless anyone else wants to get there first. -- Picapica 19:31, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Those paras now added. -- Picapica 09:55, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Great article, excellent translation! I've done minor idiom tweaking as far as "Table culture", and will be back to do more. Bishonen 17:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Returned and copyedited the second half very lightly, too. The semi-mythical or rare practice of deliberately vomiting was mentioned in two places, so I merged the earlier sentence into the "Vomitorium" section at the end. Does anybody know why "the Consul C. Fannius prohibited the consumption of poulards"? It comes a little surprisingly, so it would be neat if the reason could be put in. Bishonen 21:02, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See FANNIA here: Sumptuary_law 201.27.11.202 03:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Main category

Any objections to moving this and the other articles from Category:Ancient Roman food and drink to Category:Roman cuisine?

Peter ^Isotalo 12:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Vesperna

The article says "Traditionally in the morning a breakfast was served, the ientaculum or iantaculum, at noon a small lunch..." Then it mentions that the vesperna disappeared. Is this right? According to this, it says there was a breakfast, a cena, and then a vesperna later in the evening, not a lunch. That jibes with what it says later, that a prandium showed up around noon afterwards, when the cena changed. Clarityfiend 06:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, vesperna is mentioned for the first time in the sentence "vesperna was abandoned", without hinting what vesperna even is. Juraj5 (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Just from looking at the words, prandium is lunch and vesperna is an evening meal. Lunch would never have been an evening meal in Rome. I agree that this section is confused -- probably as a result of successive careless edits -- and should be straightened out, but I don't have the knowledge to do so. Sciamanna (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Squash

How could squash have been typical of Roman cuisine if squashes are a New World crop, and thus would not have been available in Rome in the classical era? What source does this information come from, and what term is "squash" being used to translate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.102.47 (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I assume what is meant is gourds rather than squashes. The confusion probably comes from the fact that in Italian, both gourds and squashes are called "zucche" -- so any Italian source would be ambiguous, unless the specific scientific name was used. It is certainly true that gourds have been cultivated and eaten in Italy since ancient times; however, I don't know the specific details, so I will simply change "squash" to "gourd" in the main text, and hope for some more knowledgeable person to come along and improve it :-) Sciamanna (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, it mentions french beans, which are also native to the Americas. 98.247.156.96 (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The article still mentions yellow squash and zucchini, which are both new world crops.--190.193.41.23 (Krinnen) 20:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It mentions zucchini precisely to say that it was a new world crop and therefore was not available to the ancient Romans. As for yellow squash, I'm not going to take any action without sources being provided one way or the other. MPS1992 (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Dispute

If you are going to dispute the information on the article, first discuss it here and please provide facts to back up your statement instead of posting a disputed sign on the article. If you disagree with anything in an article, then it is your responsibility to back up your statements, not someone else's. Brothejr (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Woodlice

I remember reading somewhere that the Romans used to prepare a dish involving woodlice, but can't find any information online - does anyone know about this? Drutt (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Fish

The article says that fish were rarely eaten and expensive, but I had always heard that in the ancient Mediterranean meat was expensive and fish was the food of the common people. Maybe in the city of Rome itself fish was expensive, because I don't imagine the Tiber ever had many fish, and the distance was more of an issue back then, but I would think that in Pompeii and the other port cities, fish was cheap and commonly available. I don't have a source to back this up, so I can't be sure, but either way, the claim should cite a source, which it doesn't. Wldcat (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Saltpetre, Kale and errata

This article contains the following quote: kale was cooked in saltpetre. Does anyone know anything more about this? Why saltpetere? When one follows the saltpetre link, both potassium and sodium nitrate are referenced. I would assume (from the link) that the Romans were using potassium nitrate. Was saltpetre being used as a flavoring, a Coloring agent, or a preservative? Somehow, from the syntax, I picture this dish being served warm/fresh, meaning that it was not being uses as a preservative, as in Salami. Does anyone know how extensive the Roman saltpetre production was, or what method was used?

..On another note, cooked woodlice - this excites my culinary curiosity. Now I want to go turn over rocks in the back yard.. Recipé?

..And somehow, I would think that salted or smoked fish would have been widely available, given that:

• The City of Rome was dependent on imported food
• Rome was the centre of an enormous marine economy
• Salted fish is listed as the main ingredient in Garum, which is described as a staple in the lower class diet. Garum production was banned in the city of Rome (Well, who would want to live next to vats of rotting fish anyway?!), meaning that it had to be imported. Why would preserved fish sauce alone be imported? The preserved fish ought to have been cheaper to purchace, particularly the small, easily netted types of fish commonly found along the Mediterranean coast, like Anchovies and Sardines, which are still widely fished off the Dalmatian coast. In closing, I would assume that the article must mean and ought be amended to read "fresh fish as the main course of a meal was served only in later periods, and it remained more expensive than simpler meat types".

However, I know nothing about the veracity of my assumptions, and I could be entirely wrong. 𝕭𝖗𝔦𝔞𝔫𝕶𝔫𝔢𝔷 ^talk 17:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Woodlice probably taste like these guys. I think the Japanese eat them. Danceswithzerglings (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Name

Hallo,

I think that this article should be moved to Ancient Roman Cuisine or Classical Roman Cuisine. The problem is that the cuisine of the City of Rome extends far behind the classical age. The name Roman Cuisine should be used for the modern Roman cooking, as it is the case in the italian literature. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Public bakeries

I have an issue with this statement: "public bakeries were established in Rome from 270 AD". There certainly was a bakery in Pompeii, destroyed by the Vesuvius eruption in 79 CE. It is not that far from Rome, about 200 km; I find it quite strange that there would be a public bakery in Pompeii and not in Rome... If nobody has supporting evidence, I suggest to delete the sentence, or edit it somehow. 173.206.231.2 (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you have to be right about this. I don't know when public bakeries are first attested, but this date can't be right; perhaps the source was misunderstood, and the date refers to the earliest surviving archaeological evidence. I think Ovid mentions bakeries in the Fasti. Grain supply to the city of Rome should dovetail with this better; without the bakeries, there's a gap in the consumer chain between the supplying of grain and the consuming of it. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, duh, in trying to be generous I've said a stupid thing: 270 can't be "the earliest surviving archaeological evidence," because of the evidence from Pompeii. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This has actually turned out to be more elusive of verification than I'd have thought. What's needed is a straightforward modern historian who can give us a sentence on two on the history of bakeries in Rome. So far, nothing's popped out at me. It seems from some sources that the grain dole was actually bread, which makes sense since most Romans lived in the insulae, small cramped apartments without proper kitchens. Grain would've required grinding, so at the least the dole might've been ground into flour first, or to a consistency that could be used for a polenta-like dish (which is recorded). But even if you get your dole as flour, there are obstacles to using it. Baking bread requires an oven; even if a Dutch oven or griddle is used, fuel is a problem for apartment dwellers. I suspect that public bakeries start to become important in the mid-1st century BC, in connection with issues pertaining to the grain supply as evidenced in the careers of Clodius Pulcher and Pompey. So a very interesting question, and I'll enjoy looking for more info. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The date seems dubious to me as well, but I am reluctant to think that someone simply pulled the date 270 AD out of the air (or somewhere else). Therefore, I wonder if the confusion here is over different interpretations of the word "public". That is, does "public bakery" mean a bakery owned by the state for benefit of providing bread to poorer citizens or does it mean a privately owned commercial bakery that sells bread to those sections of the population that can't make bread of their own?--172.190.48.60 (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a good question. At some point, it might've seemed more efficient for the state to transport grain in bulk directly to certain millers and bakers who contracted to supply the dole, but 270 still seems a little late to be addressing the problem. I haven't happened upon a source, and haven't had a chance to focus on the question for its own sake. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I found a good source in preview online, but it seems to be missing precisely the page that looks as if it might answer this question. Public bakeries (as distinguished from commercial) do seem emphasized in sources as a feature of the later Empire, but Trajan (reigned 98–117) founded a collegium pistorum, "bakers' guild," which suggests at least some state regulation of bakeries. The 3rd century date also seems to be connected to the use of state-owned water mills that were powered from aqueducts. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The expression "bread and circuses" suggests the existence of bakeries - otherwise the expression would have been "bags of wheat and circuses". So how old is "bread and circusses" - the article isn't very clear? Roger (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The phrase is from Juvenal, who died early in the 2nd century. That's a great point of reference to introduce, and yet without other evidence, it wouldn't necessarily mean that the people got their bread directly and already made; could just mean more generally they owed their daily bread to the state. There were four steps: getting the grain, milling it into flour, making dough, and baking. What I've looked at so far suggests that there was a gradual expansion of what the state centrally provided. In the earliest period of the dole, people seem to have gotten the grain, and then had to take it to get it milled, etc. In trying to look this up, I found that in the Middle Ages, people might prepare their dough at home, but take it to a communal oven for baking, since maintaining fuel and temperature for a bread oven for daily baking is pretty much a full-time job. So that's one conjecture for Rome as well. Only a domus with the space and staff for it could've maintained a home bread oven. There are also several religious practices and beliefs associated with bread and bread-making, extending back to the Republic, such as the Fornacalia, which recognize that making bread for apartment dwellers in an urban environment is an interdependent effort. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Roman cuisine in popular culture

In popular culture, ancient Roman cuisine is usually shown as having extraordinarily strange dishes preferred among the wealthy, such as "otters' noses!" sold by Brian of Nazareth as a snack at the Circus Maximus in the film Life of Brian. How accurate is this? Were such extraordinarily strange dishes ever consumed? JIP | Talk 19:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Life of Brian should indeed be taken as the ultimate authority on all things Roman, IMHO. Actually, the Romans do seem to have enjoyed odd chewy bits of the animal that we throw away, though not to my knowledge otters' noses as such (I could be wrong). Our article mentions sows' udders as a delicacy. Let us not omit dormice. But every culture has its culinary amazements. I had a casual friend who swore she had been served squirrel brains as a specially presented dainty at a wedding in Arkansas. She hadn't been able to identify what was swimming in the broth of that little custard cup until a table mate prodded her with an elbow and inquired "Can I have your squirrel brains if you're not gonna eat 'em?" Then again, I adore snails, so who am I to recoil?

In other words, the article could probably benefit with some restructuring based on a wider range of sources, and from making more distinctions between ordinary meals and the multicourse extravaganzas of the privileged—and even among the upper classes, we probably need more sorting out of Imperial lavishness from Republican habits pre-Lucullus. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I was not implying Life of Brian were an authoritative source on ancient Rome. I was merely using it as an example of popular culture. But it seems that while the popular culture image is exaggerated, it is not completely off base. And yes, I find snails (escargot) very delicious indeed, too. I can't bring myself to think of being able to eat roasted insects, though. How I feel this and simultaneously find escargot a fine delicacy continues to elude me. JIP | Talk 20:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I know you weren't! I was making a joke as a Life of Brian fan. And I'm with you on the insects. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"liquid resembling vodka"

The article states that "Wine was normally mixed with a liquid resembling vodka immediately before drinking to raise the grade, since the fermentation was not controlled and the alcohol grade was low". What was this liquid resembling vodka? I was under the impression that before distillation was invented, spirits like vodka did not exist. --109.154.48.250 (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the issue. As you say, that is utter nonsense. It was introduced by a single-edit anon in October . When you see rubbish like this, please go ahead and correct it on the spot!

Also, welcome to Wikipedia. I encourage you to become an active editor. Please take a look at this introduction to Wikipedia if you're interested. --Macrakis (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced content

Some of the information currently on the page is incorrect or misleading, as unsourced content on the ancient world often is. To choose an example, the page says ridiculous things "Pulses such as fava beans ... were only appreciated by peasants, smiths, legionaries and gladiators," which is flat wrong: "That wealthy Romans ate fava beans is ... strongly suggested" by recipes attributed to Apicius; "even in the most extravagant of cookbooks, beans had their place." The page states that "Fish was served only in earlier periods," which is ludicrous. I have taken the unsourced passages out. The burden of evidence always lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Neutrality^talk 23:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I plan on working to add sourced content in the future, but unsourced, misleading material is worst than no material at all. Neutrality^talk 23:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Dining imagery

xxxxxx

Petronius describes a funeral feast consisting of chickpeas, sausages, beets, whole wheat bread, cheese tart, honey, lupines, nuts, and an apple for each person. funerary banquet scenes

• 
  awesome
• 
  role of boy?
• 
  Cavalryman with drinking horn, Roman Britain
• 
  Woman's gravestone, Roman Britain
• 
  also from Roman Britain
• 
  Coptic, with Greek inscription (2nd-4th century)

other fictional and mythological scenes

• 
  everybody loves this one
• 
  Mithras banquet

References

"Hod matured?"

"Conditum" is described as "a mixture of wine, hod matured." I assume this is a typo, but I have no idea what "hod matured" is supposed to be. Sadiemonster (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Article is about cuisine, not food shortages

An editor has repeatedly contributed material, in the lead section (!), about relative levels of nutrition in the Roman empire. This seems not to be the right article for such matters ("Food and dining in the Roman Empire" would likely be more appropriate), and certainly not the right part of the article.

1. It is not appropriate (ever) to introduce new ideas, claims, and materials into the lead section of an article. The lead's job is to summarize the body (main text) of an article, not to start off on its own tack.

2. It is very rarely appropriate to cite materials in a lead section, and if it is needed when something is controversial, the place for the citation is in the article's body (as per #1 above), with the ref repeated in the lead to eliminate doubt. That is not the issue here.

3. The material introduced concerns food supplies in Roman times, NOT "cuisine". Cuisine articles are about the recipes and dishes served, not about whether segments of the population are starving. I have suggested a better target for that kind of material, and hope it will not be necessary to have a protracted discussion here about its inappropriateness in this article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Sources

I am reinserting some text I put on this page awhile ago because I am doing it for a class at school. Just FYI for all y'all deleters! I have credible sources from a university and much of this info belongs on here contrary to what some users may believe. User:Cannon98 —Preceding undated comment added 01:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Just a minute, slow down, hold your horses.

1. "I am reinserting some text..." is what we call edit-warring and is strongly deprecated here.
2. "much of this info belongs here": Well, maybe it does and maybe it doesn't, that's a matter to be determined – you already know that other editors do not share your boldly asserted opinion on the matter.
3. A key question is "how much?". Likely the answer is "a little", if the sources are reliable and the information is a) relevant b) suitably presented and c) concise, not giving undue weight to some aspects of the topic.
4. "for a class at school: that sounds like a conflict of interest. This is a global (yes, truly world-wide) encyclopedia, not a school playground or study corner. What may be totally appropriate in a homework may be quite inadequate, far too detailed, or just not the right kind of material for an encyclopedia. That is to be determined on its merits, not because it's convenient for you.

I will (again) look at your material, and will see if any of it is suitable for the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, there are still substantial reasons not to include most or all of this material.

1. As I said in our earlier discussion above, the material is largely off the topic of cuisine (whether garum was made with bony fish or shellfish, say), discussing instead matters of custom, ritual and society around food, which I already told you is the subject of a different article, "Food and dining in the Roman Empire". "he banquet took place in a citizen's home with couches arranged for the guests to recline on" concerns dining not cuisine. "Romans raised sheep, goats, cattle, pigs, horse, and dogs." concerns agriculture not cuisine or even dining.
2. You are still trying to introduce citations into the lead section.
3. Several of the sources are simply to whole books (e.g., Alcock, Elliot, Flandrin); some are actually to whole encyclopedias (e.g. Ermatinger), which is unacceptably vague.

There may be some properly-cited, relevant claims in the material you added, but they are a small fraction of the total. If it is to be useful to Wikipedia it needs to be better targeted and better cited as encyclopedic text, not a class assignment. I shall therefore remove the material now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

==Wiki Education assignment: Pompeii and the Cities of Vesuvius== This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 12 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Corinnestevens, Dancients (article contribs).

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Food and dining in the Roman Empire which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)