Fast food establishments in Pompeii

[Angela]

See:
https://www.archaeology.org/news/7510-190329-italy-pompeii-thermopolium

"POMPEII, ITALY—According to a report in The Guardian, a well-preserved thermopolium, a type of fast food counter found throughout the Roman world—complete with colorful frescoes—has been discovered in the Regio V section of Pompeii. Not yet open to the public, Regio V comprises a largely unexcavated section of Pompeii just north of the Pompeii Archaeological Park, and covers more than 50 acres. Ongoing archaeological investigations in the area, which is at risk of collapse, have produced dozens of discoveries in recent months. The 150 or so thermopolia believed to have been operating in Pompeii at the time of the A.D. 79 eruption of Mount Vesuvius were mostly patronized by the city's poorer residents, who often had little access to home kitchen facilities. These snack bars typically served simple fare, such as rustic bread, salt fish, garum, and wine."


I think they served more than that: there is evidence in some of them of puls or cereal porridge, seafood (all of the ones we eat today), meats such as rabbit, pork, lamb, beef, and stewed vegetables.

Bread, salt fish, garum, could be bought and brought back to eat in their apartments, as could cheese, fruits, salads and preserved sausages, although they might well have stopped for a snack. However, it was the hot foods which were important, because a lot of the poorer residents didn't have cooking facilities. There was a great fear of fire so in some places I don't think they were even allowed braziers.

It seems like quite a good diet, better than anyone in Medieval Europe was eating, with the exception of the garum or fish sauce. I've seen reports from people who recreated it that it tastes like fish sauce from Thailand. I'll pass, thank you very much.

 

[bigsnake49]

Did they find the Golden Arches?

 

[Angela]

Did they find the Golden Arches?

No. They ate better than that!

If somebody opened a food bar like these, I'd certainly go, so long as they ditched the garum. YUCK! Fermented fish sauce is my idea of hell

 

[bicicleur 2]

do they accept visa?

 

[Ygorcs]

Compared to our lifestyle today, it seems so unreal that poorer residents in the Roman world were more likely to eat outdoors, paying for prepared food, than wealthier people. It's exactly the opposite of what happens today, where poor people can seldom afford to eat snacks and meals out of their home, whereas wealthier people love to go out to have some food. It's stunning for me that their poverty was so complete that they couldn't even afford to have a functioning kitchen.

 

[Angela]

I haven't done the research on it, so this is sort of winging it just from my own observations, but I think Americans of all classes increasingly eat out. The people who eat at the fast food restaurants are more often than not from the lower classes and even the poor. The upper middle and upper classes get food from different kinds of places, and occasionally go to actual restaurants.

I know more than one upper middle class educated woman who has an up to date, high end, designer kitchen, but has never turned on the oven. I've asked what the "children like to eat", to get an idea of how they managed, and between the local pizzeria 2 or three times a week (as they also serve pastas and subs), Chinese food, sushi, frozen meals, and the microwave, they really didn't have to cook, whether they stayed in or went out. I've heard it's much the same in England.

As for the Romans, of course people in the countryside had cooking facilities. It was different in the congested cities, and not necessarily because of poverty. The ground floor, in those days, was the most prestigious and expensive one, and then the building rose five or six stories above that. Often, the owners of the building took that ground floor for themselves, or rented it out for shops, and the above ground floors were rented out as apartments. In the beginning, the buildings were wooden, and there was great fear of fire from braziers for cooking. So, at certain periods they were prohibited. Bread obviously has to be baked in big stone ovens, but all free Romans were guaranteed two loaves a day, so that wasn't a problem either. The upper floors couldn't have supported the weight of stone ovens.

This is how the bread was dispensed:

One of the excavated "bars".

This was where average Romans would take their prandium, at around eleven o'clock in the morning. It might, as we said, in addition to bread, salt fish, and cheese, olives, etc. have puls or a kind of wheat polenta, with oil, herbs, and probably vegetables and a little meat, stewed meats depending on what was available, or meatballs, stewed vegetables, legume soups or stews like lentil or pea, fish (they liked fish fritters and stews), and the ubiquitous garum. Wine was always on the menu, often mulled.

There was a misconception for a long time that the lower classes and especially the poor ate terribly, but recent research has shown that isn't the case. I used to argue about this with Jean Manco.
https://www.livescience.com/42309-food-eaten-by-pompeii-residents.html

"Remains of food scraps found in the drains of Pompeii, Italy, a Roman city wiped out by a volcano, revealed that the middle- and lower-class residents dined on cheap but healthy foods, while slightly wealthier citizens dined on delicacies.The new findings belie the common belief that the Roman elite dined on exotic delicacies while poor Romans starved on birdseed.

"The traditional vision of some mass of hapless lemmings — scrounging for whatever they can pinch from the side of a street, or huddled around a bowl of gruel — needs to be replaced by a higher fare and standard of living, at least for the urbanites in Pompeii," study co-author Steven Ellis, a classics professor at the University of Cincinnati, said in a statement.
Pompeii was a bustling Roman city that was buried in ash after the volcanic eruption of Mount Vesuvius in A.D. 79. Ellis and his colleagues excavated about 20 shop fronts near one of the once-bustling gates of Pompeii known as the Portia Stabia. The latrines and cesspits behind the food sellers revealed charred food waste from the kitchens, as well as human waste, that dated as far back as the fourth century B.C., when Pompeii was still in an early stage of development. "

"Along with grains, the waste revealed that the commoners of Pompeii ate a simple, but fairly varied, Mediterranean diet that included lentils, olives, nuts and fish, as well as the odd scrap of salted meat."

Cheese and fruit were also consumed.

They also didn't have private bathrooms. There were many, many public "lavoratories" or "privies" under which streams of flowing water were diverted, to eventually end up in the sewers, (not for the squeamish since it was all open), and baths, free in some cases, where you could exercise, play games, bathe, and relax while talking to your friends.

As in the Japanese system, you clean your body before you go in the pools.

It's very different from the way we live, a very almost communal lifestyle, lived in the open, often, among lots of people. I doubt they did much in their rooms beside sleep. Well, perhaps one other thing.

To some extent, life in Italy is still, or more correctly, used to be like that in the sense of communal outdoor living. In my mother's town, life was lived outside for most of the year, in the square, under the trees, with other people. By nature, I like a bit of solitude, to read or just reflect, and I've also lived in America for a long time. It is virtually impossible for me to live that way at home. You literally cannot go inside after dinner because you want to have a quiet read, or listen to some music alone. Everyone is convinced you're either ill or are dealing with some grav psychological problem. As for eating alone, people think you're mad or a pathetic lonely person, and feel desperately sorry for you. There was no way I could quietly sit by myself in some cafe on the square, as I know almost everyone on at least a superficial level. People would either join me at the table or call me over to theirs. If I wanted to read, I could read, so long as I sat there with them while they talked. There's no going to the movies alone either. People would think you're very peculiar. You have to ask everyone, and I mean absolutely everyone you know in case someone should get offended, then there's the endless wrangling over the convenient day and time for everyone, and getting the transportation organized is like preparing for the landing at D-Day in Normandy, because God forbid everyone should just meet there. No, you have to go TOGETHER. Usually, by the end, I don't want to even go to the DAMN movies anymore. I imagine it was the same when my ancestors were going to the games.

Susanna Duffy has worked with Apicius' "cookbook", and has prepared these slightly modernized versions of some of their dishes.
https://delishably.com/world-cuisine/ancient-food-rome

Patrick Haas has reworked 150 of them.
https://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/233472.html

 

[davef]

I never use my oven. With doordash I can get what I want with a few mouse clicks

 

[bigsnake49]

Same in Greece, life is lived outside, at least during the spring/summer/fall. During the winter it moves inside the cafes and then you get to breath cigarette smoke, yuck!

 

[Angela]

Another factor to be considered is the heat involved with cooking. In my great uncle's farmhouse there was a big iron stove fed with wood, and later gas, which wouldn't have been available in Roman days, right next to a huge hearth with tripods and chains for metal pans and pots, and, in our case, for the testi with which we could make testaroli and meats, and also panigacci in small terracota dishes. There were also ovens on the side, and a stone trough for grilling or cooking food on charcoals. It's what they used to use before the advent of more "modern" conveniences.

However, my great grandmother basically only cooked in the kitchen in late fall and winter and early spring. During the heat of a Mediterranean summer, despite the fact that it was a stone house, you just couldn't bake bread inside, or roast meats. Even just making a fire in the hearth would have been unbearable. For that reason my uncle had a big stone oven outside the house and an area with grills under which the fires for the testaroli could be laid in the fresh air.

Until about sixty years ago, I don't think the cooking methods changed all that much in some places. I think that an ancient Roman chef would have felt pretty much at home.




I can't imagine what it would have been like had every small room or apartment in those six story insulae in ancient Rome had braziers going in the middle of summer, not to mention the grave risk of fire spreading. I don't think the Christians OR Nero necessarily burned a lot of Rome down.

 

[Ygorcs]

I haven't done the research on it, so this is sort of winging it just from my own observations, but I think Americans of all classes increasingly eat out. The people who eat at the fast food restaurants are more often than not from the lower classes and even the poor. The upper middle and upper classes get food from different kinds of places, and occasionally go to actual restaurants.

I know more than one upper middle class educated woman who has an up to date, high end, designer kitchen, but has never turned on the oven. I've asked what the "children like to eat", to get an idea of how they managed, and between the local pizzeria 2 or three times a week (as they also serve pastas and subs), Chinese food, sushi, frozen meals, and the microwave, they really didn't have to cook, whether they stayed in or went out. I've heard it's much the same in England.

As for the Romans, of course people in the countryside had cooking facilities. It was different in the congested cities, and not necessarily because of poverty. The ground floor, in those days, was the most prestigious and expensive one, and then the building rose five or six stories above that. Often, the owners of the building took that ground floor for themselves, or rented it out for shops, and the above ground floors were rented out as apartments. In the beginning, the buildings were wooden, and there was great fear of fire from braziers for cooking. So, at certain periods they were prohibited. Bread obviously has to be baked in big stone ovens, but all free Romans were guaranteed two loaves a day, so that wasn't a problem either. The upper floors couldn't have supported the weight of stone ovens.

This is how the bread was dispensed:

One of the excavated "bars".

This was where average Romans would take their prandium, at around eleven o'clock in the morning. It might, as we said, in addition to bread, salt fish, and cheese, olives, etc. have puls or a kind of wheat polenta, with oil, herbs, and probably vegetables and a little meat, stewed meats depending on what was available, or meatballs, stewed vegetables, legume soups or stews like lentil or pea, fish (they liked fish fritters and stews), and the ubiquitous garum. Wine was always on the menu, often mulled.

There was a misconception for a long time that the lower classes and especially the poor ate terribly, but recent research has shown that isn't the case. I used to argue about this with Jean Manco.
https://www.livescience.com/42309-food-eaten-by-pompeii-residents.html

"Remains of food scraps found in the drains of Pompeii, Italy, a Roman city wiped out by a volcano, revealed that the middle- and lower-class residents dined on cheap but healthy foods, while slightly wealthier citizens dined on delicacies.The new findings belie the common belief that the Roman elite dined on exotic delicacies while poor Romans starved on birdseed.

"The traditional vision of some mass of hapless lemmings — scrounging for whatever they can pinch from the side of a street, or huddled around a bowl of gruel — needs to be replaced by a higher fare and standard of living, at least for the urbanites in Pompeii," study co-author Steven Ellis, a classics professor at the University of Cincinnati, said in a statement.
Pompeii was a bustling Roman city that was buried in ash after the volcanic eruption of Mount Vesuvius in A.D. 79. Ellis and his colleagues excavated about 20 shop fronts near one of the once-bustling gates of Pompeii known as the Portia Stabia. The latrines and cesspits behind the food sellers revealed charred food waste from the kitchens, as well as human waste, that dated as far back as the fourth century B.C., when Pompeii was still in an early stage of development. "

"Along with grains, the waste revealed that the commoners of Pompeii ate a simple, but fairly varied, Mediterranean diet that included lentils, olives, nuts and fish, as well as the odd scrap of salted meat."

Cheese and fruit were also consumed.

They also didn't have private bathrooms. There were many, many public "lavoratories" or "privies" under which streams of flowing water were diverted, to eventually end up in the sewers, (not for the squeamish since it was all open), and baths, free in some cases, where you could exercise, play games, bathe, and relax while talking to your friends

Very interesting post, Angela.

In Brazill all classes are also increasingly eating out, especially for lunch, because during their working hours many of them can't afford or don't have enough time to go back home to have lunch, so they eat in so-called "self-service" restaurants where they have many options of food (but usually not snacks, only really poor people may have fast food or snacks for lunch, because they can't afford what we call "pot food", that is, rice, beans, salad, beef, and so on). But aside from that it's still really rare for people to have their meals outside of their own home as a daily affair if they have other options.

Eating out is still strongly seen across all classes as a social event, it's not just about having food, it's like a ritual to strengthen social bonds, so eating out is increasingly common, but not as a substitute for home food, instead it's probably the favorite past-time of many Brazilians when they want to meet their lovers, friends, family relatives, work colleagues etc. But it's still seen as a social event, even if its "official excuse" is to have dinner or breakfast. So, the idea that you should go out of your home everyday to have your basic meals for no other reason than having your boring daily meals is still very alien here. Ordering food is also increasingly common, but it's still seen by most people as an extraordinary thing for "special moments" (or, very often, on sundays when they just want to rest and do nothing else). Fewer and fewer women have the time, skills and disposition to cook, but it's still the norm, and increasingly men, especially yougner men, are becoming very interested in cooking. And in the middle and high class it's still cheap and easy to find domestic maids, so they can afford to have fresh food everyday at home even if the couple works full hours. I think that's much harder for an average middle-class USA family to afford. In a certain way, eating a fresh lunch at home is still see in Brazil as something with a certain "status" probably because of that. It shows you have enough time and money for that.

Very good points about the physical (not necessarily economic) hurdles in the densely populated Roman cities explaining why the fast food establishments may have been so popular. I wonder then if the same pattern was seen in the smaller and more rural towns (Pompeii, though not exactly a large city, was very cosmopolitan and urbanized). In ancient times, at least in cities, which were usually lots of houses and buldings densely packed together (population densities in urban areas were AFAIK much higher than in many 21st century cities), cooking in ovens must've been a real concern for many people and a constant risk. Probably many people thought it wasn't worth the risk, or even authorities restricted their use (or prohibited it as you say).

As for the findings about the diet and nutrition of middle and lower class people in Pompeii, I confess my common sense makes me doubt those results a bit. I mean, how certain can we be that the urban population of a thriving "resort" city beloved by the Roman elite is representative of the average Roman poor people? Were those results replicated in the archaeological findings of other cities, especially small towns and villages, where the majority of the population lived?

I like the idea of a more communal, sociable lifestyle, but at the same time I can't help but think that that way of life must also have been quite stressful in some situations. I mean, having to deal with dozens or hundreds of people nearby every day when you've just woken up and just want to have your breakfast alone and silently. Okay, it's often great to have some human warmth and company of people around you, but I can also imagine it being a nightmare sometimes. lol

 

[halfalp]

The way the pits are placed, looks like some kind of Buffet. You put the food in it and people come serving themselves. It also look a little bit like an ancient " Kebab " place. Where each aliments of a same plate could be let to people come serve themselves or others to serve them.

I also think it somehow make sense for an elite to go to those kind of places. Eating at your home, depends on, if you know how to cook or if you have slave who cook for you. Those kinds of ancient Bistros could have been very important for socialization, people would eat and debate politics or other affairs and socialize. I feel it to be a more natural behavior that the idea of elite people being stay-at-home, especially in the Graeco-Roman world.

I dont think it was really reminescent of modern Fast Food, modern Fast Food is mostly a place were middle or low class people are going for easy and cheap food. This might not have been the case in that contexte. But at the same time, we already know that Pompeii was probably one of the most Liberal city of ancient times so who knows.

 

[Angela]

It was in some ways similar to a buffet, except that apparently there were servers behind the counters, so perhaps more like a cafeteria? In Italian terms perhaps a "Tavola Calda"?

From literary sources upper class people who frequented them were ridiculed. Perhaps it was considered a sign that you had fallen on hard times financially? However, the real "upper class" was probably only 2-5% of the population, so, merchants, artisans, shop keepers, and all the rest would have used them.

I would assume that in Roman cities there were homeless people, and there were certainly slaves, whose diet would depend on the largesse or lack of it of their owners. Howevever, surprisingly little actual research was done on the diet of the mass of commoners until quite recently, so the discourse was dominated by unsubstantiated speculation. That is starting to be rectified, with researchers like Kristina Killgrove, among others.

See:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.e...=Food_for_Rome_A_stable_isotope_investiga.pdf

"In this study, we report the results of stable carbon and nitrogen isotope analyses of bonesamples from two Imperial-period sites located just outside the city walls of Rome: the cemeteries of Casal Bertone and Castellaccio Europarco. Burial style and lack of grave goods suggest the individuals buried at these two sites were from the lower strata ofRoman society (Toynbee, 1971; Musco et al., 2008; Buccellatoet al., 2008), but differences in grave form at Casal Bertone suggest socioeconomic variation within that population. These averageinhabitants of the city and suburbs of Rome likely had inconsistent
access to high-quality and high-status food, leading to significantvariation in the diet. "Within the urban metropolis of Rome, it is likely that variation in
diet existed. Poor male citizens were eligible for the wheat dole,which they may have shared with their wives and children, but freedmen and slaves were excluded from receiving this handout. Domestic slaves may have eaten well alongside their masters, while agricultural slaves may have been granted the bare minimum for survival."

The d13Cap measurements were further investigated within the Casal Bertone sample, in terms of age-at-death, sex, and burial location. No significant differences in d13Cap were found between Casal Bertone males and females or between subadults and adults."

I think it was different in the Langobard samples, yes?

"A statistically significant result was obtained in the d13Cap values of the individuals from the mausoleum and those from the necropolis, however (Mann–Whitney U = 92, p = 0.04). The Casal Bertone mausoleum sample has the lowest average d13Cap values,
compared to the necropolis and to Castellaccio Europarco."

"The statistically significant differences in d13Cap values between Casal Bertone and Castellaccio Europarco as well as between the
Casal Bertone necropolis and mausoleum are therefore most likely related to differential consumption of millet."

"The historical record of Imperial Rome is ambivalent about human consumption of millet, so it is currently unclear to what extent Romans ate this grain. Millet is often mentioned in reference to famines and food shortages (Evans, 1980; Spurr, 1983; Garnsey,1988), a grain for the poor because it was easy to grow, with the climate of Italy being able to yield up to three plantings per yearof both Setaria italica and Panicum miliaceum (Spurr, 1986). Pliny the Elder, for example, writes in his Historia Naturalis (1st centuryAD) that bean-meal was often mixed with millet by the common
people in rural Italy."

"The people from suburban Castellaccio Europarco therefore were likely consuming millet to a much greater extent than were the people buried at periurban Casal Bertone. Further, the d13Cap values of the Casal Bertone mausoleum andnecropolis samples show an interesting difference, with individuals from the mausoleum having significantly lower d13Cap valuesthan those in the necropolis...Although the deceased buried in an aboveground mausoleum may appear to be wealthier than those buried in the simple necropolis, the low cost of buying into a collegium and
the fact that families often buried their slaves within their mausolea mean that social status in Rome cannot be deduced simply from
burial treatment. It is possible that the mausoleum at Casal Bertone was associated with the large industrial complex on site; this fullery or tannery may have produced a workers’ guild ."

Nevertheless, "individuals interred in the Casal Bertone mausoleum were eating less millet than weretheir necropolis counterparts, and that both Casal Bertone groups collectively were eating less millet than those buried in the suburbs. As millet was considered a substandard grain in the Roman
Empire, one associated with the poor and famine, the people at Casal Bertone, particularly those buried in the mausoleum, may have
been of higher socioeconomic status than those buried at Castellaccio Europarco. The data series are small but suggest that variation
within the energy portion of the diet related to consumption of millet may be a way to differentiate among groups of people buried in Rome-area cemeteries with respect to socioeconomic status."

I find it strange that the Romans so disliked and looked down upon millet grain. Isn't it true that it's often part of the diet in Germany and more northern Eastern Europe like Russia? I'm pretty sure that a porridge made of it is consumed with sweetener and milk for breakfast, and that it thickens soups and stews."

"Variation in the diet of the lower classes of Rome can be examined using the d13C and d15N data from Portus Romae, St. Callixtus,
Casal Bertone, and Castellaccio Europarco. Adults from coastal Portus Romae present the highest average d15N values but d13C values lower than the middle Imperial samples from Rome. As Portus Romae was located on the Tyrrhenian coast, it is not unexpected to find that its people were consuming nitrogen-enriched aquatic protein. The individuals buried in the necropolis at St. Callixtualso have higher average d15N values than the samples from Casal Bertone and Castellaccio Europarco. As the St. Callixtus necropoliswas located about 3 km from the Tiber River, people living in the
area could have had access to aquatic resources. Rutgers and colleagues (2009) interpret the comparatively low d13C values from
individuals in the St. Callixtus necropolis as evidence of consumption of freshwater fish. If these individuals were Christians in largely pagan Rome, their diets may have been atypical due to asceticism."

It should be noted that Christians were often ex-slaves or the poor.

"Comparative analysis of the d13C and d15N values of skeletal populations from the Roman suburbium indicates that terrestrial
meat and C3 plants such as wheat made up a large portion of the average diet. Beyond this, however, there is significant variation
between sites, as some groups consumed fresh- and/or salt-water protein resources and some consumed C4 plants."

Conclusion: Keep in mind that these results are from the poor and working class people of Rome.
"Comparisons between the diets of individuals at Casal Bertone and Castellaccio Europarco with Imperial-period sites from the Italian peninsula show that there was no singular Roman diet. To a base of cereals, olives, and wine were added terrestrial meat, legumes, fish, and millet in different proportions and from different sources."

According to Killgrove, among the animals consumed were pig, goat, horse and cow. Fish was also consumed. From other sources we can add nuts, fruits, legumes and other vegetables.

Just for interest: "In his 2nd century AD work Gynaecology, Soranus recommends children be breastfed for at least six months before the introduction of weaning foods such as cow or goat milk, wine mixed with water, honey, and cereals (porridge), with complete weaning by
age 2." Except for the wine, that's about what's recommended today, and the "weaning" is done earlier.

Still in my grandmother's time you weaned until they were about two years old. That accounted, she told me, for the fact that all her children were about three years apart. I learned later that breast feeding decreases fertility.

I can see where our old dialect saying comes from: pan e vin fa un bel fantin. Bread and wine make for a beautiful baby.
Keep in mind that the wine which I too drank quite young (mixed with water) is often only about 3-4% alcohol.

 

[halfalp]

Yes a Cafeteria is mostly the idea. Wich is how we call it here in the term of the whole place. To me, the only argument that makes me think that lower class could have their hands on some particular healthy food, such as meat or vegetables, would be that Roman society was already a place were anyone with a little bit of gold could pay some food wether the social class. My mother told me that before the 70's, it was very rare in Lucerne for low or middle class people to eat meat and especially a steak. Only money could provide next level food for ancient low class Romans.

Millet is discusting, i dont like it. As far as Porridge it's mostly done with Oat, and in Scottland, Oat used to be fermented for more than a week and got rid of all Antinutrients, wich makes it way more assimilable and healthy as if it was not fermented. For Eastern Europe or even Germany i have no clue, but being from an Eastern German family, Millet was not in the tradition we give me, but Oat was.

There is a popular saying in western europe, that mothers who drink beers gives way more milk for the baby. I cannot imagine how breastfeeding could decrease fertility. This is anti-evolutionnary, unless nature wants to get rid of us from some times ago.

 

[Angela]

Yes a Cafeteria is mostly the idea. Wich is how we call it here in the term of the whole place. To me, the only argument that makes me think that lower class could have their hands on some particular healthy food, such as meat or vegetables, would be that Roman society was already a place were anyone with a little bit of gold could pay some food wether the social class. My mother told me that before the 70's, it was very rare in Lucerne for low or middle class people to eat meat and especially a steak. Only money could provide next level food for ancient low class Romans.

Millet is discusting, i dont like it. As far as Porridge it's mostly done with Oat, and in Scottland, Oat used to be fermented for more than a week and got rid of all Antinutrients, wich makes it way more assimilable and healthy as if it was not fermented. For Eastern Europe or even Germany i have no clue, but being from an Eastern German family, Millet was not in the tradition we give me, but Oat was.

There is a popular saying in western europe, that mothers who drink beers gives way more milk for the baby. I cannot imagine how breastfeeding could decrease fertility. This is anti-evolutionnary, unless nature wants to get rid of us from some times ago.

If you read the excerpts you would see that the lower classes did have access to the simpler meat products and to fish.

The decrease in fertility is probably to make sure that the infant nurses for long enough to get the proper nutrition and the mother's immunities.

As soon as you get pregnant your milk starts to decrease in frequency, sometimes by the first month. In some women it dries up completely. Not good if the baby is only a couple of months old or something.

Different hormones are better for different stages. Your body produces different hormones when you're breast feeding, which can interfere with conception, thank God for mothers before contraception. Also, nursing produces some mild uterine contractions. That would also prevent another pregnancy right away.

The other factor is for the fitness of the mother. That would suffer if her nutrients were being drained away both in the breast milk and for the growing fetus. She had to be fit for all the work load of a mother in a non-modern first world setting.

There's another benefit from nursing: the longer you nurse the more of that baby weight you lose, and the more elasticity you regain in your stomach and abdomen area.

I think that the whole no nursing thing results in the fact that so many women can't go back to their pre-pregnancy bodies, although there are individual differences. My mom exited the hospital after giving birth to my brother three or four pounds lighter than before she got pregnant.

 

[halfalp]

If you read the excerpts you would see that the lower classes did have access to the simpler meat products and to fish.

The decrease in fertility is probably to make sure that the infant nurses for long enough to get the proper nutrition and the mother's immunities.

As soon as you get pregnant your milk starts to decrease in frequency, sometimes by the first month. In some women it dries up completely. Not good if the baby is only a couple of months old or something.

Different hormones are better for different stages. Your body produces different hormones when you're breast feeding, which can interfere with conception, thank God for mothers before contraception. Also, nursing produces some mild uterine contractions. That would also prevent another pregnancy right away.

The other factor is for the fitness of the mother. That would suffer if her nutrients were being drained away both in the breast milk and for the growing fetus. She had to be fit for all the work load of a mother in a non-modern first world setting.

There's another benefit from nursing: the longer you nurse the more of that baby weight you lose, and the more elasticity you regain in your stomach and abdomen area.

I think that the whole no nursing thing results in the fact that so many women can't go back to their pre-pregnancy bodies, although there are individual differences. My mom exited the hospital after giving birth to my brother three or four pounds lighter than before she got pregnant.

Oh wait... but did you mean Breastfeeding increase infertility to the mother? Wich in case make sense. I thought like Children breastfeed would be more often infertile, that sounded so much counterintuitive.

As for low class Roman having Meat and Fish, they only possibility it's then, even tho low class, they got some pennies to spend for some food. Nobody is going fishing or herding for nothing, especially not, for nothing for the low class. So Romans were likely a pre-capitalist state, were everyone could have anything with money.

 

[Vandemonian]

No. They ate better than that!

If somebody opened a food bar like these, I'd certainly go, so long as they ditched the garum. YUCK! Fermented fish sauce is my idea of hell

Quality varies dramatically in modern fish sauce, and the same was evidently true of garum:

___________________________
From wikipedia's article on garum:
Garum was produced in various grades consumed by all social classes. After the liquid was ladled off of the top of the mixture, the remains of the fish, called allec, was used by the poorest classes to flavour their staple porridge or farinata. The finished product—the nobile garum of Martial's epigram—was apparently mild and subtle in flavor. The best garum fetched extraordinarily high prices.
___________________________

There is a reason the wealthy paid dearly for their garum. Low quality fish sauce has a distinct odor, and as Seneca commented of garum, it "consumes the stomach with its salted putrefaction." But I can personally vouch for the culinary value of high-quality fish sauce. It's better than soy sauce, better than ketchup, better than anything else in a savory, low-meat dish.