Categorias
Garum

X. Garum, Liquamen, and muria: A new approach to the problem of definition

X. Garum, Liquamen, and muria: A new approach to the problem of definition

Sally Grainger

 Introduction 

The picture of fish sauce that emerges from the ancient literature is complex. The ancient writers who discuss these products do so without the precision we need and often contradict each other so that a precise understanding of which sauce corresponds to which recipe, production process or name is less than clear. The ancient literary evidence is largely provided by two quite distinct kinds of text : on the one hand 1st c. AD elite Roman consumer perspectives from letters, Natural Histories, poetry and particularly satire, and on the other texts that are perceived as late-Roman from users such as cooks, doctors, and vets. These texts often derive from much earlier Greek sources so the evidence appears to be polarised both by time and by culture. 

The early elite consumer tells us only of the exclusive and expensive types of garum which may have had quite a narrow culinary role and appear as the primary product, while the everyday cooking fish sauces used by millions of ordinary Romans and Greeks around the empire are hardly comprehended at all in the literature 1. In zooarchaeology we have the reverse situation, as the only recognised evidence for fish sauce is the bone fragments from small clupeidae and sparidae, which are identified as part of the apparently bony fish paste known as allec, the consumption of which is viewed as low status 2. This stark contrast in the perceived status of the consumer of each kind of evidence makes for confusing conclusions, such as the tendency for fish bone specialists to consider certain forms of this fish paste as an elite product with reference to the discussion in Pliny 3. 

 In the course of this study it will become clear that many ancient elite consumers of fish sauce did not actually understand the products at all well and it is their confusion that is directly responsible for ours. At the heart of this ancient and modern confusion is the failure on the part of modern researchers to comprehend fully that there were multiple varieties and qualities of fish sauce, some for cooking, some for the table, just as there are today in south east Asia. We can and must attempt to differentiate between them through a synthesis of the archaeological and literary sources. Only with this level of analysis can we hope to disentangle the complex problem of nomenclature. The ultimate aim is to gain a greater understanding of the relative value of the different fish sauces within in the ancient economy, and not least within Roman cuisine. In what follows I will offer a radically new way to approach the dilemma of how to differentiate between the various fish sauces which takes account of the opinions of those who made, traded and used these products. 

 1 Corcoran 1962, p. 205. 

2 Van Neer 2002, p. 208. 

3 Cotton 1996, p. 223-238. Pliny The Elder HN 31.96. « Allec is the sediment of garum, the dregs neither strained nor whole. It has, however begun to be made separately from tiny fish, otherwise of no use. The Romans call it apua, the Greeks aphye, because this tiny fish is bred out of rain… Then allex became a luxury and its various kinds have come to be innumerable… Thus allex has come to be made from oysters, sea urchins, sea anemones, and mullet »s liver and salt to be corrupted in numberless ways so as to suit all palates ». The Geoponica is very clear that the residue makes allec not that the entire residue is allec. 

4 Corcoran 1963, p. 204-209 ; Curtis 1991, p. 13 ; Curtis 2009, p. 713 ; Studer 1994, p. 195 ; Etienne 2007, p. 7 ; Van Neer 2002, p. 208.  

 1. The single sauce hypothesis 

Within ancient historical and archaeological research there is currently an assumption that there was only one type of Roman fish sauce. This sauce was called garum ; all the varieties of fish, different components of fish, recipes and qualities were all defined within the generic term garum. The distinction between the fish sauce made from small and medium whole-fish with extra viscera and that made from just fish viscera and blood is acknowledged by the leading scholars in the field but they are all considered forms of garum 4. This belief stems largely from the statements on fish sauce  by Pliny the Elder. Pliny’s garum is the luxury product made from fermented viscera and « other parts that would otherwise be considered refuse »(31.93). Pliny has stressed the viscera which is associated with the expensive sociorum garum and not directly referred to whole fish but his « other parts » have nonetheless been taken to mean small fish otherwise of no value : thus he seems to be referring to a whole-fish sauce not a blood/ viscera sauce. As he subsequently suggests that the residue of this garum makes allec and that this is a fish paste derived from whole fish, he must not comprehend that there were two types. The surviving Greek recipes for fish sauce also affirm the importance of the distinction between blood/viscera sauce and one made from whole fish. It is clear from the Geoponica too that the term garon, with an additional adjective to designate the blood/viscera sauce, did function generically in Greek 5. To make matters worse some ancient commentators, largely elite consumers, also seem to use the Latin term garum in a generic sense ; however it will be my contention that garum, for those who manufactured and traded these products, was a specific term in Latin referring to the blood/viscera sauce rather than a general term and that for most of the Roman period the word liquamen actually represented the primary product : a fish sauce made from whole-fish 6. 

Manufacturer, trader and user didn’t use the word garum, as the elite writers seem to, as a term for the general idea of fish sauce in Latin, they employed a far more specific and technical terminology, which we may suppose involved precise use of all the terms at their disposal and which survives in ancient texts and on amphorae – in both Greek and Latin 7. There are a number of instances where fish sauce is described in term of colour. The blood/viscera sauce will necessarily be darker because of the blood and in fact we do find « black » and « bloody » adjectives being used in Greek texts 8. However in Latin the literary sources do not use specific adjectives with garum referring to colour. Instead we only find the singular garum, garum sociorum or liquamen. The use of the word sociorum « of our allies » we are told by Pliny refers to the luxury mackerel garum made in New Carthage in Spain. Martial describes this sauce being « made from the blood of a still breathing mackerel » and it therefore implies this black and bloody sauce 9. Whether we can say that all the sauce made by this company of allies in New Carthage was the luxury blood/viscera sauce is unclear and probably quite unlikely. The terminology used in the dining rooms of Rome may well have been different to those used by the manufacturer. Crucially we cannot know which sauce is being referred to when garum occurs singularly in Latin texts. Writers may not actually know or care which one they are referring to, especially in satire. 

The meaning in Latin of liquamen has always remained obscure and has long been assumed to be a Late Latin equivalent for garum 10. Garum only appears in the early period, liquamen in the late and it is generally assumed that the word garum fell out of favour and liquamen simply became the more popular word. Not only has no one thought to question why this should be the case but no one has considered that multiple varieties of fish sauce require multiple terms in Latin and they do not seem to exist 11. If one looks closer at the literary evidence it becomes apparent that all the early elite Latin consumers refer to garum and there is no reference to liquamen at all. Liquamen is not a term used by elite/ educated Romans 12. Liquamen exists only in apparently late and vulgar Latin didactic literature such as veterinary and cookery books, which though considered to be written in the Late Empire, often can be seen to derive from much earlier Greek material 13. The situation is clearly more complex than a simple switch in terminology. It is admittedly clear that Latin garum is hardly mentioned in any forms of elite Latin literature after the mid 3rd c. AD, though the term does not disappear entirely as Ausonius makes an obscure reference to it in the early 4th c.14 We can also see parallel use of garum and liquamen in their occurrence on amphorae tituli picti from Rome and Pompeii in the 1st c. AD. That garum always meant something different to liquamen can be seen in its presence along side liquamen in the medicinal and veterinary and culinary texts 15. The employment of both terms suggests that garum had a meaning distinct from liquamen in the early period which was still current when the later fish sauce had apparently been renamed liquamen. Curtis acknowledges that liquamen must have had a separate meaning to garum in the first century AD but he maintains that it was the 2nd and subsequent washings of the residue of garum which is the only way to explain the later convergence of the terms 16. I would disagree here as the tituli picti do not suggest this and there is no evidence at all to this effect. 

5 Geoponica 46. Dalby 2011, p. 348-349. The difference between the two sauces concerns the fish blood rather than viscera which, from my experiments, provide additional digestive enzymes rather than distinctive characteristics. The flavour of a liquamen made with and without extra viscera is indistinguishable and dominated by fish flavours while the blood sauce taste and smells quite distinctly of iron and is not fishy at all. 

6 Curtis 1991,p. 7. 

7 In Greek : garon, garou melanos,(black) : Galen, Kuhn 1965, p. 637. garon haimation (bloody) : Geoponica 20.46.6, Dalby 2011, p. 348-349 ; P. Anst. inv. no 44. In Latin garum, garum sociorum, gari nigri, garum flos, liquamen, liquamen flos, muria and allec. 

8 For other ref. to gari nigri : Aetius 3,83 and Latin translations of Galen, see note 37. Pliny talks of garum blended to look like « aged honey wine » : Pliny HN 31.93.  

9 Pliny HN 31.94 ; Martial 13.102, Curtis 1991 p. 8, n. 11. 

10 In Greek liquamen is a hapax legominon appearing only in the Geoponica where it appears to be a direct translation of garon. For the standard view Etienne 2007, p. 7. 

11 Curtis 2009, p. 713 ; Cotton, Lernau and Goren 1996, p. 231. 

12 It is cited in Columella three times at 6.2.7 ; 9.14.3 and 9.14.17 but each time liquid generally are meant. 

13 Grocock and Grainger 2006, p. 13-23, 61 ; Adams 1995, p. 663. Much of Pelagonius and Vegetius is derived from writers such as Celsius, Columella and Apsyrtus : the Greek horse doctor. 

14 Ausonius Epist 25. 21.  

2. Studies on fish sauces 

2.1. The origins of fish sauce in the Mediterranean 

Garum was clearly derived from the original Greek word garos and seems to have been the name of a fish used to make the sauce in Greece according to Pliny. This fish is unknown but we may reliably assume that it was small clupeidae and sparidae. We know that 5th c. BC Greek comedy refers to garos from the Black Sea and by the 4th c. Cadiz was shipping garos to Athens 17. We know very little about this early fish sauce apart from the fact that it was considered rotten. Crucially the image of fish sauce use from the early Greek sources never appeared to have a luxury tag : the foods it was associated with were simple poor man’s vegetables and pulses and it formed a very basic dressing or dipping liquid with oil and vinegar or wine 18. The formal Greek cuisine that emerged during the Hellenistic period seems to have been defined around the use of this garos and it is this cuisine that arrived in Rome in the 2nd century BC when the Roman elite fell under the spell of Greek dinning culture 19. At this point we must assume that this garos was made from small fish, otherwise of no value, and the term simply became latinised into garum. At this early period we seem to be dealing with a single sauce of the whole fish garos type. 

However the cuisine associated with elite dining as described by Archestratus in the late 4th c. BC in Sicily does not appear to use a garos fish sauce, despite its apparent importation into Athens at this time, but does make use of a similar dipping sauce blended with vinegar and oil made with a salted fish « brine » called αλμη (almē) 20. If Archestratus reflects elite practices a century before the Romans acquired a liking for Greek dining practices then the use of halme and its Latin counterpart muria would seem to be the more elite product and the knowledge and use of it would also be widespread. There was clearly more than one type of fish sauce at the end of the Hellenistic period. Garos and muria were sufficiently different to require separate names though whether the blood/viscera garum had yet been developed is not clear. 

2.2. Apicius : the Roman recipe collection 

The text where we find fish sauce in use most often is the recipes collection known simply as Apicius. In 2006 I along with Dr Christopher Grocock published a new edition of this text 21. The text had been interpreted by Brandt to be a collection of recipes written down if not actually compiled by an elite gourmet in the late Empire 22. This was due to the use of vulgar Latin which is the literary register most common in the late Empire among the elite as well as the rest of society. However it was clear to us that the individual recipes had actually been written by the slave cooks who would speak and write their own « blue collar » Latin. The Latin was grammatically inferior and displayed no literary merit of any kind. Brandt’s imaginary compiler is also absolutely silent : there is no authorial voice in the text at all and one would expect an author/compiler to make himself known. The silent compiler suggested to us that this text was actually a functional collection designed by and for the cooks who devised and used the recipes. This conclusion has repercussions for dating the text too as it may be concluded that any vulgar/late Latin written by an elite gourmet would date the text to the late 4/5th c. AD but vulgar Latin from cooks cannot be so precisely dated : « Vulgar Latin…is just a collective label to refer to all those features of the Latin language that are known to have existed from textual attestations and incontrovertible reconstructions, but that were not recommended by the grammarians » 23. It is quite clear that a grammatically inferior written Latin co-existed with the more learned registers in 1st century imperial Rome and there is no reason why many of the recipes could not have been written down at that time. In fact some of the recipes contain internal evidence to suggest that they were originally written down as early as the 1st c. AD 24. We may also suppose therefore that many of these recipe collections, of which Apicius is just one surviving version, began the process of compilation in the early empire and under particular Greek influence as the surviving recipe collection retains its Greek chapter headings and contains numerous technical culinary terms which are hybrid Greek/Latin terms 25. 

15 For Apicius see below. Pelagonius liquamen : 9 ; 11.2 ; 13 ; 98 ; 455 ; 457, garum : 428;13. Vegetius liquamen : 1.10.1 ; 1.17.10, 16 ; 2.91.2 ; 2.108.2 ; 2.132.4 ; 4.6.1, garum : 2.28.8 ; 3.28.10. Marcellus Empiricus, 5th c. medical writer from Gaul « Medicinae » liquamen 30.52 ; garum 30.41. 

16 Curtis 2009, p. 713. Ausonius Epis.t 21. 

17 Pliny HN.31.93. Dalby 1996, p. 75-76 ; Athenaeus, II, 67.b-c. 

18 Dalby 1996, p. 25 Galen On the properties of food 1.25.2. 

19 Grocock, Grainger 2006, p. 17.  

20 Olson, Sens 2000, p. 159 (fr. 38). Athenaeus VII, 329b : where the brine is identified as from pilchard. 

21 Grocock, Grainger 2006. 

22 Brandt 1927, p. 30, 36, 130-3. 

23 Herman 2000, foreward ; Grocock, Grainger 2006, p. 95 and note 1. 

In relation to the issue of fish sauce terminology these conclusions have profound consequences. There is very little garum qua blood garum in Apicius : in these recipes the cook does not appear to use this sauce and in fact we have no reference to cooking with the blood/viscera sauce anywhere in the literary evidence. This would seem entirely logical too, as an expensive and intensely- flavoured blood sauce would be lost in the cooking process and wasted, while an expensive sauce needed to be seen by the gourmet to be experienced, valued and discussed. In Apicius, liquamen is the universal term for the primary fish sauce and even when we find garum, with two exceptions, it is part of a compound term directly transliterated from the Greek : όıνογαρον (oenogaron = oenogarum) and therefore referring to the original whole fish sauce. In Apicius oenogarum is a slightly more complex version of the Greek wine/ vinegar, oil and fish sauce dressing 26. These sauces are widespread throughout the text and represents a hot or cold, thin or thickened sauce used both within a cooked dish and served as a dip 27. When the recipes themselves were firmly dated to the late empire, the use of liquamen to designate the « single » fish sauce was at least rational. Now the recipes do not necessarily fit neatly into that early/late pattern, the lack of black garum in Apicius is striking. Apicius is supposed to be the epitome of high status cooking and black garum is the luxury sauce par excellence, so why is it barely mentioned ? 

From modern South East Asian cuisine we learn of a fermented squid blood viscera (and ink) sauce that is used today in Japanese cuisine. It is known as ishiri and is used as a finishing sauce for sushi as well as cooked food. Its taste neither fishy nor salty, and smells of the iron compounds from the blood. Japanese cuisine also has a whole-fish sauce called ishiru and many dishes are prepared with both i.e the whole fish sauce is used for cooking and the blood/viscera sauce finishes the dish 28. 

I would suggest that black garum was never part of the cooking process and its absence perfectly natural in both early and late recipes. It was too strong for cooking and was designed to be used at table by slaves or diners as a « finishing » sauce. It became popular among the elite to blend oenogarum sauces with black garum in the 1st c., but by the time the recipe collections had been finalised in the 4/5th c. its use in this way was limited. In Apicius garum occurs just twice : as a non compounded word, it is found at 7.13.1 where mushroom are served with garum and pepper : « Ash tree fungi : boil and serve while hot and dry in garum and pepper, as long as you pound the pepper with liquamen ». The recipe is of course ambiguous and we might use it to retain the current belief in the « single sauce ». However taken literarily the pepper is pounded into a mash with liquamen and then the mushroom are served with this mash and blood garum 29. 

2.3. Garum and Diocletian’s Price Edict 

The single sauce hypothesis is reinforced by the wording for fish sauce on Diocletian’s price edict. The inscription is a controversial source for many reasons which are not of concern here 30. Dated to AD 301 it lists the prices, in Greek for the eastern Empire and Latin for the west, of common commodities and services available when inflation was very high throughout the empire. We find that in Latin 1st and 2nd quality liquamen is rendered as 1st and 2nd quality garos in the Greek inscriptions 31. This is however what we should expect : the primary product of trade and commerce was liquamen and it corresponds to the original primary product from Greece. It is more surprising to find that a separate blood/viscera sauce or a muria is not listed. I would argue that the rarity of black garum in texts in the late empire, particularly in Apicius, reflects a rarity in commerce too and that it was not sufficiently popular at the time of the edict to warrant its own price. It was clearly commercially available as Ausonius’ letter confirms but may simply have been such a small percentage of the overall market that it didn’t warrant its own listing. It is possible that black garum always had a relatively small market in comparison to liquamen and lost what popularity it had in the late empire. I believe black garum was made to appear more important because of the unusually close view we get of the elite at table in the early empire through satire. The obsession in luxury foods in dining was largely concentrated in the early empire and later Romans looked on their ancestors 

24 Grocock, Grainger 2006, p. 13-23 ; 369-372. 

25 Oenogarum, oxygarum, hypotrimma, tisane, thermospodium, oxyporium, melizomum : Grocock, Grainger 2006, p. 27. 

26 Dalby 1996, p. 25. Other compound sauce were oxygarum with vinegar ; hydrogarum which is a cooking liquor not a sauce per se ; garelaeum with oil (Orebasius 4.28). 

27 A sauce poured over a dish (4.5.3 ; 8.8.7) ; a salad dressing for vegetables (passim book 4) ; a sauce used within a dish (4.5.1 ; 4.2.31 ; 4.2.5) and a dressing for fish or meat (7.3.1 ; 10.3.11,12). A translation for the word oenogaron is found in a late gloss to the Gargilius Martialis text. This text provides the other important recipe for fish sauce manufacture and the sauce is entitled « Confectio liquaminis, quod oenogarum vocant » « a liquamen sauce which is called an oenogarum.  

28 http://www.ishiri.jp/en/ This sauce is truly fermented with bacteria and low salt. It is quite remarkable that the Japanese word for viscera is gari ! 

29 For a similar pepper mash : Apicius 2.2.8. Vegetarian version of these fish sauces existed it seems and the terminology used is indicative of the primacy of liquamen/garos. Pseudo-Pollux Quotid. 112v : a text with Greek and Latin has « with a garos of turnip » is equivalent to « with a liquamine » ; Palladius Opus Agri. 3.25.12 « Liquamine ex piris » ; Pseudo-Galen De Remediis vol 14, p. 546m. 

30 Lauffer 1971, p. 124. 

31 Id., p. 104. 

2.4. The uses of black garum 

If we look elsewhere at the references to garum in satire it becomes clear that the sauce being discussed is a visible thing as opposed to being hidden away in the kitchen. That the term liquamen is unrecognised by the gourmet is not surprising given that the « cooking sauce » would never be visible. We find garum poured onto oysters ; Ausonius when discussing the garum he has received says he will « fill my patina » with it : a patina is a thick set frittata delivered cooked from the kitchen ; fish is served as if floating in garum ; a garum piperatum pepper sauce is poured on to fish in a dish from a wine skin ; a garum sociorum made from mullet viscera is used to drown and serve with mullets while an allec is made from their livers ; a cook is expected to blend Falernian with aged garum and pepper to serve with a roasted boar ; a cheap mistress begs her lover for a small amount of garum ; Garum and in fact muria too is used to make special oenogarum sauces and the host discusses the ingredients being used in such detail that we may be able to say that these sauces were blended at table 33. Certainly finely decorated Samian wear mortaria are often found with wear pattern of use and this is difficult for  archaeologists to comprehend as they are assumed to be table ware. Most mortaria are course kitchen wear vessels and the labour involved in their use would normally be hidden 34. It may be said that there are too few references indicating that blood garum was always used in different ways to liquamen. It is also apparent that all three types of sauce (muria, garum, liquamen) could be blended with wine and oil to make the dipping sauce oenogarum which was a visible component of ancient cuisine yet it seems clear from the recipes that the black sauce was not used in cooking. It may be possible to determine the quantities of garum to liquamen consumed through analysis of amphora size. The urceii or table top jugs that fish sauce was sold in at Pompeii came in many sizes (fig. 1). 

All are very much smaller then the average fish sauce amphorae which can stand up to 90 cm. From published tituli picti in CIL, the majority of liquamen labels are on amphorae, while named and exclusive garum is largely found on the much smaller urceii. Curtis has also noted that these urceii labelled simply garum have been found in Pompeii in relatively modest dwellings and bars and, though he was at the time using garum to mean fish sauce generally, this must mean that black garum was also consumed among the sub-elites probably as a table sauce in the bars 35.

Urceus found in Terzigno near Pompeii (from Cicirelli 1996, fig. 10-41 p. 166).

32 Ausonius’ text is discussed in detail below. While living in Southern Gaul in the 4th c. he had to have his garum specially delivered. Macrobius a century or so later « not that I am saying we should be though superior to the ancients…. but I am just stating the facts : people were keener on luxuries in those days than they are now » (Macrobius Saturnalia 111.13.16). 

33 Martial Epi 13.82 ; Ausonius Epist 21 ; Seneca 3.17.2 ; Petronius Satiricon 36.3 ; Pliny HN 9. 66 ; Martial 7.27.8 ; 11.27.  

34 Horace Sat 2.8 ; 2.4.63-9 ; Willis 2005, p. 8.4.4 ; Biddulf 2008 p. 91-100. 

35 Curtis 1991, p. 159-175 ; The difference in volume sold can not be calculated as capacity of amphorae are rarely recorded but it does seem as though by volume more liquamen was sold than garum. 

36 Grant 2000, p. 138 ; 141 ; 146. 

37 Galen Opera Omnia ed. C.G. Kuhn (1965 reprint of 1823 edition Hildesheim George Olms) Bk 12.637. (comp. med.sec.loc) « For the stench of wounds that (remedy) which is called “of the Spanish”. Take : black garos, called oxyporum by the Romans, 1 sextarius, squill vinegar, 1 sextarius, Attic honey, 1½ ; boil until it binds, and put it away in a glass vessel and use ». Translation with gratitude : Justin Mansfield. 

38 A Latin translation of this remedy made in the Renaissance, gives the following translation of the 2nd line »gari nigri quod Romani sociorum appellant.« (black garum which the Romans call « of our allies »). Galeno 1537, p. 361. 

39 Apicius 1.32 ; Columella 12.59.4. Garum in a remedy : Columella 6.9.1 to treat fever in ox ; 6.34.2 to treat horses ; 7.10.3 to treat scrofulous pigs. Liquamen is used in veterinary remedies c.f. note 17.  

2.5. Fish sauce in Galen 

Galen’s use of fish sauce in his treaties on food and diet is valuable as there are numerous references to what we now know is a simple whole-fish garos which is blended with wine/vinegar and oil as a simple dressing for vegetables as we have come to expect. Lettuce for instance is boiled in the winter and served with olive oil, garos and vinegar while mallow and cabbage are served with olive oil and garos in order to ease their passage through the body. Galen also lists many pot herbs such as celery, hyacinth and rocket which are all served in a similar way 36. There is just one reference to black garos in Galen and it requires more consideration. The text is not that on food and diet which makes no reference to the black sauce at all which also supports the view that it was not used in the preparation of food, but one called « Medical compounds according to places » 37. The remedy is apparently called an oxyporium and considered a Spanish digestive and later versions of the text reference the idea that black garum was also called sociorum after the Spanish traders 38. Other medicinal recipes for oxyporium also make use of garum. In Apicius this remedy is mixed with vinegar and garum and this is in fact the only other direct reference to garum in Apicius that is not combined in a compound term and subsequently listed as a liquamen. This source indicates that black garum had a continuing medicinal role throughout the period even if it appears to be used less at table 39. 

We cannot know when the blood viscera sauce was introduced into ancient cuisine. It certainly does not seem to be part of the early Greek evidence and its introduction may have been instigated by influence from Rome as the knowledge of these sauces spread. As a theory I offer the following : as fish sauces became generally more popular in Rome the elite would have been concerned with differentiating their foods from everybody else’s. 

If the consumption of liquamen fish sauces made from small fish was widespread then the elite would create a demand for a luxury version. The manufacturer may have instigated new developments in fish sauce types to meet this demand. One of these would have been the blood and viscera sauce, though how they thought of it is quite bizarre to comprehend. Its expense meant that it functioned as a table condiment and the gourmet could control the bottle and discuss its merits to demonstrate his culinary knowledge. Other developments at this time may have been the use of much larger fish, that did have a market value as salted fish, such as mackerel, tuna and larger clupeidae and sparidae. We may surmise that the fashion for Greek culinary culture at this time would mean that the original term was retained to designate the new luxury black table sauce forcing the merchants and traders to coin a new term ; liquamen to designate the original small whole-fish sauce 40. Liquamen remained in the kitchen and invisible to the diner who only saw and valued expensive sauces at table. In the later Roman period as black garum was not as visible either in commerce or at the table, it was naturally taken for granted among some commentators, as it has been today, that garum was just the Latin for garos and it began to be used to designate the single primary product. Only this seems to explain the group of late and early medieval references that claim that garum was equivalent to liquamen 41. They must have genuinely believed at the time that it was and simply did not comprehend the complexity behind these products. 

2.6. Muria and the Ausonius letter 21 

The letter sent by Ausonius to his friend Paulinus in the early 4th century is quite intriguing and deserves to be quoted in full. 

« Fearing that the oil you sent me was not pleasing, you repeated your gift and distinguished yourself  more fully by adding a condiment (of muria 42) from Barcelona. But you know that I have neither the custom nor the ability to say the word muria, which is in use of the common folk, although the most learned of our ancestors and those who shun Greek expressions do not have a Latin expressions for the appellation garum. But I, by what ever name that liquor of our allies is called, “now will soon fill my patinas so that that juice (sucus), more sparingly used on our ancestors tables, will flood the spoons” …. » 43 

The issue of the difference between garum and liquamen can be dealt with quite easily : if he believes that there is no Latin expression that he can use to replace garum then liquamen clearly cannot be equivalent to it. That he associates it with sociorum suggest he has received a blood/viscera sauce and there is no term in Latin for this. What requires explanation is his apparent use of muria to designate the sauce he has received. 

Muria is primarily a brine ; that is, salt and water. It is also defined as the brine that salted fish are stored in (muria salsamenti) 44. Muria appears very rarely in Apicius and seems not to have been a regular part of the cook’s seasonings in the preserved recipes. This product is seen as a lower status form of seasoning but we have seen that a form of fish-brine was used in elite 4th c. Greek cuisine as an ingredient in dipping sauces and this combination is also found in references to food in Roman satire, so muria could potentially be desirable and especially if aged 45. Muria may have been valued because it was a « clean » sauce i.e. free of fermenting viscera, which was perceived as putrefaction 46. 

Martial’s epigram on muria that follows the one for garum sociorum has often been seen as evidence that muria could in fact designate another garum made from tuna blood and viscera 47. 

« Amphora Muriae 

I am the daughter, I admit it, of Antipolitan tunny. Had I been of mackerel, I should not have been sent to you ». 

It is fair to say that it is not logical, to have another term to designate the blood/viscera sauce which can also mean a completely different less valued product entirely. However the perception of muria as low status is deceptive as we must ask for whom is it inferior and where it fits in the sliding scale of fish sauce quality. Martial has, I think, juxtaposed garum with muria here because they represented the two different types of sauce that could be valued in Roman cuisine rather than offering two that were virtually the same. After all what can be said of the differences between one lot of fish viscera and another ! 

We do not know the volume of tuna caught in the Mediterranean but given the potential size of this fish it is likely to be large and the volume of muria generated clearly had a market. However I suspect that tuna was not used to make a liquamen but only made garum or muria as a secondary product to the salted fish 48. It is apparent that tuna muria could be aged and would mature in flavour and value 49. Tuna would also generate vast quantities of viscera and blood which would make tuna garum just as the Geoponica advocates and archaeological evidence confirms the use of tuna blood in the production of garum haimation 50. This poem and amphorae tituli picti suggest that mackerel actually served as the best fish to use both for muria and garum. The elite therefore would consider tuna muria a product for everyone else to consume. Everyone else actually represents the thriving middle in Roman society, not the poor. We may also propose that garum could be made from a mixture of many types of fish blood and viscera and this would ultimately represent the lowest quality garum. Horace has one gourmet tell his guests that their oenogarum was made with muria and another who makes it with garum 51. I had considered that this muria consuming gourmet was being ridiculed by the poet but clearly it is not that simple. The choice of which sauce to use in a given circumstance will depend on factors we do not necessarily understand. In the late empire liquamen is also described as a vulgar term in contrast to garum, but this does not mean that liquamen « per se » was necessarily lower class or cheaper ; this would depend on its origin, variety, manufacturer and recipe used 52. I have conducted many experiments to manufacture liquamen fish sauce and though they cannot be dealt with here in any detail it has been possible to demonstrate that long term storage of the unfiltered sauce results in exceptional nutrition 53. An image of an unfiltered mackerel liquamen sauce can be seen in fig. 2 where the residue or allec is floating on the top of the clear enriched sauce. When this bone-free residue was re-brined and left for a few months, a relatively good quality second sauce was generated and which we find described on the price edict 54. 

Returning to Ausonius’ letter, these discussions have allowed us to see that he strikes a lofty pose and looks down on muria which he suggest is a vulgar term and we therefore assume it is a cheap and commonplace ingredient but vulgar is clearly a relative cultural idiom and from his lofty position is clearly the term that everybody else uses. He appears to be discussing the very idea of fish sauce seasonings generally and, as he does not want to use garum and as he has not received liquamen, he is using the only other term at his disposal : muria, which is only slightly lower quality than the garum sociorum that he values. At the same time he acknowledges that it is inadequate and expresses some frustration over the issue of what to call whatever he has received : « by what ever name that liquor of our allies is called. » That he has received a black garum is fairly clear but this letter also demonstrates that in the late empire fish sauce terminology had become a complicated issue. 

40 The term liquamen is cognate with liquere/liquescere meaning « to be liquid » and « liquefy ». Isidore of Seville in the 6th c. defines liquamen as « little fish dissolved during salting produce the liquid of that name » and defines garum as the « juice of fish » Etymologiae 20.3.20. Corcoran 1962, p. 205 was the first to be confused by the Isidore definition and combine the liquor from salted fish (muria) with the sauce derived from dissolved fish. 

41 Caelius Aurelianus 5th c. medical writer Chron 2.3.70 « ex garo quod vulgo liquamen appellant » ; 2.1.40 « vel garum quod appellamus liquamen » See partic.Beda Gramm. 7.279,10 « muria id est garos » which in the 7th c. may refer to the fact that in Roman Palastine muria/ies seems to have been the term for the primary product i.e. liquamen (Weingarten 2005).  

42 This first muria is out of place and is not needed in the sentence. It seems strange that he used it at all having subsequently declared that he doesn’t like the term. Andrew Dalby (per. com.) has suggested that this first muria is a gloss and I am inclined to agree. 

43 Ausonius Ep. 21 (Translation C Grocock) That he claims this sauce was « more sparingly used on our ancestors tables » is difficult to comprehend as noted by Corcoran (1963, p. 205). 

44 Cato RR 7 ; Columella 12.55.4 ; Gargilius Martialis, Curae boum ex corpore. 4 ; Pliny, HN. 31.83-92 For its low status image c.f. Isidore of Seville Etym. 20.3.20. 

45 Horace 2.4.63-9. An amphora tituli picti from London suggest that young tuna could be aged for 2 years. This cannot be whole fish as it would not be fit for consumption at that age and therefore muria is likely though un-named. Tituli picti also suggest muria could be aged Curtis 1991,p. 197. http://www.museumoflondon.org. uk/Collections-Research/Research/Your-Research/Londinium/Lite/ classifieds/sauce.htm (19/10/2012). 

46 Seneca. Epist 95.25 « A costly extract of poisonous fish which burns up the stomach with its salted putrefaction ».  

47 From the use of tuna viscera to make the haimation or bloody sauce in the Geoponica. Martial Epigrams 13.103 ; Corcoran 1963 p. 206 ; Studer 1994, p. 195. 

48 Curtis 1991 p. 6. One may imagine the non-viscera waste matter from such a large fish generating a cheap muria too. 

49 See above note 45. There is a modern fish sauce called colatura di Alici tradizionale made in Salerno Italy which involves very time consuming evisceration of tiny anchovy. The absence of viscera which provides digestive enzymes makes this sauce unusual. The sauce takes a year to completion and the tradition may go back ancient times and derive from a desire to make a « clean » fish sauce. It claims to be a garum, but has more in common with a muria. http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVGaz5yT67E. 

50 Tiny gill bones from tuna have been found in a storage vessel in Aila Aqaba Jordon (Van Neer 2008).  

3. Conclusion 

It has been possible to see that each type of fish sauce could have had different roles within Roman cuisine. The sauce made just from blood and viscera is clearly sufficiently different in taste and flavour from the whole-fish sauces and fish brines to warrant the development of specific and sophisticated roles for all three sauces, which may have been instigated by apparently proactive Roman gourmets. 

There is a complex social order behind the consumption of these multiple varieties and qualities of fish sauce which would benefit from further study. When talking of fish sauces in archaeology and history it is now necessary to be much more precise and stipulate if possible which kind of fish sauce is being referred too. One could buy aged elite black mackerel garum, ordinary black tuna garum, elite liquamen cooking sauces made from mackerel or cheaper cooking sauces made with a mixture of clupeidae and sparidae, or a tuna or mackerel muria, both of which could also be aged or new. All of these products could also come in second or even third grade versions. Distinguishing between them will not always be possible in the archaeological record but a recognition of the diversity is essential. It is also no longer adequate to simply refer to a single product called garum as the term cannot convey the complexity of these products and its use actually confuses more than it aids our understanding of the fish sauce trade. It is clear that the perception of the quality of these products depends on many factors : the particular taste of the consumer, the particular role the sauce will have in the meal and whether that meal is everyday or a rite of passage feast as well as the purchasing power of the consumer and where the consumer is placed and places himself in the social order. 

51 Horace sat 2.4.63-9;2.8. 

52 See note 8 above. Curtis 1991, p. 195 where he sites many tituli picti of named manufacturers. 

53 Grainger forthcoming ; Grainger 2010. 

54 see note 3 with ref to the bone free allec.  

Sally Grainger

X. Garum, Liquamen, and muria: A new approach to the problem of definition
Categorias
Garum

The Rise, Fall, and Rise Again of Garum

The Rise, Fall, and Rise Again of Garum

Trinh Fred Carpenter, Metro State and Gaius Stern, UC Berk (retired

fred.carpenter@metrostate.edu
gaius@berkeley.edu

The poet Ovid was exiled to the far reaches of the ancient Roman Empire by the Emperor Augustus in 8 CE.  In his exile at Tomis, now modern day Romania, he lamented the things he missed, including food and the sound of his language.  It is with this thought that we discuss a common ingredient in Roman cookery, garum, which has suffered unfair notoriety as “a disgusting sauce made from rotting fish guts”[1] by those who have never tasted it.  The journey of garum from prominence to exile and return strangely runs parallel to Ovid whose fame returns centuries after his exile.

[1]See for example, clumsydisaster:  “… the mere idea of fish guts fermenting in a jar just makes me want to gag.  It was popular enough though that its end product was sought after by pretty much everyone.  It would be mixed with wine, vinegar, black pepper, oil, diluted with water, etc.  They even thought it was the best cure for dysentery and was a great hair remover. It seems that not only are the Romans out for tastiness but they’re out for versatility.
I’d like to add though that the end product (after all the petrifying and liquifying and obvious vomiting I’d have been doing if I had to make it) was considered quite yummy.  Kind of on par to certain Asian sauces used in Asian cuisine today. I think I just get caught on the smell. Could you imagine that? Yuck.”  From https://clumsydisaster.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/what-is-that-smell/  posted 25 Aug. 2011, 20 Sept. 2012.

What is garum?  Garum, to put it simply, is a preserved fish product.  Its origins trace to ancient Greece with the word, garos, and into Latin as garum.  Garum is simply salt, fish, sun and time:  Time for the fish to decay into a liquid and decomposed flesh at the bottom of a container.  Garum is produced in a very similar manner to Asian fish sauce, or perhaps more correctly, Asian fish sauce is produced much like Garum.  We can assume that the nutritional profile is similar with a product that is rich in umami or the fifth taste, usually associated with savoriness.  It has a taste that is called “meaty.”  Foods that are considered heavy umami are rich in glutamic acid, ribonucleotides, and inosinates, such as soy sauce, tomatoes, mushrooms, cheese, and preserved meats.  Fish sauce is also rich in nutrients and can serve as a source of amino acids and protein (Thongthai).  Brillat Savarin said that, “cheese was milk’s leap towards immortality,” and the same could be said of garum.  Using salt and fermentation, a volatile product, fish, is transformed into a long stored food item that is easily transported over long distance and served as a source of salt and protein to a growing empire that was still eaten into the Byzantine period.
The earliest surviving mention of a form of garum comes from the Greeks from the 5th century BCE Athenian Old Comedy playwright Cratinus (519 – 422 BC), an older contemporary of Sophocles.[2]

[2]Kock fragment 1.95 apud  Athen. 2.67c:  ΓΑΡΟΣ. Κρατῖνος 1.95 K:  ὁ τάλαρος ὑμῶν διάπλεως ἔσται γάρου.
Regarding garum:  Cratinus says — Your basket will be full of pickled fish sauce.
For other sources mentioned throughout viz. Manil. Astron. 5.671 ff; Seneca Ep. 95. 25; Pliny NH 31.93ff; Martial Epig. 3.77.5, 11.27; Oneirocritica1.68; Isidore of Seville, Etymologies, 20.3.19-20.

Other fragments survive from Pherecrates, Sophocles, Aeschylus and a poet named Plato.[3]
 Our main source of information on how to use garum and Roman cookery is the lone surviving cookbook from the Roman empire, Apicius’ De re coquinaria (“On the Subject of Cooking:)  Over 70% of the ~465 recipes in the cookbook use liquamen, the first draw of garum (think of virgin olive oil).  We are at a loss for the absence of these and other sources except as quotes in the Deipnosophistae of Athenaeus, a collection of dinner table discussions on everything from human virtues to types of vases and cups.  Garum comes up as a subject at least twice, Deip. 2.67c, 9.366c:  “And I also see garum sauce beaten up in a mixture with vinegar. 

[3]Kock fragments 1,197, 545 = T.G.P.2 264, Kock fragment 1.656, 55 = T.G.P.2 71 apud  Athen. 2.67c:  Φερεκράτης 1.197 K:  ἀνεμολύνθη τὴνὑπήνην τῷ γάρῳ.
And Pherecrates says—
His beard was all soaked with fish sauce.
Σοφοκλῆς Τριπτολέμῳ fr. 545 N:  τοῦ ταριχηροῦ γάρου.
And Sophocles, in his Triptolemus, says —  Eating this briny season’d pickle.
Πλάτων 1.656 K:  ἐν σαπρῷ γάρῳ βάπτοντες ἀποπνίξουσί με.  = fr. 198 Edmonds.
ὅτι δ᾽ ἀρσενικόν ἐστι τοὔνομα Αἰσχύλος δηλοῖ εἰπών fr. 55 N:  καὶ τὸν ἰχθύων γάρον.
And Plato the comic writer says—
These men will choke me, steeping me in putrid pickle.
But the word γάρος, fish sauce, is a masculine noun, as Aeschylus proves, when he says “and the fishy sauce.”

“And I also see garum sauce beaten up in a mixture with vinegar. I know that in our day some inhabitants of Pontus prepare a special kind which is called vinegar garum.”[4]  This line indicates yet another far from Rome local industry of garum production in the 2nd century AD, for the consumption of garum became an identity establishing feature of the Roman Empire, not unlike making a daily visit to the public baths or wearing the toga. 
The Romans had four types of preserved fish product that we will broadly call garum:
·       Garum:  The general product made from preserving fish with salt.  Later becomes interchangeable in word use with liquamen.  Earlier sources indicate that this particular classification was made from blood and innards of larger fish, such as tuna and mackerel.
·       Liquamen:   First liquid draw from garum without fish flesh
·       Muria:  By product of fish salting process.  The liquid brine
·       Allex:  Undissolved fish parts
Garum had both its fans and detractors, surprisingly, often the same people, including Seneca and Pliny, being but two of many.   The astronomer Manlius Astron. 5.671 describes its preparation:

This part is better if the juices are given up; that part when juices are retained,
On this side a precious bloody matter (sanies) flows and vomits out the flower of the gore
And vomits out the taste after salt is mixed in, it tempts the lips;
on that side the putrid slaughter of the crowd (of fish) flow all together
and mix their shapes in another melting semi-liquid slosh
and provide a widely used liquid for foods.

their mutual gift of liquid flows out alike
and their inner parts melt and issue forth as a stream of decomposition. 
Nay in fact they could fill the great salt pans
and cook the sea and also extract the poison of the salt sea.[5]

[4]Athen. Deip. 9.366c:  ὁρῶ δὲ καὶ μετὰ ὄξους ἀναμεμιγμένον γάρον. οἶδα δὲ ὅτι νῦν τινες τῶν Ποντικῶν ἰδίᾳ καθ᾽ αὑτὸ κατασκευάζονταιὀξύγαρον.  The translation came from Bill Thayer’s scan of the Loeb.
[5]Manil. Astron. 5.671-75:  hinc sanies pretiosa fluit floremque cruoris /  evomit ex mixto gustum sale temperat oris; illa putris turbae strages confunditur omnis /  permiscetque suas alterna in damna figuras / communemque cibis usum sucumque ministrat. Check also Geoponika 20.46.6.

Seneca the Younger Ep. 95. 25 advises his correspondent Lucilius Junior against gluttony and excess when he says “What? Don’t you think the garum made by our allies, the bloody remains of harmful (the meaning may be poisonous) fish, burns the stomach (diaphragm) with salted putrification.[6]

Garum was a luxury good, produced in many parts of Italy, so if Seneca and Lucilius Junior know others import the Spanish product, not only is it more expensive (wastefulness) but actually harmful due to the local Spanish fish from which it is produced.  It had the allure of pufferfish sushi or questionable Russian caviar.  In an age of vice, described to a considerable extent in Petronius, people were engaging in a doubly harmful form of conspicuous consumption, as Eugene Weber of UCLA liked to mention, just to show they could afford to get the garum sociorum, even though it was not better than that of Pompeii.  Some distantly-made garum was a status symbol (like Belgian beer or champagne today).
Pliny the Elder NH 31.43-44.93-97 describes both the spread of garum and the widespread garum production industry. He says garum has a delicious flavor and medicinal benefits, making it a luxury good and at the same time an edible form of Roman-ness.  

There is yet another kind of choice liquor, called garum, consisting of the guts of fish and the other parts that would otherwise be considered refuse; these are soaked in salt, so that garum is really the bloody matter of the putrefying leftovers [illa putrescentium sanies].  Once this used to be made from a fish that the Greeks called garos; they showed that by fumigation with its burning head the after-birth was brought away.  Today the most popular garum is made from the scomber in the fisheries of Carthago Spartaria—it is called garum of the allies—1,000 sesterces being exchanged for about two congii of the fish.  … Clazomenae, too, is famous for garum, and so are Pompeii and Leptis, just as Antipolis and Thurii are for muria, and today too also Delmatia.
44.95.  Allex is sediment of garum, the dregs, neither whole nor strained. It has, however, also begun to be made separately from a tiny fish, otherwise of no use. The Romans call it apua, the Greeks aphye, because this tiny fish is bred out of rain.  The people of Forum Julii call lupus (wolf) the fish from which they make garum.  Then allex became a luxury, and its various kinds have come to be innumerable; garum for instance has been blended to the color of old honey wine, and to a taste so pleasant that it can be drunk. But another kind <of garum> is devoted to superstitious sex-abstinence and Jewish rites, and is made from fish without scales. Thus allex has come to be made from oysters, sea urchins, sea anemones, and mullet’s liver, and salt to be corrupted in numberless ways so as to suit all palates. These incidental remarks must suffice for the luxurious tastes of civilized man.  Allex however itself is of some use in healing. For allex both cures itch in sheep, being poured into an incision in the skin, and is a good antidote for the bites of dog or sea draco; it is applied on pieces of lint. By garum too are fresh burns healed, if it is poured over them without mentioning garum.  Against dog-bites it is beneficial and especially against those of crocodiles..(7)

[6]Quid?  Illud sociorum garum, pretiosam malorum piscium saniem, non credis urere salsa tabe praecordia?  For garum sociorum,  see Robert Etienne, “A propos du ‘garum sociorum’,” Latomus 29 (1970) 297-313.   Translation Gaius Stern,  tabes = corruption, wasting away.
[7]Aliud etiamnum liquoris exquisiti genus, quod garum vocavere, intestinis piscium ceterisque quae abicienda essent sale maceratis, ut sit illa putrescentium sanies. hoc olim conficiebatur ex pisce quem Graeci garon vocabant, capite eius usto suffito 94extrahi secundas monstrantes. nunc e scombro pisce laudatissimum in Carthaginis Spartariae cetariis—sociorum id appellatur—singulis milibus nummum permutantibus congios fere binos. …  laudantur et Clazomenae garo Pompeique et Leptis, sicut muria Antipolis ac Thuri, iam vero et Delmatia.

All the same, while reporting garum’s merits and medicinal value, Pliny disgusts the modern reader by mentioning the decomposing fish.  This seemingly very mixed presentation probably did not faze the Roman audience who was practical and not disgusted by the same smells and tastes as us (e.g. sulphur as a cleanser, fullers using urine as detergent).  In the ancient world, nothing edible was thrown away, because many people struggled with hunger.
The poet Martial 3.77.5, like Seneca before him, regards garum as a luxury good, but one that everyone can afford, and that everyone enjoys.  He criticizes a certain Baeticus for eating capers and onions “swimming” in putrid allex:  capparin et putri cepas allece natantis.  Again here the idea is that Baeticus is no gourmet.  He shuns hare, boar, thrush, and mullet (the latter much praised by T. Annius Milo in a letter to Cicero), but eats simple capers and onions and pours on the garum.  Baeticus is the sort of person who prefers burgers at MacDonalds over duck confit at a French restaurant, and any kind of mustard will do.  He does not need Grey Poupon.
Likewise, in a second epigram, Martial 11.27, the unnamed girlfriend of Martial’s friend Flaccus is satisfied with fairly modest requests from her boyfriend, including garum,whereas Martial’s own girlfriend makes far greater demands, which he fails to deliver, but he likes the fact that she has highbrow tastes.  For us, the point emerges from both epigrams that garum is something everyone can afford, at least the less expensive varieties, so as a luxury good it compares to exotic jam in the US:  not everyone can afford to buy imported Swedish cloudberry jam or Michigan Thimbleberry jam at $12 per eight-ounce bottle, but everyone can afford Safeway raspberry jam (9)

You are made of iron, Flaccus, if your cock can stand
when your girlfriend begs you for six cyathi (half a pint) of garum,
or asks in vain for two pieces of tuna or a slim fillet of mackerel
and thinks herself unworthy of a whole bunch of grapes;
one to whom her maid with delight carries on a red platter
allecem fish-sauce, but she devours it immediately.[8]

44.95  Vitium huius est allex atque imperfecta nec colata faex. coepit tamen et privatim ex inutili pisciculo minimoque confici. apuam nostri, aphyen Graeci vocant, quoniam is pisciculus e pluvia nascitur. Foroiulienses piscem ex quo faciunt lupum appellant. transiit deinde in luxuriam, creveruntque genera ad infinitum, sicuti garum ad colorem mulsi veteris adeoque suavitatem dilutum ut bibi possit. aliud vero . . . castimoniarum superstitioni etiam sacrisque Iudaeis dicatum, quod fit e piscibus squama carentibus. sic allex pervenit ad ostreas, echinos, urticas maris, mullorum iocinera, innumerisque generibus ad saporis gulae coepit sal tabescere. 96 haec obiter indicata sint desideriis vitae, et ipsa tamen non nullius usus in medendo. namque et allece scabies pecoris sanatur infusa per cutem incisam, et contra canis morsus draconisve marini prodest, in linteolis autem concerptis inponitur. 97 Et garo ambusta recentia sanantur, si quis infundat ac non nominet garum. contra canum quoque morsus prodest maximeque crocodile …

[8]Ferreus es, sista repotest tibi mentula, Flacce,/ cum te sexcyathos oratamica gari. vel duo frusta rogat cybii tenuemve lacertum nec dignam toto se botryone putat; cui portat gaudens ancilla paropside rubra  allecem, sed quam protinus illa voret.

The professional diviner from 2nd century AD Ephesus, Artemidorus Daldianus Oneirocritica 1.68, was no fan of garum:  idcirco Artemidorus garum nihil aliud esse nisi putredinem contendit:  ouden allo h shpedwn,  quae sentential in Zonorae et Suidae lexica abiit; – “about it, Artemidorus contends that garum is nothing other than putrid when he says (in Greek) ‘nothing other than rottenness,’ which opinion was absent in the lexicons of Zonoras and Suidas.” (10)

Garum was used extensively in Roman cuisine and found throughout the Empire.  Garum factories were found in Pompeii and Roman Hispania.  Further evidence of garum’s availability and common access appear in two price sources, Tariff of Zarai, CE 202, and the Price Edict of Diocletian, AD 301.  In the Tariff of Zarai the pricing of garum is comparable to wine of the same amount.  In the Price Edict of Diocletian the fish sauce was broken into two quality classifications (first and second).  Again, in comparing with other goods listed in the Edict, it is found that first and second quality garum was priced comparably with first and second class honey.  Inferring from these two sources we can deduce that garum was common enough to be taxed regularly and fell within the price access of the Roman public, corroborating our inferences from Martial (above) 150 years later.  Further, excavation in Pompeii and Herculaneum show amphorae of garum in the homes across a wide stratum of society with all four types found. 

Obviously garum started in Italy for local consumption, but as the Roman Empire expanded, so did the need for garum and the need for local production.  And the need grew as it went, meaning that many new Romans adopted a taste for garum, either because it tastes good (as we argue) or because its consumption was seen as a status symbol.  Augustus settled many Italians in the provinces in the settlements of the 20s BC. One mostly overlooked way they Romanized the provinces, besides recreating grid-pattern Roman cities with baths and a forum, was to bring their tongues with them, meaning both the speaking of Latin – on which much has been said and written before – but also the taste for Roman food.  They imported and eventually produced their own garum to enjoy the flavors of home far from Italy.

[9]I can hardly recommend highly enough Thimbleberry Jam to those who can afford it, sold in eight ounze jars for $12 each, http://thimbleberryjamlady.com/store/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=1&zenid=up3j3qmnejg0ms7u34dbu530q1
[10]See also Galen, Concerning the Properties of Foods 1.1.42-43, Corpus medicorum graecorum, 5.4.2.

Because of the species of fish used, production of garum was mostly based around the shores of the Mediterranean, and the products of Hispania, Lusitania, and North Africa near Carthage were considered the best.[11]  Remains of the garum works in present day Spain testify to the size of production and the wide shipping network of the product.  Garum production eventually spanned coastal Hispania, Lusitania, Gaul, and North Africa.  The Eastern Empire also had processing centers along the Black Sea even beyond Roman territory in the Crimea and the Strait of Kertch.  The most extensive findings have been in Spain and Portugal; one location, Troia had the production capacity of 600 cubic metres.  The largest center is at Lixus in Nothern Morocco, whose capacity was greater than 1000 cubic metres.  These sites indicate how large the production was of the garum.  It was so widely consumed that a kosher variety was available for the Jewish population in Alexandria.

It is a wonder then that garum declined completely in its use and distribution in the Roman and Byzantine world.  But we know what disrupted the centuries-long production and trade of garum:  war and the loss of order.  Beyond the basics of fish, salt and time in producing garum in the Byzantine period large fishing fleets were essential and so were beachfront facilities (especially after regulations were put in place by Constantine Harmenopoulus that garum works could not be within a certain distance of a town due to the odors) and safe shipping routes from areas of production to faraway clients.  Other factors that may have affected garum pricing and access were the requirement of a large workforce, land for facilities, and credit during a tumultuous time where shipping routes would not necessarily be secure.  The Empire’s decline and the contraction of the Empire pulled apart the trade routes and threads from production to the client.  According to archaeologist Claudio Giardino, two additional issues were the salt tax, a heavy burden on a major ingredient of garum, and the lack of security in coastal regions once the Empire could no longer protect itself.  The increase in production and shipping costs made garum far more difficult product to acquire.  For a fuller sense of the change in Roman cuisine through time, observe the list of ingredients and flavoring ingredients that could no longer or rarely be found, including sylphium, lovage, passum, and defrutum. However, the love of preserved fish is still found in modern Italy with salted cod taking the place of Egyptian red mullet, salted anchovy for garum/muria/alec, and salted tuna.  Interestingly enough, garum was rediscovered by Cistercian monks in Campania where Colatura di Alici is produced.  It is produced differently than classic garum and Asian fish sauce, where the brine of the salted anchovies is drawn away from the vat as fermentation occurs.  It is closer to muria than classic liquamen, which was decanted from the container.

[11]Strab. Geog. 3.4.6:  εἶθ᾽ ἡ τοῦ Ἡρακλέους νῆσος ἤδη πρὸς Καρχηδόνι, ἣν καλοῦσι Σκομβραρίαν ἀπὸ τῶν ἁλισκομένων σκόμβρων, ἐξ ὧν τὸἄριστον σκευάζεται γάρον: εἴκοσι δὲ διέχει σταδίους καὶ τέτταρας τῆς Καρχηδόνος.
Next is the island of Hercules, near to Carthage, and called Scombraria, on account of the mackerel taken there, from which the finest garum is made.  It lies 24 stadia from Carthage

In contrast, the production of fish sauce in Asia has been uninterrupted for centuries. There is a question of west-east transfer of fish sauce technology, but this paper avoids that controversy and limits its focus to the similarity of the two food products developed in different areas of the world.  One does not know for certain whether Asian fish sauce (fish water) originated in China or Southeast Asia.  Apparently, the diffusion of the concept emerges out of China prior to the Han dynasty (206 BC – AD 220).  Roman and Vietnamese fish sauce have a similar ratio of fish to salt ≤ 5:1, but the Romans fermented garum for less time before bottling it.  Both Roman and Southeast Asian cuisines use fish sauce in similar manners, as both an ingredient in cooking and as a condiment that can be diluted with other ingredients like vinegar or sweetener.  Both have grades of quality.  Vietnamese and Thai fish sauce divide into four grades.  The first grade is similar to Roman flos, it is the first draw from the vat.  The fish remains from the vat are mixed with salt water to ferment for two to three additional months to create the second and third grades.  The is where the fish remains from the third grade fermentation are boiled with salt water to produce the lowest grade (probably what Baeticus slathers on his capers.  For a clearer chart of production, see Curtis’ chart from “Umamni and the Food of Classical Antiquity. (12)

Asian fish sauce production is as diffuse as the ancient Roman was, but rather than suffer a fall back in production, it has expanded into a multi-million dollar industry with EU origin classification.  The popularity of Southeast Asian cuisines, in particular, Thai and Vietnamese has magnified the customer base of fish sauces (13)

[12]Robert I. Curtis, “Umamni and the Food of Classical Antiquity,” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 90.3 (2009), 7125-85.

[13]Another area of expansion is Africa, where fish sauce is used in Senegalese and other West African cuisines sometimes to replace other preserved fish products (momone or guedj). Though fish sauce is on the rise, there are still issues that could see the decline of Asian fish sauces, such as climate change and the collapse of fish stocks in the coastal regions of Asia.  Vietnamese fish sauce uses pelagic fish, such as anchovy.  The Romans used more varieties of fish including larger fish, such as tuna and mackerel in addition to pelagic fish.  The Asian industry uses a smaller base of fish species in its production.

In the end, we have a food item that has been around to see its own decline and re-birth.  Fish sauce was a dominant flavoring agent of the large Roman Empire and declined with it.  It simultaneously emerged in Asia and now is the dominant flavoring agent for cuisines that are finding homes throughout the global economy.  Ovid, I think, would have been pleased to eat at a Thai or Vietnamese restaurant, if one opened in Tomi. 
Now try a bit of Roman patina cooked with garum and pine nuts

References:
Brothwell, Don R, and Patricia Brothwell. Food in antiquity: a survey of the diet of early peoples. JHU Press, 1969.
 
            Corcoran, Thomas H. “Roman fish Sauces,” Classical Journal 58 (1963), 204-10;
                      and Curtis, Robert I. “In Defense of Garum,” Classical Journal 78 (1983), 232-40.
 
Curtis, Robert Irvin. “Umamni and the Food of Classical Antiquity,” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 90.3 (2009), 7125-85.
            Garum and Salsamenta: Production and Commerce in Materia Medica. Brill Academic Pub. (1991).
            The Production and Commerce of Fish Sauce in the Western Roman Empire: A social and Economic Study. (Diss. 1978).
Ancient food technology. Brill Academic Pub. (2001).
 
Dalby, Andrew, and Sally Grainger. The classical cookbook. Getty Publications, 1996.
 
Faas, Patrick, and Shaun Whiteside. Around the Roman table. University of Chicago Press, 2005.
 
Giacosa, Ilaria Gozzini. A taste of Ancient Rome. Rand Corporation, 1994.
 
Grainger, Sally. Cooking Apicius: Roman recipes for today. Prospect Books, 2006.
            Grimal, Pierre and Monod, Thomas “Sur le veritable nature du ‘garum,'” Rev. Étud. ancien., 34: 27-38, 1952;
Claude Jardin, “Garum et sauces de poisson de 1’inriquiti,” JZiV. Stud. Liguri, 2T70-96, 1961;
Ruddle, Kenneth, and Naomichi Ishige. “On the origins, diffusion and cultural context of fermented fish products in Southeast Asia.” lobalization, Food and Social Identities in the Asia Pacific Region. Sophia University Institute of Comparative Culture, Tokyo (2010).
 
Thongthai C, Gildberg A. Asian fish sauce as a source of nutrition. In: Shi J, Ho CT, Shahidi F, eds. Asian functional foods. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis, 2005:215–65.
 
            R. Zahn, “Garum,” A.Pauly, et al, ed. in Real-Encyclopedie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, 80 vols., Stuttgart, J. B. Metzler, 1893-1974, 1st series, 8, cols. 841-849, 1912 (hereinafter referred to as RE).  
 
http://www.thaifoodandtravel.com/features/fishsauce1.html
 
http://vietworldkitchen.typepad.com/blog/2008/11/fish-sauce-buying-guide.html
 
 

Categorias
Garum Publicações e estudos

Geoponica

Geopónika

Geoponia é o nome de uma coleção de cerca de vinte livros sobre agronomia e agricultura escritos em grego e compilados no século X em Constantinopla pelo imperador bizantino Constantino VII.

A palavra grega geoponica significa “empresas agrícolas”.

A coleção do século X é algumas vezes erroneamente atribuída em sua totalidade ao autor do século VII de Cassian Baso Casianus Basso Scholasticus, cuja coleção, também chamada de Geoponica, foi integrada na compilação existente.

O Baso foi baseado no trabalho de Vindonio Anatolio Vindonius Anatolio, s. IV: outro compilador agrário.

A última compilação inclui contribuições de Plínio, o Velho, do agrônomo cartaginês Mago e até mesmo do profeta Zoroastro.

O trabalho cobre todo tipo de informação agrícola, como clima, celeste e terrestre, assim como presságios, viticultura, oleocultura, apicultura, medicina veterinária, construção de tanques e muito mais, sendo que parte que aqui reproduzimos tem a ver com o fabrico de garum.

Geopónica o Extractos de agricultura de Casiano Baso;
traducción y comentarios de María José Meana, José Ignacio Cubero, Pedro Sáez;
Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria 1998

Geoponica (XX, 46, 1 e seguintes) – séc. IX, bizantino.

Pôr num recipiente as vísceras de peixes e peixes pequenos com sal e deixar ao sol mexendo frequentemente. Terminada a maceração por efeito do calor, retira-se o garum introduzindo um cesto. O garumescorre para dentro do cesto e é filtrado através dele, podendo-se recolher o chamado liquamen. A parte sólida que fica é o alex. Alguns misturam duas medidas de vinho velho por cada medida de peixe.
  Se se precisar de usar o garum sem o ter tanto tempo ao sol , coze-se rapidamente pondo o peixe em água do mar concentrada de modo a que um ovo bóie (…). Mas a flor do garum obtém-se com as entranhas, o sangue e o suco dos atuns sobre os quais se deita sal e se deixa macerar durante dois meses.

Capítulo 46

Fabrico de garum, 23

1. O denominado liquame 24 é obtido da seguinte forma: colocam-se as vísceras do peixe numa tigela e salgam-se;
também os pequenos peixes como o peixe-rei (Pejerrey), pequenos salmonetes, chuclas, anchovas ou mesmo todos aqueles que sejam muito pequenos, todos são igualmente salgados e preservados em salmoura ao sol, mexendo com frequência.
2. Depois de terem permanecido na salmoura durante um verão, o garum é retirado desta forma: um grande cesto espesso é colocado no recipiente cheio destes peixes e o garum é infiltrado no cesto e, assim, passado pela peneira da cesta, o chamado liquamen é retirado; os restantes resíduos tornam-se em hallec 25.
3. Mas os bitinianos preparam desta forma: utilizam-se as Spicara maena, (o picarel manchado), melhor os pequenos do que os grandes, ou na falta destes, anchovas, chicharros, cavalas, ou mesmo hallec, ou uma mistura de todas elas. Coloca-se esta mistura na mesa de um padeiro onde a farinha seja geralmente amassada e amassa-se adicionando dois sextários* de sal a cada tipo de peixe, de modo que se misturem com o sal; Depois de deixar durante a noite, coloca-se num recipiente de barro e mete-se destapado ao sol por dois ou três meses, mexendo periodicamente com uma vara, depois cobre-se e guarda-se.
4. Alguns também acrescentam para cada sextário de peixe dois de vinho
5. Além disso, se quiser consumir o garum imediatamente, isto é, não para o pôr ao sol mas para o ferver, fará o seguinte: Verifica-se a salmoura para que ao lançar um ovo na água este flutue  (se afundar ainda não tem sal suficiente); Em seguida, coloca-se o peixe com a salmoura numa panela, acrescentando orégãos, e leva-se ao fogo até ferver, ou seja, até começar a evaporar um pouco; alguns também adicionam xarope; depois, quando estiver frio, despeje em uma peneira, repetindo o processo duas ou três vezes até que o liquido saia limpo, cubra e guarde.
6. Mas o melhor garum, o chamado haimation, é feito assim: as vísceras do atum são misturadas juntamente com as guelras, o sumo e o sangue e o sal de que precisam é aspergido sobre as mesmas; São deixados num recipiente e após dois meses no máximo, este é perfurado e sai o garum chamado haimation 26.

23. Garum era um molho de peixe resultante da auto-maceração de certos peixes na presença de um anti-séptico, neste caso o sal. Era um condimento muito apreciado nos tempos antigos.
Veja a este respeito:
P. Grimal e Th. Monod, “Sur la véritable nature du Garumm” REA, 54 (1952), pp. 27-38; J. Andre, L´alimentation … pp.195-198;
R. Curtis, Garum e Salsamenta. Produção e Comércio em Matéria Médica. Leiden, 1991.
Para o garum hispânico, um dos mais famosos:
M. Ponsich e M. Tarradell, Garum et Industries antiques de la salaison dans la Mediterranee occidentale. Paris, 1965
e
M. Ponsich, Azeite e peixe salgado. Fatores geoeconômicos de Bética e Tingitânia. Madrid, 1988.

24. O liquamen aparece mencionado pela primeira vez no meio do séc. I A.D. (Col. 6,2,7) embora a mesma palavra também seja usada para se referir a líquidos. É o molho de peixe mais romano, sendo este o termo mais utilizado para designar estes molhos, embora isso não signifique que o termo garum tenha desaparecido. Parece que a única diferença está no uso, no processo de produção, de peixes diferentes, geralmente menores. Neste texto, o processo de fabricação do liquamend parece diferenciar-se do garum, sendo o segundo produto do primeiro, embora a passagem seja um tanto confusa.
Ver R. Curtis, cit. pp. 7 e 135. 25 · Hallec, como vemos, é um subproduto do garum, do qual não conhecemos sua forma nos tempos clássicos gregos. A sua avaliação é geralmente pejorativa.
Ver R. Curtis, cit. pp. 7-8 e 14. 26 ·
Sobre o garum da qualidade, ver R. Curtis, cit pp. 135  173. CURTlS, R. Garum e Salsamenta. Produção e Comércio em Matéria Médica. Leiden, I 991.

 

*Sextário é uma medida para líquidos usada pelos romanos. Equivalente a 0,5468 litros. Era dividido em doze partes iguais que eles chamavam de ciatos.

Categorias
Garum Publicações e estudos

Roman Fish Sauce

Roman Fish Sauce: Fish Bones Residues and the Practicalities of Supply

SALLY GRAINGER
Timberua Glen road. Grayshott Hindhead. Surrey GU266NB, UK sallygrain@aol.com
(Received 2 November 2012; Revised 14 May 2013; Accepted 22 May 2013)

ABSTRACT: In this paper I will report on the results of experiments, conducted from 2009 through to 2011, to manufacture Roman fish sauce, using the ancient recipes. More specifical- ly, it will consider the nature of the fish sauce residue, known as allec, observe its formation and assess its qualities. The paper concludes that many shipwrecks currently identified as having transported amphorae that contained a salted fish product made from mackerel may in fact be shipping a semi processed fish sauce which will go on to produce a quality liquamen type sauce at its destination. This paper offers a new interpretation of the archaeological remains found in ancient transport amphorae and provides new insights into the commerce of processed fish products in the Roman Mediterranean.

RESUMEN: En este trabajo se exponen los resultados de experimentos realizados entre 2009 y 2011 para manufacturar salsas de pescado romano siguiendo las recetas antiguas. En concreto, se considerará la naturaleza del residuo de salsa de pescado conocido como allec, y se detalla- rán su génesis y sus características. El trabajo concluye que muchos pecios, actualmente rese- ñados como portadores de ánforas que contenían una salazón de caballas, podrían de hecho haber contenido una salsa de pescado a medio procesar que habría servido de base para produ- cir una salsa de calidad tipo liquamen en destino. Este trabajo ofrece por tanto una nueva inter- pretación de los restos arqueológicos de peces recuperados en antiguas ánforas de transporte al tiempo que proporciona nuevas perspectivas en torno al comercio de productos procesados de pescado en el Mediterráneo romano.

INTRODUCTION

In this paper I report on the results of experiments, conducted from 2009 through to 2011, to manufacture Roman fish sauce, using the ancient recipes. More specifically this study examines the nature of the fish sauce residue, known as allec, observes its formation and assesses its qualities. Currently, our ability to recognize evidence of fish sauce through its residues in the archaeological record is limited by a lack of basic empirical knowledge of the products themselves. Van Neer & Ervynck (2002: 208) consider that fish sauce can only be identified where «fish bones are present» which is clearly a limiting factor for fishbone specialists interested in finding fish sauce in the archaeological record. The fish sauce associated with these residues of bone is perceived to be of lower status, while the fish sauce of quality is understood to be a clear free-flowing liquid and therefore largely invisible in the archaeological record (Desse-Berset & Desse, 2000: 75). In archaeology, we also continue to consider garum as a luxury fish sauce, and refer to classical archaeologists such as Curtis who necessarily use ancient «elite» perspectives from Rome to define the sauces (Corcoran, 1962; Curtis, 1991, 2009). The archaeological evidence for fish sauce, however, provides the sub-elite and even lower status perspective as the residues we find are largely identified as either the bulk commonplace sauce or the bony fish paste which is considered a slave ration. It has been difficult to reconcile and inte- grate the two worlds, the elite perspectives derived from literature and the lower status perspective from the archaeological record, to form a coherent picture of the ancient trade in fish sauce (Van Neer & Ervynck, 2002: 208). This paper offers a close study of the preparation of various fish sauces along with their residues in order to offer a new interpretation of the archaeological remains found in ancient transport amphorae and to understand more clearly Roman commerce of processed fish products1.

My approach has been multi disciplinary exam- ining and analyzing information from a variety of sources: the archaeological record for processing sites, the amphorae trade and the fish bone studies from ship wrecks and urban deposits, as well as ancient and modern literature pertaining to fish sauce production and use. My backgrounds are ideally suited to this study as I am a trained chef, have an ancient history degree, a published Roman food historian with a specialty in the Apicius recipe text where fish sauce is a commonplace ingredient, and I am trained in archaeology, having earned a MA in this discipline (Dalby & Grainger, 1996; Grainger, 2006; Grocock & Grainger, 2006). Thus I was able to integrate all the available evidence for fish sauce, both ancient and modern, in order to attempt to answer some of the more perplexing questions about this product and how it was traded.

1 My research forms part of a MA dissertation on fish sauce conducted at Reading University.

FISH SAUCE: THE BASICS

Both ancient and modern fish sauce is a liquid derived from the maceration and liquefaction of whole fish with salt. The process is known as enzyme hydrolysis. The enzymes are present in the viscera in large quantities, particularly the liver and spleen, and it is their action that converts the solid protein in the muscle tissue into amino acids and peptides dissolvable in the water (Mciver et al., 1982: 1017; Curtis, 2009: 712). The «sauce» is effectively the water contained within the fish, enriched with protein, as well as additional brine which takes on the same characteristics. The protein causes the fluid to be stained in various shades of yellow to brown. The sauces are often considered fermented, but, strictly speaking, fermentation requires bacterial action in relatively low salt conditions which are not mentioned in the ancient recipes (Owens & Mendoza, 1985: 273). There are various methods employed by modern South East Asian manufacturers which we find mirrored in the ancient recipes. The small Clupeidae and Sparidae commonly used are either, on a small scale, contained in sealed vessels, or, on a large scale, covered in concrete-lined tanks, which expose the product to the heat of the sun and some evaporation. Sometimes the fish are compressed in sealed barrels, which allow the fluid to drain from the bottom of the vessel while the residue remains intact. This compressed residue is then re-brined, often many times to extract all the potential nutrients before the residue is finally discarded or used for fertilizer, in contrast to ancient fish sauce residues which are used as another food source. Modern fish sauce is also produced in levels of salt considered excessive, 25-40% by weight. These levels of salt, which are acceptable in South East Asia, actually reduce enzyme activity and there- fore the potential nutritional value of the sauces (Crisan & Sands, 1975: 106; Lopetcharat, 2001: 65-68).

Ancient recipes for fish sauce survive in late Imperial Greek and Latin texts, though they are considered problematic for many reasons. The key text, the manuscript of the Geoponica is from Greek-speaking Byzantium and has been consid- ered too far removed in time from the manufacture of fish sauce envisioned in the western Mediterranean of the 1st century AD to be considered accurate (Comis & Re, 2009: 35). It is rarely suffi- ciently acknowledged, however, that fish sauces were Greek in origin in terms of the textual evidence, and their origins geographically were obscure 2. The cuisine we think of as Roman was originally devised and initially recorded in Greek texts during the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC. It subsequently spread and became an international Mediterranean cuisine rather than simply «Roman». Nevertheless, there remained key differences between the two culinary cultures, while, at the same time, a complex linguistic culinary crossover developed3. In fact, it is recognized in classical studies that the knowledge associated with all practical preparations was predominantly of Greek origin and found in veterinary, medicinal and culinary literature. The Romans in the western Mediterranean did not value practical skills and considered the labour associated with preparing fish sauce as demeaning, and, therefore, frequent- ly relied on the skills of Greek practitioners (Cicero de off. 1.150; Adams, 1995: 1-209; Dalby, 1996: 179; Grant, 2000: 3). The Geoponica was a farming manual preserved in a 10th century AD manuscript but containing material dated to the 6th century AD. It has recently been re-evaluated and correctly recognized as a manual preserving knowledge from the agricultural tradition of the entire Roman period rather than from the later periods and as such would, in fact, provide a reli- able account of fish sauce manufacture (Dalby, 2011: 13).

2 The process itself has either been attributed to Greeks via colonies in the Black Sea or a Phoenico-Punic one in Spain (Trakadas, 2004: 47).

3 The language of the kitchen was Greek in the same way as French dominated the professional kitchen of 19th/20th century. Cooking as a skill was dominated by Greek speaking/under- standing Romans who might be bilingual in the kitchen but not elsewhere and many terms were simply transliterated and a «culinary syntheses» emerged (Dalby,1996: 179).

There are three recipes that survive in the literature: two in the Geoponica, and one attributed to Gargilius Martialis, a 3rd century AD Latin writer. This text, however, is considered a medieval gloss and is not included in the recent Les belle Lettres series. It is also clear that a number of ingredients listed in the recipe were unavailable in Roman times, and, as a result, it is far less reliable in illustrating classical Roman practices (Curtis, 1984: 148; Maire, 2002). The texts are sited in full in the appendix. The recipes suggest that two basic types of sauce existed, though many different species of fish and different methods were used.

1 A mixture of small whole fish of the Clupeidae and Sparidae families considered small enough with the addition of extra viscera from other fish and salt added, allowing the mixture to liquefy in the sun until pickled. Liquid is then taken when the sauce flows through a basket and can be ladled out (Geo- ponica). This is a liquamen in Latin and garon in Greek4.

2 A mixture of somewhat larger fish, dominated by Scombridae as well as Clupeidae and Sparidae. These are cut up with salt and also the residue from previous fish sauce production known as allec 5 added. Apparently, no additional viscera was needed. Extra liquid (wine) could be used. This is pickled for 2-3 months (Geoponica). This is also liquamen in Latin and garon in Greek.

3 A similar variety of fish but the whole process is made in a sealed vessel and on a smaller scale (Gargilius Martialis). This is liquamen.

4 A quick and clearly domestic method where whole fish are boiled in brine until all flavour and nutrients are transferred to the liquid. The mixture is then fully strained (Geoponi- ca). This is also liquamen in Latin and garon in Greek.

5  A luxury sauce made with viscera and blood from tuna (though clearly other fish, such as mackerel, were used) and salt. This is allowed to ferment for two months and then removed by piercing the vessel and the sauce flows out from below (Geoponica). This is garum in Latin and either garon haimation (bloody) or melan (black) in Greek (Galen: Kuhn, 1965: 637)6.

6 A fish brine derived from the salting of cleaned fish. This is also a type of fish sauce seasoning and was considered cheaper or more commonplace (Ausonius Epis.21). As a fish brine, it actually seems to have been val- ued too (Olsen & Sens, 2000: 159). This is muria in Latin and halma/yris in Greek. Some modern scholars also considered it a form of garum 7.

The recipes suggest that there were many different ways to make fish sauce. In fact, from a literary study, which will be published elsewhere, it is clear that there were multiple qualities of fish sauce and defining them in terms of expensive or cheap is too simple; each variety could exist in varying qualities. It is clear that the perception of the quality of the product consumed depended on so many factors: taste; the use(s) of the sauce as different sauces do seem to have different roles within the cuisine; choice; income; and the consumer’s social position and where he viewed him- self/ herself within the social order. The sauce considered an expensive garum made from just blood and viscera will not be further discussed here.

4 The term is later transliterated into garum and the distinction between the two terms depends on the apparent early use of garum and the apparent later Latin usage of liquamen (Ettienne, 2006: 6; Curtis, 2009: 713). It is clear, however, that liquamen had a distinct and separate meaning from garum in the 1st century AD which I believe was maintained into the late empire (Grainger, 2013 forthcoming).

5 Curtis (1984) believes this usage of allec refers to its other meaning as a generic term for small fish of the Clupeidae and Sparidae families. As anchovy is specifically named in this recipe, such a definition seems to me unfounded.

6 It is my belief that garos and garum are not in fact equivalent (liquamen is equivalent to garos, garos melan/haimation is equivalent to garum. For a detailed discussion of this theory see Grainger (2013 forthcoming). For other references to «bloody» and «black» garos see papyri: P. Anst. inv. no 44; Aetius 3.83.

7 I have elsewhere published that I doubt that these elite ref- erences to muria (Martial Epigrams 13.103) being a form of blood/viscera sauce, with reference to the use of tuna viscera in the Geoponica, are correct. It is unlikely that tuna would make a whole-fish sauce but rather a blood/viscera sauce or a brine as a secondary product from salted fish (Grainger 2010: 25; Grainger, 2013, forthcoming). But see Corcoran (1963: 206) and Studer (1994: 195) for a different view.

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR FISH SAUCE: THE FISH BONE REMAINS

The apparent residues of an ancient fish sauce have been found throughout the Roman Mediterranean, northern Europe and Roman Britain in the form of large amounts of discarded small-fish bones. The most important sites are listed in Table 1. The bones were dominated by poorly preserved small Clupeidae and Sparidae, 5-20 cm in length (Van Neer & Ervynck, 2002: 208). These residues were often inside or near the discarded amphorae, at ports or trading sites in the Mediterranean where the sauces were processed or sold. They were also identified inside the cetaria at processing sites in Southern Spain, North Africa and Portugal. These bone residues are generally interpreted as a form of allec, i.e., the fish sauce residue described in the Geoponica after the desirable sauce had been taken (Dalby, 2011: 349, l. 7). This was also considered a marketable product in its own right, i.e. a bony fish paste not unlike a gentlemen’s relish or pissalat with a potential market among the poor and slaves (Delaval & Poignant, 2007: 59-66). It has been pointed out by Van Neer & Ervynck (2002: 208) that it seems economically irrational to widely transport a residue which was perceived to be of low quality. The fish bone residues found at Masada that have been identified as allec by Cotton et al. (1996: 231) were derived from very small sardines (3-5 cm in length) from the Western Mediterranean, probably Spain, and, according to a passage in Pliny which will be discussed below, were identified as a luxury product traded into Palestine. These tiny bones may have been con- sumed along with the paste but I doubt such a product could have been considered elite or even remotely desirable. It is also important to note that the Geoponica actually states that the residue «makes allec» not that the residue is allec, which implies the bones were not an integral part of this product. Other examples of allec were derived from much more substantial Clupeidae and Spari- dae bones. Ultimately one has to imagine the bones being removed from the paste by the con- sumer as and when required which is not a simple procedure. Of course, had this in fact been the case, the bones would not be found in one discrete place, but rather would be distributed all over the archaeological record and be unrecognizable. It is only because the discarded bones have been found in large quantities that we can recognize them as some sort of fish sauce residue. It is not really clear what process was involved in discarding the sauce represented by the bones in or near amphorae. It has been suggested that spoilage of the sauce caused these events but this does not seem to be an adequate explanation for all the evi- dence (Hamilton-Dyer, 2001: 4).

Urban sites
• Saltsberg Clupeidae and Sparidae 4-12 cm (Lepsikaar, 1986)
• Masada Clupeidae 4-5 cm (Cotton et al., 1996)
• Cerro del Mar, Málaga multiple samples including Clupeidae and Sparidae 10-20 cm (Driesch, 1980) • Olbia 1 Clupeidae and Sparidae 15-20 cm (Bruschi & Wilkins, 1996; Dellusi & Wilkins, 2000)
• Olbia 2 Clupeidae and Sparidae 5-10 cm (Bruschi & Wilkins, 1996; Dellusi & Wilkins, 2000)
• London Peninsula house Sprattus sprattus and Clupea harengus – 8 cm (Bateman & Locker, 1982)
• York, Dorchester Sprattus sprattus and Clupea harengus 7-10 (Hamilton-Dyer, 2008)
• Tienen Clupeidae 5 cm (Van Neer et al., 2005)
• Setubal Clupeidae and Sparidae 8-19 cm (Desse-Berset & Desse, 2000)
Ship wrecks
• Randello c.300AD, Almagro 50, sardine 10-17 cm (Wheeler & Locker, 1984)

TABLE 1
Fish sauce residues considered allec from urban and shipwreck sites.

The ancient literature on allec is very confusing and therefore needs to be re-examined. Pliny the Elder is the text most often cited:

«Allec is the sediment of garum, the dregs neither strained nor whole. It has, however, begun to be made separately from tiny fish, otherwise of no use. The Romans call it apua, the Greeks aphye, because this tiny fish is bred out of rain. …….. Then allex became a luxury and its various kinds have come to be innumerable…… Thus allex has come to be made from oysters, sea urchins, sea anemones, and mullet’s liver, and salt to be cor- rupted in numberless ways so as to suit all palates».

Pliny the Elder HN. 31.96

The passage is neutral about the value of allec made from «apua» and the luxury tag is only really associated with the bone-free fish pastes made from sea food such as sea urchins and oysters. The evidence from amphorae tituli picti and elite literary references also make it clear that, in fact, the best fish sauces was made specifically from mackerel. We may assume that the best allec would have been derived from this meaty fish too. Curtis (1991: 195) records one tituli picti designating the allec from mackerel.
The artisanal fish paste known as pissalat made in the region of France between Nice and Marseille was made from anchovies of various sizes. The bones were not removed from those tiny anchovies used to make pissalat in Antibes, Figure 1; «Born of rain» seems particularly apt (Delaval & Poignant, 2007: 62). I had a conversation with an artisanal pissalat maker at a Nice market who told me that, if the sardines are any bigger, the bones are sieved out. It seems clear that the reference by Pliny to allec becoming a luxury was not concerned with fish sauce or its residue at all. Rather, this allec that was a smooth fish paste did not generate a sauce. The nutrients were retained in the paste, it did not hydrolyze into a liquid, and the bones were sieved out while the fish were soft but not dissolved. It appears that the most commonplace and non-elite fish sauce that we know was traded so widely was in fact represented by bones from the Clupeidae and Sparidae family in a 5-20 cm size range, as noted by Desse-Berset & Desse (2000: 91), and which, in fact, we find associated with amphorae across the Roman Empire and at processing sites.

The evidence for the best fish sauce made exclusively from mackerel has not been easy to find. There is, however, extensive evidence from imperial Roman shipwrecks for the transporting of mackerel stored in amphorae that, though appearing to be designed for a liquid fish sauce, have been identified as transporting a salted Spanish mackerel. The shipwreck sites are listed in Table 2. The identification of the product as salted fish has been largely due to the comparatively large size of the Spanish mackerel and other Clupeidae and Sparidae when compared to those associated withallec, and to the extremely high quality of its preservation (Desse-Berset & Desse, 2000: 91). The theory has been that a fish sauce product would result in fragmentary bone, and this, in fact, does seem to be the case in some of the land-based evidence for allec. All the shipwreck bone evidence, however, is quite unique in being so well-preserved, and this may be due to the specific anti-bacterial environmental conditions of the sea.

FIGURE 1 Sardine used to make pissalat which are aptly described as «born of rain» by Pliny (HN 61.95; Delaval & Poignant, 2007: 62).

page6image37990592

Sud Perduto II. Dressel 7/9, 1st Century AD, Scomber japonicus 40-48 cm (Parker, 1992: 1121; Desse- Berset, 1993: 343, Desse-Berset & Desse, 2000: 76-79)
Cape Bear III (Port Vendres) Dressel 12, Scomber japonicus 28-40 cm (Parker, 1992: 171; Desse-Berset & Desse, 2000: 80)
Port Vendres II Dressel 7, Scomber japonicus size unknown (Colls et al., 1977: 40-43; Parker, 1992: 331; García Vargas, 1998; Desse-Berset & Desse, 2000: 81)
St Gervaise III, Beltran 2b, Trachurus trachurus 40-50 cm (Parker, 1992: 373; Desse-Berset & Desse, 2000: 81)
Anse Gerbal (Port Vendres 1) c.325 AD, Almagro 50/51 Sardina pilchardus 22-25 cm (Parker, 1992: 874; Desse-Berset & Desse, 2000: 92)
Elba II (Chiessi), mid 1st century AD, Scomber japonicus 30 cm (Bruschi & Wilkins, 1996: 167; Dellusi & Wilkins, 2000)
Grado , 2nd century AD, Scomber japonicus 30 cm and Sardina pilchardus size unknown (Auriemma, 2000: 31-49; Dellusi & Wilkins, 2000: 53-65).
Cala Reale al Asinara, 4/5th century AD, Almagro 51, Sardina pilchardus size unknown (Dellusi & Wilkins, 2000; Desse-Berset & Desse, 2000).

TABLE 2 Ship wreck evidence currently considered salted fish.

Only one Roman shipwreck has been tentatively identified as carrying a fish sauce allec and that is Randello (see Table 1; Wheeler & Locker, 1984). This is due to the large number of fishes represented relative to the size of the amphora, and their very small size. There are two key shipwreck sites that require discussion. Grado, a 2nd century AD wreck in the northern Adriatic is exceptional in having large quantities of well-preserved mackerel and sardine bones in numerous different types of large African amphorae as well as small but empty amphorae with a tituli picti stating the product as a liq(uamen) Flos. The bones are currently identified as a salted fish (Auriemma, 2000: 31-49; Dellusu & Wilkens, 2000: 53-65). The 1st century AD wreck at Cape Bear III at Port Vendres contained Dressel 12 amphorae, and the mackerel apparently transported in them were up to 40 cm in length. I do not think it is possible for mackerel this large to be put inside such an amphora even in pieces: it would have been impossible to get them in or get them out as can be seen from their shape (Desse-Berset & Desse, 2000: 79-81).

The Dressel 12 amphorae (Figure 2) are clearly a liquid container and it is my contention that these shipwrecks as well as many others transporting mackerel (or uniform Clupeidae and Sparidae of a similar nature) were actually carrying a form of mackerel allec.
I was unsure for what economic purpose this served until my experiments demonstrated the logic behind this practice.

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/ view/amphora_ahrb_2005/drawings.cfm?id=67&CFID=2827207&CFTOKEN=41216567.

FIGURE 2 Dressel 12 amphora.

THE EXPERIMENTS

Over the last three years, I made 10 different sauces, sticking closely to the basic recipes but adjusting the variables each time in order to determine the perfect conditions required to maximise speed of liquefaction as well as nutritional and culinary quality in the bulk process indicated by the large cetaria (salting tanks) found in Southern Spain and North Africa. I processed my fish in a green house in fish tanks which allowed me to duplicate Mediterranean temperatures quite closely. Most of the data I used to determine these ideal conditions were based on an early observational study which was both complex and time-consuming to relate in detail here. The variables were as follows:

SALT LEVELS: These are stated to be 15% or 7 parts fish to 1 part salt in the Geoponica. The Gargilius recipe is estimated at 3:1 which is much closer to modern fish sauce salt levels and has also been demonstrated to reduce nutritional yield (Klomklao et al., 2006: 443).

PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF ADDITIONAL VISCERA: In one recipe, smaller fish were pickled with extra viscera, while the other two made no mention of additional viscera. As a bulk catch of Clupeidae and Sparidae could not sensibly be individually processed, this may suggest that the extra viscera was designed to aid the liquefaction process where the viscera cavity was not exposed.

PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF ADDITIONAL LIQUID: One Geoponica recipe calls for wine at a ratio of 1 fish to 2 wine. This was assumed to be a later stage in production, i.e. the oenogarum sauces mentioned in recipes (Grainger, 2007: 106) and also excessive. The other two recipes, however, made no mention of extra liquid.

FISH VARIETY AND SIZE: I used sprat (5-10 cm) caught and frozen on board ship, sardine (8-24 cm) caught the night before in Scottish waters and mackerel (25-35 cm) caught and salted by myself in the Solent near Portsmouth.

TEMPERATURE: The air temperature of the coastal regions around Cádiz and Gibraltar during the summer range from 15-35°C with an average midday temperature in June, July and August of 30°C. These temperatures were mirrored inside the green house over the duration of the experiments. The liquid temperature of the sauce during the hottest period of the day never reached above 20°C.

CLOSED OR OPEN VESSEL: If the vessel or salting tank was open to the sun, as suggested in the Geoponica, then evaporation will eventually result in a gradual reduction in volume. Either the
sauce was taken before this can happen or extra liquid was added.

OPEN OR CLOSED ABDOMINAL CAVITY: Small fish were left whole. From the Gargilius recipe, it appears that larger fish were cut into pieces, thus exposing the viscera. The Geoponica does not stipulate cutting but implies pieces by the instruction to kneed the fish with salt.

COOKING OR NOT: One of the suggested ways to make fish sauce was to boil the fish in brine and strain the liquor. The text made it clear that this was certainly a separate domestic and small-scale process and that fermentation and cooking were not combined in the bulk process. Modern fish sauce production considers that excessive heat destroys the enzymes that hydrolyse the protein (Geoponica 20.46; Klomklao et al., 2006: 444).

LENGTH OF PROCESSING TIME: The recipes in the Geoponica suggested 2-3 months for the whole fish sauce and 2 months for the blood and viscera sauce. A further Geoponica recipe did not stipulate a time limit, and the Gargilius Martialis recipe appeared to suggest just a few weeks.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS AFTER 3-YEAR OBSERVATION

The exposed and/or extra viscera initially maximized the brine yield. Without one or the other of these and ideally both, the yield of natural water from the fish was too small in volume to dissolve the salt, resulting in a crunchy fish mash. Similar findings were reported by Commis & Re (2009).

As I conjectured, the brine that was generated steadily evaporated, and the sauce yield was limited in the thick gray paste that formed. I lost up to 15% of volume over the first 2 weeks in the first sardine and sprat sauces. I found that when sufficient digesting enzyme activity was present (exposed and/or additional viscera), the skin begun to disappear in the liquid and the muscle tissue appeared to «explode in slow motion» within a few days, i.e. the tissue softened and separated into small particles which floated free within the liquid. This was what formed the dense paste. These particles could rapidly saturate the limited liquid that was present, and, when this happened no further disintegration could take place. It was the smallest fish that dissolved first, while the majority of larger sardine and mackerel pieces remained undissolved, most likely due to the lack of sufficient liquid for the process to take place. The ratio of extra liquid suggested in the Geoponica, (wine but brine was more likely) was 1 fish: 2 liquid. This seemed likely to dilute the sauce too much, and so early experiments used a reversal of this ratio, i.e. 2 fish: 1 brine in sauces with and without additional viscera. The process of disintegration restarted in this new liquid and the thick grey paste became an emulsion. Initially, the dark clear sauce emerged on the top of the tank, while the particles sank and merged with the remaining fish pieces. But as the process of stirring continued, this was reversed, and the particles rose to the surface causing the desirable sauce to be trapped underneath. It is con- jectured that the liquid had become enriched in protein as the density was increased, forcing the particles to float over the heavier liquid. At this point evaporation ceased.

The sauce made from sardines (8-24 cm), without the additional viscera but with 2 fish: 1 extra brine, generated a copious emulsion after three months of processing. At least 40% of the sardine in the 15-24 cm size range, however, remained structurally intact though the viscera cavity was eroded as can be seen in Figure 3.

FIGURE 3

Sardines over 15 cm after 3 months of fermentation with their cavity eroded but the majority of muscle tissue intact. This sauce had sufficient liquid but did not contain extra viscera and therefore did not have enough enzyme activity to dissolve the larger fish.

It was possible to re-brine this volume of remaining fish flesh and generate a second sauce which was by no means of second quality. In order to determine whether extra viscerae or more brine or both were necessary to ensure more of the fish were dissolved, an experiment was developed using a batch of mackerel sauce made with the fish cut into 3 pieces and with additional viscera at 10% and the original ratio of brine at 1 part fish to 2 parts brine.

This recipe resulted in a dramatic liquefaction. It took from one week to ten days to liquefy and disarticulate up to 8 kg of mackerel. This was clearly too fast, and, as it was accompanied by fairly rapid spoilage of the sauce in the following months, it was determined that this ratio of extra liquid resulted in a weak and unstable sauce. It also seemed likely that the manufacturer would not want to dilute the sauce in the early stages any more than necessary, particularly as a concentrated fish sauce would be more economical to transport. Further experiments using more viscera and a liquid ratio of 2:1 continued to leave 25-30% of the fish flesh un-liquefied. See Figure 4 for the bony allec from this mackerel sauce.

It seemed likely that the enzymes could not liquefy any more fish in these conditions. A ratio of 2 parts fish to 1 part brine with 10% extra viscera proved the most effective in producing a sauce efficiently liquefied with maximum nutrition while leaving sufficient remaining fish to generate a good second sauce. One may imagine that it would be highly profitable for fish sauce manufacturers to generate two equal sauces in terms of nutrition and taste from one batch of fish.

FIGURE 4

A residue (allec) of unliquefied mackerel, having been cut into pieces and processed with sufficient extra viscera and extra liquid to generate a saturated emulsion after 2 months fermentation.

page10image38631488

THE SAUCE ITSELF AND ITS NATURE

In ideal conditions of high enzyme activity (provided by the extra viscera, sufficient liquid, and heat), the cartilage is also digested by the enzyme action, and this results in complete disar- ticulation of the smaller fish skeletons (5-10 cm). In these ideal conditions, many of the larger pieces or whole fish still did not fully liquefy in the increased volume of fluid. All the fish pieces and disarticulated bone initially remain suspended if small and then fell to the bottom throughout the majority of the process. With an extended processing time (over 2 months), however, the sauce became so rich in protein that the density of the sauce increased. The bones and even large pieces of undissolved fish rose through the thick layer of fish particles to the surface. Prior to this while the bones were still largely at the bottom, the tank was full of a thick emulsion which could be easily removed with minimal bone contamination. This emulsion constituted the unfiltered sauce. I have been able to demonstrate through laboratory test- ing that the nutritional value of the final sauce was greatly improved by storage in this unfiltered state. After discussing this product with Robert Curtis, he agreed that this unfiltered sauce could well be identified with the tituli picti «flos». When these identifying labels signify flos flos or floris, it is possible that a filtered sauce, i.e a sauce derived from the flos («flower of the flower»), was intended, though we can also see from tituli picti that other ways to signify a filtered sauce were possi- ble [CIL 4.7110: liquamen optimum saccatum «the best filtered fish sauce»; Curtis (1991: 195), Grainger (2010: 69)]. Had this product been put directly into an amphora, it would continue to set- tle out with the desirable sauce in the base spike while the paste forms a plug near the top. Figure 5 shows a mackerel flos liquamen after it has settled.

Currently, I am experimenting with the possibility that this emulsion was diluted at this stage (with reference to common tituli picti for lymphatum) to reduce the specific gravity and cause the bone-free allec to settle into the spike and free up the sauce so it can be accessed. This would then constitute the bone-free allec valued as a fish paste.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BONES

When larger fish such as mackerel (20-40 cm) are used, I estimate that as much as 40% of the fish can remain undissolved and clearly constitute a potential second sauce. When smaller and very small fish (5-10 cm) are used such as Sprattus sprattus, the majority of the flesh is dissolved and the bones disarticulate, but the layer of bone is thick and rich in allec and able to generate a second sauce of lesser quality if diluted. In both scenarios, re-brining could occur either in situ or, as I would like to suggest, once the allec has been put into other amphorae. This would free up the processing tank for another batch of fish while they are in abundance during the summer months and allow the second sauces to be generated in transit.

The small-scale recipes recommended using a basket to filter the sauce of bone when it was removed. On a large scale, this seems both unwieldy and hard to envision. Without a bone filter, as the emulsion was removed, more of the thick sauce will be contaminated by the bone. In fact, it is likely the process of removal of the sauce did not stop, i.e. as the bone was revealed, it sim- ply went into other amphorae. In this way, early amphorae used for the flos product would have small amounts of bone, while later ones, probably of a different shape, contained larger amounts. In each case, it was the liquid fish sauce that was the final product. The bones were transported because they still retained flesh or were in a thick paste and could not be easily removed if disarticulated. We have been looking for a rational economic reason why what appears to be a very bony fish sauce residue was shipped so widely. We believe we now have a logical reason. Rather than the bony allec being a fish paste of limited value, it was simply a semi-processed fish sauce waiting further processing. In transit, the sauce developed its protein levels, and, at the port, market, or place of use, the new flos emulsion would be poured off the bones remaining in the amphora. It is very likely that many of the urban sites with evidence of allec will undoubtedly represent this discarded bone (see Table 2).

One of the defining characters of the fish sauces» residues found on land, first identified by Desse-Berset & Desse (2000: 91), was the quality of the preservation. The bones were often fragmentary, even described as fish bone flour. This damage was judged to be caused by the fermentation process and decomposition. Also, it was assumed that, as cooking is considered to be part of the process, this would have also damaged the bone (Desse-Berset & Desse, 2000: 93). It is important to note that there was no apparent dam- age to the bones caused by the fermentation process (Figure 6 shows mackerel opercula after a successful fermentation).

There was also no evidence of digestion in the form of acid etching. As already noted, cooking of a fish sauce appeared to be a separate and domestic process that was unlikely to have been used in conjunction with fermentation, and modern fish sauce techniques confirm this (Klomklao et al., 2006: 444). It is therefore possible to demonstrate that a shipment of mackerel allec subsequently ship-wrecked in the Mediterranean only a few weeks after processing would contain substantial amounts of flesh on articulated skeletons. In these circumstances, it would be impossible to distinguish between a salted fish product and one intended to be a fish sauce, using the current criteria identified by Desse-Berset & Desse (2000: 93). It seems like- ly that the defining factor in a case like Cape bear III would be the shape and size of the amphorae. In this case, the Dressel 12 amphorae, with their narrow elongated body and narrow neck, would clearly suggest semi-liquid rather than solid pieces. The Grado wreck is also of great significance. Many of the sardines remained articulated, and organic matter was present which suggest the ship may have gone down very shortly after departing. We can now see that the empty amphorae labelled as liquamen flos may have held the first sauce while the fish bones, placed in whatever amphorae were available, represented the second sauce being generated in transit.

FIGURE 5
The sauce in the form of an emulsion removed from fermented sardine, demonstrating the particles of muscle tissue in the liquid. We may considered this a «flos liquamen».

FIGURE 6
Mackerel opercula from an efficient mackerel liquamen demonstrating little damage or acid erosion.

page13image38740608

CONCLUSIONS

It has been possible to demonstrate that the residue of ancient fish sauce known as allec probably existed in two forms: the bone, and semi-digested fish mash which constituted a fish sauce concentrate being generated in transit and a runny bone free fish paste. The latter was likely found in the spike of fish sauce amphorae and was probably consumed as a relish or even re-brined to generate the genuine second-quality sauces that we find on amphora tituli picti. I believe it can also be demonstrated that, when whole fish sauce was manufactured, a «second sauce» from the same batch of fish may also have been shipped alongside the first sauce, and this constituted the allec currently identified as a separate bony fish paste. Both products may have needed further processing by traders and merchants before being ready for sale. The fish bone evidence associated with shipwrecks and discarded amphorae from urban sites needs re-evaluating in light of these findings. It may be possible, when finding in the future new shipwrecks, to compare the shape of amphorae with the fish bone evidence inside the vessels and determine just what was being shipped. Many of the fish bones currently considered a salted fish product were shipped in the Dressel 7-14 forms which amphorae specialists consider a fish sauce vessel rather than a salted fish vessel. One may imagine that liquids and solids would ideally be shipped in vessels designed for this purpose as Opait (2007: 117) has pointed out. The choice of vessel would clearly depend on circumstances and availability, and the re-use of amphorae make the whole issue very much more complex. The fact of re-use may render any firm conclusions about the products inside impossible. These preliminary conclusions have opened up the issue of the trade in fish across the Mediterranean. In turn, they may have profound consequences not only for our interpretation of the fish bone evidence associated with fish sauce but also much wider implications for our interpretation of the ancient economy and more particularly the relationship between Spain and Italy in terms of the trade in fish and other products.

APPENDIX 1

The Geoponica 46. Making gara

The so-called liquamen is made thus. Fish entrails are put in a container and salted; and little fish, especially sand-smelt or small red mullet or mendole or anchovy, or any small enough, are all similarly salted; and left to pickle in the sun, stirring frequently. When the heat has pickled them, the garos is got from them thus: a deep close woven basket is inserted into the centre of the vessel containing these fish, and the garos flows into the basket. This, then, is how the liquamen is obtained by filtering through the basket; the residue makes alix.

The Bithynians make it thus. Take preferably small or large mendole, or, if none, anchovy or scad or mackerel, or also alix, and a mixture of all these, and put them into a baker’s bowl of the kind in which dough is kneaded; to one modios of fish knead in 6 Italian pints of salt so that it is well mixed with the fish, and leaving it overnight put it in an earthenware vessel and leave it uncovered in the sun for 2 or 3 months, occasionally stirring with a stick, then take [the fluid?], cover and store. Some add 2 pints of old wine to each pint of fish.

If you want to use the garon at once, that is, not by ageing in the sun but by cooking, make it thus. Into pure brine, which you have tested by floating an egg in it (if it sinks, the brine is not salty enough) in a new bowl, put the fish; add oregano; place over a sufficient fire, until it boils, that is, until it begins to reduce a little. Some also add grape syrup. Then cool and filter it; filter a second and a third time until it runs clear; cover and store. A rather high quality garos, called haimation, is made thus. Take tunny entrails with the gills, fluid and blood, sprinkle with sufficient salt, leave in a vessel for two months at the most; then pierce the jar, and the garos called haimation flows out.

Translation: Andrew Dalby (2011), The Geoponica Prospect Books.

(Pseudo) Gargilius Martialis, Medicinae ex holeribus et pomis 62.

A confection of liquamen which is called oenogarum.
Naturally oily fishes are caught/ taken, such as are salmon and eels and shad and sardines or herrings, and an arrangement of the following kind is made of them along with dried fragrant herbs with salt/ they are put together with fragrant died herbs and salt in this way. A good, sturdy vessel. well pitched, with a capacity of three or four modii, is got ready, and dried herbs with a good fragrance are taken – these can be garden or field herbs – namely dill, coriander, fennel, celery, sicareia, sclareia?, rue, mint, sisymbrium (?wild thyme), lovage, pennyroyal, oregano, bettony, argemonia, and the first layer is spread out at the bottom of the vessel using these. Then the second layer is laid down using fish –whole if they are small, cut in pieces if they are larger – over this is added the third layer of salt two fingers deep, and the vessel is to be filled right to the top in this, with succes- sive triple layers of herbs, fish and salt. It should then be closed up with a lid fitted and put aside as it is for seven days.

When the seven days are over, the mixture should be stirred right to the bottom, using a wooden paddle shaped like an oar, twice or three times every day. When this process is complete, the liquor which flows out of this mixture is collected. And in this way liquamen or oenogarum is made from it. Two sextarii of this liquor are taken and are mixed with half a sextarius of wine, then single bundles of (each of) four herbs – viz. dill, coriander, savoury and sclareia. A (one) little handful of fenugreek seed is also thrown in, and of the aromatics thirty or forty grains of pepper, three pennies of costum by weight, the same of cinnamon, the same of clove, and when pounded up finely these are mixed with the same liquor.

Then this mixture should be cooked in an iron or a bronze pan until it reduced to a sextarius in volume. But before it is cooked half a pound of purified honey ought to be added to it. When it has been cooked it ought to be strained through a bag like a medicine until it is clear – it needs to be boiling when it is poured into the bag. When clarified and cooled it is kept in a well-pitched vessel in order to give flavour to opsonia.

Translation Dr C. Grocock

Categorias
Garum

SALTED FISH INDUSTRY IN ROMAN LUSITANIA

SALTED FISH INDUSTRY IN ROMAN LUSITANIA: TRADE MEMORIES BETWEEN OCEANUS AND MARE NOSTRUM

HERITAGES AND MEMORIES FROM THE SEA
1. UNCOVERING HERITAGES AND MEMORIES
SÓNIA BOMBICO - msbombico@uevora - University of Évora

 ABSTRACT 

Initiated by Augustus, Rome’s Atlantic policy seems to have been consolidated in the age of Claudius, with the acknowledgement of the economic potential offered by the Atlantic region. It is in this context that we must understand the development of the salted-fish industry in Lusitania. In the same geographical contexts, and in close relationship with fish-processing factories, are known about 20 pottery centres producing amphorae, located in the regions of Peniche, Sado and Tejo valleys, and the coasts of Alentejo and Algarve. This production extended in time beyond the end of the Western Roman Empire and up to the end of the 5th and 6th centuries, according to the archaeological data of some amphora kilns and fish-processing sites. The identification of Lusitanian amphorae in distant consuming centres and several shipwrecks in the Mediterranean basin confirm the long-distance commerce and the total integration of this “peripheral” region into the trade routes of the Roman Empire. 

THE “CONQUEST” OF THE ATLANTIC FACADE

The inclusion of the Lusitania Province and the northwestern Iberian Peninsula into the Roman Empire allowed for the existence of regular long-distance contacts with other provinces and especially with the Mediterranean. The spreading out of Rome’s power to Britannia and Germania Inferior – a process completed in the middle of the 1st century AD – inevitably provided the Roman Empire with a wide Atlantic coastal area. 

The trade networks established along the Atlantic facades of the Iberian Peninsula supplied not only the cities but also, and above all, the fixed military camps located in the northwestern Iberian Peninsula. The archaeological data suggests a preferred relationship with the Baetica province and the port of Gades, where the supply of corn, wine and olive oil was controlled by the state (Remensal Rodriguéz 1986, 111; Morillo Cerdán and Salido Domínguez 2010, 148). Those military supply networks can also be related to the more recently established routes towards Britannia and Germania Inferior (Fernández Ochoa and Morillo Cerdán 2010, 115; García Vargas 2010, 65). 

Actually, despite some sailing difficulties, the Atlantic route constituted the best choice considering the distance/cost relationship (Carreras Monfort 2000; Blot, M.L. 2003; Fabião 2009a, 53). However, international studies have valued the importance of the Gallic isthmus and the Rhone and Rhine routes, underlining the supposed Hispanic peripheral condition and depreciating the Atlantic route (Carreras Monfort 2000, Fabião 2009 a). 

The lack of shipwreck records on the Atlantic coast from Cadiz to La Coruna in the work of Parker (1992), coupled with a somewhat non-contextualised analysis of Ora Maritima (ca. 4th century), has contributed to an increased skepticism regarding the Atlantic navigation of the Romans. Cadiz, described by Strabo (ca. 1st century) with enthusiasm, lay in ruins three centuries later, according to Avienus (Mantas 2000). 

Nevertheless, in the last decades, archaeological underwater discoveries in maritime and fluvial contexts (Bombico 2012, Cardoso 2013, Blot and Bombico 2014) along the Atlantic facade have contributed to a better understanding and characterisation of settlements and sea routes. 

Initiated by Augustus, Rome’s Atlantic policy seems to have been consolidated in the age of Claudius, with the acknowledgement of the economic potential offered by the Atlantic region (Mantas 2002–2003, 459; Fabião 2005, 84). In fact, between the middle of the 1st century BC and the 1st century AD, the quantity of archaeological evidence 

indicative of Roman presence in the western Iberian Peninsula grows exponentially, confirming data found in classical literature sources (Pomponius Mela, Pliny, Strabo and Avienus). Thus, Pliny wrote that “the cities worthy of mention on the coast, beginning from the Tagus, are that of Olisipo, famous for its mares, which conceive from the west wind; Salacia, which is surnamed the Imperial City; Merobriga; and then the Sacred Promontory, with the other known by the name of Cuneus, and the towns of Ossonoba, Balsa, and Myrtili”.1 

1 Cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist., 435.21. 

The complexity of the Atlantic environment makes it particularly difficult to recognise ancient port facilities and calls for a reflection on the concept of harbour space. In fact, these vestiges are not always materialized in specific harbour equipment. Sometimes, it could be that, as described by Strabo regarding the Tiber River, ships were unloaded through the use of smaller vessels (Blot, M.L. 2003, 22). 

The historical and archaeological data collected in the last decades suggest the following scenario: 

– the existence of a significant exploitation of marine resources (mainly fish products) correlated with amphora kilns; 

– an interest for estuaries and the influence they had on the development of Lusitania’s maritime cities; 

– the proliferation of archaeological records related to transport and circulation of goods by sea along the Atlantic coastline (such as the pattern of distribution of some amphorae and terra sigillata); and lastly, 

– the identification of archaeological remains of ancient navigation (lead anchor stocks, shipwrecks and lighthouses). 

The main Roman viae in Lusitania seem to arise, on the one hand, from the necessity to link maritime cities among each other, and, on the other hand, from the necessity to connect them to the fluvial routes that penetrated the territory (Mantas 2002–2003). This means that roads combined maritime routes and oceanic termini with inner termini (Blot, M.L. 2003). These elements suggest an ancient economy based on both agriculture and fishing to which sea trade was added. The development of salt exploitation, linked to fishing activities, allowed for the production of salted fish, one of the most important industries in Roman Lusitania (Edmondson 1987, Fabião 2009b). 

Jaime Cortesão was the first Portuguese author to suggest the existence of an “Atlantic settlement process” in Roman times (Fabião 2009a). Later studies have further analysed that topic (Edmondson 1987, Mantas 1990, Blot, M.L. 2003). It is interesting to note that the cases of the Sado and the Tagus rivers seem to confirm Jaime Cortesão’s supposition and, indeed, there are indications of coastal settlement (or coastal settlement increase) in Roman times (Fabião 2009a). It is in this context that we must understand the development of the fish products industry in Lusitania.

FISH PRODUCTS AND AMPHORAE FROM ROMAN LUSITANIA

The ancient Lusitanian maritime installations were made up by a set of harbours, the so-called “harbour complexes” (Blot, M.L. 1998, 154; Mantas 2000; Blot, M.L. 2003), integrated into the same navigable geographical reality, such as an estuary. In the same geographical contexts, and in close relationship with fish-processing factories, are known at least 18 pottery centres producing amphorae, located in the regions of Peniche, Sado and Tejo valleys, and the coasts of Alentejo and Algarve (Mayet 2001, Fabião 2004). In perfect geographic relationship with the kilns, and dependent on fishing and the extraction of salt, were developed the fish-salting workshops (Fabião 2009b) (Figures 1 and 2). 

Although the classical authors do not mention this kind of production in Lusitania, the importance of the salted fish industry is evident given the extensive structural remains of cetariae distributed along the southern and western coasts of the province, indicating a significant production volume (Fabião and Guerra 1993, 999; Étienne and Mayet 1993–94, 218). Moreover, with 25 identified fish-salting workshops, Tróia was one of the largest production centres in the Roman world (Vaz Pinto, Magalhães and Brum 2014, 156). 

The oldest evidence of a fish products industry and its containers dates from the beginnings of the Principate and is generally associated with ovoid amphorae from the Julio-Claudian period, particularly with the workshops of Abul and Pinheiro (Sado valley), and Morraçal da Ajuda (Peniche) (Fabião 2004, Fabião and Morais 2007, Fabião 2008). 

Between the middle of the 1st and the end of the 2nd centuries AD the Dressel 14 amphora dominated the production in Lusitanian kilns. During the 2nd century begins the production of a new type of amphora in the pottery centres of Sado and Tagus, the Lusitana 3. This type, characterised by its flat bottom that seems to be inspired by the Gauloise 4 type, has been typically associated with the transportation of wine. 

Between the end of the 2nd century and the beginnings of the 3rd century, profound changes in the production of fish products in Lusitania took place, changes that occurred at the level of organisation of fish processing units and the pottery workshops, and which made themselves felt in the import records of Lusitanian amphorae in the port of Ostia (Panella and Rizzo 2014), the city of Rome (Panella et al. 2010, Rizzo 2012) and progressively in the majority of Western Mediterranean sites. 

This transition period is marked by the abandonment of some produc tion units and by the restructuring or subdivision of the salting tanks. This discontinuity in the Lusitanian production is comparable to the occurred within the “Círculo del Estrecho” (Villaverde Vega 1990, Lagosténa Barrios 2001, Bernal Casasola 2008) and arises in correlation with the global set of economic and political changes that occurred in the Roman world between the end of the 2nd century and the beginnings of the 3rd century. 

In the course of the 3rd century we are witnessing a resumption of exploration and exportation, which reaches its peak during the 4th century. While the major centres at the rivers Sado and Tagus continue in operation, new centres emerge, especially in the Algarve (Fabião 2009b, 576). This new phase of production is characterised by a diversification of amphorae types 2 (Figure 3).

2 More information on forms, typologies and the characteristics of the materials can be obtained through the References cited below and http://amphorae.icac.cat/tipol/geo/map (Amphorae Ex Hispania). 

 

Between the 3rd and the 5th centuries AD, Almagro 51c replaced the Dressel 14 as the dominant form, and throughout this period three successive versions of this form were known. At the centres of the rivers Tagus and Sado, the Almagro 51c, Almagro 50 and Keay XVI forms were produced, as well as the Keay 78 form, at the Sado, and the flat-bottomed Lusitana 9, from the Tagus estuary. In the course of the 4th century appears the Almagro 51 A&B (Mayet 2001, Fabião 2004 and 2008). The Sado 3 form appears in the late 4th century or in the 5th century and its production is documented in the pottery workshop of Pinheiro (Mayet and Silva 1998 apud Fabião 2008, 742). The Beltrán 72 form, long considered as a production of the Algarve, was subsequently excluded from the Lusitanian productions by most authors and assigned to the late productions of the Cadiz Bay area (Fabião 2004, 397). However, current archaeological studies continue to refer to forms of this type with Lusitanian fabrics, which leaves the question open to discussion (Garcia Vargas 2007, 343; Bombico et al. 2014). 

The fish products industry continued, beyond the fall of the Roman Empire, up to the 6th century, according to the archaeological data of some amphora kilns and fish-processing sites (Fabião 2008, 740 and 743; Fabião 2009c). 

The data available for the study of the distribution of Lusitanian products are, for the most part, confined to the study of fish amphorae. This fact leads us to consider fish as the main food product produced and exported by the province, relegating the possible wine export to a secondary position. Unfortunately, the epigraphic tradition (stamps) is hardly present in the Lusitanian productions (Fabião and Guerra 2004) and the only titulus pictus known is the LIQ (uamen) in a Dressel 14 parva from the Arles-Rhône 3 area (Quillon 2011, 108). 

Some fish bone remains from processing tanks in Lusitania and Mediterranean shipwrecks, as well as the diversity of the amphorae forms, indicate that the province had produced and exported both salted fish (salsamenta) and fish sauces (garum, hallex, liquamen, muria, etc.), thus turning the rich sea life of the Atlantic waters into an economic advantage. 

On the basis of faunal remains, a clear pattern emerges in the spectrum of species used in the preparation of fish products in Roman times. The fish sauces were produced mainly from clupeiform fishes: sardines all itlaics, sardinella (Sardinella sp.) and, to a lesser extent, anchovies (Engraulis encrasicolus). Sea breams (Sparidae) were also regularly used, albeit usually in smaller proportions. For salsamenta, the Spanish mackerel (Scomber japonicus) was preferred, although the use of scad (Trachurus sp.) is also documented (Van Neer et al. 2010, 162). 

Figure 1 – Pottery centres: 1‑Morraçal da Ajuda; 2‑Garrocheira; 3‑Porto dos Cacos; 4‑Quinta do Rouxinol; 5‑Zambujalinho; 6‑Largo da Misericórdia; 7‑Quinta da Alegria; 8‑Pinheiro; 9‑Xarrosinha; 10‑Abul; 11‑Bugio; 12‑Barrosinha; 13‑Martinhal; 14‑Quinta do Lago; 15‑S. João da Venda; 16‑Torre de Aires; 17‑Manta Rota; 18‑S. Bartolomeu de Castro Marim. (Fabião 2004, 389) 

Figure 2 – Fish-salting workshops: 1‑Peniche (?); 2‑Cascais; 3‑Tagus estuary: Casa do Governador da Torre de Belém, Baixa de Lisboa, Porto Brandão and Cacilhas; Sado estuary: 4‑Creiro; 5‑Rasca; 6‑Comenda, Setubal and Tróia; 7‑Sines; 8‑Ilha do Pessegueiro; 9‑Beliche; 10‑Ilhéu da Baleeira (?); 11‑Salema; 12‑Boca do Rio; 13‑Burgau; 14‑Senhora da Luz; 15-Lagos and Meia Praia. 16 – Vau; 17 – Portimões; 18 – Baralha 2; 19 – Ferragudo; 20‑Armação de Pêra; 21‑Cerro da Vila; 22‑Quarteira; 23‑Loulé Velho; 24‑Quinta do Lago; 25‑Faro; 26‑Olhão; 27‑Quinta de Marim; 28‑Torre de Aires; 29‑Quinta do Muro and 30‑Cacela. (Fabião 2009b, 565)

Figure 3 – Lusitanian amphorae types: a) Dressel 14, b) Lusitana 3, c) Almagro 51c, d) Lusitana 9, e) Keay XVI, f) Almagro 50, g) Keay 78/Sado 1, h) Almagro 51 A&B and i) Sado 3

The archaeological evidences, from mid-1st century BC, reveal a major utilisation of Spanish mackerel in the Baetican production (Desse- Berset and Desse 2000; García Vargas 2006, 41). On the other hand, fish bones of sardines have been found in several Lusitanian amphorae from shipwrecks (Fabião and Guerra 1993, 1005–1006; Desse-Berset and Desse 2000) (Table 1). In addition, sardine (Sardina pilchardus) was the principal component of the contents found in the tanks from Lusitanian factories: “Casa do Governador”, Rua dos Correeiros, “Mandarim Chinês”, factories I and II of Tróia, Quinta do Marim (Olhão) and Travessa do Freire Gaspar (Setúbal). All the analysed fish remains came from a later phase in the use of fish vats, between the 3rd and the 5th centuries (Desse-Berset and Desse 2000, Assis and Amaro 2006, Gabriel et al. 2009). Thus, it seems that, at least in Late Antiquity, sardine was a most important element in the manufacturing of fish products in Lusitania. 

Nevertheless, the identification of processed fish remains is a complicated task, and there are still discrepancies between the archaeozoological evidence and the one provided by epigraphic and literary sources (Van Neer et al. 2010, 162). 

UNDERWATER MEMORIES FROM MARE NOSTRUM: SHIPWRECKS AND TRADE ROUTES

As an event that occurs at a single point in time, the shipwreck presents a very narrow chronological spectrum. Isochrony is one of the main characteristics of the goods transported by a ship and found among a shipwrecked cargo (Blot, J.-Y. 1998, 118). It is an exceptional archaeological context. “Each underwater shipwreck site that has been excavated and published provides a snapshot of the trade of its time, as we may deduce that all objects being transported were contemporary; if not produced in the same year, they were at least sold at the same time” (Mayet 1998, 83). 

Amphorae play an important role in the study of maritime trade, as they are containers specifically designed for maritime transport (Carreras Monfort 2000, 32). The importance of the amphorae found in the marine environment is linked to their context and conservation state. When conserved as a whole, which happens in many cases, it is possible to define their shape, size and capacity. They often preserve stamps and tituli picti that provide us with relevant information regarding origins, contents and trading processes. On the other hand, they allow us to infer navigation and maritime traffic routes that can be defined not only by the shipwreck location but also, and mainly, by the combination, in the same load, of archaeological materials of different origins. That is to say that, in some cases, the arrangement of different goods on board of a wrecked ship provides insight into the route of its final voyage, or the use of entrepôts (Parker 1992b, 89). 

Table 1 – Faunal remains in Lusitanian amphorae 

Note: In the shipwrecks of Catalans (Marseilles) and Sud-Lavezzi 1 have been identified remains of Spanish mackerel (Scomber japonicus) associated to the Almagro 51 A&B/Keay XIX amphora type, probably from a South-Hispanic fabric, non-Lusitanian.

The data included in this paper is part of a wider research project that is currently under way within the scope of the doctoral thesis of the author. The data presented here represents only a small sample of the data available for analysis, which corresponds to more than 40 shipwreck sites. Based on the published data (Edmonson 1987, Lopes and Mayet 1990, Parker 1992a, Étienne and Mayet 1993–94, Fabião 1996 and 1997), we are trying to update the inventory of shipwreck sites containing Lusitanian amphorae. In the late 1990s, Carlos Fabião presented an updated inventory with a total of 33 shipwreck sites that contained “Lusitanian type” amphorae (Fabião 1997), a much greater number of sites than the previous inventory from F. Mayet, which recorded 17 shipwrecks (Lopes and Mayet 1990, Étienne and Mayet 1993–94). More recently, Andrew Philip Souter, based solely on the above-mentioned published data, reintroduced a distribution of Mediterranean shipwrecks that contained Lusitanian amphorae (Souter 2012, 156). However, in the last 17 years, a set of new underwater archaeological works allowed for the adding of new shipwreck sites to the inventory (Bombico et al. 2014 and Bombico, in press). 

For this paper, only a small number of sites have been selected. They seem to correspond to different models of commerce and transport that fall largely within the east-west routes departing from the Iberian Peninsula towards Rome. The global analysis of the available data suggests a much more complex set of routes that include the Central and Eastern Mediterranean, but we will not address this here. 

Shipwrecks constitute a primary source for studies on the circulation of goods; however, they pose limitations. Shipwrecks have been described as closed deposits, and yet there may be elements of disturbance or contamination, especially in port contexts or ship graveyards, such as some sites in the Strait of Bonifacio. In some cases, mistaken topography and insufficient information about the material found or the site itself cause serious problems for the archaeological interpretation (Parker 1981, 332). 

The set of shipwrecks traditionally associated with the presence of “Lusitanian type” amphorae is, overall, a set of ill-characterised underwater sites. Those are, for the most part, sites where occasional surface sampling (with poor location records and lacking scientific rigour) took place, where a systematic archaeological intervention has never been carried out, and where results have been published in an incomplete way. The big challenge here would be to clarify these data, which, ideally, would entail the re-examination of all the amphorae that have been identified in all of the shipwreck contexts. Such challenge, however, will not be totally met within the scope of the aforesaid doctoral thesis, mainly for reasons that have to do with the time available to perform the investigation, and the ample geographical dispersion of the finds, and of the collections. On the other hand, much of the material recovered during the 1960s, the 1970s and the 1980s cannot be located. 

But perhaps the biggest problem in analysing these data is the recognition of Lusitanian fabrics. Their identification has proved problematic, mainly because of developments in the archaeological research of Hispanic pottery workshops. Today, we know that “Lusitanian type” amphorae (amongst which are the forms of wider distribution Dressel 14, and the Almagro 50 and 51 series) were also produced in other parts of southern Hispania (Bernal Casasola 1998, Bernal and García Vargas 2008, Fabião 2008). In order to clarify their origin it is necessary to reassess, in the light of the new data, the ceramic assemblages that were published in particular up until the 1990s and the inventories held in museums. On the other hand, it remains difficult to identify Lusitanian productions amongst the vast set of published data, as it is very common to find generic classifications of origin, such as “South-Hispanic” or simply “from the Iberian Peninsula”. 

It should also be taken into account that fish products were, in some cases, a secondary cargo that could have been part of a subsidiary and free trade system whose volumes did not come close to the ones of the redistribution of wheat, olive oil, wine, metals or marble, promoted by the state, and bound for the two great markets of the Roman world: Rome and the military camps (Tchernia 2011). In addition, the underwater archaeology data have emphasised the presumed complementary role of the diffusion of Lusitanian productions in relation to other regions, namely Baetica (Mantas 1990, 170 and 191; Lopes and Mayet 1990, 299 and 300). 

The set of shipwrecks with amphorae of Lusitanian production on board is quite heterogeneous. There are cases in which Lusitanian amphorae constitute the main cargo and cases in which they are secondary or supplementary cargo. There are also some examples in which their small quantity seems to indicate that they would have been part of the crew’s belongings. However, in any case, their presence allows us to establish chronologies and understand routes (direct, redistribution, long distance, cabotage, etc.). And in some cases, the remains of the hull may indicate the size and capacity of the vessel. 

The heterogeneity of the shipwrecks allowed us to conjecture a few different models of circulation and transportation. We have sought to build a comprehensive image of the diversity of existing cases over, i.e., from the middle of the 1st century AD to the end of the 5th century AD. Similarly to what has been recently done by Giulia Boetto (2012, 156), we have selected a heterogeneous sample of wrecks and applied hypothetical models of “commercial routes” to them (Figure 4).

The transportation of Lusitanian fish products must have occurred by way of a homogenous shipment that is loaded at the same time in a major port – located near the area of production of the cargo – and then sent through a direct route to another major port. This model is likely to have been used for transport between, for example, the port of Olisipo and Gades or Olisipo and Carthago Nova, and less likely to have been used in very long distance routes, such as the ones between Olisipo and Rome, although the shipwreck of Cala Reale A, in northern Sardinia, with a predominantly Lusitanian cargo, may suggest such model. Yet, it is very likely that a significant part of Lusitanian fish products may have been exported via negotiatores based in the port of Gades (Lopes and Mayet 1990, 300; Étienne and Mayet 1993–94, 216; Mantas 1998, 208 and 213). 

 

Figure 4 – Shipwrecks containing Lusitanian amphorae and discussed in the text: 

1st/2nd century: 1‑San Antonio Abad; 2‑Cap Bénat 1; 3‑Punta Sardegna A; 4‑Escombreras 4; 5‑Tiboulen-de-Maire 

3rd century: 6-Cabrera I; 7-Cabrera III; 8-Punta Ala A; 9-Porticcio A 

4th/5th century: 10-Cala Reale A; 11-Sud-Lavezzi 1; 12-Fontanamare A/Gonnesa Sito A; 13-Punta Vecchia 1; 14-Sancti Petri; 15-Scauri 

Therefore, we believe that shipwrecks with predominantly Lusitanian cargos can correspond to a model which is somewhat different from the one previously described and would originate from a South-Hispanic port, such as Gades or Carthago Nova – i.e., a homogenous shipment that is loaded at the same time in a major port – far away from the area of production of the majority of the goods – and sent through a direct route to another major port. The wrecks of San Antonio Abad/Grum de Sal (Ibiza), Cap Bénat 1 (Var, France) or Punta Sardegna A (Strait of Bonifacio), all with a homogeneous main cargo of Lusitanian Dressel 14 amphorae, which are datable from the second half of the 1st century to the middle of the 2nd century AD, fit into this type of route parting from the south of the Iberian Peninsula and heading to one of the larger ports of the south of Gaul or to the ports of Rome. 

In the summers of 1962 and 1963, archaeological campaigns were carried out at the shipwreck site of San Antonio Abad (Ibiza). Several amphorae belonging to the Dressel 14 type (Figure 5), containing a fish-based product, were retrieved, as well as some opercula (Vilar-Sancho and Mañá 1964 and 1965), the remains corresponding to a vessel with no less than 25 meters in length (Vilar Sancho and Mañá 1964, 187). Later, during the 1980s and 1990s, the site was again subject to archaeological works, and the ceramic materials were stored in the deposit of the Museo Arqueológico de Ibiza y Formentera. 

The shipwreck site known as Cap Bénat 1 had its first intervention in 1971. With the exception of two different fragments, a flat-bottomed amphora and a PE 25 from Ibiza, the total of the materials observed and retrieved belonged to the same amphora type. The formal description and the drawings allow us to identify the amphorae as being Dressel 14 (Figure 6), and the description of the fabric indicates a probable Lusitanian production (Calmes 1973, 142). There were also three opercula retrieved (Calmes 1973, 137–140). The majority of the retrieved pieces are presently in the Dépôt de Saint-Raphael (Fréjus); however, we were able to examine a rim fragment and a spike of Dressel 14 of Lusitanian fabric in the Depôt archéologique régional d’Aix les Milles. 

Figure 5 – Dressel 14 amphorae from San Antonio Abad shipwreck. (Vilar Sancho and Mañá 1965, Lamina XLVII) 

Figure 6 – Dressel 14 amphorae and opercula from Cap Bénat 1 shipwreck. (Calmes 1973, 143)

The site of Punta Sardegna A is located in the Maddalena Archipelago, in the southern part of the Strait of Bonifacio. This place has recently undergone underwater archaeological works carried out by the Università di Sassari, under the supervision of professor Pier Giorgio Spanu. Based on the work performed on the site, we can assume that the shipwreck was a vessel carrying mostly Lusitanian amphorae of fish products from the Dressel 14 type. But also a spike of Dressel 7-11, a handle of Dressel 20 from Baetica, a spike of Dressel 2-4 Italic and two opercula were recovered from the site (Porqueddu 2013, 86–90, 114–115; Porqueddu, Giarrusso and Spanu, in press). 

Until the mid-2nd century AD, archaeological records also present cases in which Lusitanian Dressel 14 amphorae were a secondary cargo, a residual cargo, or simply objects that belonged to the crew. We have chosen two examples: Escombreras 4 and Tiboulen-de-Maire. 

The site of Escombreras 4 is located on the coast of Carthago Nova. It is presumed to be the shipwreck of a merchant ship coming from Baetica with a main cargo of Haltern 70, Dressel 8 and 9, and some Beltrán IIB and Lusitanian Dressel 14, from the second half of the 1st century AD (Pinedo Reyes and Alonso Campoy 2004, 131–133). A specimen of these amphorae, which we were able to observe, is deposited in the MNAS (Arqua-Cartagena) (ESC-I/17.17/2/10354). 

The site of Tiboulen-de-Maire is located near a small island, to the south of Marseille. The site has undergone two underwater archaeological campaigns carried out by DRASSM (Département des recherches archéologiques subaquatiques et sous-marines) in 1977 and 1978. Since 1999, survey and excavations have been undertaken yearly at the site. It is a presumed shipwreck with a main cargo of Baetic olive oil amphorae Dressel 20 (70%), and a heterogeneous secondary cargo including: fish sauce amphorae types Beltrán IIA and IIB (14%), and Dressel 14 (2%); wine containers Gauloise 4 (4%), Dressel 28 (3%) and Dressel 2-4 from Tarraconensis (3%), two Forlimpopoli amphorae; a North African amphora and a Dressel 7-11 (Djaoui 2011, 625). The cargo materials establish a chronology between AD 130 and AD 150, and the archaeological works of the last decade allowed for the study of the remains of the hull (Ximénès and Moerman 2006). More recent campaigns, undertaken mostly after 2005, have confirmed that more than 80% of the transported goods were from Baetica, particularly olive oil. We can assume that there was a home port located in that region, with a hypothetical use of a redistribution port, such as Narbonne or Marseille (Ximénès 2007, 10; Djaoui 2011, 629). At the Dépôt archéologique régional d’Aix les Milles there is a top part of a Dressel 14 of Lusitanian fabric, retrieved from this shipwreck. 

The two following cases outline the maritime exports of Lusitanian fish products throughout the 3rd century AD. These were shipments of different product ranges, loaded at the same time at a main redistributing port and most likely headed for another main port. Lusitanian amphorae shared cargo space on board of the ships with Baetican and North African containers. This presents a peculiar scenario, since, within this chronology, there are no shipwrecks in which Lusitanian amphorae were the main cargo. This may be connected to the above mentioned period of transition, documented through the levels of archaeological finds related to the fish processing factories and amphora kilns in Lusitania. 

The shipwreck of Cabrera I was surveyed between 1978 and 1979 and is located at about 60 meters from Cabrera III. According to records from the time of the survey, it was possible to identify several amphorae of types Almagro 50 and 51C, Béltran 72, and Africana II variants B and D. This cargo is identical to the one of Cabrera III, which dates the shipwreck to AD 300–325 (Guerrero Ayuso and Colls 1982; Bost et al. 1992, 13; Parker 1992a, 80). 

The site of Cabrera III was also surveyed in 1979, having been later excavated in 1985 and 1986. The shipwreck was dated to the year AD 257, based on the treasure of coins aboard the ship. According to naval architecture data, this was a ship of about 35 meters in length. The cargo was stacked in two layers and was composed of Baetic olive oil amphorae Dressel 20 and Tejarillo I, Africana II variants B and C, Almagro 50 and 51C from Lusitania and a small number of Beltrán 68 and Beltrán 72. The cargo also included ARS types A and C (Guerrero Ayuso and Colls 1982; Bost et al. 1992; Parker 1992a, 81). The specimens from the types Almagro 50 and 51c, exhibited in the Museo de Cabrera, have Lusitanian fabrics. 

The archaeological works carried out at these sites led to the conclusion that, on the basis of the disposition of the containers, all had been shipped at the same time. So, considering the apparent Iberian provenience of much of the cargo and the location of the wreck in the Balearic Islands, it seems that the ship was in route from the Iberian Peninsula to Italy, with Gades as its most probable port of departure, and Ostia/ Portus as its likely destination (Bost et al. 1992, 200–202). 

The 3rd century reveals yet another interesting shipwreck context: the site of Porticcio A, located on the west coast of Corsica. This shipwreck contains a very heterogeneous cargo, probably loaded at the same time at a main redistributing port and transported along a redistribution route to a secondary port. The location of the shipwreck and the characteristics of its cargo suggest that this was a cargo that had been ordered. The site was discovered in 1990 and was subjected to archaeological works from 2001 onwards. The quite heterogeneous cargo includes amphorae form the eastern and western Mediterranean, ARS type C, common ware and African cooking ware, some mortaria, one lamp, over 100 glass objects and several fragments of marble statues (Alfonsi 2008a and 2010). The shipment of amphorae is mostly Kapitan II, with a smaller amount of Africana II and Kapitan I. The great variety of amphorae types also includes a smaller presence of the following types: Africana I, Forlimpopoli, Agora M254, Almagro 51C, Almagro 50, Dressel 20, Dressel 23, Agora F65/66, Crétoise 2, Dressel 30, Dressel 28, Beltrán 72, Amphore Égyptienne, Empoli, Tripolitana, Peacock & Williams 60 and Zemer 57, besides other unclassified types. The re-examination of the materials of the deposit of Sartène confirmed the presence of three rims and of a spike of Almagro 51C of Lusitanian fabric. Amongst the marble pieces, fragments belonging to two monumental statues stand out: a bust representing the Emperor Philip the Arab, who reigned between AD 244 and AD 249, and another one likely belonging to his wife, Empress Marcia Otacilia Severa (Alfonsi 2007, 93; 2008a and 2008b). Remains of the hull of the ship were also identified (Alfonsi 2003, 79 and 2006, 94). The two coins that were discovered, one from Philip I and another from Philip II, provide a terminus post quem of AD 248–9 for the shipwreck (Alfonsi 2006, 91). In this specific case, the Lusitanian amphorae are residual in a very heterogeneous cargo. Considering the description of the cargo, the most likely origin of this vessel was the port of Carthage. Michel Bonifay (2007, 257) compares this shipwreck to the one of Ognina Sud 1, dating to the first half of the 3rd century, in which a shipment of eastern Kapitan I and II amphorae completes a shipment of mostly Africana I. According to the author, these two shipwrecks suggest that the joint commercialisation of African and eastern types could have been done from the North African ports. 

During Late Antiquity, the number of shipwrecks containing Lusitanian amphorae is quite larger. This supports the archaeological data from Lusitania, which reveal a considerable increase in the production of fish products throughout the 4th century, and at the outset of the 5th century (Fabião 2009b, 571). Between the end of the 3rd century and the beginning of the 5th century, a quite varied set of shipwrecks sustains the evidence of distinct cargo typologies and of different circulation scenarios, likely contemporaneous. However, the main commerce routes that led from southern Baetica to Ostia and Portus via coastal Tarraconensis and southern Narbonensis were generally kept, as were the variants that used a process of island hopping (Balearic Islands, Corsica and Sardinia) on routes that led towards Italy via the Strait of Bonifacio. 

Figure 7 – Amphorae from Cala Reale A shipwreck. From the left to the right: Almagro 51&B, Sado 3, Beltrán 72 and Almagro 51C (Gasperetti 2012, fig.8)

Figure 8 – Amphorae from Fontanamare A shipwreck: Almagro 51C and Keay 78 (Dell’Amico et al. 2001-2002) 

Figure 9 – Almagro 51C from Punta Vecchia 1 shipwreck. Photo: Sónia Bombico

We will analyse three distinct types of cargo. Firstly, the Cala Reale A shipwreck (Strait of Bonifacio), in which the Lusitanian amphorae were, apparently, a homogeneous main cargo. (Figure 7). After its discovery, in 1995, the site has undergone various underwater archaeological campaigns. From what was published, we are able to confirm the existence of amphorae belonging to types Almagro 51 A&B, Almagro 51C, Beltrán 72 and Sado 3 (Spanu 1997, 111 and 112). Some of the amphorae still contained in situ their original cork stoppers and also some traces of fish-based products (Spanu 1997, 112). In addition to the amphorae, the archaeological works allowed for the recovery of two North African lamps, of African cooking ware, of a pitcher, of a considerable number of vitreous paste tessellae, and of two coins, one dated from the year 173 and one from the reign of the Emperor Valens (364–7). The set of materials that were retrieved allows us to establish a chronology for the shipwreck between the late 4th century and the middle of the 5th century. The total quantification revealed a cargo of around 2,000 amphorae. No remains of the vessel were identified during the whole excavation process. This vessel was likely bound for the port of Ostia and sank while approaching Turris Libisonis, possibly due to stormy weather or to touching bottom in rocky shoals (Gasperetti 2012, 301–303). During our visit to the Antiquarium Turritano and to the Centro di restauro e conservazione dei beni culturali di Sassari we were able to confirm that the totality of the above-mentioned forms was of Lusitanian origin. 

Also located on the Strait of Bonifacio, the shipwreck of Sud-Lavezzi 1, discovered in 1975, suggests a model in which the Lusitanian amphorae are the main cargo, along with other Hispanic products – Baetican in this case. Parts of the remains of the hull and some iron anchors were still preserved. The cargo, estimated at 450 amphorae, was arranged in two overlapping layers. Liou (1982, 437–444) studied this cargo, comprised of: 194 Almagro 51 A&B amphorae of varied profiles and capacities; 113 flat-bottomed amphorae of different sizes; 83 cylinder-shaped body amphorae from type Almagro 50 [or Keay 78]; some small amphorae of type Beltrán 72; 6 Almagro 51C and 3 Dressel 23. The splitting of the finds between the company Comex and the DRASSM resulted in the loss of some of the assets, aggravated later by the theft of the materials stored in the DRASSM deposit in Bonifacio. Liou suggests a time frame for the shipwreck somewhere between the 4th century and the middle of the 5th century (Massy 2013, 132–134). A small number of pieces are presently stored in the deposits of Milles and Sartène, allowing us to re-examine 13 specimens. We were able to identify the following Lusitanian fabrics: 3 Beltrán 72, 3 Almagro 51 A&B, and 2 Keay 78. 

The third model corresponds to a main cargo of Lusitanian fish products with North African products, Africana II variants B and D, and ARS types C and D. Two examples will be highlighted. 

The site of Fontanamare A/Gonnesa Sito A was excavated for the first time in 1972; however, the material that was retrieved remained unpublished until the late 1990s (Dell’Amico et al. 2001–2002). Three types of amphorae were documented on this site: Almagro 51C (the most abundant), Almagro 50 and/or Keay 78 (Figure 8) and Africana II variant D. Between 1997 and 1999, survey work took place on the site (Salvi and Sanna 2000). At least one third of the cargo appears to have been ARS, in this case the more typical forms of type C (second half of the 3rd century) and the more ancient forms of type D (beginnings of the 4th century AD). This site also revealed another set of interesting archaeological remains, among them: two amphorae cork stoppers; two lamp fragments and some common ware, probably belonging to the crew; tubuli and tegulae; metal pieces; and also some remains of the ship itself. Lastly, it is also worth mentioning that an important set of coins was found, with a chronological scope from AD 260 (Gallienus) to AD 294 (Maximianus), thus establishing the terminus post quem of the shipwreck (Dell’Amico et al. 2001–2002, 23, 45, 46, 52, 71, 83, 86, 87 and 127). The joint analysis of the recovered materials indicates that the shipwreck occurred within the first few decades of the 4th century AD. 

Dell’Amico and Pallarés suggest several hypotheses regarding the port where the ship that sank at Fontanamare was loaded. The first one presents the possibility that the loading took place in one of the redistribution ports on the southern coast of Spain. These were ports to which North African products converged via the so called “Phoenician Route”, a route that moved from east to west along the North African coast (Dell’Amico et al. 2001–2002, 142). This hypothetical scenario is similar to the one suggested for the shipwreck of Cabrera III (Bost et al. 1992, 200 and 201). Another hypothesis is that Carthage was the ship’s port of origin (Dell’Amico et al. 2001–2002, 144). In this case, the ship would have been moving in the opposite direction, meaning that Lusitanian products were being brought into the port of Carthage through routes established along the North African coast. 

From the site of Punta Vecchia 1 (Cap Corse), numerous amphorae fragments were recovered between 2004 and 2007, amounting to a total of 65 pieces. Amphora tops (rims, necks and handles) and spikes of Almagro 51C of two different sizes (67%) (Figure 9), one handle that could be of the Keay 78 form, possibly a spike of Almagro 51 A&B, another possible spike of Beltrán 72, and fragments of amphorae of Africana II, variants D and B (17%). The materials that were recovered point to the shipwreck having occurred between the late 3rd century and mid-4th century AD, with a predominately Lusitanian cargo. Small remains of wood were also identified during the works (Leroy de La Brière and Meysen 2004; Leroy de La Brière 2006, 87; Leroy de La Brière and Meysen 2007a, 88 and 89; Leroy de La Brière 2007b and Massy 2013, 110–114). The re-examination of the materials, performed in November of 2013 at the Depôt de Bastia (DRASSM), confirmed that the totality of the fragments of Almagro 51C were of Lusitanian fabric. 

This shipwreck, along with the Punta Ala A one (Dell’Amico and Pallarés 2006), confirms the circulation of Lusitanian amphorae on the circuits of the Tyrrhenian Sea and of the Ligurian Sea. Travelling along this route, ships would leave Rome, frequently with return cargos or cargos for redistribution, and when reaching the Strait of Bonifacio, would head north along the coast of Tuscany. Sailing through the Strait of Bonifacio from east to west was hindered significantly by the winds blowing from the west, so that travelling between Ostia and Gallia was done mostly through Cap Corse (Arnaud 2005, 165). A set of underwater archaeological data also documents that ships sailed in the opposite direction, along the northern coast of Corsica and of Cap Corse. This suggests an alternative route for the passing of the Strait of Bonifacio, not only for the vessels coming from Gallia, but also from the Iberian Peninsula (Arnaud 2012, 136–138). This might have been the case of the ship sunk in Punta Vecchia 1. 

The continued export of Lusitanian fish products during the 5th century, already substantiated by the Cala Reale A shipwreck, is also reliably documented in two other contexts: Sancti Petri (Bay of Cadiz) and Scauri (Island of Pantelleria) (Alonso Villalobos et al. 1994, Baldassari 2009a and 2009b). In spite of the evidence – revealed by these two sites – regarding the continuity of the exports of Lusitanian salting fish preparations during the 5th century, underwater archaeology has not yet been able to provide direct proof of its circulation after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. 

The shipwreck sites used to illustrate the different scenarios of the circulation of Lusitanian amphorae allow us to develop some hypotheses regarding navigation routes. Using as reference the work of Pascal Arnaud (2005) – Les routes de la navegation antique, Itinéraires en Mediterranée – a work that contains, in our opinion, all of the relevant information gathered in the last decades, added to by the analysis of the works of Antiquity geographers such as Strabo and Pliny, we can now present the major sailing routes departing from the Iberian Peninsula with courses set for the ports of Rome (Figure 10). 

Figure 10 – Ancient sailing routes.

CONCLUSION

The shipwreck sites selected and described in this paper depict the circulation of Lusitanian fish products throughout the main navigation routes along the Western Mediterranean. As we pointed out, the transportation models are highly diversified, being perfectly adjusted to the major tendencies in trade and to the economic transformations that, throughout the years, took place within the Roman Empire. Between the early part of the 1st century and mid-2nd century AD, Lusitanian amphorae mostly circulated alongside Hispanic food products from Baetica and Tarraconensis, namely olive oil (Dressel 20), wine (Dressel 2-4, Haltern 70 and Dressel 28), fish sauce (Dressel 7-11, Beltrán IIA and IIB, Dressel 14A and 17), as well as ingots of lead or copper. From mid-3rd century AD, it becomes quite frequent for Lusitanian amphorae to be found alongside with North African products, transported in Africana II amphorae, variants B, C and D, used for the transportation of various fish goods (Bonifay 2004). This is further supported by their discovery on the Cabrera III shipwreck where fish remains were still visible (Slim et al. 2007, 40). This reflects the economic changes that, during the Late Antiquity period (Rice 2011, 85), transformed the African provinces into the great suppliers of food products destined for Rome. Shipwrecks, such as Cabrera III, may be considered as the logical outcome of the institutionally established supply chain to the Empire’s capital, based mostly on olive oil. The Lusitanian salted fish preparations were therefore an additional cargo, stored in the vacant space on board of the ships, thus allowing for the establishment of a free trade. Nevertheless, as we demonstrated, a wide set of alternative scenarios may have to be considered, especially regarding the Late Antiquity period. 

Shipwrecks are only some of the pieces of the complex puzzle that is the distribution process of Lusitanian amphorae throughout the Mediterranean. Recreating a global scenario is a difficult task and will necessarily have to include the archaeological data from land contexts of the main maritime cities, coastal enclaves, ports and mooring places. In so far as this research is concerned, it has revealed the presence of Lusitanian amphorae in numerous archaeological contexts throughout the Western Mediterranean (Bombico et al. 2014 and Bombico, in press). 

Download full PDF

Salted Fish Industry in Roman Lusitania: Trade Memories between Oceanus and Mare Nostrum - Sónia Bombico