This of your paper in Feeding the Roman Army: The

This PDF file of your paper in Feeding the Roman Army: The Archaeology of Production and Supply in NW Europe belongs to the publishers Oxbow Books and is their copyright.

As author you are licenced to make up to 50 off-prints from it, but beyond that you may not publish it on the World Wide Web or in any other form.

Feeding the Roman Army the Archaeology of Production

and Supply in NW Europe

edited by

Sue Stallibrass and Richard Thomas

Oxbow Books

Published byOxbow Books, Oxford, UK

© Oxbow Books and the authors, 2008

ISBN 978-1-84217-323-7

A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library

This book is available direct from

Oxbow Books, Oxbow, UK(Phone: 01865-214249; Fax: 1865-794449)

and

The David Brown Books CompanyPO Box 511, Oakville, CT 06779, USA

(Phone: 860-945-9329; Fax: 860-945-9468)

or from our website

www.oxbowbooks.com

Front cover: Imperial period mosaic held at the Vatican Museum, Rome.Adapted by Phillip Johns from an original photograph by Barbara McManus

Printed by Information Press, Eynsham

Appetizer: preface and acknowledgements v

1. For starters: producing and supplying food to the army in the Roman north-west provinces 1 Richard Thomas and Sue Stallibrass

2. Feeding the wolf in Cheshire: models and (a few) facts 18 Peter Carrington

3. Supply-chain networks and the Roman invasion of Britain: a case study from Alchester, Oxfordshire 31 Richard Thomas

4. Food supply at two successive military settlements in Arras (France): an archaeobotanical and archaeozoological approach 52 Marie Derreumaux and Sébastien Lepetz with the collaboration of Alain Jacques and Gilles Prilaux

5. Food supply to the Roman army in the Rhine delta inthefirstcenturyA.D. 69 Chiara Cavallo, Laura I. Kooistra and Monica K. Dütting

6. Surplus production of animal products for the Roman army in a rural settlement in the Dutch River Area 83 Maaike Groot

7. A biometric perspective on the size of cattle in Roman Nijmegen, The Netherlands: implications for the supply of urban consumers and the Roman army 99 Erik P. Filean

8. Feeding the army from Dorset: pottery, salt and the Roman state 116 James Gerrard

9. Commodities or logistics? The role of equids in Roman supply networks 128 Cluny Johnstone

10. Food for thought: what’s next on the menu? 146 Sue Stallibrass and Richard Thomas

Contents

Appetizer: preface and acknowledgements

The papers in this volume arose from two complementary sessions that were organised as part of the Theoretical Roman Archaeology (TRAC) conference held at University College London in March 2007: Feeding the Roman army: the archaeology of supply chains and provisioning networks (Richard Thomas) and Food for thought: economics, natural resources and the Roman military organisation (Sue Stallibrass). The sessions had two interdependent aims. Firstly, they sought to draw together a growing body of new archaeological evidence in an attempt to reconsider the ways in which the Roman military organisation was provisioned with food and other natural resources (e.g. timber, traction and textiles), and how the production and procurement of these resources varied over time and according to circumstance (e.g. locality, the nature of military activity, producer/consumer identities). Secondly, these sessions sought to encourage explicit hypothesis testing in preference to routine analysis and interpretation, at the same time bringing together the multiple methodological and theoretical approaches of a variety of archaeological sub-disciplines to encourage inter-disciplinary dialogue. One of the principal areas of research evident from the conference sessions was the way in which food was produced, procured and supplied to the Roman army, and it is this theme that is developed within this volume. It should be noted from the outset that this volume does not intend to be exhaustive in its coverage of these topics. Rather, it seeks to present a range of new evidence, consider different theoretical and methodological approaches and make suggestions regarding the possible directions of future research and improved modes of working. Consequently, this volume largely concentrates on animal husbandry, arable farming and food, particularly the north-west European staples of cereals and domestic mammals; however, several of the papers do touch upon other aspects of natural resources required by the Roman army: luxuries, non-edible raw materials and animals for transport. While we are aware that there are key aspects of food provisioning that have not been explored within the volume, such as drink (e.g. water, beer and wine), we hope that this series of studies will provide a platform from which future research can build. In preparing this volume there are many people to whom we are indebted. Firstly we would like to thank our contributors, not only for their interesting research and engaging in stimulating discussion during the conference and subsequently, but also for adhering to a very tight submission schedule! We would like to extend our immense gratitude to the two reviewers Hilary Cool (Barbican Research Associates, UK) and Roel Lauwerier (Rijksdienst voor Archeologie, Cultuurlandschap en Monumenten, The Netherlands) for all their considered input. Finally, thanks to Oxbow Books, particularly Tara Evans and Clare Litt, for agreeing to publish the proceedings and all their help in producing this volume.

Richard and Sue (December 2007)

IntroductionOver a period of about 100 years, the Roman army established a sequence of different types of military installations along the lower Rhine in what is now part of The Netherlands. This paper investigates the changing nature of the production and supply of food to these sites, as evidenced by plant and animal remains. The firstRomans arrived in theNetherlands during theAugustanmilitary campaigns. InNijmegen, in the east, the earliest Roman fortificationwas built at around 19–16 B.C. andevacuatedat12B.C.IntheearlyfirstcenturyA.D.,threesmallerfortswereestablishedfurtherwestwardatMeinerswijk,VechtenandVelsen.BetweenA.D.40and70,astringofaboutten,quitesmall,fortificationswasbuiltonthesouthernleveeoftheRiverRhinefromVechtendowntotheNorthSea,coveringatotaldistanceofsome60km(Fig.5.1). Opinions differ as towhy these fortificationswere built. Some believe that the auxiliaryforts were designed to demarcate the border of the Roman Empire, whereas others are of the opinion that they were established with a different objective, and developed into actual forts onlylater.Thisdebatewasoneofthereasonsforstartingaresearchproject in2004entitled“Asustainablefrontier?TheestablishmentoftheRomanfrontierintheRhinedelta”.Withinthisproject,datacollectedfromexcavatedauxiliaryfortsinthestudyareawillbecomparedwith each other in order to develop new ideas about the Roman military presence in the Rhine delta.OnekeyelementofthisresearchistoexplorethewayinwhichfoodwassuppliedtotheRomanarmy,sinceawell-organisedfoodsupplywasessentialforasuccessfuloccupation(e.g. Groenman-vanWaateringe1980,1989).Toobtaininformationonquestionssuchas:

what were the main food products used; how much was needed; where did these products come from; howweretheseproductstransportedtothefortifications;

both archaeobotanical and archaeozoological data are being considered and compared with other data from the archaeological record. In this paper we will discuss the preliminary results of our analysis.

Time periodsForthispreliminarystudywehaveestablishedthreechronologicalperiods:

Period 1: 19–16 B.C. toA.D. 40: the period of the earliest Roman bases in theNetherlands;

5.FoodsupplytotheRomanarmyintheRhinedeltainthefirstcenturyA.D.

Chiara Cavallo, Laura I. Kooistra and Monica K. Dütting

Period2:A.D.40toA.D.69–70:theperiodduringwhichthetimberauxiliaryfortswereestablishedintheRhinedeltauntiltheBatavianrevolt(A.D.69–70);

Period3:c.A.D.70toA.D.140:aperiodwhichwitnessedtherebuildingofthetimberfortsandthereplacementofthelocalauxiliarytroopsbythosefromotherpartsoftheempireuntilthefirststonefortificationswereconstructed.

LandscapeAmongmanyfactorswhichmusthaveinfluencedthefoodsupplytotheRomanarmy,suchasfood culture and the military organisation of food supply, one must also consider the relation between food supply and the surrounding landscape. In general, the Rhine delta around these fortificationswasawetarea.Settlementsintheeasternpartoftheareawereconcentratedonstream ridges and the levees of the River Rhine. In the west they were located on the sandy beach barriers, which were separated by salt- and fresh-water marshes. The central area was low and peaty, and the generally high water table everywhere meant that the area suitable for arablecultivationwasrestrictedtothesehigher,drierareasofsettlement(seeFig.5.1).Inthistype of landscape there were certainly possibilities for growing cereals, but the high water table meant that thearea suitable for arablefieldswas limited.For this reason, it is assumed thatcereals for theRomanarmywere importedfromsouthernBelgium,northernFranceand theGerman Rhineland.

The researchFromarchaeologicalandhistoricalsourcesitisknownthatthemainvegetablefoodproductsfor the Roman army were bread, biscuits, porridge, fruits, beer, wine and olive oil. Of these, wine and olive oil were imported from the Mediterranean, whereas bread, biscuits and porridge werepreparedfromingredientsthatweretransportedtothefortifications.Oneoftheaimsoftheresearch is to locate where the ingredients came from. The main ingredients for bread, biscuits, porridgeandbeerarebreadwheat(Triticum aestivum),emmerwheat(Triticum dicoccum),speltwheat(Triticum spelta)andhulledbarley(Hordeum vulgare).Althoughmanymorevegetablefoodstuffs were used, the discussion in this paper will concentrate on the provisioning of the fortificationswithstaplefoods,cerealsinparticular. The consumption of meat by Roman soldiers has been much discussed in the past, concerning both the quantities and the range of products used.Analysis ofRoman texts has stimulateddebateregardingwhethertheRomansoldierswerevegetariansornot(e.g.Davies1971;Stolle1914).Zooarchaeologicalresearchhasprovideddirectdatafrommilitarycontextsandshownawiderangeofanimalsbeingconsumedbysoldiers(e.g.Junkelmann1997;King1984;Luff1982).Astotheamounthandedouttosoldiersonthemoveoratabase,thereisnostrictfigure.Usually,assumptionsaremadebasedontexts,bestpractices,minimumamountofproteinandcalorificrequirementsetc.(e.g.Goldsworthy1996;LeRoux1994;Roth1999). Apartfromthedirectconsumptionofmeat(andsecondaryproductssuchascheese),thearmyneeded animals and animal products for providing them with draught, pack and riding animals, and with leather for shoes, tents, and many other items. In this paper we will not quantify the precise amounts needed by the Roman army but rather consider patterns of distribution.Adiscussion on the way the army’s needs were met in the Rhine delta will be presented elsewhere (Kooistraet al.inprep.).

Chiara Cavallo, Laura I. Kooistra and Monica K. Dütting70

Obtaining archaeozoological data from the sites mentioned above has proved to be a complicatedprocess.Manyofthedatahavenotbeenresearchedorpublishedinofficialliterature.In addition, we encountered common problems such as lack of information about recovery methods(hand-recovered,sievedetc.),poorcontextualdata,andsmallsamplesizes.Forthispaperweusedthewell-datedandcontextuallysecurebonematerialfromeightmilitarysites;thecompletereferencedatabasewillbepublishedelsewhere(Cavalloet al.inprep.).

1

76

54

11

109

8

1

3

2

14

1516 17/18 19

20/21 22 23

24

25 -29

R. Rhine

12

13

North Searivers and lakesbeach barrierspeat areariver clay areasea clay areapleistocene sand areaRoman fortificationrural settlement 0 12.5 KM

Figure 5.1: Landscape of the study area, marked with the Roman fortifications and the rural settlements mentioned in this paper. 1 Velsen, 2 Brittenburg, 3 Valkenburg, 4 Leiden-Roomburg, 5 Alphen a/d Rijn, 6 Zwammerdam, 7 Bodegraven, 8 Woerden, 9 De Meern, 10 Utrecht, 11 Vechten, 12 Meinerswijk, 13 Nijmegen, 14 Nieuwerhoorn, 15 Harnaschpolder, 16 Vlaardingen, 17/18 Houten Tiellandt/Houten Doornkade, 19 De Horden, 20/21 Tiel Passewaaij/Tiel Medel, 22 Kesteren, 23 Arnhem Schuijtgraaf, 24 Groesbeek , 25–29 Assendelft sites C, D, F, H, K. Drawing: J. Slopsma (University of Amsterdam).

5. Food supply to the Roman army in the Rhine delta 71

Period1:19/16B.C.–A.D.40:theperiodoftheearliestRomanbasesintheNetherlandsAtaround19–16B.C.theRomanarmybuiltahugemilitarycampattheHunerberginNijmegen.Thiscamphousedtwolegionsandwasinusetillaround12B.C(Kemmers2005:44–57,esp.48–49;Polakforthcoming).Partofthebonematerialstudiedshowsarelativelyhighpercentageofpigcomprisingup to55%of themain (staple)domesticated species (Thijssen1988:Fig.5.2).A little later, a fortificationat thenearbyTrajanuspleinwaserected.Thebonematerialthere showed a different picture with cattle bones dominating the zooarchaeological assemblage (Lauwerier1988).Itcanbearguedthatthisdifferencemayhavebeentheresultofthewayinwhichthematerialwasretrieved(hand-collectedandnotsieved)andthat thedatashouldbecorrectedfora relativelyhigherpercentageofpigcompared tocattle.However,analternateexplanationforthehigheramountofpigsisthatitrelatestothemoreoffensivecharacterofthefirstphaseofthemilitarycampattheHunerberg.ThisisconfirmedbytheresultsofotherboneassemblagesfromtheAugustanperiodfromthemilitarycamp,studiedbyKoopmans(1996),whichshowapercentageofpigsofaround60%(Fig.5.2andTable5.1).Unfortunately,noarchaeozoological data from contemporary indigenous sites from the immediate area surrounding themilitaryfortificationattheHunerbergcurrentlyexistforcomparison. Withrespect tothebotanicaldata,onlysixsampleshavebeenanalysedfromthemilitarylevelsattheHunerbergtodate,andthesewereunfortunatelypoorinbotanicalremains(deHinghandKooistra1995).Themaincerealcropishulledbarley,butemmerwheat,oat(notdefinitelycultivatedoat)andcommonmilletarealsofound.Thesecerealscouldbecultivatedlocallybut

Figure 5.2: Relative frequencies of identified bones of cattle, sheep/goats and pigs from stratified deposits at eight Roman sites in the Rhine delta (see Table 5.1 for site details and bibliographic references).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Nijmegen

military

camp Hunerberga

Nijmegen milita

rycamp Hunerberg

b

Meinerswijk

Nijmegen Ia

Trajanusplein

Velsen I 82

Woerden

Alphen a/dRijn

2001-2002 a

Alphen a/dRijn

put 29

Valkenburg

80

Valkenburg

62 c. A.D. 42-45

Valkenburg

62 c. A.D. 45-47

Valkenburg

62 c. A.D. 47-69

Alphen a/dRijn

2001-2002 b

Zwammerdam1970-1974

pigsheep/goatcattle


in thisperiod the localfarmsseemtohaveonlybeenselfsupporting(Kooistra1996).Apartfrom the cereals, one olive stone was also found. This species must have been imported from the Mediterranean. During Period 1 a further three Roman forts were built: Vechten (aroundA.D. 4–5),Meinerswijk (aroundA.D.10–20)andVelsen (aroundA.D.15–16and inuseuntilA.D.29;Fig.5.1,Table5.1andAppendix).FromVechtennowell-datedarchaeobotanicalremainswererecovered and the bone material has yet to be studied. The pollen information obtained through archaeological research of the fort at Meinerswijk showsthatboththenorthernandthesouthernbankoftheRiverRhinewereinuse(Teunissenet al.1987).Thepollenrecordsalsoshowhighamountsofcereal.Theauthorssuggestedthatthismightpointtolocalproductionofcereals.However,itisknownfromexperimentalresearchthatmostofthepollenofcerealsreachesthesoilnotbygrowingonarablefieldsbutwhenthecerealsarethreshedtoisolatethekernelsfromthechaff(Diot1992).Thus,itisevenpossiblethat the high amounts of cereal pollen at Meinerswijk came from imported hulled cereals which were threshed just before consumption. Much of the pollen indicates grasslands around the fortification. The zooarchaeological data from Meinerswijk, although not so sharply dated as the palynologicalmaterial,showarelativelyhighpercentageofpigamountingtoaround18%ofthebonesfromdomesticatedanimals,whilecattledominateswithahighpercentageof68%(Lauwerier1988:86;Table5.1). ThefindsfromthefortatVelsendemonstratethatluxuryfoodproductssuchaspeachandoliveswerepresent(Pals1997).Onthesubjectofstapleplantfoods,nodataareavailableyet.Thebonematerial fromVelsenalsoshowsthepresenceof luxurygoods, includingpeacock,chicken,chubmackerelandabroadspectrumofwildbirdsandgame(Prummel1987,1993).The

Table 5.1: Absolute numbers of identified bones of the main domestic species and the relative proportion of pig bones found in the Roman forts. See Appendix for site details.

Cattle % pig

Period 1: pre A.D. 4019–16 B.C. to 12 B.C. Nijmegen: Hunerberg a 197 48 380 625 61%19–16 B.C. to 12 B.C. Nijmegen: Hunerberg b 60 18 96 174 55%A.D. 20–250 Meinerswijk 89 8 22 119 18%10 B.C.–A.D. 25 Nijmegen Ia Trajanusplein 192 20 58 270 21%A.D. 15–30 Velsen I 82 4228 1398 1538 7164 21%Period 2: A.D. 40–A.D. 70Woerden I, II, III: c. A.D. 40–70 Woerden 275 38 58 371 16%period 1: A.D. 41/42–69/70 Alphen a/d Rijn 2001–2002 93 20 12 125 10%A.D. 41/42–A.D. 69/70 Alphen a/d Rijn put 29 228 39 126 393 32%werkput VI: A.D. 39–47 Valkenburg 80 58 7 39 104 37%period 1: c . A.D. 42–45 Valkenburg 62 81 10 33 124 27%period 2: c . A.D. 45–47 Valkenburg 62 150 27 55 232 24%period 3: c . A.D. 47–69 Valkenburg 62 156 34 190 18%Period 3: A.D. 70–A.D. 140period 2: wooden fort after A.D. 70 Alphen a/d Rijn 2001–2002 14 2 3 19 16%A.D. 80–A.D. 175 Zwammerdam 1970–1974 443 36 48 527 9%

Sheep/goatTime period Site Pig Total


presenceofrelativelylargenumbersofchickenbonesisseenasevidenceofRomaninfluence(Lauwerier1988:142).InthefortatVelsenweseethatupto80%oftheavifaunalassemblageconsists of chicken, from the earliest occupation levels at the fort onwards (Prummel 1987,1993). PigbonesformasubstantialpartofthefaunalassemblagefromthefirstphaseofoccupationatthefortatVelsen(Table5.1).ThesurroundingareaoftheAssendelverPolderswasintensivelysurveyed,excavatedandstudiedbytheUniversityofAmsterdaminthe1970’sand1980’s,butpigbonesfromthisperiodareeithertotallyabsentor,ifpresent,compriseuptomaximally1%(Laarman1983;Meffert1998;VanWijngaarden-Bakker1988).Thelandscapeofthisarealacksthe characteristics that are usually attributed to an area suitable for keeping pigs, namely more sandygroundwithpreferablyoakwoods.AlthoughMeinerswijkalsoliesinalandscapelesssuitable for keeping pigs, Lauwerier thinks that like heather sods, pigs were transported from thesandyregionsontheothersideoftheRhine.Hespecificallylinkstheoccurrenceofahighpercentageofpigstothemilitarypresenceinthearea(Lauwerier1988:127). Looking at the relatively high percentage of pig in the collected bone material from these earlyRomanmilitarysites(Fig.5.2),wesuggestasapossibleexplanationthattheseearlyfortsrelied on pig as a fast and reliable source of animal protein in times of offensive campaigns and in territories that were still relatively recently under Roman control, a phenomenon attested elsewhereintheempire(Thomasthisvolume).InthecaseofVelsen,thereareclearindicationsthat not just pig but also chicken were brought with the army to the fort as there are no indications in the faunal remains from sites in the surrounding area in this period that could point to local sourcesfortheseanimals,andtheexoticpeacock,peachesandolivesmusthavebeenbroughtfromelsewhere(Prummel1987).

Period2:A.D.40–A.D.69/70:fromthefirsttimberauxiliaryfortsuntiltheBatavianrevoltTowardsthemiddleofthefirstcenturyaseriesofauxiliaryfortswasconstructedonthesouthbank of the Rhine, between Vechten and the North Sea. Traditionally, Valkenburg is assumed to havebeenbuiltinA.D.39–40,theothersbetweenA.D.40and50(Polakforthcoming).Theseforts are thought to have been largely occupied by troops that were recruited locally. It is still not clear how the local troops that were stationed along the Rhine were provisioned. It is generally assumed that the troops were stationed inside the forts and that provisioning of the forts was partoftheroutineoftheRomanarmy.However,deWeerd(2006)recentlysuggestedthattheseforts were not permanently manned which would raise the question whether a standard supply line would have been set up. It remains unclear whether at this time the River Rhine was already the northern border of theRomanEmpire.Archaeobotanicalevidenceisavailablefromfourmilitarysitesandfromtenruralsettlementsofwhich threeweresituatednorthwestof theRhinedelta(Fig.5.1andAppendix).Table5.2summarisesthedifferentgroupsofplantfoodsfoundatmilitarylocationsand in rural settlements. In thefirst centurybeforeA.D.70all of the cerealsneeded topreparebreadwere foundinsidethefortifications,includingspeltwheatandbreadwheat.Notallofthesecerealswereavailablefromtheruralsettlementsnearby.Hulledbarleyandemmerwheatweregrownatallinvestigated rural settlements south of the River Rhine. On a smaller scale, millet and oat were also produced. Northwest of the River Rhine, hulled barley was the main crop, probably due


totheratherbrackishconditionshere.Breadwheatandspeltwheatdidnotoccurinanyoftheruralsettlements,eithernorthorsouthoftheRiverRhine.Further,novegetables,Mediterraneankitchen herbs and exotic food plants (for example fig, olive, walnut and grape) have beenencountered in the local rural settlements. Yet, these food products did occur at the military sites (Table5.2).ThiscouldindicatethattheruralpopulationandtheRomanarmydidnotengagemuchintheexchangeofimportedfoodproducts. The evidence available concerning the structure of rural settlements in the delta of the Rhine showsthatthesehabitationsconsistedofquitesmall,mixedfarmswithoutsubstantialorstructuralsurplusproduction(Kooistra1996:50–55;Meffert1998:101–113).Giventhestructureofthesefarms, it is most likely that local production of food was quite meagre and that the only way for the Roman army to obtain cereals was to import them. The main possibility for importing cereals is clearly by ship, either over sea and sailing up the river, or by navigating downstream ontheriversRhineorMeuse.HistoricalsupportforthisideaisprovidedbyTacitus(Historiae IV,26)whomentions that inA.D.69foodcouldnotbe imported,becauseof the lowwaterlevels of the River Rhine. The archaeozoological data for this period reveal a relatively substantial quantity of pig bones fromtheverystartoftheoccupation(Table5.1).Althoughtheamountofpigissignificantlyless than that seen in the earliest military forts discussed above, it constitutes a much higher percentagethanthemajorityofcontemporaryruralsettlementsintheregion(Ewijk–Lauwerier1988;Heteren–Lauwerier1988;andLeiden-Pomona–Kemerink2006),wherethepercentage

Table 5.2: Presence data for cereals, pulses, vegetables and exotic food products found in military and rural settlements. Numbers in brackets indicates uncertain identifications; the asterisk indicates uncertainty as to whether the vegetable/kitchen herb mentioned here (celery) was wild or cultivated.

Settlement type Military Rural (south of Rhine)

Rural (north of Rhine) Military Rural (south

of Rhine)Rural (north

of Rhine)

Number of sites 4 7 3 4 8 2CerealsHulled barley 4 7 3 3 7 2Millet 1 4 - - 3 1Oat 2 5 1 - 4 2Rye 2 - - - 1 -Bread wheat 2 - - 2 -1 -Emmer wheat 4 7 - 4 5 2Spelt wheat 3 - - 4 -1 -

Pulses - - - -Celtic bean 2 3 - 1 4 -

Vegetables and kitchen herbs 3 1* - 3 5 -

Exotic foodstuffs4 - - 1 1 -

Period 2 A.D. 40 – A.D. 70 Period 3 A.D. 70 – A.D. 140

(1)

(1)

Settlement type Military Rural (south of Rhine)

Rural (north of Rhine) Military Rural (south

of Rhine)Rural (north

of Rhine)

Number of sites 4 7 3 4 8 2CerealsHulled barley 4 7 3 3 7 2Millet 1 4 - - 3 1Oat 2 5 1 - 4 2Rye 2 - - - 1 -Bread wheat 2 - - 2 -1 -Emmer wheat 4 7 - 4 5 2Spelt wheat 3 - - 4 -1 -

Pulses - - - -Celtic bean 2 3 - 1 4 -

Vegetables and kitchen herbs 3 1* - 3 5 -

Exotic foodstuffs4 - - 1 1 -

Period 2 A.D. 40 – A.D. 70 Period 3 A.D. 70 – A.D. 140


ofpigamountsatthemostto5%ofthemainstaplespecies.AnexceptionisKatwijk-deZanderijwherethepercentageofpigbonesreaches18%(Heidenet al.inprep.). The relatively high percentage of pig bones in the forts slowly decreases over time, as we canseeinthecaseofValkenburgwherethebonematerialcouldbeascribedtowell-definedandshortphases(Table5.1).Duetothelongoccupationoftheforts,thepictureofmeatsupplyisslightlyblurred.Westillthinkthatpigmayhavebeenareliable‘start-up’resourcefortroopsstationed in these forts but that the importance of this food source diminishes through time. AlthoughthereislittleevidenceofRomandependenceonlocalsettlementsfortheircereals,it is unlikely that the Roman army would continue to import cattle and other animals from further away to supply the forts if this could be avoided, as this would involve huge transport problems, if importing live animals. Importing preserved meat products from far away would incur the major problems of long-term storage and keeping the food edible, on top of that of transport.Adiscussionoftransportispresentedelsewhere(e.g.Düttinget al.forthcoming). Ifthefortswerenotpermanentlymanned,wewouldexpectamuchhigherandmorestableamountofpigbonesrepresentinganeasyandreliablemeatsource.Anargumentagainstthiscould be that the locally recruited troops were taking their supplies from home, thus representing a picture more consistent with neighbouring local settlements. This is disputable however.Although provisions for the core of the Roman army, thelegionaries, were probably more a matter of concern to the Roman general staff than providing fortheauxiliarytroops,itseemsunlikelythattheywerewhollylefttocaterforthemselvesasthis would seriously have hampered army routine and law and order. In this period and area, we have no indication for villaesupplyingthemilitary.Althoughinthisperiodsomeofthecerealswere imported from the south, we must assume that the meat supplies were either provided by waysoftaxation,tradewiththelocalsorrequisition(althoughrequisitionismoreoftenusedbyarmiesasincidentalpractice,notduringlongerperiods).

InA.D.69–70 theBatavianrevoltseesmostof the timberfortsdestroyedandmarks thestart of a new phase in the Roman presence in the Rhine delta.

Period3:fromA.D.70–140:therebuildingofthetimberfortsandthereplacementofthelocalauxiliarytroops,untilthefirststonefortificationswere constructed.Inthe80softhefirstcenturytheLowerGermanmilitarydistrictwasreshapedintoaproperRomanprovince.At least fromthat timeon it seems legitimate toconsider theRhineas theactual border of the Roman Empire.

Withinthreefortificationsandatthevicus of Leiden-Roomburg, the same range of cereals asforthefirstcenturyhavebeenfound,althoughthereisagrowingpreferenceforspeltwheat(seeFig.5.1,Table5.1andAppendix).Archaeobotanicalevidenceisavailablefromeightruralsettlements south of the River Rhine and two rural settlements northwest of the river. The main crops on the farms situated immediately to the south of the Rhine are still hulled barley andemmerwheat.Itseemsthattosomeextentmillet,oatandryewerealsoproduced.Attherural settlement atKesteren, breadwheat and speltwheatmay have been present, but theiridentificationisuncertain.Inthisarea,ruralsettlementsalsogrewkitchenherbsandvegetables.Exoticproductsdidoccur,butwererare.In thetworuralsettlementsnorthwestof theRiverRhine, hulled barley continued to be the main crop, followed by oat, emmer wheat and millet.


Nokitchenherbs,vegetablesorexoticfoodproductshavebeenfoundhere(Table5.2). Itseemsthatthefarmssouthoftheborderhadundergoneachange.Theyremainedmixedfarms, but grewbigger and arable farmingbecamemore important (Kooistra 1996: 50–55).ThesituationnorthoftheRiverRhineremainedunchangedincomparisonwiththeperiodA.D.40–70.Theruralsettlementswerestillthesamesizeandpractisedthesameagrarianeconomyas during the previous period. In this period only hulled barley, spelt wheat, emmer wheat and bread wheat are found at military sites, including the vicus of Leiden-Roomburg. There is an indication that the rural settlements south of the River Rhine attempted to produce a surplus of emmer wheat and hulled barley. It is possible that these crops of local origin did reach the military sites, but the increase in the rural population, which consumed the cereals at its source, may have frustrated any surplus production for the Roman army. If this was the case, hulled barley and emmer wheat may also have been imported from elsewhere. It is certain that spelt wheat and bread wheat were imported to the military sites from the loess areas of Germania Inferior. In the loess regions of the German Rhineland,southernNetherlands,Belgium,andnorthernFrancetherewasasurplusproductionofmainlyspeltwheat(Kooistra1996:102–104,111–113,125–127). Looking at the archaeozoological record, we see little difference for this period when compared tothedatafromPeriod1(Table5.1).OneoftheassumptionsmadeisthataftertheBatavianrevoltthelocallyrecruitedandstationedauxiliarieswereorderedtootherpartsoftheRomanEmpire(suchasBritainas iswellattestedbyseveralRomansourcesand thearchaeologicalrecord).En lieuof these,other troopswerestationedalong theRhinewho,concludingfromevidencesuchasmilitarydiplomas,camefromsuchremoteareasasHispaniaandPannonia(Polakforthcoming). Whenconsidering the idea that theearlier fortswerenotpermanentlymannedor that thetroopswere(partly) locallycateredforby their relatives, itwouldbefair toassumethat thenew troops, lacking ties with the local population in the Rhine delta, would for their daily food be completely dependent on the provisions supplied to them by the Roman army. This would imply a different troop provisioning system, one that required increased imports or enhanced localmilitarymeatproduction,forexample.Inthatcaseafastandreliablesupplyofmeatcouldhavebeenfoundbyanoldandprovenarmyroutine:chickenandpigs.However,whenlookingatarchaeozoologicaldata,weseenosuchclearindication(Table5.1).Althoughchickenandpig still appear in the bone assemblage, the amount of pig further declines with an increase in the percentage of cattle for the sites on the western part of the Rhine delta. This can clearly be seeninthedatacollectionfromthefortificationsatValkenburg,AlphenandZwammerdam.Inour view this points to an already well established system of local or regional meat production gearedtosupplyandsustaintheRomanarmyforthisarea.However,thisviewischallengedby the persistent relatively high percentage of pigs found in the Nijmegen castra.Whetherthisis a matter of sample size or a difference in economic systems might be answered with a more expandedstudyinthefuture.

ConclusionsFrom the firstRoman presence during theAugustan campaigns, into themiddle of the firstcenturyA.D.,theRomanarmyintheRhinedeltareliedheavilyonfoodsuppliesfromexternalsources.BoththeearliestmilitarycampsandthefirstphasesofthewoodenfortsthatmarkedthebeginningoftheconsolidationofRomanoccupation,showthatcerealsandluxurygoodswere


importedfromoutsidetheRhinedelta.Inparticular,theexploitationofpigsandchickensseemstobestronglyinfluencedbytheappearanceof theRomantroops.Thismaybeanindicationthat the Roman army used these animals as a reliable, easily transportable, rather undemanding and fast reproductive protein resource, in times of campaigns or in unfavourable circumstances such as lack of local resources. During the followingconsolidationperiod,Period2,upuntil theBatavian revolt inA.D.69–70,mostofthecerealsneededbythearmystillwereimportedfromoutsidetheRhinedeltaas the present farms show little evidence of surplus production. In contrast, the region seems to have stepped up animal production to meet the army’s demand for cattle and possibly, but to a muchlesserextent,sheep.ThissystemclearlyworkedwellasitpersistedintoPeriod3.Oncethe forts were established, the army looked around for other sources for meat supply and found themeitherinthelocalorintheregionalfarms.FortheRhinedelta,fromaroundA.D.70thispicture remains a constant one and in our view this points to an already well-established local orregionalpatternofproduction.Thisisinstarkcontrasttothepictureforcerealproduction:spelt wheat and bread wheat continued to be imported from more southerly regions and from the endofthefirstcenturyA.D.theruralsettlementsinthe(eastern)riverareasuppliedacertainamount of surplus of barley and emmer wheat. It remains a matter of research and debate as to what causes these differences in food provisioning.Weretheytheresultofthelimitationsofthelandscapeandproduction,thestoragerequirements,theseasonalavailability,orweretheyduetothelogisticsoftransport?

Chiara CavalloUniversityofAmsterdam,Amsterdam,TheNetherlands.Laura I. KooistraBIAXConsult,Zaandam,TheNetherlands.

Monica K. DüttingHazenbergArcheologieLeidenbv,Leiden,TheNetherlands.

AcknowledgementsOur thanks are due to the following organisations for generously funding our project: theNetherlandsOrganization for ScientificResearch,BIAXConsult,University ofAmsterdam,HazenbergArcheologie Leiden bv, Radboud University Nijmegen, the City of Utrecht andtheFoundationforProvincialRomanArchaeology.Wealso thankDr.MarinusPolakforhisvaluable comments on this paper.

BibliographyBeurden,L.van.1998.Zadenonderzoek van de Opgraving Groesbeek-Klein Amerika (IJzertijd & Romeinse

tijd).Amersfoort:InterneRapportenArcheobotanieRijksdienstvoorhetOudheidkundigBodemonderzoek1998/11.

Beurden,L.van.2004.Macroresten uit Drie Greppels en een Kuil van de Inheems-Romeinse vindplaats Medel (Vindplaats 6) bij Tiel.Zaandam:BIAXiaal192.

Beurden,L.van.inprep.Botanische Resten van het Castellum te Woerden(workingtitle).Zaandam.Brinkkemper,O.1993.Wetland Farming in the Area to the South of the Meuse Estuary during the Iron

Age and Roman Period. An Environmental and Palaeo-economic Reconstruction. Leiden:AnalectaPraehistoriaLeidensia24.

Brinkkemper,O.andMan,R.de.1999.Archeobotanischonderzoek.InJ.K.HaalebosandW.Vos(eds)Aanvullend Archeologisch Onderzoek in Woerden.Bunschoten:ADC-rapport5:27–31.

Brinkkemper, O. and Ridder, T. de. 2000. Het Archeobotanisch Onderzoek naar het Milieu rond Dammen en


Duikers uit de Periode van 175 voor tot 175 na Christus.Vlaardingen:VLAK-verslag3.3.Brinkhuizen,D.C.1989.EenwervelvaneenzeldzamevissoortuitdeRomeinsehavenvanVelsen1(N.-H.).

Paleo-Aktueel1:69–72.Cavallo,C.,Dütting,M.K.andShuman,A.inprep.Zoöarcheologisch Onderzoek langs de West-Nederlandse

Limes.Clason,A.T.1967.Animal and Man in Holland’s Past.Groningen:Wolters.Davies,R.W.1971.TheRomanMilitaryDiet.Britannia 2:122–141.Dijk,J.van.inpressfor2007.Hoofdstuk15:Archeozoölogie.InE.BlomandW.K.Vos(eds)Archeologische

Monumentenzorg in Woerden “Plangebied Hoochwoert”. De Opgravingen 2002–2006 in het Romeinse Castellum Laurium, de Vicus en van het Schip de ‘Woerden 7’.Amersfoort:ADC-monografie2.

Diot, M-F. 1992. Études Palynologiques de Blés Sauvages et Domestiques issues de Cultures Expérimentales, Préhistoire de l’Agriculture: Nouvelles Approches Expérimentales et Ethnographiques. Périgueux:CentreNationaldelaRechercheScientifique:MonographieduCRANo6.

Dütting,M.K.,Cavallo,C.andKooistra,L.I.inprep.Transporting Food to the Roman Army in the Rhine Delta.

Fischer,A.2004.Ouwe Koeien uit de Sloot. Zoöarcheologisch Onderzoek van een Werkput uit het Castellum Albaniana.Amsterdam: Internal reportAmsterdamsArcheologisch Centrum (AAC). University ofAmsterdam.

Fokma,A.2005.Verslag van het Archeobotanisch Onderzoek van Monsters uit de Opgraving Tiel-Passewaaij 1997, 1999, 2000 en 2004.Amsterdam:InternalreportVrijeUniversiteitAmsterdam.

Goldsworthy,A.1996.The Roman Army at War, 100 B.C–A.D. 200.Oxford:TheClarendonPress.Groenman-vanWaateringe,W.1980.Urbanizationandthenorth-westfrontieroftheRomanempire.InW.S.

HansonandL.J.F.Keppie(eds)Roman Frontier Studies 1979: Papers Presented to the 12th International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies. Oxford:BritishArchaeologicalReports InternationalSeries71:1037–1044.

Groenman-vanWaateringe,W.1989.Foodforsoldiers,foodforthought.InJ.C.Barrett,A.P.FitzpatrickandL.Macinnes(eds)Barbarians and Romans in North-West Europe.Oxford:BritishArchaeologicalReportsInternationalSeries471:96–107.

Haaster,H.van.2004.Botanisch Onderzoek aan Enkele Grondsporen bij de Romeinse Wachttoren aan de Zandweg op de VINEX Locatie Leidsche Rijn (LR31).Zaandam:BIAXiaal182.

Hänninen,K.,Rijn,P.vanandWaijjen,M.van.2004.Archeobotanisch Onderzoek aan Zaden, Pollen en Hout uit de Romeinse Tijd tot de Nieuwe Tijd uit Arnhem-Schuytgraaf.Zaandam:BIAXiaal206.

Heiden,M.vander,Kolfschoten,Th.vanandCavallo,C.inpress.Katwijk:dedierlijkeresten.InH.vanderVelde(ed.)Monograph on Katwijk – de Zanderij.Amersfoort:ADC-Monografie.

Hingh,A.E.deandKooistra,L.I.1995.RestevonGetreideundanderenPflanzen.InJ.K.Haalebos(ed.)Castra und Canabae; Ausgrabungen auf dem Hunerberg in Nijmegen 1987–1994.Nijmegen:LibelliNoviomagensesNr.3:103–109.

Hogestijn, J.W.H. 1984.Een Palaeobotanische Analyse van Enkele Monsters uit Waterputten in de Nederzettingen te Houten-Doornkade en Bunnik-Marsdijk (Prov. Utrecht).Amsterdam:InternalreportUniversityofAmsterdam.

Junckelmann,M.1997.Panis Militaris: die Ernährung des Römischen Soldaten oder der Grundstoff der Macht.MainzamRhein:VerlagPhilippvonZabern.

Kemerink,D.2006.Leiden-Pomona. Archeozoologische Analyse van het Fauna Materiaal.Internalreport:University of Leiden.

Kemmers, F.2005.Coins for a Legion: an Analysis of the Coin Finds of the Augustan Legionary Fortress and Flavian Canabae Legionis at Nijmegen.Nijmegen:UnpublishedDissertationRadboudUniversiteit.

King,A.1984.Animalbones and thedietary identityofmilitary andciviliangroups inRomanBritain,Germany andGaul. In T.F.C. Blagg andA.C. King (eds)Military and Civilian in Roman Britain: Cultural Relationships in a Frontier Province.Oxford:BritishArchaeologicalReportsBritishSeries136:187–217.


Kooistra, L.I.1996.Borderland Farming. Possibilities and Limitations of Farming in the Roman Period and Early Middle Ages between the Rhine and Meuse.Assen/Amersfoort:VanGorcum.

Kooistra, L.I.2004.Voedingenmilieu.InM.Polak,R.P.J.KloostermanandR.A.J.Niemeijer(eds)Alphen aan den Rijn – Albaniana 2001–2002. Opgravingen tussen de Castellumstraat, het Omloopkanaal en de Oude Rijn. Nijmegen:LibelliNoviomagensesNr.7:237–245.

Kooistra, L.I. 2006a. Plantenresten in de randzone van de vicus bijMatilo (Roomburg-AZC). InC.R.Brandenburgh(ed.)Bodemonderzoek in Leiden 17. Archeologisch Onderzoek Roomburg 2003.Leiden:133–148.

Kooistra, L.I.2006b.Noordelijkenederzetting (AHR-02).Archeobotanie-Macroresten. InJ.P.FlammanandT.A.Goossens(eds)Schipluiden, ‘Harnaschpolder’. De Inrichting en Bewoning van het Landschap in de Romeinse Tijd (125–270 na Chr.)Amersfoort:ADCArcheoProjectenRapport625:174–180.

Kooistra, L.I. and Haaster,H. van. 2001.Archeobotanie.InM.M.SierandC.W.Koot(eds)Archeologie in de Betuweroute, Kesteren-De Woerd, Bewoningssporen uit de IJzertijd en de Romeinse Tijd.Amersfoort:RapportageArcheologischeMonumentenzorg82: 293–359.

Kooistra,L.I.,andHeeren,S.2007.Hetverhaalvaneenafgebrandegraanschuur.InN.Roymans,T.DerksandS.Heeren(eds)Opgravingen te Tiel Passewaaij. Een Bataafse Gemeenschap in de Wereld van het Romeinse Rijk.Utrecht:Matrijs167–176.

KooistraL.I.,Cavallo,C.,Dütting,M.K.,inprep.Supplying the Roman Army(workingtitle).Koopmans, L. 1996.Vroeg-Romeins Botmateriaal van de Hunerberg te Nijmegen. Unpublished paper.

VakgroepEcologischeArcheologie,UniversityofAmsterdam.Kuijper, W.J. and Turner,H. 1992.DietofaRomancenturionatAlphenaandenRijn,TheNetherlands,in

thefirstcenturyAD.Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73:187–204.Laarman,F.1983.Onderzoek van Faunaresten uit Opgravingen in de Assendelver Polder 1988. Unpublished

paper.UniversityofAmsterdam.Lange,A.G.1990.Plant Remains from a Native Settlement at the Roman Frontier: de Horden near Wijk bij

Duurstede.Amersfoort:NederlandseOudheden13.Lauwerier,R.C.G.M.1988.Animals in Roman times in the Dutch Eastern River Area.Amersfoort:Nederlandse

Oudheden 12.LeRoux,P.1994.Lerevitaillementdesarméesromainessousl’Empire.InR.Etienne(ed.)Du Latifundium

au Latifundo.Paris:DiffusiondeBoccard:394–416.Luff, R-M. 1982.A Zooarchaeological Study of the Roman North-western Provinces. Oxford: British

ArchaeologicalReportsInternationalSeries137.Meffert,M.1998.Ruimtelijke Relaties in het Oer-IJ-Estuarium in de Romeinse IJzertijd met nadruk op de

Assendelver Polders.UnpublishedDissertation:UniversityofAmsterdam.Mensch,P.J.A.van.1974.Archeo-zoölogisch Onderzoek van de Dierresten uit het Castellum te Zwammerdam.

Amsterdam.InternalreportUniversityofAmsterdam.Noordam,A.andPals,J.P.1987.Indeputzitten.....(2).ZadenuitValkenburgsewaterputten.InE.J.Bult

andD.P.Hallewas(eds)Graven bij Valkenburg II.Delft:Eburon:56–67.Pals,J.P.1987.Environmentandeconomyasrevealedbymacroscopicplantremains.InR.W.Brandt,W.

Groenman-vanWaateringeandS.E.vanderLeeuw(eds).Assendelver Polder Papers 1 (Cingula 10). Amsterdam:UniversityofAmsterdam:83–90.

Pals,J.P.1997.IntroductievancultuurgewassenindeRomeinseTijd.InA.C.Zeven(ed.)De Introductie van Onze Cultuurplanten en hun Begeleiders van het Neolithicum tot 1500 AD.Wageningen:VerenigingvoorLandbouwgeschiedenis:25–51.

Pals, J.P., Beemster, V. and Noordam,A. 1989. Plant remains from the Roman castellum PraetoriumAgrippinaenearValkenburg(prov.ofZuid-Holland).Dissertationes Botanicae133:117–133.

Polak,M.forthcoming.TheRomanmilitarypresenceintheRhinedeltaintheperiodc.AD40–140.InRoman Frontier Studies 2006, Proceedings of the XXth International Congress of Roman Studies.

Prummel,W.1974.Dierlijke Resten uit de Opgraving Valkenburg 1962, de Perioden I, II, III en VI en Middeleeuwen. Unpublished paper. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.


Prummel,W.1987.PoultryandfowlingattheRomancastellumVelsen1.Palaeohistoria 29:183–201.Prummel,W.1993.BirdsfromfourcoastalsitesintheNetherlands.Archaeofauna 2:97–105.Roth, J.P. 1999.The Logistics of the Roman Army at War: (264 B.C–A.D. 235).Leiden-Boston-Köln:

Brill.Schnitger,W.1988.Kleine Huisdieren en Wild van het Romeinse Castellum Velsen I – de Botvondsten van

de Opgravingscampagne 1982.Amsterdam:InternalreportUniversityofAmsterdam.Shuman,A.2006.AlphenaandenRijn.Fauna Remains from Known Contexts. Zooarchaeological Research

of the Roman Castellum Albaniana.Amsterdam:InternalreportAmsterdamsArcheologischCentrum(AAC),UniversityofAmsterdam.

Stolle,F.1914.Der Römische Legionär und sein Gepäck (Mulus Marianus) Abhandlung über den Mondvorrat, die Gepacklast und Tornister des Römischen Legionärs und im Anhang Erklärung der Apokolypse 6, 6. Strassburg:K.J.Trubner.

Teunissen,D.,Teunissen-vanOorschot,H.andMan,R.de1987. Palynological Investigations in Castellum Meinerswijk near Arnhem (the Netherlands). Amsterdam:ProceedingsoftheKoninklijkeNederlandseAkademievanWetenschappen90–92.

Thijssen,J.R.A.M.1988.Romeins Botmateriaal uit Nijmegen en Woerden. Unpublished paper. University ofAmsterdam.

Verhagen, M. 1998. Eten en gegeten worden; enige opmerkingen over het consumptie gedrag in hetcastellumteValkenburgZH.InJ.H.F.Bloemers(ed.)Archeologie en Oecologie tussen Rijn en Vlie. Assen-Maastricht:Gorcum:108–120.

Wijngaarden-Bakker,L.H.van.1988.Zooarcheologischonderzoek indewest-Nederlandsedelta1983–1987.InJ.H.F.Bloemers(ed.)Archeologie en Oecologie tussen Rijn en Vlie.Assen-Maastricht:Gorcum:154–185.

Weerd,M.D.de.2006.Repressieopafstandineenvoorlandzondergrenzen.Westerheem, Jaargang 55 no. 1, Februari 2006:52–56.

Zeist,W. van. 1968.Prehistoric andEarlyHistoricFoodPlants in theNetherlands.Palaeohistoria 14:41–173.


Appendix: site details for Table 5.1

Velsen fortification 1 Schnitger (1988); Pals (1997)Valkenburg fortification 3 Brinkkemper unpublished data; van Zeist (1968);

Noordam and Pals (1987); Pals et al. (1989)

Valkenburg 62 fortification 3 Prummel (1974)Valkenburg 80 fortification 3 Verhagen (1988)Leiden Roomburg vicus 4 Kooistra (2006a)Alphen aan den Rijn fortification 5 Kuijper and Turner (1992); Kooistra (2004)Alphen aan den Rijn 2001–2002 a and b

fortification 5 Shuman (2006)

Alphen aan den Rijn put 29

fortification 5 Fischer (2004)

Zwammerdam fortification 6 van Mensch (1974)Woerden fortification 8 Brinkkemper and de Man (1999); van Dijk (2007);

van Beurden in prep.De Meern watch tower 9 van Haaster (2004)Meinerswijk fortification 12 Teunissen et al. (1987); Lauwerier (1988)Nijmegen fortification 13 de Hingh and Kooistra (1995); Kooistra unpublished

dataNijmegen: Hunerberg a fortification 13 Koopmans (1996)Nijmegen: Hunerberg b fortification 13 Thijssen (1988)Nijmegen la Trajanusplein

fortification 13 Lauwerier (1988)

Nieuwerhoorn rural settlement 14 Brinkkemper (1993: 80–94)Harnaschpolder rural settlement 15 Kooistra (2006b)Vlaardingen rural settlement 16 Brinkkemper and de Ridder (2000)Houten Tiellandt rural settlement 17 Kooistra (1996: 300–306)Houten Doornkade rural settlement 18 Hogestijn (1984)De Horden rural settlement 19 Lange (1990)Tiel-Passewaaij rural settlement 20 Fokma (2005); Kooistra and Heeren (2007)Tiel-Medel rural settlement 21 van Beurden (2004)Kesteren rural settlement 22 Kooistra and van Haaster (2001)Arnhem Schuytgraaf rural settlement 23 Hänninen et al. (2004)Groesbeek rural settlement 24 van Beurden (1998)Assendelft site C rural settlement 25 Pals (1987); Meffert (1998)Assendelft site D rural settlement 26 Pals (1987); Meffert (1998)Assendelft site F rural settlement 27 Pals (1987); Meffert (1998)Assendelft site H rural settlement 28 Pals (1987); Meffert (1998)Assendelft site K rural settlement 29 Pals (1987); Meffert (1998)

Site name Status Site No. (Fig. 5.1)

Reference


Documents

This of your paper in Feeding the Roman Army: The