Download file in PDF format: TRAC 1994: You Are What You Eat: Diet, Identity and Romanisation (pp. 133–140)
You Are What You Eat: Diet, Identity and Romanisation
by Karen I. Meadows
The effects of the Roman conquest on the day-ta-day lives of the majority of British people is,
in many respects, little known. This contrasts with the phenomenon of romanisation which has
received much academic attention and is considered to be reasonably well explored. How
romanisation is conceptualised, however, has a direct effect on how the subject is approached.
Romanisation is almost undefinable especially as it must have meant different things to
different people. This is equally true of the present as well as the past. This paper is essentially
an outline of a proposed route into the study of the diversity of romanisation. It will be
suggested that the examination of dietary and culinary habits at the household level can provide
a more diverse and penetrating view of the lives of the people living in Roman Britain. First, I
will define what I understand by romanisation, and why the household has been selected as the
primary locus for study. Following this, the benefits of looking at the dynamics of eating and
drinking as a means to revealing the distinctive nature of romanisation in Britain will be
discussed in detaiL Finally, I will attempt to illustrate – by expanding upon existing case
studies – how such an approach might contribute to the continuing dialogue over what waslis
It is essential to avoid judgements about the form and process of romanisation in Britain.
Romanisation has many different forms and encompasses all of the consequences – the
occasional and the commonplace as well as the dramatic and the ordinary – brought about by
the infiltration of the Roman world (Es 1983: 5). One of the main criticisms of studies of
romanisation is that they have traditionally been viewed from a Roman standpoint, starting
essentiaJly at the point of conquest, working along a progressive scale of Roman-ness. This
view has resulted in a rather static, one-sided characterisation of the phenomenon, and has
discounted the roles and experiences of the majority of British people and their daily habits
(Barrett 1989a: 235-6). The accumulation of daily life and the extent to which it is repeated is
significant to the structure of society (Heller 1984: Gero & Conkey 1991: 15-6: 10hnson 1989:
208). Day-to-day life and its socia-political-economic context are of course inseparable: ‘social
structures … are the medium as well as the outcome of social practice’ (Moreland 1992: 116).
But the analysis of the daily habits of life – ‘the’ archaeology’ of the minutiae of the mundane’
(Miller 1985: 14) – is the fundamental level at which specific and diverse aspects of society
and hence romanisation can be explored.
The household has been adopted as the primary focal point because it is a focal point in the
enactment of daily life. The use of the concept of the ‘household’ can be extremely useful for
archaeological interpretations. First, it immediately establishes the organisational and
concephlal level at which the analysis is to be based. Second, an emphasis on the actions of
people within a specific context as opposed to just the context itself, signifies a less contained
view of domestic life – ‘people do not live in, or act exclusively in, single buildings’ (Rapoport 134 Karen 1. Jv/eadows
1990: 12). The non-contained nature of the archaeological record partly reflects this movement
of people within their living environment. and the isolation of remains and features to
individual houses and their associated buildings in space and time is problematic (Smith 1992;
Maltby 1985; Branigan 1981; Hirth 1993) As a workable concept, the household is perhaps
especially viable because, while its primary locus is the house and its associated environment, it
does not expect ‘artifact sets’ to be confined to their ‘activity areas’. This fluidity in the
expectations of the archaeological record, does not eliminate the problem of deposition and
association between artefacts and their contexts, but this is not a problem which is particular to
household studies, it is a problem which faces all archaeologists who seek to construct a social
The importance of the workings of the household to archaeology is now being realised with
the movement away from the view that the domestic side of life is natural, familiar and
constant (Tringham 1991 100; Moore 1988: 55; Carsten and Hugh-Jones forthcoming).
Archaeologists have tended to focus on the big economic and political picture, moving rather
quickly from the so-called private domestic sphere into the public sphere (Tringham 1991: 120;
Yanagisako 1979: 189) Specific studies of households, however, have revealed that the
standard distinction between public and private life is not always quite so rigid (Moore 1988:
30; Yanagisako 1979: 191). An illustration of this can be found with the study of households in
the Mantaro Valley in Peru immediately before and after the arrival of the Inka. Through
studying the consumption patterns of both elite and commoner households, it was possible to
recognise a change in the shifts of power. Prior to the arrival of the lnka, the elites were the
predominant users of highly decorated storage vessels, and consumed a higher proportion of
preferred foods such as maize, chili peppers and coca. After the conquest, the distinction
between the two social groups through the use of these items was less acute. How these goods
were stored also changed. The 1nka constructed large storage buildings on the outskirts of the
cOlllmunity which displaced the domain of household storage of preferred goods from the local
elites to the governing Inka. It was concluded that the changes in consumption patterns reflect a
shift in the control over access to prestige goods, where local leaders no longer derived their
status from the community, but from the Inka state (Costin & Earle 1989).
The study of where and how people live can be used to generate new ideas about how
people vIew their world (see examples in Parker-Pearson & Richards 1994; Samson 1990). For
those interested in the effects of imperialism, as was seen above in the case of the Inka, the
household can provide an ideal setting for studying localised effects and responses (Hastorf
1990: 262). In many agrarian societies the household is the basis for production and
consumption – areas which are particularly sensitive to what is occurring in the community
and beyond (Smith 1987: 297). It is an ideal unit for comparison and, as most people live in
some form of dwelling, is especially suited to studies interested in crossing the social spectrum
(Smith 1987: 297; Hirth 1993: 21). A study of households can also shed light on attitudes held
by the group which may not find expression elsewhere (Ardener 1993: 14) Finally, their
examination can help to reveal some of the traditions and customs which serve to socialise
members in the ways of the group, community and/or region (Carsten & Hugh-Jones
The examination of Romano-British houses is not new to studies of romanisation. Roman
and non-Roman types have been characterised, and their form and distribution have been used
to assess the nature of the British response to the Roman conquest and how the Roman world
was interpreted. Studies of households which have been analyzed in terms of their Roman-like You Are What You Eat 135
potential have not always stressed the possibility of the various cultural and social dynamics
within and around the actual structures. When the social construction of Romano-British
households has been stressed, interesting and varied interpretations has resulted. For example,
it has been suggested that whilst the structure of many early Romano-British houses changed
from rounded to rectangular, there was a continuity in use of peripheral private space and
central public space within the household (Hingley 1990). It has also been inferred that the
deviation from the classical villa construct in Britain points to a non-Roman type of occupation
based on joint ownership by extended families (Smith 1978). AJternatively, in contrast to late
Iron Age houses, the emergence of the basic corridor house has been seen to reflect the
adoption of certain Roman-like standards of construction techniques and lifestyle, but not the
adoption of the Roman custom of regular entertainment of guests or clients (Blagg 1990: 206).
The redefinition of categories is perhaps an additional area where households can be useful
units of study, as through their analysis it is possible to scrutinise conventional stereotypes. An
investigation of the many types of Romano-British households would accentuate the dynamics
of people living in Roman Britain.
An indiscriminate comparison of the workings of the household is not, however, a very
practical or productive way of exposing the diversity of romanisation My emphasis on diet and
its culinary manifestations was brougl1t about, in part, by the simple fact that all people eat and
drink, and tend to do it in a particular way. But more than that, I wanted to explore a theme
which was not only common to all households but also transcends them. While archaeologists
have been captivated with how food was obtained and the extent of its relationship to the
economy, less attention has been placed on the cultural dynamics surrounding its preparation
and consumption (Hastorf 1991 : 153). Food and drink undergoes a variety of transformations
from production to consumption and the points of transformation can be significant to studies
of cultural practices (Barrett 1989b).
Anthropological and historical studies of diet have shown culinary habits to be very
informative. Goody, in Cooking. CuiSine and Class (1982), and Mennell, in All Manners of
Food (I985), both illustrate how the production of food is influenced by the nature of the
political economy and the historical and social development of society. Food distribution is tied
up with the politics involved in food allocation, as well as, economic factors surrounding
market forces, tribute and taxes. Food preparation is linked to gender relations, labour service
and cultural and social ideas about the way food should be flavoured, eaten and served. Finally,
the consumption of food and drink is affected by national and group differentiation and
. identity, group competition, notions of hospitality and sharing, together with the establishment
of specific forms of etiquette, and food taboos. AJI of the above transformational processes
could say something about the nature of romanisation.
I am especially interested in how groups differentiate themselves and establish their own
identity within an imperial context through what and how they eat and drink. Both Mennell
and Goody essentially wanted to determine why, in pre-colonial African state societies (Goody)
and post-medieval Britain (Mennell), a differentiated haute cuisine did not emerge in the same
way as it did in Eurasian states (Goody) and in post-medieval France (MennelJ). Both show
how the emergence of a differentiated cuisine is more complex than an association with social
hierarchy. Factors such as the formalised control over the access to certain resources, the
switching of cooking activities from the domain of wives, into the domain of servants or
specialists with increasing status, cultural mores on what was considered acceptable culinary
behaviour, and the extent of cultural literacy and emulation can all influence the range of 136 Karen 1. Meadows
culinary differentiation (Goody 1982; Mennell 1985). While all of these factors might not be
relevant or recognisable in Roman Britain, Goody’s and Mennell’s observations demonstrate
the importance of context when determining the significance of how and why cuisines differ.
How and what people eat and drink is a form of communication (Barthes 1979: 169;
Messer 1984: 224: Hastorf 1991 : 135). The development of a cuisine involves a whole range of
decisions leading from its ‘raw’ to ‘cooked’ state. These decisions distinguish cuisines and
cultures – ‘specific foods, their uses, and associations communicate, reaffirm, and aid in the
construction of the cultural system, acting as a system of signs containing social messages’
(Hastorf 1991: 135). In studies looking at the effects of imperialism, when one society is
politically subsumed by another, individual and group interpretation of the rules and histories
surrounding an invasive cuisine can vary substantially. The nature and extent of imperial
contact, the status, occupation, traditions and preferences of the people involved, together with
their propensity to follow culinary, as well as imperial, rules all influence the composition of
cuisines (Messer 1984: 222- 6) It is significant that cuisines do not tend to transplant
themselves – through time or space – in their complete and original form (Revel 1982: 19)
and it is in their various manifestations that the different types and layers of communication
can be inferred.
Some of the most commonly cited evidence for the early romanisation of Britain are the
remains associated with eating and drinking (Dan nell 1979: 177: Trow 1990: 103). The large
scale effects of the arrival of Roman-like goods on late Iron Age and early Roman society in
terms of the economy, settlement patterns, and politics has been the subject of much debate (for
examples see Haselgrove 1989; Sharples 1990; Cunliffe 1984). Of direct interest here, however,
is why certain goods were the focus of importation and what effect the types of goods and
Roman-like ideas had on the Romano-British household. A number of studies have stressed
certain aspects of diet and culinary practises, such as the introduction of wine and olive oil, new
types of table wares and changes in the consumption of certain foods, within the context of the
overall romanisation of Britain (Dan nell 1979; Williams & Peacock 1983; King 1984, 1991).
The integration of the specific studies and the specialist reports which deal with the remains,
artefacts and features associated with eating and drinking should enable a reconstruction of the
dietary repertoire and culinary habits of households and provide a view to the nature of
romanisation at the household level. The identification of specific clusters of food types and
their methods of preparation and consumption would in turn accentuate the distinctiveness of
the Romano-British cuisine. Through focusing on the quantities and frequencies of the different
types of remains and not just their presence and absence the significance behind the
conspicuous consumption of the household can then be inferred These findings can then be
compared with other households in the locality and households from other regions. The
potential for this course of research might best be developed by concentrating on those areas of
Britain which are considered to be the most romanised – the south: during a period in which
new ideas about eating and drinking appear to be taking form – the late Iron Age to early
Examples of some of the areas open to exploration, can be drawn from some of the existing
studies which look at specific aspects of diet and from studies which stress the importance of
the household. King’s work on animal remains, for instance, has shown that for the south of
Britain ‘non-romanised’ sites have a higher proportion of sheep remains whereas ‘romanised’
sites have a higher proportion of ox and pig (1984: 1991). He goes on to reveal that this trend is You Are What You Eat 137
probably more a reflection of German and Gaulish influence than Roman where pig was
dominant (1984: 198). A comparison of the animal remains and household artefacts of the sites
to see if there is a correlation between types of ingredients and types of cooking and djning
practises could prove to be very interesting. Ohm’s study of diet and dining practises in the
Upper Rhine area during the early Roman period found that although there was an increase in
the use of pork, new ingredients, such as olive oil and garum and new ways of preparing food,
such as the use of mortaria, on the whole food continued to be cooked using the same type of
cooking pot and on the same type of hearth or fire as during the late La Tene period (1989:
114-122). She also shows that while Roman-like serving ware was commonly used, the Roman
practise of using individual bowls for each dish was not adopted and instead there was a
tendency towards larger – possibly communal – serving vessels (1989: 123). This suggests
that the different combinations of Roman and non-Roman type ingredients and implements
could be extremely informative. ‘Non-Roman’ or poorer households could, for example, be
flavouring and serving their sheep in Roman-like ways using local ingredients and table wares.
Alternatively, ‘Roman’ or richer households could be eating Roman food on Roman dishes but
cooking and serving them in non-Roman ways. The integration of the material remains of
households within the social context of eating and drinking could show the Roman/non-Roman
divide, which pervades many studies of romanisation, to be more complex than previously
In the study of Romano-British houses, there has been a general neglect of houses
associated with the poor. This not only distorts our perception of the power structure in Roman
Britain, but also directs the Romanist’s attention away from the study of non-Roman type
houses (HingJey 1989: 23-4: 1991: 96). The variability between the types of houses and degrees
of wealth in Roman Britain, is far from standardised (Hingley 1989: Branigan 1981). Rounded
houses were quite common in the south up until the end of the second century, and there is also
evidence of wealth differentiation on non-Roman type settlements (see HingJey 1989: 31, 80:
Leech 1982: Branigan 1981). It has also been shown that the apparent transformation of native
farmsteads to romanised villas was highly variable in space and time (Branigan 1981). A focus
on the diet and culinary habits of the various types of households, across the social spectrum,
while serving to redress current bias, could also provide some insight into the relationships
between social groups and possible changes in emphasis of power structures both before and
after the conquest. If. in the study of the [nka discussed earlier. the focus had been on elite
Inka-style houses alone. the power structure of the elites would have been distorted and the
changing alliance and wealth of the elites and commoners – in relation to access to preferred
foods – would have been missed. However, just as the division between Roman and nonRoman or rich and poor should not be viewed as absolute, nor should specific notions over
wealth and manners of conspicuous consumption (Appadurai 1986: 40: Hingley 1989: 160)
The ‘social life of things’ is determined, not by the things themselves, but by the people who
use and ascribe a value them (Appadurai 1986). The comparison of the intra-/inter- regional
variations in eating and drinking could help in the identification of communal and regional
value systems and notions of identity.
Finally, given that the British did emulate certain aspects of the Roman world through the
consumption of Roman-like food and drink. what do the type of goods selected by the British
say about the British? It is possible that the goods may have been partly selected for their use in
certain feasting practices (Dietler 1990: Maltby 1985 61), – a consideration which has yet to 138 Karen 1. Meadows
be examined more closely for Roman Britain Hints have also been made about the possibility
of a late Iron Age taboo on the consumption of wild animals (Dannell 1979: 178: King 1991:
16) – the existence of group or regional food taboos in the late Iron Age and Roman periods
has so far received little attention. Revel has stressed that what is most striking about the
cookbook accredited to Apicius is the importance of spices and herbs and the mixing of salty
and sweet ingredients in Roman cooking (1982: 47). The presence of mortaria, sweet wine and
salty garum might reflect a change in certain British tastes, or, on the other hand, suggest the
selection of ingredients which were approximate to or enhanced existing tastes. That many of
the artefacts and remain associated with eating and drinking are also found in burial contexts
(Trow 1990: 103–4; Whimster 1981) could provide a lead into the cultural significance of
specific foods and drink and their manner of consumption. The correlation of the types of goods
used as offerings with the types of goods used in the household would help to reveal some of the
different social and cultural contexts of eating and drinking. It may also help to trace the
significance – in terms of romanisation – of apparently new tastes and forms of etiquette
found in some Romano-British households, but not others.
In conclusion, the romanisation of Britain was unique to Britain. It involved Britain much
more than it did Rome, and it is the British experience in all of its diversity that I would like to
explore. A study of diet and culinary behaviour at the household level could help to unravel our
preconceptions over the effects of the Roman conquest on the daily lives of the British people.
In considering just three potential areas for exploration – the integration of the data
surrounding eating and drinking, its social and cultural differentiation and its specificity to
Britain – I hope that I have shown how new ideas might be generated about how the British
interpreted and constructed their ‘Roman’ world.
I would like to thank Keith Branigan, Mike Parker-Pearson and Robin Dennell for reading and
commenting on an earlier draft of this paper. I would especially like to thank Carol Palmer for
her overall encouragement and comment in the preparation of this paper from its spoken to
written form. You Are /tVhat You Eat 139
Appadurai, A 1986. Introduction: commodities and the politics of value. In A Appadurai (ed) The Social
Life o/Things, 3- 63. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Ardener, S. 1993. GroWld rules and social maps for women: an introduction. In S. Ardener (ed) Women
and Space: Ground Rules and Social Maps, 1-30. Berg: Oxford.
Barrett, J.e. 1989a. Afterward: render Wlto Caesar. In I.e. Barrett, AP. Fitzpatrick & L. MacInnes (eds)
Barbanans and Romans in North West h;urope, 235-241. B.AR. Int. Ser. 471: Oxford.
Barrett. 1.e. 1989b. Food, gender and metal: questions of social reproduction. In M. L. Sorensen & R.
Thomas (eds) The Bronze – Iron Transition, 304-20. BAR. Int. Ser. S483: Oxford.
Barthes, R. 1979. Towards a psychology of contemporary food consumption. In R. Forster & O. Ranum
(eds) Food and Drink in History: Selections From the Annales, Economies, Societes,
Civilisations. 166–173. John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore.
Blagg, TF.C. 1990. First-century Roman houses in Gaul and Britain. In TF.C.Blagg & M. MiJJett (eds)
The liarly Roman Empire in the West. 194-209. Oxbow Books: Oxford.
Branigan, K. 1981. Celtic farm to Roman villa. In D. Miles (ed) The RomC/no-British Countryside,
81-96. BAR. Brit. Ser. 103: Oxford.
Carsten, 1. and Hugh-Jones, S. forthcoming. Introduction. In About the House: Levi Strauss and Beyond.
Costin, e. L. and Earle, T 1989. Status distinction and legitimation of power as reflected in changing
patterns of conslUnption in late prehispanic Peru, American Antiquity 54: 691-714.
ClUlliffe, B.W. 1984. Iron Age Wessex: continuity and change. In B.W. CWlliffe & D. Miles (eds)
Aspects 0/ the Iron Age in Central Southern Britain. 12–45. University of Oxford Committee
for Archaeology Monograph 2: Oxford.
Dannell, G.B. 1979. Eating and drinking in pre-conquest Britain: the evidence of amphora and samian
trading, and the effect of the invasion of Claudius. In B.e. Burnham & HB. Burnham (eds)
Invasion and Response: The Case o( Roman Britain. B.AR. Brit. Ser. 73: Oxford.
Dietler, M. 1990. Driven by drink: the role of drinking in the political economy and the case of early
Iron Age France. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9: 352–406.
Es. W.A van 1983. Introduction. In R. Brandt & J. Slofstra (eds) Roman and Native in the Low
Countries: Spheres o( Interaction, 1-1l. B.AR. Int. Ser. 184: Oxford.
Gero, 1. M. and Conkey M. W. 1991. Tension, pluralities. and engendering archaeology: an introduction
to women and pre-history. In 1. M Gero & M. W. Conkey (eds) Engendering Archaeology:
Women and Prehistory, 3-30. Basil Blackwell: Oxford.
Goody, 1. 1982. Cooking, Cuisine and Class.’ A Study in Comparative Sociology. Cambridge University
Haselgrove. e. 1989. The later Iron Age in southern Britain and beyond. In M. Todd (ed) Research in
Roman Britain 1960-1989, 1-18. Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies (Britarmia
Monograph 1 I): London.
Hastorf. C.A 1990. The effect of the In.ka state on Sausa agricultural production and crop production,
American Antiquity 55 (2): 262-290.
Hastorf. CA 1991. Gender. space. and food in prehistory. In I.M. Gero & M.W. Conkey (eds)
Engendenng Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, 132-159. Basil Blackwell: Oxford.
Helier, A 1984 Everyday Life. Routiedge and Kegan Paul: London.
Hingley, R. 1989. Rural Settlement in Roman Britain. Seaby London.
Hingley, R. 1990. Domestic organisation and gender relations, in Iron Age and Romano-British
Households. In R. Samson (ed) The Social Archaeology of Houses. 125-147. Edinburgh
University Press: Edinburgh.
Hingley, R. 1991. Past, present and future the study of the Roman period in Britain, Scoff ish
Archaeological Review 8: 90-10 I. 140 Karen 1. Ivleadows
Hirth, K.G. 1993. The household as an analytical unit:problems in method and theory. In R.S. Santley &
K.G. Hirth (eds) Prehistoric Domestic Units in Western Mesoamerica, 21-36. CRC Press: Boca
Johnson, M. H. 1989. Conceptions of agency in archaeological interpretation, Journal 0/ Anthropological
Archaeology 8: 189-211.
King, AC. 1984. Animal bones and the dietary identity of miLitary and civilian groups in Roman Britain,
Germany and Gaul. In TF.C. B1agg & A King (eds) Military and Civilian in Roman Britain,
187-217. BAR. Brit. Ser. 136: Oxford.
King, AC. 1991. Food production and consumption is – meat. In R.F.1. Jones (ed) Roman Britain:
Recent Trends. 15-20. 1. R. Collis Publications: Sheffield.
Leech, R. 1982. Excavations at Catsgore 1970-1973: A Romano-British Village. Westem
Archaeological Trust Excavation Monograph No. 2: Bristol.
Maltby, J.M. 1985. Patterns in fauna I assemblage variability. In G. Barker & C.S. Gamble (eds) Beyond
Domestication in Prehistoric Europe, 33-74. Academic Press: New York.
Mennell, S. 1985. All Manners 0/ Food: Eating and Taste in England and Francefrom the Middle Ages
to the Present. Basil Blackwell: Oxford.
Messer. E. 1984. Anthropological perspectives on diet. Annual Review 0/ Anthropology 13: 205-49.
Miller, D. 1985. Arte/acts as C.ategories.· A Study 0/ Ceramic Variability in Central India. Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge.
Moreland, 1.F. 1992. Restoring the dialectic: settlement patterns and documents in medieval central
Italy. In AB. Knapp (ed) Archaeology, Annales and Ethnohistory, 112-129. Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge.
Okun, M.L. 1989. The Early Roman Frontier in the Upper Rhine Area. B.AR. Int. Ser. 547: Oxford.
Parker Pearson, M. and Richards, C. (eds) 1994. Architecture and Order. Routledge: London.
Rapoport, A 1990. Systems of activities and systems of settings. In S. Kent (ed) Domestic Architecture
and the Use o/Space, 9-20. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Revel, J.F. 1982. Culture and Cuisine, a Journey Through the History 0/ Food. HR. Lane (trans). De
Capo Press: New York.
Samson, R. (ed) 1990. The Social Archaeology 0/ Houses. Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh.
Sharples, N.M. 1990. Late Iron Age society and continental trade in Dorset. Revue Archeologie Ouest
Supplement 3: 299-304.
Smith. J.T. 1978. Villas as a key to social structw·e. In M. Todd (ed) Studies in the Romano-British Villa,
Todd, 149-173. Leicester University Press: Leicester.
Smith. M.E. 1987. Household possessions and wealth in agrarian states: implications for archaeology,
Journal 0/ Anthropological Archaeology 6: 297-335.
Smith. M.E. 1992. Braudel’s temporal rytluns and chronology. Theory in archaeology. In AB. Knapp
(ed) Archaeology, Annales, and Ethnohistory. 23-34. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Tringham. R.E. 1991. Households with faces: the challenge of gender in prehistoric architectural
remains. In J.M. Gero & M.W. Conkey (eds) Engendering Archaeology: Women and
Prehistory, 93-131. Basil Blackwell: Oxford.
Trow. S.D. 1990. By the northern shores of ocean: some observations on acculturation process at the
edge of the Roman world. In TF.C. Blagg & A King (eds) The Early Roman Empire in the
West, 103-118. Oxbow Books: Oxford.
Whimster, R. 1981. Burial Practices in Iron Age Britain. B.A.R. Brit. Ser. 90: Oxford.
Williams, D.F. & Peacock D.P.S. 1983. Importation of olive-oil into Iron Age and Roman Britain. In
J.M. Blazquez Maltinez & J.R. Rodsiguez (ed) Produccion y Comercio del Aceite en la
Antiquedad, 263-280. Universidad Complutense: Madrid.
Yanagisako, S.J. 1979. Family and household: the analysis of domestic groups. Annual Review 0/
Anthropology 8: 161-205.