
Living and Dying at the Port of Ancient Rome - paganel
https://www.arch.cam.ac.uk/diet-at-the-docks-living-and-dying-at-the-port-of-ancient-rome
======
lubujackson
As an aside, if you ever visit Rome take an hour train ride to Ostia Antica.
It is the ruins of an entire port town, complete with a tile mural where the
baths were and stone seating for a forum. It is about a mile square and you
have full reign to wander and explore it with hardly anyone else around.

~~~
mongol
Yes this is really worthwhile. After a few days of the tourist city life I
always want to get out for some relaxing experiences, which this daytour
provides. Also it is not far to continue for a short swim in the
Mediterranean.

------
stcredzero
_Dr O’Connell continues, “Towards the end of the mid fifth century we see a
shift in the diet of the local populations away from one rich in animal
protein and imported wheat, olive oil, fish sauce and wine from North Africa,
to something more akin to a ‘peasant diet’, made up of mainly plant proteins
in things like potages and stews. They’re doing the same kind of manual labour
and hard work, but were sustained by beans and lentils”_

This goes back to an earlier discussion I had on this site. Roman history
covers a lot of time and space. The typical city denizen might have had a very
good life at a certain time and place, and not so much at another.

~~~
wahern
I mean... the middle of the fifth century was literally the unequivocal _end_
of the Western Roman Empire and "Rome". Your point is a little out of place
because this period isn't simply representative of long-term fluctuations in
wealth and status; it was literally the demise of Rome as the epicenter of the
Western world. "Rome" after this period was something else entirely.

~~~
stcredzero
_Your point is a little out of place because this period isn 't simply
representative of long-term fluctuations in wealth and status_

Point taken that the example in the article is a lower boundary and an
outlier. I think my point still stands. There was a lot of variation in the
quality of life of a city dweller.

------
Luc
It's pretty cool how the hexagonal harbour has survived. It's a lake now, Lago
Traiano, about 2km inland.

~~~
madengr
Why is it all land now? Sea level change, or manually filled to extend the
coast?

~~~
Luc
Neither, just silting up. The Tiber has been filling in that area with
sediments for thousands of years. The harbour was just a tiny dent in that
natural process.

Here's a poster with some progress drawings over the millennia:
[https://www.academia.edu/29407769/The_effect_of_the_Tiber_de...](https://www.academia.edu/29407769/The_effect_of_the_Tiber_delta_development_in_the_Central_Tyrrhenian_Sea)

~~~
mekane8
Darn, I would like to see that poster, but I don't want to give Academia.edu
(whatever that is) a copy of all my Google accounts!

------
ncmncm
This seems to suggest the porters were not slaves.

~~~
jacurtis
One of the real differences with Rome, over previous major civilizations, was
that they had a quite established class system.

They worked hard to establish a strong middle class, which is arguably what
fueled the majority of the Roman Empire's growth. The rich class also learned
that a strong middle class meant lots of taxes, and thus lots of money in the
upper government. This money fueled their expansion, construction of major
monuments, and their strong military.

This is in stark contrast to previous civilizations that were built mostly on
slavery. This isn't to say that Rome didn't have its share of slaves. Slaves
were used in the building of many monuments of Rome that still stand today,
but most of these slaves were prisoners of war. They were mostly used in
dangerous construction projects and then later massacred for entertainment
when they lose their usefulness. Rome had plenty of slaves, but not nearly as
many per capita when compared to earlier civilizations.

So to your original point, these were likely middle-class dock workers that
worked at this port. Just like dock workers today they made a decent salary
(this was before unions, now dock workers do surprisingly well for themselves)
and lived in reasonable homes and ate surprisingly well.

In fact I would argue that many of them probably were demoted in social status
after Rome fell in the 400-500s AD. With Rome no longer the superpower that it
once was, the desire to trade with Rome goes down, which meant that fewer
ships come into port, which is bad for the dock workers that work at that
port. Many of them probably lost their job and this may be the contributing
factor to the food changes we see over the next hundred years with these
people. There is far less money moving through their city now and more people
move to a lower social-economic class.

Imagine if the US immediately collapsed. The billions of dollars of trade that
goes in and out of the Los Angeles port (the largest port in the US) would
drop by 90% or more. Many of those dock workers, who right now are strong
middle-class workers, would lose their jobs and unemployment country-wide
would increase dramatically (probably well over 25%). This would make it
difficult for dock workers to find new jobs and many would start going hungry
or reach poverty status.

It isn't too far of a stretch to assume that this is what happened to Rome's
largest port after Rome collapsed.

~~~
stcredzero
_Imagine if the US immediately collapsed._

After the collapse of the USSR, regional governments and foreign governments
stepped in. If the USA collapsed, New York, Texas, and California would have
something to say about it. My point is that "collapse" is rather nonspecific.

 _The billions of dollars of trade that goes in and out of the Los Angeles
port (the largest port in the US) would drop by 90% or more._

That narrows it down a bit.

~~~
ovi256
>After the collapse of the USSR, regional governments and foreign governments
stepped in

There was nevertheless a 30% drop in GDP. That's bound to have some effect.

