2022 - Food Crops in Ancient Greek Cuisine

Soultana-Maria Valamoti
Vasileios Fyntikoglou
Konstantinos Symponis
Food Crops
in Ancient Greek Cuisine
an archaeobotanical and textual study
UNIVERSITY STUDIO PRESS



 

 
 
 

  
  


 

Publishers of Academic Books and Journals
THESSALONIKI 2022

     





    
   


   

  
    
 



  


Authors
Soultana Maria Valamoti (sval@hist.auth.gr) is Professor of Prehistoric Ar-

chaeology at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. She is PI of ERC project
PlantCult and director of the Laboratory of Interdisciplinary Research in Ar-
chaeology (LIRA) at the Department of Archaeology, School of History and Ar-
chaeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
Vasileios Fyntikoglou (vasfynt@lit.auth.gr) is Associate Professor of Latin

Philology at the School of Philology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
Konstantinos Symponis is a Classical Philologist, graduate of Aristotle Uni-

versity of Thessaloniki, Greece (BPhil, MClass).
5
Contents
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Foreword by John Wilkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Introduction
From charred seeds to ancient texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Chapter 1
The grains of Demeter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Cereals as food: the archaeobotanical record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
The Neolithic and Bronze Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Early historic periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Cereals in ancient Greek texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Cereals: Sítos, σῖτος (barley and wheat) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Krithḗ, κριθή (barley) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
The grain of civilisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Processing barley for food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Free-threshing and glume wheats: deciphering the terms . . . . . . . . . 65
Free-threshing wheats – Πυρός [pyrós] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
The glume wheats: zéa, zeiá, ζέα, ζειά, típhē, τίφη, ólyra, ὄλυρα . . . . . . 70
Ólyra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Típhē . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Zeiá (also in plural, zeiai), zéa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
The transformation of wheat grain into food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Cereal bakes: exploring the diversity of ancient Greek bakery . . . . . . . . . 78
Food from other cereals: millets, oats and rye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Kénchros, κέγχρος (millet) and melínē or élymos (Italian millet) . . . . . . . 91
Concluding remarks on cereals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94
Chapter 2
Legumes and Pulses Chedropá and Óspria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Pulses in the archaeobotanical record of prehistoric Greece . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Pulses in ancient Greek texts: species and the ways of cooking them . . . . 104
Óspria (ὄσπρια) and chedropá (χεδροπά) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Phakós, φακός (lentil) and phakḗ, φακῆ (Lentil soup) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
7
8 FooD CRoPS In AnCIEnT GREEk CUISInE
Terms attributed to various Lathyrus species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Láthyros λάθυρος . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Aphákē ἀφάκη . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Ṓchros ὦχρος . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Órobos ὄροβος (bitter vetch) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Písos πίσος also πισός and píson (πίσον) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Kýamos κύαμος . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Erébinthos ἐρέβινθος (chickpea) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Thérmos θέρμος (lupin, Lupinus albus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Phaselos and dolichos: two terms that are difficult to identify . . . . . . . . . 125
Phásēlos (or phasḗolos?) φάσηλος (or φασήολος?) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Dólichos δόλιχος . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Seven millennia of pulse cultivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Chapter 3
Other seed crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Archaeolobotanical finds of oily seed crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
The consumption of linseed, poppy seed and sesame
in ancient Greek texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Línon, λίνον (linseed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Mḗkōn, μήκων (opium poppy) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Sḗsamon, σήσαμον (sesame) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Oilseed crops: integrating archaeobotanical and textual evidence . . . . . . 141
Chapter 4
The connecting thread:
Ancient plant foods in the cuisine of modern Greece . . . . . . . . 143
Plant food ingredients from fields and beyond:
resilient crops, newcomers, seeds lost and found . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Ancient plant food recipes in modern Greek cuisine,
alive and kicking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
The legacy of ancient Greek plant foods –
some thoughts for the future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Ancient authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Acknowledgements
T his book has been generated in the context of ERC project PlantCult, result-
ing from our research into what ancient Greek texts tell about plant foods
of their times. The initial aim of this research was to collect the available infor-
mation, using selected key words, and make it accessible through an Ancient
Texts Plant Food Database. In addition to the database we decided to produce
this book in an attempt to bridge the worlds of prehistory and early history in-
vestigated by PlantCult and move beyond a mere account of the evidence in a
database, to a synthesis of the different lines of evidence researched by the project:
archaeobotany and ancient texts. Basic PlantCult research into the ancient Greek
texts was undertaken by a team of students from the Aristotle University of Thes-
saloniki: Pavlos Anagnostoudis, Nikoleta Vouronikou, Anny Tzelepidou and
Kostas Symponis. Their work was supervised by one of this book’s authors, Vasilis
Fyntikoglou, Associate Professor at the Dept. of Philology of the Aristotle Uni-
versity of Thessaloniki. Two of the book authors, are philologists: Vasilis Fyn-
tikoglou was in charge of the textual evidence presented in this book, aided by
Kostas Symponis. Soultana Maria Valamoti has worked on the archaeobotanical
evidence, has overseen the structure and contents of the book, and has contribut-
ed her knowledge on modern plant food recipes on which the last chapter of the
book is based. Initial research on cereals, on a smaller scale, was undertaken by
Kostas Symponis and funded by Thrace Flour Mills (Aristotle University Re-
search Committee, Project no 91225, PI Soultana Maria Valamoti). Our colleague
at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Eleni Manakidou often provided guid-
ance through the literature regarding aspects of material culture in the Ancient
Greek World. Figures, unless otherwise stated, were taken by the author. Thanks
to the generosity of many friends and colleagues the book has greatly benefited
from their rich and vivid photos.
We thank Eugenia Gkatzogia and Eleni Kotzabopoulou for permission to
use the image of Figure 2.33. We thank Tzeni Veleni for entrusting SMV with
the study of the archaeobotanical material from Petres shown in Figures 1.30,
1.34 and 2.22;We are gratefull to Ioanna Vasileiadou, Eleni Papagianni and
Semeli Pingiatoglou for access to the archaeobotanical material from Dion de-
picted in Figures 1.31, 1.32, 1.35, 1.42b; to Panagiotis Faklaris for access to the
9
10 FOOD CROPS IN ANCIENT GREEK CUISINE
material from the Acropolis of Vergina, Figures 2.21, 2.24, 2.25 and 2.27, to
Chrysoula Paliadeli and Nancy Kyriakou for access to the archaeobotanical ma-
terial from the sanctuary of Eucleia at Vergina, Figures 1.28, 1.29, 1.33, 1.42a
and 2.26. Katerina Peristeri is acknowledged for entrusting SMV with the study
of material from Kali Vrysi Dramas shown in figures 1.27 and 2.23. and Stella
Nestoridou for the material from the Sanctuary of Demetra at Patras, shown in
Figure 1.38. Figure 1.18 was kindly provided by Cathy d’Andrea, Figure 1.19
by Leonor Peña Chocarro, Figure 1.43 by Felix Bittmann, Figure 1.45 by Harris
Procopiou, Figure 1.48 by Andreas Heiss, Figure 1.50 by Ioanna Mimi, Figure
2.8 by Maria Karanika, Figures 2.16 and 4.21 by Nikos Nikitidis, Figures 2.17
and 2.32 by Stergios Salamousas and Agrifood, Figures 2.31, 4.9 and 4.20 by
Niki and Maria Saridaki, and Figure 3.5 by Abdul Hafiz Latify. Figures 2.34
were contributed to the book by Amy Bogaard and Mike Charles, Figure 1.49
by Daniel Noll and Audrey Scott from the Uncornered Market, Figure 3.2 was
made available by Penelope J. Bebeli, Figures 1.40, 1.41 and 2.2. by Parthenopi
Ralli and the Greek Gene Bank, Figures 3.10 and 3.11 by Ricos Thanopoulos
and the Medina project. We are gratefull to all these people for their generosity.
We are especially pleased to have been allowed to publish in this book the image
of the ‘bovine golden ring’ from Pylos tholos tomb, shown in Figure 1.25; Sharon
Stocker and Jack Davis are gratefully acknowledged for granting us their per-
mission while Carol Hershenson facilitated this access to the picture. Carol Stein,
Manolis Papadakis and Sylvie Dumont greatly helped with obtaining access to
figures 1.39 and 1.51. Bettina Tsigarida and Andreas Stangos are gratefully ac-
knowledged for allowing access to the Dioiketerion sesame finds shown in Figure
3.12. Pascal Darcque, Ch. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Zoi Tsirtsoni and Dimitria
Malamidou for Figure I.3 (bottom left).
Andrea Brandolini kindly provided the image for Figure 1.47 while Milena
Primavera and Girolamo Fiorentino provided images of the Monte Papalucio
cakes shown in Figure 1.37. We thank Panagiotis Chrysostomou for Figure I.2,
Vasilis Aravantinos for Figure I.4, Mike Charles for Figure 1.18, Drawings in
figures I.6 and 1.44 were prepared by Danai Chondrou while several photos of
ancient seeds were taken by Stavros Dimakopoulos, both in the context of project
PlantCult. Themis Roustanis is gratefully acknowledge for the map in Figure I.5,
also prepared in the context of PlantCult.
Elena Valamoti kindly provided recipes from the Ukraine related to poppy
and millet seeds as well as photos of millet sold in Ukrainian markets. Staff at
T’Emeteron Russ shop on Martiou Street in Thessaloniki kindly allowed SMV
to photograph millet sold on their shop-shelves (Figure 4.3). Giedre Motuzaite-
Matuzeviciute kindly provided the millet plant image depicted on Figure 1.15
and information on poppy seed sweets prepared in Lithuania. Further informa-
FOOD CROPS IN ANCIENT GREEK CUISINE 11
tion on poppy seed sweets in Lithuania was provided by Rimvydas Lauzikas

(http://kulinarinispaveldas.blogspot.com/2019/01/nuo-placentos-iki-simtala-
pio-vieno.html). Menna-t-el Dorry is gratefully acknowledged for sharing un-
published information on fava bean in Egypt based on archaeobotanical finds.
Aurelie Salavert and Veronique Zech-Matterne kindly provided archaeobotanical
bibliography on opium poppy and sesame, respectively.
Several people helped SMV with collecting modern ethnographic informa-
tion on the production of bulgur, trachanas and pulse dishes and deserve our
warmest thanks: Stela Anastasaki and her grandmother Chryssi Trakaki from
Chania, Crete, Niki Saridaki and her family from Herakleion, Crete, Ioanna
Mimi and her grandmother Sophia Papageorgiou from Grevena, Western Mace-
donia, Maria Elisavet Samoili and her family, especially her aunt Freideriki Vla-
chou from Petaleia, Babis Kouris and Athina Kyrtzoglou from the Pontiglio win-
ery at Lefkimi, Kostas Kondomaris and Efthymia Monastirioti from Lefkimi,
Spyros Vlassis from Kritika, the Vlassis family at the Vioporos Organic farm and
Spyros Koskinas from Strinilas, as well as Maria Martzoukou all on the island
of Corfu; numerous people from Lemnos helped me during investigations of
Lathyrus sativus and Lathryrus ochrus cultivation: the Ethaleia Hotel people
Konstantina Karachalia, Apostolos Kotsaftis, Nikos Kotsilitis, and Panagiotis
Panagis as well as the Salamousas family and Sophia Hapsi on the island of Lem-
nos. Ethnographic work on Lemnos was funded by the Institute for Aegean Pre-
history (INSTAP).
We are deeply grateful to John Wilkins who has been very supportive of this
book, when we first contacted him about it, in the summer of 2020, at the be-
ginning of the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak; John has generously contributed
a preface to our book. He has also provided precious advice on earlier versions
of our book. Any mistakes of course are our own. We acknowledge that this book
is a first attempt to integrate ancient texts and archaeobotany, a basis for future,
more synthetic and contextual approaches. It started as material for a database
and gradually evolved into the pages that follow. This book is the outcome of
scientific work conducted within the context of ERC project PlantCult
(plantcult.web.auth.gr), funded by the European Research Council (ERC) under
the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program (Grant
Agreement No 682529).
Foreword
W hat were the plants of Ancient Greece? How were they processed for hu-
man consumption? These questions can be answered in considerable de-
tail, but with many gaps and interpretative challenges. The present volume ap-
proaches the material from archaeological and textual evidence of strikingly dif-
ferent periods. The archaeology works largely from prehistory, while the texts
belong to the first millennium BC, with some significant additions from medical
and food authors of the first two centuries AD, Dioscorides and Galen in par-
ticular.
This striking approach works well in the volume, and, in bringing together
archaeological science with ancient literature and science, is related to a sister
project at the Aristotelian University in Thessaloniki, which assesses from the
perspective of biological science Aristotle’s valuable researches into fish: Eleni
Voultsiadou, for example, has played a valuable part in these studies.
The plants known from textual sources have been studied over a long period,
with a key contribution from Jacques André (Paris 1986), and another from
Suzanne Amigues’ studies of Theophrastus at the beginning of this millennium
(Paris 2003-6), which rely on a deep understanding of Ancient Greek and of
botany. Lily Beck’s translation of Dioscorides (Hildesheim 2011) has also brought
his de materia medica to a wide audience: she draws on many studies of ancient
plants, albeit with some errors noted by reviewers. There is much work to be
done, exemplified by current projects in Germany and the UK. Maximilian Haars
at Marburg is providing An Annotated Digital Catalogue and Index of Medicinal
Plants and Herbal Drugs in the Galenic Corpus, which is relatively optimistic
about plant identifications, in contrast to the project of Barbara Zipser at Royal
Holloway and Kew, which finds the precise identification of species a considerable
challenge in some 20% of ancient plants.
Botany was equally challenging in antiquity: medical science needed accurate
identification of plants for treatments in nutrition and pharmacology. There were
twin problems: confusion of plants and confusion of terminology. Dioscorides
in the first century AD and Galen in the second have interesting solutions to these
challenges. Dioscorides insists upon autopsy and gives botanical descriptions,
while Galen recounts discussions with farmers in their fields to find out what the
13
local name for a cereal might be, or why they make wheat porridge rather than
bread. Galen’s father conducted research in wheat fields, to discover whether
darnel and other plants growing with cereals were degenerate forms of wheat
or of a different family. Once the medical author had seen the plant, he then had
to sort out regional names. In Thrace, Galen asked the farmers what they were
growing (On the Properties of Foodstuffs 1.13, 6.514 K): ‘they told me that the
plant as a whole and its grain is called briza - the first syllable is written and spo-
ken with three letters, beta rho and iota, but the second is with zeta and alpha
in the nominative , and nu is obviously the accusative ending. Bread from this
grain is foul-smelling and black’ (trans. Powell 2003, adapted). In this chapter,
Galen is trying to distinguish the primitive wheats einkorn, emmer and spelt,
drawing on the studies of Theophrastus and Dioscorides to help him. Valamoti,
Fyntikoglou and Symponis follow a similar trajectory, as also for Lathyrus spp.,
where Galen also had to check back to Theophrastus. On beans, Valamoti et
al.note (p. 89): ‘for both phaselos and dolichos one cannot emphasise enough
the need for archaeobotanical evidence that will make an important contribution
towards species identification’. Galen could not identify these beans precisely ei-
ther: the jury is still out.
The archaeobotanical evidence for Greece is, for geological and other rea-
sons, mostly early, which allows us to see clearly when a plant arrived in Greece,
if it is not native, and to secure the identification. Chickpeas, for example, that
almost universal plant, was a late arrival, Valamoti et al. report. The impressive
evidence presented in this volume, though, can be matched with material studied
from other sites, such as Aphrodisias in Western Anatolia, Utica in Tunisia, and
Herculaneum and other Italian locations, which does allow access to evidence
contemporary with the written texts. So, for example, the primitive wheats einko-
rn and emmer are found in the prehistoric Greek record, in a Herculaneum sewer
and in Galen: they continued to be eaten across time, dependent upon income
and local growing conditions which may not have favoured bread wheats. In an-
other case, Galen discusses bitter vetch and pulses, adding valuable evidence to
the seeds found at prehistoric sites.
Galen and Dioscorides also provide geographical breadth: originating from
Pergamum and Anazarbus respectively, they reflect the greater Greek world, as
does Athenaeus, who came from the Greek city of Naucratis on the Nile. These
authors bring together plants and cooking in a way that anticipates the present
volume. Galen and Dioscorides were writing for medical purposes, to maintain
health and to cure disease, but from a very Greek perspective. Digestion of food
in the Hippocratic tradition was seen conceptually as coction (πέψις), the break-
ing down of food into blood and bone through the action of the body’s heat. To
help the body digest well, human beings developed cooking skills. Greek doctors
saw raw foods as dangerous, and the cooking and processing of food, in fact,
was seen as essential to civilisation. The Hippocratic author of Ancient Medicine,
indeed, saw medicine anthropologically as the outcome of human development
(3): ‘I believe these primitive men sought food suitable to their constitutions and
discovered that which we now use. Thus they took wheat and wetted it, win-
nowed it, ground it, sifted it, and then mixed it and baked it into bread, and like-
wise made cakes from barley’. I have discussed this further in ‘Medicine’, in
Wilkins J and Robin Nadeau (eds.), A Companion to Food in The Ancient World
(Wiley 2015). Galen orders food according to its place in the ancient diet, with
cereals and pulses first, as Valamoti et al have also done. Galen’s supreme con-
tribution is to urge readers to try it out for themselves and not to take his word
for it: a good, evidence-based scientific method.
Studies into ancient plants in the twentieth century concentrated on the
wheat imports into the imperial capitals, their storage and varieties: A. Jardé,
Les cereals dans l’antiquité grecque 1925, G. Rickman The Corn Supply of An-
cient Rome 1980, P. Garnsey, Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman
World 1988. These were complemented by studies in risk management by small
farmers: L. Foxhall & H. Forbes, ‘Sitometreia: The Role of Grain as a staple food
in classical antiquity’, Chiron 12 (1982) 41-90, R. Sallares The Ecology of the
Ancient Greek World 1991, T. Gallant, Risk and Survival 1991. To these we
should add studies in the diversity of the ancient Greek world, which is char-
acterised by microclimates and varied natural demands made upon plants: N.
Purcell & P. Hordern, The Corrupting Sea 2000. Valamoti et al bring us to those
particular places, the site of burnt seeds and the processing they underwent before
they were lost or cast aside. The texts too provide great diversity of place. While
they often focus on Athens, their authors came from many places, and their ge-
ographical reference is wide, as Andrew Dalby brought out in his Siren Feasts
(1996) and Food in the Ancient World from A-Z (2003).
Valamoti et al concentrate on the Greek mainland and islands, but there is
reference too to food preparation in Anatolia and elsewhere in modern practice:
the emphasis is less on drawing continuity –panspermia to kolyva for example–
and more to show how barley porridges and biscuits may have been made: the
latter may have resembled paximadia and the former certain Cretan preparations
for example.
Great consideration is given to food preparation and processing; some too
is given to foods in religious contexts. There are archaeological possibilities here,
and the texts give plenty of support as well. Athenaeus of Naucratis, for example,
has many examples from religious ceremonies in his cake catalogue at 14.643-
9. Much ancient religion focused on the sacrifice of both plant and animal prod-
ucts to the gods: the ritual importance of meat and limited consumption of it
marks one of the great contrasts between the ancient world and ours. Meat is
not part of the analysis of this book, but can show us how ancient eating differed
from our globalised world. When we wish to reimagine or recreate ancient
recipes, as many have done, there is more evidence and support in the ancient
record for plant and fish preparations: for plants this volume gives many points
of departure for further studies of a culinary kind. For fish, studies in Greece such
as the volume of Dimitra Mylona, Eating Fish in Greece from 500 BC to AD
700 (2008), based like this volume on archaeology and texts, bring ancient ev-
idence to compare with modern techniques and recipes.
The Ancient Greeks before Alexander prided themselves on their distinctive
city states, on the absence of monarchy, and on the unique quality of their land,
which, in contrast to older and richer civilisations to the East, bred a sturdy and
resilient people with the capacity for poetry, song and philosophy. Philosophers
and small farmers alike lived on plants which provided a diverse and healthy
diet, but relatively little opportunity for luxury. Life on the farm was hard, as
Hesiod insists.The Greeks were more likely to eat barley than wheat, cheese than
meat: the citizen soldier traditionally ate cheese and onions with barley, in con-
trast to the bacon and emmer staples of the Roman army. Luxury for the Greeks
was to be found in the cities further west, those of Sicily and Italy - Sybaris and
Tarentum, for example. Such was the ideology of the city state, whatever the re-
ality on the ground. Sparta in an extreme case, with its austere military ideology
in the Classical period but possibilities of fertile ground in the Eurotas valley and
wider territories under their control. What were the cereals and pulses eaten by
different classes of people in ancient Sparta? Did the variety of cakes noted by
Alcman survive in Sparta beyond the seventh century BC? Valamoti et al cite Al-
cman, and archaeology may in future be a helpful corrective here, soil conditions
permitting.
Galen (On Good and Bad Juices 1), once again, gives us a sober assessment
of food supplies in the Roman imperial period: country people in many places
went hungry in the springtime as food supplies ran out. The cities, Rome pre-
eminently, had the economic muscle in times of shortage, to take the best cereals,
and then the best beans and pulses, so that the country people were forced down
the food chain until they were eating foods normally reserved for animal fodder,
such as bitter vetch, acorns and wild plants, the last of which made them ill and
led to some deaths. These plants lower down the food chain, the cultivated ones
at least, appear in this volume, along with suitable modes of preparation, such
as those proposed by Galen: much soaking, boiling and rinsing, with salt, garlic
and other flavours to help palatability.
What is also distinctive of the ancient Greeks is their intellectual interest in
the plants around them: Theophrastus and Dioscorides studied them from a sci-
entific perspective, but ordinary citizens put them in their songs and saw most
detailed reference to them in the plays on the comic stage. Most of those plays
(over 800 in ‘Middle Comedy’ alone, according to Athenaeus of Naucratis) are
lost, apart from a few of Aristophanes’ ‘Old Comedy’ masterpieces, but the lit-
erary tradition, led by Athenaeus, has preserved many quotations referring to
food and drink, many of which are noted in this volume. Among these, we find
Aristophanes, fragment 428 KA, an anapaestic line from his comedy The Mer-
chant Ships, which intriguingly featured a chorus of 24 ships. Galen quotes
Aristophanes’ list of seven plants and preparations, all of which are discussed
in detail in this fine volume: ‘vetches, wheats, barley water, bulgur, emmer, darnel,
best wheat’.
John Wilkins
Professor of Greek Culture
University of Exeter
Introduction
From charred seeds
to ancient texts
W hen a bowl of warm lentil soup or a slice of delicious ‘trachanópita’, a pie

made with cracked wheat and feta cheese, is devoured nowadays in
Greece, hardly anybody is aware of the nearly 9,000 years that have intervened
since the first bowl of lentil soup was cooked in a Neolithic cooking pot or the
first batch of clean wheat grain was coarsely ground to be eaten. It was during
this prehistoric past that the wide range of plant food ingredients, landraces and
great variety of recipes was shaped. Archaeobotany, the study of ancient plant
remains that have been preserved in archaeological deposits as a result of human
activity, usually through contact with fire, offers a wealth of information on an-
cient plant foods (Figure I.1, I.2, I.3). For prehistoric Greece, charred plant re-
mains recovered from excavations of Neolithic and Bronze Age settlements have
been published in comprehensive, synthetic accounts (e.g. Megaloudi 2006,
Valamoti 2009, Valamoti in press). They provide a basis for exploring aspects
of prehistoric human-plant interactions such as the origins of crop cultivation,
the range of plant-originating food ingredients during the Neolithic and the
Bronze Age or, their means of storage and transformation into specific food prepa-
rations. Archaeobotanical investigations reveal changes in plant food ingredients
and culinary practices over time, thus allowing interesting inferences about con-
tact networks, population movements and cultural identity. For Late Bronze Age
Greece, the exploration of plant ingredients in food and other recipes is further
enriched by the deciphering of Linear B where several plant ingredients have
been listed in the Mycenaean palace archives, revealing plants that were of special
concern for the Late Bronze Age palatial centres (Figure I.4). Moving on in time,
from prehistory to the first millennium B.C., ancient texts offer an alternative,
additional field of evidence that allow us to follow plant foods on their journey
from the first farmers of prehistoric Greece to later periods. Combined with ar-
chaeobotany, they form a powerful tool to approach past culinary practice.
19
20 Food CroPS iN ANCieNt Greek CuiSiNe
Figure I.1 Cooking accidents often lead to the charring of plant remains; the same happens
when houses or other structures are burnt by fire. Such charring episodes lead to the preser-
vation of ancient plant remains in archaeological deposits. Photo of a cooking experiment
using replica Neolithic pots (PlantCult project).
Archaeobotany has been the key tool for understanding the origins of crop
and fruit tree cultivation among communities inhabiting Greece from the 7th to
the end of the 2nd millennia B.C. these origins, for ancient Greeks, are blended
in myth, with particular gods being in charge of their domestication and the
spread of their cultivation to humans. Cereals were associated with demeter, the
grapevine, wine and wild vegetation with dionysos, and the olive and olive oil
with Athena. Such origin stories were not only recorded in texts but also depicted
in many different ways on vases, coins and reliefs (dimakopoulos et al. in prep).
other specific plants were sacred for the gods, such as the oak tree for Zeus and
laurel for Apollo, and various myths were woven to explain the origin of certain
plants, often corresponding to the transformation of young women into a plant
in their attempt to escape rape by their male god suitors (e.g., daphne). Pulses
do not seem to have had patron gods or special myths woven around them, yet
they provided important ingredients for many recipes, including ritual ones, as
we shall see below.
For the historic periods, ancient Greek texts are a rich source of information
on plants and plant foods not as mere components of a cuisine but in the contexts
Food CroPS IN ANCIeNT Greek CuISINe 21
Figure I.2 Charred cereal grains during excavation. Limnochori II, four lakes region near
Amyndaion, northern Greece (courtesy of Panagiotis Chrysostomou).
of their preparation, consumption and ways they were perceived by those who
wrote the texts. Through the works of famous ancient Greek historians, poets
and doctors we can learn of plants that were used as food and/or medicine in
the ancient Greek world. We can also find fragments of recipes and occasionally
explore when, where and by whom they were consumed. A combination of writ-
ten sources and a rich archaeobotanical record is the ideal way to approach the
plant foods of the historic periods that followed the Mycenaean, which witnessed
contact with new lands and the introduction of new plant foods as a result of
Alexander the Great’s expansion to the east. Yet, unlike the rich archaeobotanical
record of prehistoric Greece, this type of archaeological evidence from historical
times is meagre, with such remains only occasionally being retrieved from ex-
cavations of the region. Flotation, the main method through which charred plant
remains are retrieved from archaeological deposits, is only rarely applied during
the excavation of archaeological sites of the historic periods. It is a shared belief
among archaeologists specializing in these periods that textual evidence alone
offers sufficient information about past plant uses though recently this has begun
to gradually change. At the relatively few sites where archaeobotanical remains
22 Food CroPS IN ANCIeNT Greek CuISINe
Figure I.3 Flotation machine in operation at dikili Tash (top). Charred pears near the sherds
of a vase during excavation, House 1, dikili Tash (bottom left), detail (bottom right): wild
pears are collected by special sieves during processing with flotation.
from the historic periods are being studied, the preliminary publications show
the potential of this material to highlight aspects of past culinary practices (Mega-
loudi 2006; Livarda 2012, Margaritis 2016, 2017; Valamoti et al. 2018; douché
et al. 2021).
In Food Crops in Ancient Greek Cuisine we have attempted to integrate an-
cient documentary records with archaeobotanical data from Greece, a combi-
nation that offers exciting insights into the continuity, divergence and variability
in culinary practice across space and through time in the ancient Greek world.
The chapters that follow take the reader on a culinary journey through ancient
Greek plant foods, starting from their prehistoric roots and proceeding through
to the end of the 1st millennium B.C. It is by no means intended as an exhaustive
presentation of ancient Greek plant food species or of recipes using plant ingre-
dients. Ancient Greeks used a wide variety of plant food ingredients, some rooted
in prehistoric times, others introduced later. Such crop introductions happened
Figure I.4 Linear B tablet from Thebes. Photo courtesy of Vassilis Aravantinos, after Ara-
vantinos et al. 2001 and Aravantinos 2010.
in ways similar to those that had existed since the emergence of the first farmers
on the western shores of the Aegean and the Greek mainland: contact networks;
people moving from their homelands carrying seeds and the knowledge of their
cultivation and culinary transformation.
The focus in this book is primarily on plant foods from crop-fields, cereals
and pulses. only minor complementary information is gleaned from the literature
as regards the other components of the Mediterranean tetrad (as defined by
Sarpaki 1992), the grapevine and the olive, or other potential plant food ingre-
dients from trees and shrubs. The rich spectrum of plant food ingredients con-
sumed in ancient Greece included many more crops, fruit and wild plants that
are either only briefly mentioned in this book or not considered at all. Many
among them were primarily used in medicinal recipes for poultices and special
preparations, a domain that lies beyond the scope of this book. Medicinal reme-
dies based on plant ingredients, however, were often food preparations such as
healing soups, a practice well rooted in the pioneering perception of ancient
Greek doctors that diet played an important role in maintaining good health and
that special foods could act as a medicine when the balance of the four humours
was disturbed thus causing illness (cf. krug 1997, Wilkins 2015). The focus of
our book rests on food from the cultivated parts of the landscape called ároura
in ancient Greek.
Books on ancient Greek cooking have previously been published, including
those offering a selective overview of ingredients and recipes (dalby 1997), spe-
cialized enquiries into the works of specific writers or types of works (for example
Wilkins and Hill 2011/1994 on Archestratus; Wilkins 2000 on ancient Greek
comedy) or more comprehensive approaches to ancient food (Wilkins and
Nadeau 2015; dalby 2003) and ancient taste (rudolph 2017), along with pub-
lications intended to inform a wider readership, including the interested public,
about ancient Greek cooking and diet (for example, Thermou 2017, Psilakis and
Psilaki 2001, dalby 1997). The work of Gennadios, originally published in 1914
and later reprinted in 1997 offers a list of plant species known in the Greek world,
including their mainstream accepted ancient Greek names and uses. Some of the
plants discussed in this book are also included in dalby’s Food in the Ancient
World from A to Z (dalby 2003), while articles on certain types of plant foods
such as ritual breads and Celtic bean are also available (Brumfield 1997 and
Hamilton 1999 respectively).
As is often the case in ancient Greek and later texts, the description of
“recipes” consists more or less of a list of ingredients mixed together and, very
rarely, processing steps are offered or implied by the utensils and facilities (e.g.,
Figure I.5 Map of Greece and surrounding areas showing archaeological sites with archaeob-
otanical material, mentioned in the text. The map has been created ArcGIS® software by esri.
ArcGIS® and ArcMap™ are the intellectual property of esri and are used herein under license.
Copyright © esri. All rights reserved. For more information about esri® software, please
visit www.esri.com.
The sites are organized alphabetically: Ada Tepe-1; Agios Athanasios-16; Akanthos-8;
Akrotiri-37; Apsalos-21; Archondiko -19; Argilos-7; Argissa-31; Arkadikos-5; Ashkelon-42;
Assiros-17; Corinth-34; dikili Tash-4; dioiketerion, Thessaloniki-14; dion -29; düzen Tepe,
Sagalassos-40; eleusis-33; eretria-32; kalakača-47; kali Vrysi-6; karabournaki, -12; kas-
tanas-18; knossos-Gypsades-38; krania, Pieria-30; kyparissi, Vasilika-10; Lerna-36; Lim-
nochori-24; Makrygialos-28; Mandalo-20; Mavropigi-Fillotsairi-25; Mesimeriani Toumba-
11; Molyvoti (ancient Strymi) -2; Monte Papalucio-46; Nekromanteion (epirus)-45; Nysa-
Scythopolis (Beit She'an)-41; olynthos -9; Patra-44; Petres Florinas-23; Polichni -15; Py-
los-43; Sikyon, Peloponnese-35; Skala Sotiros-3; Sosandra-22; Stillfried, Austria-48; Toumba
kremastis koiladas-26; Toumba Thessalonikis -13; Vergina-27; Villa dionysos-39.
→
hearths and ovens) that were used for their preparation (e.g., Wilkins and Hill
2011; Tromaras 1991). Such “recipes” are provided here for the plant species
that have been systematically researched, yet, the book is not the equivalent of
a dictionary of plant foods and plant food recipes nor an account of ancient
Greek culinary practice; for this the reader is referred to a range of published
works such as Food in the Ancient World (Wilkins and Hill 2006), Siren Feasts
(dalby 1997; 2003), Archestratus: Fragments from the Life of Luxury (Wilkins
and Hill 2011). our investigation into the texts has been exhaustive for the pe-
riods researched using certain keywords and we have been critical and cautious
as regards species attribution to specific ancient Greek words as well as specific
food preparations.
The aim of this book is not to provide a comprehensive presentation of the
full literary record on ancient plant foods, but rather to demonstrate, through
a detailed examination of the sources, how elements of the prehistoric cuisine
of Greece, as presented in various archaeobotanical publications, continued into
the historic periods, at the same time being transformed and enriched over the
centuries that followed the Late Bronze Age (Figure I.5). Ancient texts expand
our knowledge of plant ingredients and the foods made from them by offering
insights impossible to achieve from archaeobotanical information alone, such
as the creation of a special barley lan-
drace (Galen, Explanation of Hippo-
cratic words 19.87, see below p. 54),
the flatulence caused by consuming
pulses (Heniochus, fr. 4.7-8 PCG, ‘the
gruel of celtic-beans swells the belly’)
or the barley crumbs covering a man’s
beard as he sprinkled them above his
cup that was full of wine, in the con-
text of drinking kykeṓn (eupolis fr.
99.81-82 PCG, see below p. 60). The
plant ingredients which we find in the
texts sometimes refer to everyday
food, or on other occasions to special
or ritual practices, such as, for exam-
ple, the preparation of special breads,
sometimes in the form of human gen-
italia (see section below) or the sprin- Figure I. 6 Celebration of Aloa, depicted on
a red-figured pelike (440-430 BC): Phalluses
kling of phalluses with what most
are sprinkled with something resembling
probably was some form of grain ground grain. drawing: danai Chondrou,
(Figure I.6). after British Museum e819 (1865, 1118.49)
For the historic periods, the relatively poor archaeobotanical record from
the Iron Age onwards can be complemented by rich textual evidence that offers
a wealth of information about crops, varieties, landraces and their uses for food
and/or fodder, in daily, medicinal, festive and ritual contexts. unlike archaeob-
otanical data, however, which allow a precise attribution to genus or species, tex-
tual evidence is open to ambiguities and multiple readings that render species
identification a significant challenge. rackham (1996, p. 36) very eloquently de-
scribes the problem of attributing modern botanical species to ancient Greek
words for plants: “It is hardly surprising that ancient botanists, as far as we know,
were acquainted with only a small fraction of the 6,000 or more species that
grow within the modern limits of Greece, and did not know even these accurate-
ly”, adding that even Theophrastus did not have an exact knowledge of all the
plants he wrote about, sometimes depending on the descriptions and memories
of his informants (p. 37). This is a problem we have dealt with in this book and
we have opted to avoid the attribution of a word to a specific plant species where
we identified ambiguities in the examined ancient texts.
Ancient classifications do not always correspond to modern botanical clas-
sifications while plant species attributions have proven a challenge as will be
seen in the chapters that follow. We have used already available translations of
the texts, especially if they are accessible online, even if they are somewhat older
and we have modified them wherever we thought was necessary. especially for
the terms for plants and their seeds/grains/fruit, we provide the ancient term,
transcribed in Latin characters, on its own or in translation, where no dispute
around the plant’s identity exists. It is often the case, however, that disagreements
about the attribution of modern terms exist. Also, a variety of words are offered
in english translations for the same common terms (e.g., seeds, crops, grains,
corn, flour, meal) by different translators, depending on when the translation
was undertaken.
The information on plant foods gleaned from ancient texts has been selected
with the aid of Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, a digital library of Greek Literature
(TLG), available through the Central Library online sources of the Aristotle uni-
versity of Thessaloniki. It is based at the university of California, Irvine, and it
has digitised mainly ancient literary texts in Greek to form a searchable online
database. our initial thought was to research written sources up to the 2nd century
BC, i.e., more or less the periods overlapping with the Iron Age and the centuries
that followed the preceding Bronze Age and Neolithic periods for which a rich
archaeobotanical record is already available and provides a good picture about
prehistoric plant foods. However, a considerable amount of information on the
texts of this period is cited by later authors and are accompanied by explanatory
comments, while all the grains, seeds, fruit and preparations based on them are
discussed by Galen in the 2nd century Ad. We therefore limited ourselves to

sources up until the 2nd c. BC only where an adequate number of references were
available and a clear picture could be drawn, while in many cases we have in-
corporated textual references from later authors. Table in p. 169-172 provides
a list of the authors mentioned in the text and the period their works were written.
In the course of our research we encountered several ambiguities as regards
the exact translation of terms in modern food preparations or processing steps.
We have tried to avoid over-interpretation and often have critically examined
attributions of words to botanical species, especially for cereals. Likewise, we
have opted in certain cases for the use of the ancient Greek term rather than a
translation that may be inaccurate. Such is the case with ancient terms used to
describe foods prepared using cereal ingredients, depending on the type of food:
porridges, soups, breads, cakes. Various dictionaries and modern published works
that refer to such cereal food products of antiquity attribute specific modern culi-
nary equivalents to the ancient words. different kinds of dough products for ex-
ample are translated as breads or cakes and the translations provided, as well
as the paucity of descriptions corresponding to specific cereal food preparations,
renders the attribution of ancient words to specific cereal food preparations a
challenge (see Chapters 1 and 4). Such attributions are sometimes little explained
and our investigation of the written sources shows that for some of them it is
difficult to always be sure of possible modern equivalents. Translations of ancient
máza, for example, include the words cake or kneaded things and we have chosen
to use the ancient terms to refer to specific cereal food preparations rather than
to overinterpret by attributing modern words, such as cake for example, to prepa-
rations that might have had little to do with what we perceive nowadays as a
cake. When a specific translation is cited in our text, then we present the exact
terms used in that translation. Similar problems were encountered in translations
of ancient words corresponding to the glume wheats as some authors opt for one
species over another, e.g., τίφη [típhē] translated as einkorn by some, as spelt
wheat by others.
To paraphrase oliver rackham’s (1996, p. 17) observation that “the history
of nature is not the same as the history of the things that people have said about
nature”, the history of ancient plant foods is not the same as the history of things
people have said about ancient plant foods. In this book we are attempting both.
We identify those field crops that were used as food in the past as well as the
dishes prepared with them, through archaeobotany; at the same time we glean
what ancient Greeks wrote on those ingredients and foods. In so doing we attempt
a culinary history of ancient plant foods in Greece. our examination of the an-
cient sources as regards crop plants as food has revealed contradictions, changes
in the interpretation of a word over time, disagreements among ancient authors
about the identity of certain plants as well as differences in translating these terms
in modern english or in attributing their Latin denominations among scholars
who have translated and commented on the ancient texts. We have also tried to
avoid one of the pitfalls identified by oliver rackham in approaching past hu-
man-environment relationships through ancient sources: “Geographical over-
generalization” (rackham 1996, p. 17); we have examined the ancient sources
critically in this respect and have tried to place the textual sources in their spa-
tiotemporal context as well as within the specific cultural context related to the
readers the text was addressed to.
The book is organised in groups of plants that make sense in modern clas-
sifications of field crops, partly botanical as is the distinction between cereals
(Cerealia) and pulses (Leguminosae/Fabaceae) and partly based on a shared seed
quality, that of oil content. We have left outside the scope of this book the ex-
amination of fruits, nuts and wild edible plants as this turned out to be an enor-
mous task as regards the management of the textual evidence that our PlantCult
research has generated, especially for emblematic plants of ancient Greece such
as the grapevine and the olive. We have therefore decided to focus on field crops
in this book and dedicate a special volume to other categories of plant foods,
such as fruit, in a future publication.
The groups of plants we have selected to discuss in each chapter only partly
overlap with ancient Greek crop classifications. An example of how crops were
classified in ancient Greece can be found in Theophrastus who groups crop plants
according to three basic categories: one that corresponds to the old World cereal
crops, another that corresponds to pulses, and a third one that corresponds to
certain summer crops (Hist. Plant. 8.1.1).
There are two principal classes: there are the corn-like (σιτώδη [sitṓdē])
plants such as pyrós (‘wheat’), krithḗ (‘barley’), típhē, zeiá and the others
which are either pyrós–like [homoeópyra] or krithḗ-like [homoeókritha];
and again there are the chedropá (‘leguminous plants’), as kýamos,
erébinthos, pisós, and in general those to which the name of pulses [óspria]
is given. Besides these there is a third class, which includes kénchros, élymos,
sḗsamon and in general the plants which belong to the summer seed-time,
which lack any common designation.
(transl. based on Hort).
The present book has four chapters. Three are dealing each with a category
of plant foods originating from crop fields, consumed in prehistoric and ancient
Greece, as attested through archaeobotanical and textual evidence. The first chap-
ter focuses on cereals and includes millet as, based on modern classifications, it
belongs to Cerealia; yet, according to Theophrastus it forms a category of summer
crops together with sesame, rather than being grouped with wheat and barley.
The second chapter deals with pulses while the third examines other crops, mainly
of small-seeded plants with oil-rich seeds. At the same time, these crops are also
noted for their medicinal properties. Sesame, a crop with oil-rich seeds, is also
included. The last chapter of the book (Chapter 4) attempts to follow the thread
connecting prehistoric plant foods to modern day preparations that resonate
with recipes found in ancient Greek texts. Some of the plant foods mentioned
in this book maybe toxic or cause adverse reactions, therefore they should never
be consumed without first receiving appropriate medical advice.
Chapter 1
The grains of Demeter
Cereals as food: the archaeobotanical record

The Neolithic and Bronze Age
The rich archaeobotanical record from prehistoric Greece has revealed a wide
range of cereal crops cultivated by the Neolithic and Bronze Age communities
of the region. Charred remains of grain and chaff, found in the houses, kitchens
and rubbish pits of the first farmers that inhabited Greece in the 7th and 6th mil-
lennia BC show that a wide range of cereals were grown as distinct crops in-
cluding various wheat and barley species and varieties (e.g. Valamoti 2009).
The wheats that have been identified include both glume wheats and free-thresh-
ing cereals (Figure 1.1, 1.2). The glume wheats that have been identified are
einkorn (Triticum monococcum L.), emmer wheat (T. dicoccum Schübl.) and
T. timopheevii Zhuk. This last species until recently was widely mentioned as
a new glume wheat (see Jones et al. 2000 for the identification criteria based
on Greek finds) while recently it was recognised as T. timopheevii Zhuk., on the
basis of DNA analysis (Czajkowska et al. 2020), a now relic crop which was
widely cultivated in prehistoric times both in Anatolia and Europe (e.g., Toule-
monde et al. 2015, Ulaş and Fiorentino 2020). These glume wheats, together
with free-threshing wheat (T. aestivum/durum) and barley (Hordeum vulgare)
correspond to the cultivated cereal crops of prehistoric times, occurring in dif-
ferent combinations at each site (Figures 1.3-1.12).
There is an ongoing debate with regards to the processes through which
agriculture emerged in Greece (see e.g., Kotsakis 2001, Perlès 2001). Although
31
32 FooD CroPS iN ANCiENT GrEEK CUiSiNE
Figure 1.1 Einkorn ear and spikelets (left) and free-threshing wheat, ear and grain (right). After
threshing, the glume wheats like einkorn, emmer, spelt and Timopheevii are still surrounded by
their glumes; they therefore require further processing, compared to free-threshing wheats like
bread and macaroni wheat, in order to free the kernel from chaff.
Figure 1.2 Einkorn spikelets (top); after dehusking grain (bottom left) is separated from the
surrounding glumes (bottom right).
*All images unless stated otherwise have been taken by Soultana Maria Valamoti.
FooD CroPS iN ANCiENT GrEEK CUiSiNE 33
Figure 1.3 Charred einkorn seeds from Dik- Figure 1.4 Modern einkorn plant, experi-
ili Tash, northern Greece, Late Neolithic, ap- mental plot, Aegilops project, May 2014,
prox. 4300 BC. Kato Lechonia, Pelion Mountain (Georgios
Vily Kapetanakis).
the contribution of indigenous wild stock for plants such as barley, lentils and
various Lathyrus species is a strong possibility (Valamoti and Kotsakis 2007),
there is increasing evidence to suggest that cereals were introduced from the
Near East and Anatolia, most likely together with farmers spreading westwards
from Anatolia and the Levantine coasts (Valamoti 2023, Chapter 2). The con-
tribution of local gatherer-hunter communities to this process, with their
knowledge of the local landscape and wild plant communities is very probable
but still difficult to observe in the archaeolog-
ical record (cf. reingruber 2018, Valamoti
2023, Chapter 2).
Throughout the Neolithic, the glume wheats,
einkorn, emmer and T. timopheevii wheat seem
to predominate over free-threshing wheat
which has mainly been encountered at sites in
the south of Greece, while barley is ubiquitous
(Valamoti 2023). Among the free-threshing
wheats, macaroni or bread wheat are both pos-
sible candidates and their archaeobotanical
distinction is difficult in most cases. As regards
barley, both two-row and six-row have been
identified, and both the hulled and naked va-
rieties are recognized from the Neolithic sites
of northern Greece (see for example Valamoti Figure 1.5 Charred emmer grain
from Early Neolithic Mavropigi-
2004, 2009). Fillotsairi (mid 7th millennium BC).
in the Bronze Age (3300-1200 BC) two The grains were found in connec-
new cereal species appear as crops grown by tion with a human burial.
Figure 1.6 Modern emmer plant, Aegilops project, May 2014 (Georgios Vily Kapetanakis).
Figure 1.7 Charred T. timopheevii terminal Figure 1.8 Modern T. timophee-

spikelet fork from Apsalos-Grammi, Middle Ne- vii ear (photo courtesy of Mike
olithic (5800-5500 BC, after Valamoti 2006). Charles).
Figure 1.9 Charred grains of free-threshing Figure 1.10 Modern plant of free-threshing
wheat from Archondiko, approx. 2100- wheat, Aegilops project, May 2014, Kato
1900 BC (PlantCult project archive, photo Lechonia, Pelion Mountain (Georgios Vily
Stavros Dimakopoulos). Kapetanakis).
the different farming communities of Greece: spelt wheat (Triticum spelta L.)
and millet (Panicum miliaceum L.). Spelt wheat (Figure 1.13) has been found at
Archondiko dating from towards the end of the 3rd millennium BC (Valamoti
et al. 2008) and later on at Assiros Toumba (Jones et al. 1986). in terms of grain
appearance, it is a glume wheat while in terms of flour properties and genetic
composition it shares genomes and flour qualities with bread-wheat (T. aestivum;
Blatter et al. 2004, Dvorak et al. 2012, ruibal-Mendieta et al. 2004). it probably
reached northern Greece via contact routes connecting the northern shores of
the Aegean with Central Europe where it appears much earlier, in the 4th millen-
nium BC and is considered the outcome of a local hybridisation between bread
wheat and emmer (Blatter et al. 2004 but see Dvorak et al. 2012 for a different
perspective).
Figure 1.11 Charred hulled barley grain, Figure 1.12 Modern barley plants, Aegilops
Toumba Thessalonikis, Middle Bronze Age project, May 2014, Kato Lechonia, Pelion
(after Kotsachristou 2008). Mountain (Georgios Vily Kapetanakis).
Figure 1.13 Spelt wheat: modern plant, Aegilops project, May 2014, Kato Lechonia, Pelion
Mountain (Georgios Vily Kapetanakis).
Millet (Figure 1.14., 1.15, 1.16) is a very different cereal altogether, in terms
of shape (round), size (small) and cooking properties as it lacks gluten, unlike all
the other cereals grown in Greece since the Neolithic period. it is a cereal that was
first cultivated in China and reached Europe and Greece sometime towards the
end of the 3rd millennium BC (Valamoti 2016, Motuzaite-Matuceviciute et al.
2013), travelling westwards across the steppes of Central Asia, perhaps via net-
works connecting nomadic pastoralists in forms of interaction suggested by Fra-
chetti et al. (2016). During the course of the 2nd millennium BC it becomes es-
tablished as a crop, mainly encountered at archaeological sites in the north of
Greece during the Late Bronze Age, where it has been found stored in large quan-
tities. Such a case is known from Assiros Toumba for example (Jones et al. 1986)
while occurrences of this crop in the south of Greece are extremely rare (see Valam-
oti 2016 for a review). its consumption in the south might have been associated
with specific individuals rather than whole communities, something that might
be suggestive of millet acting as a cultural identity signifier (see Valamoti 2016).
All these cereal crops have been found as cleaned grain or as spikelets in the
case of glume wheats. Besides grain concentrations, chaff, in other words the
glume bases and spikelet forks as well as rachises of free-threshing cereals often
Figure 1.14 Millet seeds from Skala Sotiros, 2nd millennium Figure 1.15 Modern millet
BC (after Valamoti 2023). NK307, IIB. growing in China, photo cour-
tesy of Giedre Motuzaite-Ma-
tuzeviciute.
Figure 1.16 Modern millet seeds in their hulls, purchased in the Kalamaria organic food mar-
ket, Thessaloniki, November 2018.
occur as a main component of pit fills

and cooking installations, among the
remains of spent fuel (Figure 1.17, cf.
Valamoti 2004). Chaff would have
had to be removed from the grain to be-
come edible. While this is done after
threshing for the free-threshing wheats,
glume wheats (einkorn, emmer, new
Figure 1.17 Einkorn glume bases and spike- glume wheat type and spelt wheat) re-
let forks from Apsalos-Grammi, middle Ne- quired further processing as the glu-
olithic (5800-5500 BC, after Valamoti 2006).
mes firmly surround the grain and re-
quire additional cleaning steps for their removal: pounding, winnowing and siev-
ing for the removal of chaff from the cereal kernels (e.g. Hillman 1984, Figure
1.17, 1.18. 1.19). Cereals were stored and cleaned piecemeal as indicated by the
storage of glume wheats in the form of spikelets (Valamoti 2004).
There is also archaeobotanical evidence to suggest that cereal grain, after the
removal of chaff, had been further processed by means of grinding and pre-cook-
ing in water and/or milk (Valamoti 2011, Valamoti et al. 2008). The numerous
grinding stones apparent from Neolithic and Bronze Age sites in Greece (Bekiaris
et al. 2020, Figure 1.20) were used, among other things, for the grinding of cereals
into fragments of different grades. Pounding could have been practiced with per-
ishable wooden implements, while stone pounding equipment is rare for the Ne-
Figure 1.18 Pounding emmer Figure 1.19 Winnowing spelt grain in Spain, (after Valamoti
spikelets in order to remove 2009); photo courtesy of Leonor Peña-Chocarro.
the husks, Ethiopia, courtesy
of Cathy d’Andrea (after Va-
lamoti 2009).
Figure 1.20 Experimental grinding of plant food ingredients using replica Neolithic grinding
stones, ErC project PlantCult, after Bofill et al. 2020 (Maria Bofill).
olithic and more common in the culinary apparatus of Bronze Age southern Greece
(Bekiaris et al. 2020, Ninou et al. in press). Pounding would have served more
the purposes of dehusking and debranning cereal grains rather than the grinding
of them into smaller particles as can be inferred from ethnographic accounts
(PlantCult ethnogrinding database in preparation, Alonso et al. 2020).
The product of grinding activities in Neolithic and Bronze Age Greece in-
cluded some form of flour/meal that generated food lumps which have been
retrieved through archaeological sampling and could correspond to porridge
Figure 1.21 Ground cereal fragments from Figure 1.22 Ground cereal fragments from
Mesimeriani Toumba (Soultana Maria Vala- Archondiko, end of 3rd millennium BC.
moti).
Figure 1.23 Bulgur and trachanás (a) constitute pre-processed and pre-cooked and/or fer-
mented cereals with a long shelf-life, corresponding to traditional ‘fast-foods’ of the Mediter-
ranean and the Middle East. The former (b) is parboiled, debranned, coarsely ground cereal
grain while the latter (c) involves the mixing or boiling of bulgur with milk. Distinction be-
tween the two is not possible in the archaeobotanical record for the time being.
or bread; coarser fragments have also been found that could correspond to
some form of bulgur or trachanás (Valamoti 2002, Valamoti et al. 2008, Valam-
oti et al. 2019). At Mesimeriani Toumba, towards the end of the 3rd millennium
BC in particular, cereal fragments that were finer than those from Archondiko
(Figure 1.21, Figure 1.22), demonstrated a shiny fracture surface that suggested
the parboiling of seeds in some liquid, water or milk and their subsequent grind-
ing (Valamoti 2002, Valamoti et al. 2008, Valamoti et al. 2021). This processing
in the case of bulgur and trachanás would have generated foodstuffs with a
long storage life, highly nutritious and easily convertible into a meal; such prod-
ucts are still being traditionally made in Greece, the Balkans and the wider East
Mediterranean (cf. Valamoti 2011, Figure 1.23). At Archondiko lumps of cereal
components and fragments of variable sizes (Figure 1.24; Valamoti and Petri-
dou in press) as well as finds of sprouted barley in Bronze Age Thessaly and
Macedonia could be associated with
malt production and probably some
form of Early/Middle Bronze Age
beer brewing (Valamoti 2018). The
rich textual evidence, in this respect,
offers a broad inventory of food pre-
parations based on cereals as will be
seen below. it also demonstrates dif-
ferences from prehistoric to historic
times as regards the prevailing cereals
and the foods prepared from them. Figure 1.24 Charred lumps of cereal frag-
Cereals were probably an impor- ments from Archondiko Giannitson, end of
3rd millennium BC; they may correspond to
tant component of daily food provi-
different types of ancient foods including tra-
sion as elements of porridges, breads, chanás or some form of beer ‘starter’ (after
cakes and pre-cooked cereals by means Valamoti 2018.
Figure 1.25 Bovine Gold ring from Pylos tholos tomb. Courtesy of The Department of Clas-
sics, University of Cincinnati; photo by Jeff Vanderpool.
of roasting and parboiling. The same ingredients could also, however, have been
used in the context of food prepared for special occasions, such as feasts, as ethno-
graphic evidence from circum-Mediterranean countries suggests (Valamoti et al.
2021; Valamoti 2023). The archaeobotanical evidence for such special uses of
cereal grain from the Neolithic and the Bronze Age is limited, yet some hints are
provided by finds of charred clean cereal grain that was found in association
with Early Neolithic burials at Mavropigi-Fillotsairi in northern Greece (Valam-
oti 2011, Karamitrou-Mendesidi et al. 2013).
The integration of archaeobotanical evidence and texts offers a deeper un-
derstanding of cereal food choices and contexts of consumption, yet, each line
of evidence has its potential and limitations. Archaeobotanical evidence provides
information on the cereal species actually used during the Late Bronze Age in
Greece while the Linear B tablets confirm that cereals, namely wheat and barley,
were crops which the palaces were interested in, thus keeping accounts on trans-
actions involving them by the Mycenaean palaces of the south (Palmer 1992,
Halstead 1995, Killen 2004). The central role of cereals is also expressed
through the representation of threshers (Marinatos 1960, plates 103 and 105)
and the recently discovered depiction of cereal ears, possibly of barley, in as-
sociation with oxen (Figure 1.25) on a ring-stone from a tholos tomb at Pylos.
Three cereal species are mentioned in Linear B though not all authorities agree
on the precise species these ideograms refer to. According to Halstead (1995),
*120 is attributed to wheat and *121 to barley, while Palmer thinks the reverse
(Palmer 1992). A third symbol, 65/*129, translated as flour, could represent a
different wheat species such as a glume wheat or, different varieties of barley
(Halstead et al., in press). Flour, of ambiguous identification as regards the grain
from which it was made, is represented by *129: it often occurs together with
*121 and thus it is considered to correspond to a different species to *121, al-
ternatively *129 could correspond to the same cereal species as *121, probably
barley, and thus denoting ground barley (Killen 2004). What cereal species in-
terested the palaces and what species fed the wider population, however, can
only be discovered through the archaeobotanical record. Little evidence is avail-
able from stored crops from Mycenaean palaces, yet, at Mycenae, it seems that
emmer grain and barley were stored inside clay jars (Hillman 2011) and the
same cereals have been identified at the majority of archaeological sites inves-
tigated archaeobotanically from the south of Greece and dated to the Late
Bronze Age (Valamoti 2023).
Early historic periods

it is unfortunate that for the historic periods, for which there is abundant textual
evidence, there is comparatively little archaeobotanical evidence to allow a fine
resolution understanding of the range of cereal species grown for food at different
sites, regions or even from household to household. Thus, although glimpses at
certain sites are possible, regional preferences and foodways involving plants are
only represented by patchy evidence. Despite the scarce archaeobotanical evidence
from the historic periods, syntheses of the available archaeobotanical material
from the iron Age and later periods have been attempted, summarizing the range
of crops and fruit-trees grown (e.g. Margaritis 2015; Valamoti et al. 2018; Gkat-
zogia and Kotzabopoulou 2020) or presenting interesting results of case studies
from particular contexts such as burial offerings (e.g. Megaloudi et al. 2007). oc-
casionally insights into the complexities of cereal food preparations of the historic
periods are also available through the archaeobotanical record (see below p. 49-
50) while ongoing research by a number of researchers generating archaeobotan-
ical evidence from sites of the historic periods is soon expected to alter the picture
through various archaeological projects that have included archaeobotanical re-
trieval and study in their methodology, namely: Karabournaki, Polichni and
Toumba Thessalonikis in the region of Central Macedonia (Gkatzogia 2021;
Valamoti et al. 2018); Molyvoti (ancient Strymi) and olynthos in the north and
Sikyon in the south (Arrington et al. 2016, Douché et al. 2021).
Figure 1.26 Glume bases of einkorn. They Figure 1.27 Einkorn grains from the Hel-
were found charred in an iron Age pit at lenistic sanctuary, probably of Dionysos, at
Karabournaki, south of the city of Thessaloni- Kali Vrysi, in eastern Macedonia, northern
ki, along the coast of the Thermaic Gulf (after Greece. They were found inside a building
Tiverios et al. 2013). They provide clear evi- that had burnt down.
dence that einkorn was dehusked and therefore
grown as a crop in its own right, used as food.
in the context of the wider Greek world, archaeobotanical publications over

the last 15 years show that the picture is changing, with new evidence being gen-
erated, something that will ultimately lead to valuable insights in terms of regional
crop choices and cuisines that have been shaped through interaction between lo-
cal indigenous traditions and influences brought about by Greek presence either
in the form of colonies or occupation (e.g. Hellenistic Nysa-Scythopolis, orendi
et al. 2021; Hellenistic Ashkelon in the southern Levant, Marston and Birney
2021; Hellenistic Düzen Tepe near Sagalassos, Cleymans et al. 2017; iron Age
Sicily, Stika et al. 2008). This, considered in combination with archaeobotanical
evidence from the roman world will hopefully, in the future, allow regional and
diachronic syntheses about economic and culinary choices related to plant food
ingredients and comparisons between a cuisine presented through the agendas
and filters of ancient authors and what people actually cultivated and ate (cf.
rowan 2019 for insights on such topics from the roman world).
Published and ongoing work suggests that glume wheats continued to be
cultivated during the historic periods, as is the case, for example, with the site
of Karabournaki near Thessaloniki where primarily einkorn chaff (Figure 1.26)
has been identified in rich concentrations suggesting einkorn cultivation and
grain dehusking (Tiverios et al. 2013; Valamoti et al. 2018, Gkatzogia 2021).
in the south, einkorn and emmer have also been identified, for example at Pro-
togeometric levels at Villa Dionysus on the island of Crete (Livarda 2012) and
at Sikyon in the Peloponnese (Douché et al. 2021). Einkorn continues to appear
in later assemblages. Einkorn grains (Figure 1.27) have been found in a building
Figure 1.28 Einkorn grains from the area of Figure 1.29 Possible spelt wheat grains from
the sanctuary of Eucleia, found charred to- the area of the sanctuary of Eucleia, found
gether with a mixture of other cereal grains charred together with a mixture of other ce-
such as millet and spelt wheat. real grains such as millet and spelt wheat, dat-
ed to the early roman period, approximately
1st century BC-1st century AD.
identified as a sanctuary of Dionysos, burnt down by fire in the early 3rd c. BC,
at the modern village of Kali Vrysi in Drama (Peristeri 1997, Valamoti in prep).
its grains have also been found among a mixed grain and seed assemblage from
deposits in the sanctuary of Eucleia in Vergina, dated to 1st c. BC-1st c. AD, after
the abandonment of the main temple (Figure 1.28) and the Acropolis of Vergina
dated to approximately the same period. Spelt wheat grains have been found in
small numbers in a charred assemblage from the same concentration as the einko-
rn finds from Eucleia in Vergina (Figure 1.29). Thus einkorn, emmer and spelt
wheat continued to be grown, yet, the available finds, with the exception of the
glume bases from Karabournaki, do not allow an assessment of whether they
were still grown as crops in their own right or whether they became contaminants
in fields of barley and free-threshing wheat. in other words, the picture provided
by the current archaeobotanical evidence is too opaque to allow any observations
regarding a possible marginalisation of their cultivation over time, as has been
argued for einkorn for example by Dalby (1997) or, alternatively, the continu-
ation of their use albeit on a different level compared to free-threshing wheat,
the former constituting the actual food of farmers, the latter corresponding to
a marketed cereal (Garnsey 1988). it is also unknown whether T. timopheevii,
the new glume wheat type and spelt wheat were also crops in their own right
during the historic periods, based on present archaeobotanical evidence. Spelt
(Figure 1.29) and Timopheevii wheat have been identified at a few northern
Greek sites such as Karabournaki and Toumba Thessalonikis in the form of spo-
radic occurrences of glume bases and spikelet forks (Gkatzogia and Valamoti
2021, Gkatzogia 2021).
iron Age free-threshing wheat and

barley have been identified at sites such
as Karabournaki and Polichni in the
north (Gkatzogia and Valamoti 2021,
Gkatzogia and Kotzabopoulou 2020)
and at sites such as Eretria on the island
of Euboea (Margaritis 2013), Sikyon
in the Peloponnese (Douché et al.
2021) and Villa Dionysus on the island
of Crete. They are also present among
concentrations of charred grains found Figure 1.30 Free-threshing wheat grains from
at the Acropolis of Vergina and the the Hellenistic city of Petres, near Amyndaion
in western Macedonia, northern Greece.
Hellenistic city of Petres in western They were found inside a house that had
Macedonia, northern Greece (Valam- burnt down, together with other cereal and
oti in preparation, Figure 1.30). Free- pulse seeds, mainly bitter vetch.
threshing cereals appear to be more fre-
quent in the historic periods, something attributed to the need for easily processed
cereal grain, as is the case with free-threshing wheat (cf. Livarda 2012, Valamoti
et al. 2018); the hulled wheats require extra labour and this is usually the reason
these crops became marginalised either in the past or in recent times (cf. Ethiopia,
d’Andrea and Mitiku Haile 2002). A rich concentration of free-threshing wheat
and associated weed seeds (Figure 1.31, Figure 1.32), stored in a jar, is attested
from an amphora that contained roughly 5 litres of grain, such as at the Mace-
donian city of Dion, dated to the 4th c. AD, much later than the periods discussed
here (Vasileiadou 2011); this find could lend support to such a dominance of
free-threshing wheat in periods following the Bronze Age; however, as already
stated several times here, the evidence is too patchy for generalisations of this
kind. What is impressive in this concentration from Dion is the large size of the
grains as well as the large size of the obligatory weeds such as Lolium temulentum
and Agrostemma githago, the outcome of millennia of cultivation that led to the
increase of crop grain and seed size over time. The glume wheats, however, con-
tinue to appear in assemblages of the 1st millennium BC and although the evidence
is still thin, all Late Bronze Age glume wheats continue to be identified in ar-
chaeobotanical assemblages from sites investigated archaeobotanically for the
historic periods (Gkatzogia and Valamoti 2021). Unlike einkorn that is certainly
cultivated and dehulled at Karabournaki (Tiverios et al. 2013, Valamoti et al.
2018, Gkatzogia 2021), spelt wheat and T. timopheevii, occur only as sporadic
finds (Gkatzogia 2021).
As regards millet, it has been found at Kastanas in northern Greece, dated
to the Geometric period (Kroll 1983) while millet seeds were also found among
Figure 1.31 Free-threshing wheat grain Figure 1.32 Darnel (Lolium temulentum)
from the 4th c. AD Macedonian city of Dion. seeds, present as contaminants of the free-
Approximately 5 litres of grain were found threshing wheat from Dion (Figure 1.31
in an amphora situated inside a house. Free- above). Their size, as well as that of the wheat,
threshing wheat dominates the assemblage, is impressive, the outcome of millennia-long
yet, other cereal species such as einkorn, em- cereal cultivation in Greece since the 7th mil-
mer and rye are represented in small num- lennium BC and possibly of the emergence of
bers. landraces with large grains.
the charred plant remains from the assemblage retrieved from the sanctuary of
Eucleia at Vergina (Figure 1.33). its position as a potential food ingredient at
sites in the south is impossible to assess as no finds of this species are reported,
except for one Panicum miliaceum seed reported from Archaic Sikyon in the Pelo-
ponnese which unfortunately offers no clues as to whether it was grown as a crop
(Douché et al. 2021). Millet is absent
from archaeobotanical assemblages
from northern Greece that correspond
to colonies such as Argilos and Akan-
thos during the Hellenistic period
(Gkatzogia and Valamoti 2021, Gkat-
zogia in press), it is present, however,
at most northern Greek sites dated to
the 1st millennium BC albeit in small
numbers with the exception of Toum-
ba Thessalonikis where a concentra-
tion of 200 seeds was retrieved (Gkat- Figure 1.33 Millet seeds from the area of the
zogia 2021). Again, the available evi- sanctuary of Eucleia, found charred together
with a mixture of other cereal grains such as
dence for the historic periods does not millet and spelt wheat, dated to the early ro-
allow an assessment of the role of mil- man period, approximately 1st century BC-
let in food preparations in the south of 1st century AD.
Greece. Whether the picture available for the Bronze Age continues into the his-
toric periods of the 1st millennium BC, considering this absence or scarcity of ev-
idence in the south in contrast with its significant presence at northern Greek
sites of the Late Bronze Age, remains to be seen when more evidence from the
historic periods becomes available in the future. Not far from northern Greece,
in Bulgaria, millet appears to have been grown during the iron Age at several
sites (Marinova and Valamoti 2014, Valamoti et al. 2018). The Bulgarian finds
provide evidence for the cultivation of this late-coming cereal and most impor-
tantly for its use as human food thanks to finds from Ada Tepe dated to the Early
iron Age (11th-9th c. BC); these Bulgarian food remains correspond to some form
of porridge made of a mixture of ground millet and barley with a small com-
ponent of linseed (Nikov et al. 2018). Likewise, in Serbia, the storage of millet
is reported from the site of Kalakača dated to the Early iron Age (1000-800 BC,
Filipović 2015). As will be shown below, cereal foods and identity were closely
linked and brought to the fore at times of political unrest and millet had a role
to play in this discourse (see e.g., below p. 72, Demosthenes on the einkorn and
millet eaters of the north).
Sporadic finds of rye at sites such as Hellenistic Petres (Figure 1.34) and 4th
c. AD Dion (Figure 1.35) in northern Greece (Valamoti in preparation) do not
allow an assessment of the status of this cereal as a crop in its own right and the
same applies to oats (Figure 1.36) a cereal about which little is known on the
basis of archaeobotanical finds, both for prehistoric times (Valamoti 2023, Lathi-
ras 2020) and later periods.
The available archaeobotanical record for the 1st millennium BC, despite its
sparse nature, reveals the range of po-
tential cereal crops. Yet, this patchy ar-
chaeobotanical record is unable to
provide a more nuanced picture in
terms of the importance of these crops
at each site or regional variations;
many sites that have yielded remains
dated to that period have been pub-
lished only on a preliminary level.
Thus, for the time being there is lim-
ited scope for exploring differences in
Figure 1.34 rye (Secale cf cereale) from the the geographical distribution of crops
Hellenistic city of Petres, near Amyndaion in in different regions of Greece or for at-
western Macedonia, northern Greece. They tempting regional syntheses. Howev-
were found inside a house that had burnt
down, together with other cereal and pulse er, ongoing work on such sites (e.g.,
seeds, mainly bitter vetch. Gkatzogia 2021) will hopefully shed
Figure 1.35 rye (Secale cf cereale) from a free-threshing wheat concentration found inside
an amphora (see Figure 1.31 above) at the 4th c. AD Macedonian city of Dion. rye appears
to be a contaminant of the approximately 5 litres of stored free-threshing wheat grain.
light on various aspects of past culinary uses of plants in the 1st millennium BC,
something that, as will be shown below, will contribute significantly to under-
standing the ambiguities we have identified in the ancient texts examined here.
As regards actual food remains resulting from the transformation of cereal
ingredients into dishes, although rare, they do exist, having been recovered from
Greece and elsewhere. They mostly originate from special contexts as is the case
with barley grains and some form of food and cakes from the site of Monte Pa-
Figure 1.36 Grains of oats (Avena sp.) found at the Late Neolithic site of Kyparissi in northern
Greece (ErC project plant cult; photo by Stavros Dimakopoulos).
Figure 1.37 Charred ‘cakes’ from the Sanctuary of Demetra at Monte Papalucio, italy, 6th
- 3rd c. BC (top) and traditional circular cookies known as taralli purchased in Lecce, June
2019 (bottom). Photos of ancient ‘cakes’: courtesy of Milena Primavera and Girolamo
Fiorentino.
Figure 1.38 Cereal food mass from the sanc-

tuary of Demetra (Poterioforos?), Patras, ma-
terial courtesy of Stella Nestoridou.
palucio in italy (Primavera et al. 2019, Figure 1.37). recent archaeobotanical

finds from the sanctuary of Demeter Poteriophoros near Patras (Petropoulos
2010, Stella Nestoridou pers. comm.) show offerings in the form of barley grain
as well as some food preparation currently under study (Figure 1.38). Besides
these two religious contexts, excavations at Molyvoti, identified as the Greek
colony of Strymi on the northern shores of the Aegean, have revealed food re-
mains most likely consisting of processed cereal ingredients dated to the 4th c.
BC (Arrington et al. 2016).
Cereals in ancient Greek texts

Well rooted in myth and richly documented in ancient texts, cereals were considered
to be the gift of the goddess Demeter (Ceres in Latin > ‘cereals’): e.g., Δημήτερος
ἀκτή [Dēmḗteros aktḗ], ‘Demeter’s wheat’, is a formulation occurring in Homer
(Iliad 13.322, 21.76) and Hesiod (Works 32, 466, 597, 805); cf. Theophrastus
Caus. Plant. 2.4.5 δημήτριος καρπός [dēmḗtrios karpós], ‘Demeter’s fruit’ (also
Galen, Properties of foods 6.541, 621, with its synonym δημήτρια σπέρματα
[dēmḗtria spérmata], ‘Demeter’s seeds’, 6.524, 554, 555, 559), and the adjective
καρποποιός [karpopoeós],‘creator of fruits’, attributed to the goddess in Euripides’
Rhesus 964. The later adjective δημητριακός [dēmētriakós karpós] (Diodorus of
Sicily 2.36.3, Dionysius of Halicarnassus Art of rhetoric 1.6) is still used in Modern
Greek as a noun for cereals, called δημητριακά [dimitriaká]). Demeter gave the
people of Athens grain to cultivate in gratitude for their hospitality during her grief
over the abduction of her daughter Persephone. Hence, celebrations dedicated to
her involved the use of cereals as offerings in different forms (e.g., Brumfield 1997,
Lowe 1998) including breads in various shapes (Figure 1.39).
Figure 1.39 Clay representations of bread/cake offerings to the sanctuary of Demeter and
Kore on Corinth (Plate 47, images 23 and 27; after Brumfield 1997), courtesy the Trustees
of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Photo: American School of Classical
Studies at Athens, Corinth Excavations.
in the section that follows, ancient texts are investigated for references to
the various wheat and barley species and their culinary uses, as well as species
that appeared late as crops, such as millet and oats. Various terms exist for the
cereals themselves and also for their resultant products (especially flour) or foods
prepared with them (porridges, breads, cakes, pastries). of course, modern schol-
ars (in dictionaries, translations etc.) tend to equate the ancient terms with specific
modern culinary equivalents, although in many cases the identification is not
clear or remains open. in our book we have included these modern terms, so that
the reader is aware of the suggested interpretations, at the same time, however,
we have also kept the ancient term in the translations or the ancient passages;
we hope that in this way we allow the reader to shape a personal opinion about
the meaning of the ancient terms and to realise the uncertainty of translations
correlating them with modern culinary terms.
Cereals: Sítos, σῖτος (barley and wheat)

The word σιτηρά [sitirá] is the Modern Greek term denoting cereals in general
(while the word σιτάρι [sitári] solely refers to ‘wheat’). it is derived from the an-
cient Greek σῖτος [sítos], a word that appears as early as Homer’s poems, the
Iliad and Odyssey, mainly for grain products, since in all cases but one it means
either “food made from grain opposed to flesh-meat” or even “in a wider sense,
food, as opposed to drink” (LSJ s.v. σῖτος 2, 3 with the citations; cf. the verb
σιτέομαι [sitéomai] meaning “take food, eat” in Odyssey 14.209, LSJ s.v.). The
Homeric use of the term sítos suggests that even from early archaic literature the
main cereals, wheat and barley, and their main product, bread, were thought to
be the food par excellence (as expressed, for example in the belief that ‘in the
bread [sítos] and wine there is courage and strength’, Iliad 9.706, 19.161-163),
which even more importantly is reflected in the idea that sítos is the feature that
distinguishes humans from gods (Odyssey 8.222), as well as from savages and
beasts (Odys. 9.89 = 10.101; 9.191-2 ‘he (the Cyclops Pοlyphemus) was an enor-
mous monster, not like a man who eats bread (σιτοφάγος [sitophágos])’).
only once, in Odyssey 13.244, does sítos have the meaning of grain, al-
though it is not clear what kind of grain it is, and the common interpretation,
as reflected in LSJ s.v., “grain, comprehending both wheat (πυρός [pyrós]) and
barley (κριθή [krithḗ])”, is based on the use of the word in later literature for
both wheat and barley. Two such clear instances can be found in Herodotus
7.119, “they divided corn [sítos] among themselves in their cities and all of them
for many months ground it to wheat and barley meal [áleura and álphita, for
more on these terms see below pp. 59-60, 76]” (transl. Godley at Perseus Dig.
Libr.), and Thucydides 6.22.1, “and we must take our own corn [sítos] in mer-
chant vessels, that is to say, wheat [pyrós] and parched barley [krithḗ], and bakers
[sitopoeόs] from the mills compelled to serve for pay” (transl. Crawley at Perseus
Dig. Libr.). Moreover, Theophrastus, in his technical treatises, systematically
mentions that the term for cereals (σιτώδη [sitṓdē] or sítos) included both wheat
and barley (Hist. plant. 8.1.1, 8.4.1, 8.6.5; Caus. plant. 4.1.2, 4.14.1, 6.6.6; cf.
Caus. plant. 3.21.1), where it is said that both wheat [pyrós] and barley [krithḗ],
were used in cereal preparations (σιτοποιία [sitopoeía]). So, in passages where
sítos or terms derived from it, such as σιτοποιός [sitopoeόs, ‘baker’] or σιτο-
πώλης [sitopṓlēs, ‘corn-merchant’], occur, we cannot know exactly what kind
of cereals were meant, if it is not clarified in the text.
Krithḗ, κριθή (barley)

The grain of civilisation
it was a common belief that a milestone in the process of civilization was the tran-
sition from eating acorns, considered as a primitive way of life, to the use of cereal
grains. A further belief seems to be that barley was the first grain that appeared,
which is proved by the fact that it was used in religious sacrifices: ‘the human race
sprinkled with barley (οὐλοχυτεῖτο [oulochyteíto]) at the first sacrifices’, as it is
recorded by Theophrastus (On piety fr. 2 Pötscher; cf. Pausanias 1.38.6).
Οὐλοχύται [oulochýtai] is the terminus technicus in Homer (Iliad 1.449, 458,
2.410, 421, Odyssey 3.445, 447, 761) for this practice. in a fragment of the later
comic poet Straton the word is nicely used in a joke about the unintelligible tra-
ditional terminology of religion and at the same time it is explained as a synonym
of barley: ‘bring here the oulochýtai.’ ― ‘what is this?’ ― ‘barley [krithḗ]’ ― ‘why
then are you, madman, speaking with complications?’ (Strato fr. 1.34-35 PCG).
The term occurs also as οὐλαί [oulai] (Odyssey 3.441; cf. Herodotus 1.160.5
‘sprinkling of barley (οὐλάς κριθέων [oulás krithḗon]) in sacrifices to the gods’,
1.132) and ὀλαὶ [olai] in the Attic dialect (Sophocles fr. 398.3 TrGF, Aristophanes
Knights 1166-7, Peace 947, 960, Diphilus fr. 89.4 PCG). The connection of barley
with religion, due to its very ancient use in sacrifices and offerings to gods in the
form of grains, ground barley groats (cf. e.g., Aristophanes Peace 960) or flour
(Odyssey 11.28, 12.358), is testified even in a later period by Plutarch’s informa-
tion (Greek Questions 292c) that the opuntians had a special officer, called the
κριθολόγος [kritholόgos] ‘barley collector’, who was in charge of sacrifices. Fi-
nally, Dionysius of Halicarnassus points out that a cultural difference between
Greeks and romans could be detected in the different cereals that were used in
religious contexts: barley by Greeks but far (‘farro’) by romans (“a kind of husked
wheat, Triticum dicoccum or emmer”, OLD s.v. ‘far’), which he identifies with
Greek ζέα [zéa] (on which see below p. 74f.).
The ancient romans designated holy and lawful marriages by the term “far-
reate,” from the sharing of far, which we call zéa; for this was the ancient
and, for a long time, the ordinary food of all the romans, and their country
produces an abundance of excellent zéa. And as we Greeks regard barley
[krithḗ] as the most ancient grain, and for that reason begin our sacrifices
with barley-kernels which we call oulaí, so the romans, in the belief that
zéa is both the most valuable and the most ancient of grains, in all burnt
offerings begin the sacrifice with that.
(Roman Antiquities 2.25.2, transl. Earnest Cary at Lacus Curtius)
As for Dionysius’ reference to roman marriages we can detect a similar analogy
(i.e., Greeks ~ barley – romans ~ far) in Pollux 1.246 who informs us that “Solon
assigned the brides coming to the wedding to bring a parcher as a sign of making
barley-meal [alphitourgía]”. This distinction and association between different
cereals as identity signifiers for Greeks and romans is thoroughly discussed by
Braun (1995).
Unlike ancient texts that allow access to aspects of past lives such as the use
of plants in rituals, the archaeobotanical record is rarely in a position to provide
such knowledge and it is more likely that some charred seeds in a pit will be in-
terpreted as kitchen refuse rather than the ritual burning of seeds (see also Valam-
oti in press). Unfortunately for the historic period we have no archaeobotanical
studies of the components of bothroi where the remains of sacrificial rituals were
deposited (Ekroth 2013). Therefore, for the time being, no archaeobotanical
record exists, to our knowledge, of such sacrificial context of plant use in support
of the ancient written sources.
The standard ancient Greek term for barley is κριθή [krithḗ], which has borne
through to the present day with the Modern Greek word being κριθάρι [krithári],
and in its case there are no difficulties in discerning the identity of different species,
as happens with wheat. in the Homeric epic poems krithḗ is always mentioned
together with wheat (Iliad 11.69, Odyssey 9.110, 19.112; cf. above the meaning
of sítos). The term κρῖ [kri] also occurs, which is an epic form not found outside
poetry, always in the formulation λευκόν κρῖ [leukόn kri], ‘white barley’ (e.g.,
Iliad 5.196, 8.564, Odyssey 4.41, 604; in these passages it is mentioned with
other cereals, species of wheat). The colour (‘white’) could be just a poetic ad-
jective, but in post-Homeric literature we read about varieties yielding grains of
different colours, e.g., ‘some are white, some black or reddish, and the latter are
thought to produce much meal (πολυάλφιτος [polyálphitos]; on álphita see be-
low) and to be more robust than the white as to bearing winter wind or conditions
of climate generally’ (Theophr. Hist. Plant. 8.4.2, transl. Hort; see Amigues vol.
iV, p. 199 [n. 13]). However, the white variety is considered as the best by
Dioscorides (De materia medica 2.86.1).

The existence of such colour differences or, more apparently, the names of
different barley varieties, is something we cannot infer from the archaeobotanical
record. A special variety, much valued, was called κριθή ἀχίλλειος or ἀχιλληΐς
[krithḗ achílleios or achillēḯs], i.e., ‘Achillean barley, barley of Achilles’ (e.g., Hip-
pocrates Diseases i-iii 3.17 [Vii 157, 160 L.]; Theophrastus Hist. Plant. 8.4.2,
8.10.2, Caus. Plant. 3.22.2), which was named either after a farmer of that name
(Galen Explanation of Hippocratic words 19.87) or after Achilles, the hero of
the Iliad himself, connoting ‘noble barley, barley of the best quality’ (Schol.
Aristoph. Knights 819; see Amigues vol. iV, p. 198-99 [n. 12] for the latter in-
terpretation). Aristophanes Knights 819 (‘Themistocles is exiled from the coun-
try, while you remain licking your fingers that are covered with Achillean cakes’)
and Pherecrates fr. 137.4 PCG (‘abundantly flowing rivers … of Achillean cakes’)
speak of ‘cakes [máza, see below p. 61f.] made of Achillean barley’ (cf. Athenaeus
3.114 F).
What is known from the archaeobotanical record is the cultivation of both hulled
and naked barley in prehistoric times while from the 1st millennium BC hulled
six-row barley has been identified (Gkatzogia and Valamoti 2021, Valamoti et
al. 2018, Arrington et al. 2016, Douché et al. 2021). Theophrastus speaks of
two-, three-, four-, five- and six-row barley (the latter being the commonest, Hist.
Plant. 8.4.2), but what is most surprising is that he says that ‘wheat has its seed
in many coats, while the seed of krithḗ is naked, and in fact krithḗ is the cereal
with naked seeds par excellence’ (Hist. Plant. 8.4.1; cf. Caus. Plant. 4.2.2, 4.13.4,
4.16.1). A much later passage from Galen shows that the existence of naked bar-
ley sounds surprising: ‘naked barley exists in some nations, such as in Cappadocia
[central Anatolia], and this is the name used for it by the people there and it is
excellent in everything and, when it is boiled with water like chóndros, it is a
delicacy to be consumed with sweet wines’ (Thinning diet 44; cf. Properties of
foods. 6.520). Based on the rarity of naked barley reported by Galen, the above
passage by Theophrastus raises the question as to whether naked barley was
much more common in earlier periods or whether barley had fewer glumes in
comparison to wheat, or that both were true. Amigues (vol. iV, p. 194-195) pro-
vides a thorough discussion of various interpretations offered by scholars for the
apparent paradox that emerges from this Theophrastean comparison of wheat
to barley with the latter being considered naked by comparison to the former.
in terms of processing on the threshing field, barley is a naked cereal compared
to the glume wheats as almost all of the crop chaff and straw of barley are re-
moved by threshing, winnowing and sieving (see above p. 32, Figure 1.1). The
glume wheats, by contrast, require further processing to remove the rachises and
various layers of glumes that tightly surround the grain. So, in this sense barley
would seem naked compared to the glume wheats. Along these lines, Moritz
(1955) cited by Amigues (o.c., p. 195-196) points out a similar distinction with
hulled barley being perceived by Theophrastus as naked due to the fact that its
hulls adhere to the grain in such a way that they seem like one whereas the hulls
that surround wheat grain are like a ‘coat’ (χιτών [chitṓn]) worn by humans, thus
distinct from the grain itself.
Archaeobotany could easily resolve this issue and ongoing and future re-
search on the historic periods is expected to shed light on the barley varieties
grown in ancient Greece. For the historic period we are unable to make com-
parisons as regards the significance of the two barley varieties, hulled and naked,
as the available archaeobotanical evidence is rather limited. in most cases it is
not specified whether the archaeobotanical barley finds correspond to six-row
or two-row barley, though in the cases where it is stated, most finds of barley
grains from the historic periods correspond to hulled barley (Figure 1.40, 1.41,
1.42).
Mentions of the barley plant and grain are rather rare outside of technical
treatises. For example in the Odyssey we find two general references to its cul-
tivation (4.604 in Menelaus’ fields with other cereals and 19.112 in a catalogue
with elements denoting prosperity), while in the Iliad we read about the harvest
(11.67-70, ‘and as reapers over against each other drive their swathes in a rich
man’s field of wheat or barley, and the handfuls fall thick and fast; even so the
Trojans and Achaeans leapt upon one another and made havoc’, transl. Murray
at Perseus Dig. Libr.) and threshing (20.496, ‘and as a man yoketh bulls broad
of brow to tread white barley in a well-ordered threshing-floor, and quickly is
the grain trodden out beneath the feet of the loud-bellowing bulls; even so beneath
great-souled Achilles his single-hooved horses trampled alike on the dead and
on the shields’, transl. Murray at Perseus Dig. Libr.) of barley (and wheat) in two
similes, which show that these were familiar procedures.
Barley was used both as human food and fodder, prepared in different ways.
Unlike assumptions that processed grain is always used as human food when its
remains are found in the archaeobotanical record (cf. Valamoti 2002), the fol-
lowing sources suggest that some processing was performed when barley was
intended as fodder, too. Barley is mentioned as fodder, especially for horses (e.g.,
Homer, Iliad 5.196, 8.564, Odyssey 4.41; Theognis 1267-9; Aeschylus, Aga-
memnon 1641; cf. Aristophanes Wasps 1306 where a little donkey eats its fill
of roasted barley [ká(n)chrys, see below]). According to Aristotle’s Hist. animal.,
barley was fed to boars during mating and boiled barley to sows during farrowing
(573b 9-11), while it is generally recommended as a fattening food for pigs (595a
28-29) and cows, that eat it either in the form of unprocessed grain or even
Figure 1.40 Naked barley grain (modern, uncharred), photo courtesy of Parthenopi Ralli,
Greek Gene Bank, ELGO DIMITRA.
Figure 1.41 Hulled barley grain (modern, uncharred), photo courtesy of Parthenopi Ralli,
Greek Gene Bank, ELGO DIMITRA.
Figure 1.42 Hulled barley grain from various northern Greek sites: a. Vergina, Eucleia 1st c. BC
– 1st c. AD, b. Dion, 4th c. AD.
pounded (595b 5-10); finally, elephants have a taste for barley as well as bar-
ley-flour [álphita] (596a 3-7). Barley, however, was also an important food for
human consumption and a wide range of ancient words described the food prod-
ucts made of barley, whether for daily meals, healing porridges or ritual prepa-
rations. The use of barley for human food is of course of greater importance, and
in ancient texts we find numerous references to its processed forms and products
that will be examined in the following section.
Processing barley for food

The archaeobotanical record from prehistoric Greece shows that barley grains
in Thessaly and Macedonia were left to sprout (Figure 1.43), leading to the pro-
duction of malt and possibly beer, while ground barley was also a component
of cereal foods from prehistoric Greece, with forms of porridge or bread having
been preserved as charred lumps of cereal components (Valamoti et al. 2019).
Ancient texts show a wide range of barley grain ingredients such as whole
and pounded barley grain, as well as various preparations, for which barley is
the main or part ingredient, mostly breads and cakes, but also gruels, pottages
and drinks. Hulled barley grains would have certainly required extra processing
for the removal of the hulls that are firmly attached to the barley grain as would
have also been the case with the glume wheats (Figure 1.44, see also Figure 1.18
above). Ethnographic accounts of barley dehulling from the Aegean islands sug-
gest that barley grain can be ground in its hulls and milling detaches the hulls
from the grain; the hulls are then sieved out of the milled product and the meal
is used for the preparation of paximádi, a kind of dry rusk (Figure 1.45). Pro-
copiou 2003). Such a process for prehistoric times is indicated by use-wear anal-
ysis of certain Neolithic and Bronze Age grinding stones from northern Greece
(Chondrou et al. 2021). in Tibet where naked barley is the staple cereal food in-
gredient, tsampa, the main barley dish is made of roasted naked barley flour (e.g.,
Weckerle et al. 2005). A wide range of

barley foods exist in the Mediterra-
nean and elsewhere, ranging from
‘kneaded’ food like the Tibetan tsam-
pa to breads, porridges and couscous
(Grando and Gomez-Macpherson
2005). Tsampa has been associated
with ancient Greek máza by Arnott
(1996), cited in Dalby (2003, p. 47).
Although we lack direct evidence
on how barley was transformed into Figure 1.43 Charred, sprouted barley grains
from Argissa, end of 3rd millennium BC (Felix
food in antiquity, ancient texts offer Bittmann, Wilhelmshaven).
descriptions, sometimes quite detai-
led, on the processing steps towards transforming barley into food. A fragment
from the comic poet Pherecrates summarizes a complete sequence of barley grain
processing for the preparation of a barley baked product: ‘now you must pour
the barley, pound/dehull [ptíttein], roast, boil, sieve, grind, knead, bake and finally
serve it’ (Pherecrates fr. 197 PCG). The infinitive πτίττειν [ptíttein] in this frag-
ment probably means ‘to pound or dehull the grain’ (‘winnow’, as interpreted
Figure 1.44 Two women with pestles pound- Figure 1.45 Processing barley for the prepa-
ing cereals in a mortar (drawing by Danai ration of ‘koulouria’, a type of baked rusk,
Chondrou, PlantCult project archive); after an prepared on the island of Melos, photo cour-
Athenian black figure amphora, St. Peters- tesy of Prof. Harris Procopiou, after Proco-
burg, State Hermitage Museum 2065, Beazley piou 2003; barley is ground while still in its
Archive Pottery Database Vase number husks, then sieved to remove the largest part
301574. of the chaff (Courtesy of H. Procopiou).
by LSJ s.v. πτίσσω [ptísso]), since the whole description seems to refer to the
treatment of the grain in a cuisine. A similar but simpler processing sequence of
barley dehusking observed ethnographically in Turkey is mentioned by Hillman
(1985, p. 20). A more sophisticated process, partly reminiscent of the complex
sequence described in the ancient text above, involving treatment with hot water
and roasting is encountered in barley processing sequences for preparing tradi-
tional foods such as kolo and genfo in Ethiopia (Mohamed et al. 2016). in the
Ethiopian case of genfo the sun-drying and roasting of barley grains prior to their
grinding as flour increases the capacity of the grain flour to absorb water during
cooking (Mohamed et al. 2016, p. 138).
As mentioned above, hulled barley would have required some form of pro-
cessing in order to remove the hulls from the barley kernels. This could have been
done either by grinding (cf. the ethnographic accounts on Melos mentioned
above) or perhaps pounding. on the basis of the Pherecrates’ fragment, the se-
quence for preparing barley for food involved a series of processing after the
pounding/ dehusking that required fire, roasting and boiling, followed by sieving
and then grinding. This would suggest that dehusking may have been done by
pounding rather than grinding, as grinding appears at a much later stage, after
the barley grain has been sieved. of all these stages roasted barley is perhaps the
least mentioned in our sources; in fact only once do we explicitly read of ‘roasted
barley’ (πεφρυγμένας κριθάς [pephrygménas krithás]) in Thucydides 6.22.1 as
part of the supplies of an army, and once about ‘roasted coarse barley meal’ in
a recipe from Erasistratus for treating an upset stomach (known from Galen, On
Venesection against Erasistrateans in Rome 11.214). However, its use should
have been popular, since there was a specific term for it, κά(γ)χρυς [ká(n)chrys],
although this term appears only a few times, too: Hippocr. Diseases i-iii 2.67,
3.17 [Vii 102, 159 L.], Nature of women 32 [Vii 356 L.]; Aristophanes Clouds
1358 (a woman is grinding káchrys), Wasps 1306 (see above p. 55), Cratinus
fr. 300 PCG, Philo On Sieges 86 Thévenot = B 1 Whitehead.
The grinding of grain to produce different types of meal in terms of particle
coarseness and treatment becomes evident from the sources. Barley flour is en-
countered in the Homeric poems as ἄλφιτα [álphita] (we also find the term ἄλφι
[álphi] elsewhere, Homeric Hymn to Demeter 208, Antimachus fr. 109 Wyss =
145 Matthews), while the word κρίμνον [krímnon] appears in the Classical pe-
riod in a similar sense. in the Homeric epic poems álphita (usually in the form
of ἄλφιτα λευκά ‘white barley flour’) was used in everyday life for sprinkling
over meats (Iliad 18.560, Odyssey 14.77, 14.429). it was essential for setting
out on a journey (Odyssey 2.290, 355, 19.197), while its great importance as
human food is reflected in the expression “barley flour (álphita), the marrow of
men” (Odys. 2.290; also Odys. 20.108 for both barley flour and wheat flour)
but also as the ingredient for the preparation of a drink, κυκεών [kykeṓn], mixed
with cheese and wine (Iliad 11.640), cheese, wine and honey (Odyssey 10.234),
or water as described in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter 208, where the goddess
drinks a mixture of barley flour, water and mint (on álphita in drinks cf. also
Hipponax Iamb. fr. 39.3-4 West, Heraclitus testim. 3b D.-K. and other instances
below).
Ιn post-Homeric Greek literature (especially of 5th and 4th c. BC), the meaning
of álphita expanded, as is indicated by numerous passages in which the term de-
notes bread (as the food par excellence, Aristophanes Clouds 106, Peace 368,
Wealth 219) or flour and grain in general, not only of barley (Hippocrates Reg-
imen in acute diseases Append. 21 [ii 502 L.] ‘flour of wheat [pýrina (< pyrós)
álphita]’, Internal affections 23 [Vii 226 L.] ‘flour [álphita] of roasted lentils
[phakós] and bitter vetch [órobos]’; cf. sítos above, p. 51f.). one also encounters
many derivative and compound words (ἀλφιτοπώλης [alphitopṓlēs] ‘seller of
álphita’ and femin. ἀλφιτόπωλις [alphitópōlis], ἀλφιταμοιβός [alphitamoebós]
‘dealer in álphita’, ἀλφιτοσιτῶ [alphitositṓ] ‘eat barley-bread’, see LSJ s.vv.)
which testify that barley flour was very familiar and in common use. it was crucial
for the supplies of an army (Thucydides 3.49.3, 8.100.2, Xenophon Anabasis
6.1.15) and it occurs many times in comedy, often with other foods, as a common
and necessary element of everyday life. it is also frequently mentioned in the Cor-
pus Hippocraticum for the preparations of various medicines, especially as an
ingredient of drinks with wine and/or honey, while in many cases the patient is
recommended to drink ‘water of (thin) álphita’ (Epidemics 5.10 [V 210 L.], Dis-
eases i-iii 2.42, 2.55 [Vii 60, 87 L.]; cf. Female Diseases i-iii 1.11, 52 [Viii 46,
112 L.]) or the similar ‘water of krímnon’ (Epidemics 7.10 [V 382 L.], Diseases
i-iii 2.18 [Vii 32 L.]).
Κρίμνον [krímnon] is a term denoting ‘coarse barley meal’ (LSJ s.v.), probably
a folk word from everyday language; we find it occurring from the 5th c. BC, al-
though not with the same frequency as álphita. one of the earliest known pas-
sages with this term is in a fragment from the comic poet Eupolis (fr. 99.81-82
PCG) vividly representing a man whose beard has been covered with coarse bar-
ley flour [krímnon] as he has drunk a kykeṓn, a drink of which álphita was a
regular ingredient. in a Hippocratic recipe it is recommended to roast coarse
krímna of álphita (Female diseases i-iii 2.113 [Viii 244 L.]), and the coexistence
of both terms most likely suggests that they were different types of processed
barley. Similarly in Archestratus (SH 135.11-13 = 5.11-13 olson-Sens 2000) we
read that the Thessalians had a round bread with the name κόλλιξ [kόllix] (cf.
Ephippus fr. 1 PCG, where a Thessalian is called ‘kόllix-eater’, while in Aristo-
phanes Acharnians 872 we read the same attribute for a Boeotian) and they call
it κριμνίτης ([krimnítēs] made of krímnon, so a barley bread) but other people
call it χόνδρινος ([chóndrinos] made of chóndros, so a wheaten bread); obviously

coarsely ground cereal grain was used for this bread, either of barley or wheat,
and perhaps the different names reflect the different habits of each area. However,
the oldest mention of kόllix determines it as ‘made of barley (kríthinos) and being
food of slaves’ (Hipponax fr. 26.6 West). in any case, kόllix appears rarely in Ar-
chaic and Classical literature and the context does not allow us to know anything
else more precisely about it.
reading through the lines of the ancient texts mentioned above it is possible
to attempt a distinction between the types of processed barley to which the words
álphita and krímna might have corresponded. As krímna appears to be a deriva-
tive of álphita, according to the Hippocratic passage of Female diseases i-iii 2.113
mentioned above, we can suppose that they corresponded to a portion derived
from the ground or pounded barley grains that constituted álphita. Based on
modern ethnographic observations on the processing of hulled barley to prepare
paximádi on the island of Melos (Procopiou 2003), we may suggest that álphita
could have corresponded to the end-product resulting from grinding or pounding
of hulled barley grain, which was then sieved to remove the majority of the hulls
(Figure 1.45 above). As álphita would have comprised both coarse and very fine,
flour-like fragments of barley, it is possible that they were sieved again (after the
removal of the hulls) with a sieve or sieves that would have separated different
grades of barley meal. in this case, κρίμνα ἁδρά [krímna hadrá] would have cor-
responded to the coarse portion of sieved álphita, perhaps the component used
for the preparation of kόllix mentioned above. This coarseness can be inferred
by the two adjectives used for kόllix, ([krimnítēs] and ([chóndrinos] (see above),
the latter suggesting chóndros as its component, i.e. the coarse portion retained
by the first of the two sieves used during the preparation of chondros as described
in Geoponika (chóndrou póēsis, see Valamoti 2011) or just one sieve used to
separate two grades of the ground grain, such as has been observed recently at
the village of Kosmati in northern Greece (Valamoti et al. 2021, Figure 1.46).
in any case the adjective hadrá (‘coarse’) used to describe krímna implies the siev-
ing of ground barley grain into different ranges of fragments.
The commonest term for a barley food preparation, usually translated as
cake (but see below, p. 62-63 for mentions of barley bread), was μᾶζα [máza],
derived from μάσσω [mássō] ‘knead’, so that the name of these cakes itself reflects
the means of its preparation. This process is indicated by the participle
μεμαγμένη [memagménē], attributed to máza in Archilochus fr. 2 West (‘in the
spear is my kneaded bread, in the spear my ismarian wine’, transl. J. M. Edmonds
(1931) at Perseus Dig. Libr.), where bread and wine symbolize the basic elements
of living, which the speaker earns as a soldier. There is an even earlier appearance
of the term máza in Hesiod’s Works 590, where we read about a milk-máza (μᾶζα
Figure 1.46 Sieving ground parboiled grain to separate bulgur (larger sized particles) from
finer particles that are transformed into trachanás after mixing with milk, Kosmati 2017,
PlantCult archive.
ἀμολγαίη). Texts from the 5th c. onwards make clear that máza was barley
bread/cake, especially when they distinguish máza from ártos ‘wheaten bread’,
see e.g.: Hippocrates Ancient medicine 3 [i 576 L.] ‘from wheat [pyrόs, see be-
low], after steeping it, winnowing, grinding and sifting, kneading, baking they
produced bread [ártos], from barley they produced cake [máza]’ (transl. Jones
LoEB Hipp. vol. i); Xenophon Cyropaedia 6.2.28 ‘whoever eats barley bread
[alphitositeí] always eats meal that has been kneaded up with water [máza], and
whoever eats wheaten bread [artositeí] eats of a loaf [ártos] that was mixed with
water’ (transl. Miller at Perseus Dig. Libr.); see also the 21st book, entitled ‘on
álphita, máza and the like’, of Problems in the Corpus Aristotelicum (927a 10
- 930a 3). Furthermore, as we mentioned above p. 54, the name ‘Achillean cake’
was due to the special variety of fine barley (called ‘Achillean’) used for its prepa-
ration.
We are aware of the fact that the term máza is commonly translated as ‘cake’,
but translators (as Edmonds does in the passage by Archilochus cited above) also
render it as ‘bread’; on the other hand Miller translated the verb alphitositeí (lit-
erally ‘eating álphita’ = barley meal) as ‘eating barley bread’, probably with the
meaning ‘eating a product made of barley meal’, clarifying further the meaning
of this product as ‘meal that has been kneaded up with water’ [máza]. in fact,
the term ‘kríthinos ártos’ (‘bread of krithḗ’) itself does not occur in the known
Classical and Hellenistic texts but only in references to foreign people: Xenophon
Anabasis [Expedition of Cyrus] 4.5.31 (Greek soldiers eat barley breads in a vil-
lage near the river Euphrates), Aristotle On marvellous things heard 841b 2-9
(bread of barley produced in a region of Thrace which causes death to animals),
Theophrastus Hist. Plant. 4.4.9 (breads made of a kind of wild barley in india),
D(e)inon FGrHist 690 F 4 (barley bread eaten by Persians), Nicander of Thy-
ateira FGrHist 343 F 10 (barley bread in Egypt). in a later period, however, Galen
devoted a chapter of his Properties of foods 6.504-506 to ‘barley breads’ which,
as he says, are inferior to the wheaten ones (cf. the καχρυδίας ἄρτος [kachrydías
ártos], ‘bread of ká(n)chrys’, see above p. 59, mentioned by Pollux 1.248, 6.33).
Perhaps this inferior quality may be the reason why we do not find mentions of
barley bread in earlier periods, when we can reasonably believe that such breads
may have existed. on the other hand, since the term ártos was connected almost
exclusively with the wheaten bread/loaf, it is possible that the term máza, which
denoted a barley product that was emphatically discerned from wheaten breads
by the ancient authors cited above, could also mean in some exceptional cases
‘barley bread’. overall, however, it is clear that barley and wheat were used for
the preparation of two very common, yet very distinct cereal-based recipes, máza
and ártos, with each distinguished from the other on the basis of these two dif-
ferent cereals used for their preparation.
Máza is frequently mentioned in the Corpus Hippocraticum (in many cases
with attributes determining its condition or the means of its preparation such
as ‘dry’ [ξηρή], ‘moist’ [ὑγρή] or ‘sticky’ [γλισχρή] Regimen in acute diseases 10
[ii 300 L.], ‘baked’ [ἐφθή] Epidemics 6.3.1 [V 292 L.], ‘ground’ [ψαιστή] Internal
affections 20 [Vii 216 L.], ‘soft’ [μαλθακή] op. cit. 35 [Vii 216, 254 L.]). it occurs
in a lot of comic passages, which demonstrates that it was in everyday use by
common people. in one nice example a husband narrates how his wife tried to
wheedle him by offering ‘fluffy máza’ (φυστὴν μᾶζαν, Aristophanes Wasps 610).
it seems that máza is implied when feminine adjectives referring to cakes are
used, such as oenoútta (oἰνοῦττα, Aristophanes Wealth 1121) ‘a cake of barley
mixed with wine, water and oil’ (LSJ s.v. ) and melitoútta (μελιτοῦττα) ‘a cake
of barley sweetened with honey’ (Aristophanes Clouds 507, Lysistrata 601 ‘i will
knead [másso] a melitoútta’; Nicophon fr. 6.2 PCG) or melitóessa (μελιτόεσσα,
Herodotus 8.41 for the honey cake that was offered by the Athenians every
month to the guardian snake of the Acropolis, in the shrine where it lived. This
shrine was initially the ‘old temple’ of Athena and later the Erechtheion (Camp
2008). Athenaeus 3.114 E-F has a short catalogue of various barley cakes/breads
(mázai) named after their shape or their ingredients (see also Micha-Lampaki
1984, Dalby 1997 and 2003).
The use of dehusked barley grain seems to be of great importance, especially
for the preparation of gruel or soup. Both this grain and its gruels are denoted
with the term πτισάνη [ptisánē] (from 5th c. BC on), which was a barley product,
such that, in the very few passages (especially pseudo-Aristotle’s Problems 863a
34 – b 10) it is determined as ‘wheaten’ (πυρίνη [pyrínē]), the attribute is neces-
sary to explain that the speech is about a gruel likened to the familiar gruel of
ptisánē but made of pyrós, or rather a product of it called chóndros, see below).
The first stage, the preparation of raw ptisánē, i.e., of ptisánē as grain, is de-
scribed only in Geoponica 3.9, a much later medieval work (10th c. BC), which
does however draw upon ancient authors, and we can believe that the preparation
in antiquity was somehow similar to this: ‘we dampen the barley and pound/de-
husk it, we dry it under the sun and then we stock it. We dust it with the hulls,
because this preserves it. Let the water be one tenth of the barley. We sprinkle
coarse salt and mix. Ptisánē is also made of wheat in a similar way.’ So, we see
that ptisánē was produced through an elaborate sequence of processing, and po-
tentially this practice could be detected in the archaeobotanical record, aided by
future experimentation (cf. Valamoti et al. 2021).
The gruel of ptisánē was considered to be an excellent medicinal material,
and we find it occurring dozens of times in the Corpus Hippocraticum: it is
praised as an excellent food, much better than wheat for treating many diseases,
because, it is extremely slippery and easy for digestion and it quenches thirst,
especially when it is produced from barley of the best quality and has been boiled
in the right way (Regimen in acute diseases 4-5 [ii 244-264 L.]); in most cases
it is recommended for the gruel to be thin, sometimes cold and in specific in-
stances to be mixed with other gruels or liquids. it is not surprising, therefore,
that Galen devoted the brief treatise On ptisánē (translation in English by Grant
2000, p. 62-67) to it, where he speaks of its qualities and its proper means of
preparation, on which he also insisted in his Properties of foods 6.502-503
(transl. Grant 2000, p. 87 and Powell 2003, p. 48). A summary (based on both
these texts) of this procedure is as follows: high quality barley grain must be
properly winnowed, dehusked and boiled in water of the best quality. This clean,
dehusked barley needs to be soaked for a short time and then placed in a mortar
where it is rubbed by hand, while holding something rough, in order to remove
hulls still adhering to the winnowed barley grain, though if some hulls aren’t
removed this won’t harm the end product; then the clean grain should be boiled
and when it had swollen adequately, the mixture should be slowly parboiled so
that it converts into a thick gruel to produce a liquid. For cooking ptisánē a high
flame is initially required to bring the mixture of grain and water to boil, after
which it is simmered over a low heat; in the first cooking step the grain swells
while in the next step the slow-cooking of the mixture converts it into a thick
gruel.
Given the importance of ptisánē and its wide use in medicine, it seems
strange that, in the literature of the 5th to 3rd c. BC, outside of medical treatises,
ptisánē occurs only a few times, mainly in comedy in catalogues of foods (Aristo-
phanes fr. 428 PCG, Nicophon fr. 6.3 PCG, Anaxandrides fr. 42.42 PCG) and
in a satire of a doctor’s recipe (Alexis fr. 146.1-4 PCG). in another Aristophanic
verse (fr. 165 PCG) the question ‘are you teaching him how to cook ptisánē or
lentils?’ has been interpreted as a proverbial joke meaning ‘are you a doctor or
a cook’ (PCG ad loc.); it could also just be making fun of someone who does
not know the right way to prepare ptisánē gruel. in Menander’s Men at Arbi-
tration 140-141 we read that ‘two obols per day are enough for a hungry man
to buy ptisánē’, which means that this gruel was a cheap food for poor people,
and the orator Demades complained that the Athens of his time (4th c. BC), far
from the city which was victorious in naval battles of the past, could be better
compared with ‘an old woman who has sandals on her feet and gulps down
ptisánē’ (Demades fr. 18 De Falco). Hermeias of Methymna (fr. 2 [FHG ii, p.
80]) refers to a dish of ptisánē which was offered to the worshipers of Gryneus
Apollo at Naucrate.
When the discussion comes to an alcoholic drink made of barley, the written
sources clearly show that it is connected with populations beyond the Greek
world (see Nelson 2014 for a detailed discussion; also Dalby 2003, 50-51). This
drink produced from barley was a kind of beer, called βρῦτον or βρῦτος [brýton
or brýtos]. This is identified as κρίθινος οἶνος [kríthinos oénos] ‘wine of barley’
by Athenaeus 10.447 A (cf. Xenophon Anabasis. 4.5.26, Aristotle fragm. 106
rose, Polybius Histories 34.9.15), who is our main source for the occurrence
of this term in ancient literature, as he cites verses from Archilochus (fr. 42 West)
that mention a drink consumed by Thracians and Phrygians, Aeschylus (fr. 124
TrGF) and Sophocles (fr. 610 TrGF). He also cites passages from the historiog-
raphers Hellanicus (FGrHist 4 F 66) and Hecataeus of Miletos (FGrHist 1 F
154) which say that the Thracians and Paeonians, respectively, ‘drink brýton
from barley’; the latter also mentioned that ‘the Egyptians grind the barley to
make a drink’ (FGrHist 1 F 323b). As regards the Egyptians, Herodotus 2.77
testifies that ‘they use wine [oénos] made from barley [krithḗ]’; also Theophrastus
Hist. Plant. 4.8.12, speaking about a local plant in Egypt, says that ‘the people
(in the country of Egypt) boil its leaves in brýtos made from barley and they be-
come very sweet and all men use them as sweetmeats’ (cf. Caus. Plant. 6.11.2).
Wheat
Free-threshing and glume wheats: deciphering the terms
Several ancient Greek words attributed to different wheat species are encountered
in the relevant texts. The most common word used to refer to wheat is the word
pyrós. Theophrastus uses the term ὁμοιόπυρα [homoeópyra] ‘pyrós-like’ for sev-
eral cereal species; two of his passages where the adjective homoeópyra occurs
are helpful for gaining a better understanding of the plant species that were con-
sidered similar to wheat (pyrós). According to Hist. Plant. 8.1.3 zeiá, típhē and
ólyra are wheat species like pyrós:
Crops sown early are wheat [pyrós] and barley [krithḗ], and of these the
latter is sown the earlier; also zeiá, típhē, ólyra, and others which are wheat-
like [homoeópyra].
(transl. Hort with slight changes)
That zeiá and típhē are the most similar to pyrós is further confirmed in Hist.
Plant 8.9.2, where one sees that besides wheat and barley, a range of cereal species
are considered as being similar to those two:
of the wheat-like [homoeópyra] or barley-like [homoeókritha] plants
such as zeiá, típhē, ólyra, brómos, and aegílops, zeiá is the strongest and
most exhausts the ground; for it has many roots which run deep and
many stems; but its fruit is the lightest and is welcome to all animals. of
the rest, oats [brómos] are the most exhausting; for this too has many
roots and many stems. Ólyra is a more delicate plant and not so robust
as these. But típhē is the crop which is the least burdensome of all to the
soil; for it has but a single slender stem; wherefore also it requires a light
soil and not, like zeiá, one that is fat and also those which are most alike
to pyrós, while aegílops and brómos are, as it were, wild and uncultivated
things.
(transl. Hort with slight changes)
in light of the above Theophrastean information, we have included pyrós,

zeiá, típhē and ólyra in the ‘wheats’. it is also obvious that pyrós had a priority,
since Theophrastus chose it as the measure for the determination of the other
types of wheats called homoeópyra. Pyrós occurs as early as Homer (as do zeiá
and ólyra) but there is no indication allowing further identification; it could
denote a species of naked wheat, as modern researchers suggest, or simply
wheat of every kind. At least Galen (Properties of foods 6.522) comments on
Iliad 8.188 that there is the opinion that the ‘sweet wheat’ (melíphrōn pyrós)
which Andromache is said to set before Hector’s horses was típhē (perhaps
einkorn), because horses do not eat the real pyrós without harm. Such an ob-
jection, although it does not necessarily concern the meaning of the term in all
Homeric pyrós-passages and in any case presupposes the reading of the poetic
text as a historical testimony (i.e., it disregards the possibility of an, even un-
realistic, phrase for the purposes of epic sublimity), is a useful reminder of the
caution with which we must face the textual information. in the following pre-
sentation of the wheats we accept the common opinion of modern scholars
that pyrós is the name of a naked wheat species, while the other terms refer
to glume wheats; we will also discuss the identification of each one of these
terms.
Free-threshing wheats – Πυρός [pyrós]

Πυρός [pyrós] is the main term for both the plant and the grain of wheat. Jardé
(1925) in his thorough treatise on cereals in antiquity discusses the terms used
by ancient Greeks to refer to wheat and highlights the problems related to the
attribution of different cereal species we know today to ancient Greek words.
Amigues translates the word pyrós in the works of Theophrastus as wheat in
general (‘blé’ in French), in other words as the genus Triticum, while in cases
where the reference is specifically to free-threshing wheat, she translates as T.
aestivum/T. durum (‘froment’ in French, Amigues vol. iV, p. 171 [n. 1]) juxta-
posing the term with glume wheats. The term pyrós is very frequent in the ancient
Greek texts and our approach is selective rather than exhaustive; we offer a brief
presentation of the term pyrós and its appearance, and not a thorough account
of all references to it.
Pyrós and krithḗ (or products made from them) often occur together in var-
ious contexts (e.g., Herodotus 2.36, 7.119.6; Thucydides 6.22.1; Xenophon
Oeconomicus 8.9.2, 16.9, Cyropaedia 1.2.11, Anabasis 4.5.31, 5.2.5, 7.13.4;
Aristophanes Birds 622, Peace 853), which demonstrates their priority among
cereals or even among other plants and foods (see e.g. Plato Menexenus 237e
7 - 238a 1, ‘[the earth] produced human nourishment, namely the grain of wheat
[pyrós] and barley [krithḗ], whereby the race of mankind is most richly and well
nourished’ [transl. Bury at Perseus Dig. Libr.]; cf. Republic 372b cited below
p. 76). in other cases the common reference to them aims to compare them and
point out various differences concerning, for example, the cultivation and char-
acteristics of the plants, as in Theophrastus’ technical treatises (Hist. Plant. 8.4.1-
2, 8.6.5, 8.10.3, Caus. Plant. 3.21.4, 4.8.3, 4.13.4, 4.14.1, 4.16.1) or differences
concerning the qualities of each one for their proper use in everyday life. in Reg-
imen i-iv 2.42 [Vi 538 L.] of the Corpus Hippocraticum we read that ‘wheat
[pyrós] is stronger and more nourishing than barley [krithḗ], but both it and
its gruel are less laxative’ (transl. Jones LoEB Hipp. vol. iV, see also Wilkins and
Hill 2006, p. 126), and we find similar information in the questions of the pseu-
do-Aristotelian Problems: persons who handle barley [krithḗ] become pale and
are subject to catarrh, while those who handle wheat [pyrós] are healthy, because
wheat is more easily concocted than barley, and therefore its emanations are
also more easily concocted’ (929b 26-29, transl. Forster); some people believe
that wheat-gruel [ptisánē pyrínē] is lighter and better for use in sickness than
barley-gruel [ptisánē krithínē; see above p. 63ff.], because they see that amongst
bakers those who handle wheaten flour have a much better colour than those
who employ barley meal, and furthermore that barley is moister and that which
is moister requires more concoction; however, at the same time barley and its
gruel have some useful qualities, because barley is colder than wheat, and por-
ridge and any other food which is served to one who is in a fever ought to be
such that it will provide him with a little nourishment and also cool him
(863a34-b10, adaptation from Forster’s translation). Thus, the distinctive prop-
erties of wheat and barley are closely linked to the concept of the four humours
according to which different foods had different properties (Krug 1997, Craik
2018, Wilkins 2015).
in the Homeric epic poems pyrós is firstly mentioned as fodder for horses
(Iliad 8.188, on which see above p. 66, 10.569; also for geese in Odyssey 19.536,
553). in other passages it appears with different plants and trees in descriptions
of fertile and prosperous places (Odyssey 4.604, 19.112); its cultivation is im-
plied to be an activity of civilized people, when it is said that the savage Cyclops
neither sowed nor ploughed it (Odys. 9.110); there is also a reference to its harvest
in a simile in Iliad 11.69. in all these passages pyrós occurs side-by-side with bar-
ley (krithḗ; and once with zeiá too, Odys. 4.604). in Odyssey 20.108-109 the
slave-women in Ulysses’ palace went to sleep after they had ground wheat (pyrós);
they worked in a room where there were hand-mills (μύλαι [mýlai]) and ‘with
them they make barley flour (álphita) and wheat flour (aleiata), the marrow of
men’. Although this is the only passage demonstrating the use and value of pyrós
for human alimentation, wheat was surely of great importance for the Homeric
world, as the very frequent mention of the word bread (sítos, see above, p. 51)
implies. Numerous passages mentioning pyrós and its products (flour, gruels or
thick soups, breads and cakes) from the post-Homeric literature verify its im-
portance.
in Homer we also find the adjective πυροφόρος [pyrophóros, also pyrē-
phóros (πυρηφόρος) twice; ‘wheat-bearing’ LSJ s.v.] indicates the fertile land
where wheat is cultivated (Iliad 12.314, 14.123, 21.602, Odyssey 3.495; cf.
Homeric Hymn to Apollo 228). it is a rather poetic word that occurs in liter-
ature after Homer almost exclusively with the same use (e.g., Hesiod. fr. 180.3
Merkelbach-West, Solon fr. 13.20, 24.2 West, Stesichorus 45.ii.7 PMG,
Theogn. 988 West, Pindarus Isthm. 3/4.72, Choerilus fr. 5 Bernabé, Euripides
Phoenician Women 644); in Hesiod (Works 549) it denotes the air that favours
the growing of the wheat, while in Bacchylides (Encom. 20 B 14 Snell –
Maehler) it refers to ships transferring wheat. As for the qualities such a land
must have, Theophrastus explains that wheat requires good soil, because it ex-
hausts the land (Hist. Plant. 8.9.1; cf. Caus. Plant. 3.21.2, Plutarch Natural
Questions 15). Theophrastus (Hist. Plant. 8.4.3-6) also informs us that the va-
rieties of wheat take their names from their place of production, for example
Greek territories such as Boeotia and Laconia, on the mainland, as well as is-
lands such as Euboea, especially Karystos or other places. Names indicative
Food CRoPS In AnCIEnT GREEK CUISInE 69
Figure 1.47 Modern kernels of Triticum turanicum (Khorasan/kamut wheat) and other wheat
species; its kernels are much larger than normal wheat kernels. From top centre clockwise:
T. monococcum, T. dicoccum, T. aestivum, T. durum, T. turanicum (kamut) and T. spelta.
(Photo courtesy of Andrea Brandolini, Consiglio per la ricerca in agricoltura e l’analisi del-
l’economia agraria (CREA) Unità di ricerca per la Zootecnia e l’Acquacoltura).
of foreign regions were also used as reflected in the adjectives ‘Libyan, Pontic,
Thracian, Assyrian, Egyptian, Sicilian’, as well as a wheat from Bactria (modern
Iran and some nearby regions). Moreover, Theophrastus points out specific dif-
ferences among the wide variety of wheats that concern their growth require-
ments, the colour of grains, and the culinary and nutritional properties of cor-
responding flours; wheat from Thrace, for example had more glumes while
that from Pontus, in the Black Sea region and Laconia bore light-weight seeds;
those from Sicily and Boeotia were considered heavy-seeded wheats, while a
special variety with a short growing cycle was known as a three-month wheat
(τρίμηνον [trímēnos]). The Bactrian wheat that impressed the Macedonian
troops with its size, reportedly as ‘big as an olive stone’, raises the question
whether this large-grained wheat variety/species might have been related to the
modern Khorasan wheat (T. turanicum, Figure 1.47), grown in the same region
that the Macedonian army would have seen it in the 3 rd century BC. This is a
wheat distinguished by its very large grains (Piergiovanni et al. 2009). Such de-
tailed descriptions as well as information on the plant’s cultivation are provided
by Theophrastus but fall beyond the scope of this book.
The glume wheats: zéa, zeiá, ζέα, ζειά, típhē, τίφη, ólyra, ὄλυρα
in addition to pyrós, the commonest term for wheat, we also find other words
denoting wheat in texts, although not so frequently, as mentioned above (p. 65-
66): zeiá, típhē and ólyra. These can be identified as glume wheats, as we read
that their grain needed to be dehusked: Theophrastus writes that like oats, zéa
has a grain covered by many layers of husk (Caus. Plant. 4.6.3), and Galen in
a later period states that when processing, the grains of típhē, ólyra, barley and
oats require dehusking (Thinning diet 42-43). However, beyond this broadly
accepted categorization of these terms under the title ‘glume wheat’, assigning
modern botanical names to each one of them is not an easy task, partly because
of the confusion encountered in the written sources along with the fact that dif-
ferent authors apparently intend different meanings for the same terms. The
most obvious case, for example, is that of Galen in the 2nd c. ΑD wondering
which plant and grain had the name zeiá, although he finds it occurring in many
of his sources from Homer to Dioscorides, which he cites and discusses (Prop-
erties of foods 6. 511-517); he says that he can’t identify it with any wheat
species he knows. He finally believes that, thanks to Mnesitheus’ precise descrip-
tion of zeiá, he can conclude that Mnesitheus used this name for a cereal Galen
himself saw in Macedonia and Thrace, called βρίζα [bríza] (this is translated
as ‘rye’) by the locals. on the other hand, the authors of one century earlier (1st
c. AD) give us quite a different picture. in Dioscorides’ known work we do not
find típhē at all and only once does ólyra occur: ‘it is of the same kind as zéa
but a little less nutritious than it. it is also made into bread, and krímnon is sim-
ilarly made of it’ (De materia medica 2.91); however, we read plenty about zeiá
(zéa, as he calls it), and it is in his work we learn that there are two kinds of
this wheat, a single-grained and a two-grained (op. cit. 2.89). Dionysius of Hali-
carnassus also mentioned only zeiá, which he identified with the roman far (the
passage is cited above p. 52f.). Pliny the Elder mentioned all three wheats and
attempted to compare them with Latin terms, but his information rather com-
plicates the matter more than it contributes to its solution, such as when he
refers to zéa and connects it with the adjective ζείδωρος [zeídōros] (Naturalis
Historia 18.82):
Those countries which employ zéa, have no far. Zéa, however, is to be found
in italy, and in Campania more particularly, where it is known by the name
of semen. The grain that bears this name enjoys a very considerable celebrity
… and it is in honour of this that Homer uses the expression, ζείδωρος
ἄρουρα, and not, as some suppose, from the fact of the earth giving life.
[transl. Bostock and riley at Perseus Dig. Libr.]
That zeídōros ároura is ‘the land producing zeiá’ (etymologizing from ζειά / ζέα
+ δῶρον, ‘gift’, instead of ζωή ‘life’ + δῶρον [=life-giving]) is more a Plinian in-
terpretation, based perhaps on the abundance of this cereal at his time and on
the importance of its equivalent far for the romans, than a certain etymology,
especially if we take into account the scant appearance of zeiá in the Homeric
epics, where there is little evidence, as we will see, to suggest that it was an im-
portant wheat.
The examination below of even older passages from ancient Greek literature
concerning these three terms will demonstrate that the information we have is not
precise, and it is already clear that the same species might have been called by dif-
ferent names in different areas or the same word might have corresponded to two
different species, depending on the region where it was encountered, the particular
ancient writer who is discussing the terms, and the dating of the texts. A similar
example from the present concerns the word ‘corn’ which, in English, can signify
wheat grain but also the American cereal, Zea mais, which in Greek is called ‘ar-
avósitos’ literally meaning ‘the wheat of the Arabs’ indicating the route of this ce-
real’s introduction to modern Greece (e.g. Thanopoulos et al. 2021). in any case
modern scholars seem to at least agree on the identification of típhē as ‘einkorn’
(Triticum monococcum L., Dalby p. 130, Powell p. 163, Amigues vol. V, p. 341
and iV, p. 226 [n. 7]) and of zeiá as ‘emmer’ (Dalby p. 131 [“Triticum turgidum
subsp. dicoccum”], Powell ibidem [a variety of emmer wheat (T. turgidum variety)],
Amigues vol. V, p. 286 [“Triticum dicoccon Schrank”] and iV, 174-5 [n. 8]).
Ólyra
Ólyra is the name of a wheat that has not been unanimously identified at species
level. Amigues thoroughly reviews the available textual evidence on ólyra as well
as the various translations and attribution of glume wheat species to the word,
and, despite the widespread identification of it, together with zeiá as emmer (T.
turgidum subsp. dicoccum, see Dalby p. 131, Powell p. 163), she favours its iden-
tification as T. spelta (Amigues vol. iV, pp. 174-176 [n. 8], V p. 317).
Ólyra is one of the earliest wheat terms to occur in our sources, appearing
even in Homer twice for horses ‘that feed on white barley (kri) and ólyra’ (Iliad
5.196, 8.564). its next appearance is in Herodotus who says that for the Egyptians
it is the greatest disgrace to live on wheat (pyrós) and barley (krithḗ), as all other
people do, and they make their food from ólyra, which others call zeiá (2.36); be-
low (2.77) he determines that the Egyptians eat breads made of ólyra and they
name this bread kyllḗstis. We can reasonably assume that ólyra was a term familiar
to his Greek readers to explain what kind of wheat the Egyptians were using for
bread. it is also obvious that for Herodotus (and his readers) ólyra was similar
to zeiá (it seems that these two names were used by different people for the same
wheat or for two wheats very similar to each other), so that we have the first in-
dication of the relationship of these two plants/grains. Here it is possible the ar-
chaeobotanical evidence from ancient Egypt can help towards clarifying the terms,
with it being emmer wheat that was cultivated in ancient Egypt (Samuel 1994,
Mayerson 2002). Thus, the word ólyra here could refer to emmer wheat but ac-
cording to Herodotus’ zeiá, too, could refer to the wheat eaten by Egyptians.
From Herodotus’s phrasing in 2.36 it is implied that ólyra is inferior to wheat
(pyrós) and barley and this seems to also be the sense of the term in Demosthenes,
who says one century later that no Athenian is so guileless as to believe that
Philippus prefers to possess hell-like places in Thrace with pits full of ólyra and
millet (melínē), instead of wishing to have the harbours, ships and glorious places
of Athens (Philippics 4.16); it would appear as if ólyra is a worthless grain, but
here we must take account of the device of the orator, who exaggerates in order
to highlight his argument and achieve his goal. Curiously enough the term occurs
only four times in Theophrastus Hist. Plant., and we have already cited three of
them (8.1.3 and 8.9.2 twice, see above p. 65f.), where it is said that ólyra is a
pyrós-like plant, ‘more delicate and not so robust as zeiá’ (and brómos), while
it seems more similar to típhē, ‘the crop which is of all the least burdensome to
the soil; for it has but a single slender stem’. The last reference to ólyra (8.4.1)
reveals one more common feature with típhē and all such plants: ‘they have their
seed in several coats’. in our opinion, based on the above, the exact species identity
of ólyra and its relationship with zéa remain uncertain.
Típhē
The word típhē (corresponding to ‘einkorn’) occurs only a few times and only
in the scientific treatises of the known Classical and Hellenistic literature. We
find it 17 times in Theophrastus, who only speaks about the plant and its cul-
tivation, and once in Aristotle’s History of Animals 603b 25-6, who mentions
it as fodder for pigs (‘The pimples (of pigs) may be got rid of by feeding on típhē,
which, by the way, is very good for ordinary food’, transl. D’Arcy Wentworth
Thompson, with changes, available at http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/ history_an-
im8.viii. html). More interesting are the only other three instances which reveal
that típhē was a cereal species with its own distinctive properties. According to
the Hippocratic Regimen i-iv 2.43 [Vi 542 L.] ‘típhē and zeiá are lighter than
pyrós, and preparations therefrom are similarly lighter than those from pyrós
and more laxative’ (transl. Jones LoEB Hipp. vol. iV with his conjecture on the
tradition of the text, p. 315, n. 2), while Mnesitheus (a physician of 4th c. BC),
as Athenaeus (3.115 F) informs us, said that:
‘wheat bread [ártos] is more easily broken down than barley-cake [máza],
and that bread made of típhē supplies more adequate nutrition, since it is
broken down without difficulty. As for bread made of zeiá, he says that if
one eats it until one is full, it is heavy and difficult to break down, and that
as a result they who eat it are unhealthy’ (transl. olson).
Athenaeus (3.109 C) also says that Tryphon (a grammarian of the 1st c. BC) men-
tioned bread made from típhē, in a catalogue of various bread types.
it is surprising that típhē does not occur in other texts, especially in comedy.
rather than assuming, as Dalby does, that einkorn “was rapidly declining in
importance by the classical period”, supplanted by emmer and naked wheats
(Dalby 2003: 130), one could argue that limited reference to them in the written
texts we have explored is due to the urban (mostly Athenian) audiences the texts
addressed (see foreword by John Wilkins); these texts present a reality different
to that experienced by the actual farmers in different parts of the Greek world,
where different glume wheat species and local glume wheat landraces might
have been grown depending on the different region and local microclimates (cf.
also the comments on how each area’s conditions affected wheat landraces pro-
vided by Theophrastus Hist. Plant. 8.8.2). So, the term típhē was used in tech-
nical works, where precision is necessary, but common people could use other,
more common terms like the general sítos (see above, p. 51f.), or pyrós and zeiá.
of course, this needs to be verified by future archaeobotanical research, but the
scarce evidence up to now from Greece and other parts of the Greek world in-
dicate the continuation of the use of the glume wheats into the historic periods
(see above p. 43-44), although little can currently be said as regards their culinary
status and regional preferences. on the other hand, Theophrastus’ statement
that ‘zeiá and típhē are those which are most alike to pyrós’ (Hist. plant. 8.9.2,
cited above p. 66), and the fact that most of the around 20 típhē-passages we
referred to contain a comparison with zeiá, advocate for Dalby’s suggestion that
“zeiai is sometimes used as a general term for the two hulled wheats, einkorn
and emmer” (Dalby l.c.; cf. also p. 131) which, however, in light of recent ar-
chaeobotanical research, should extend to also include T. timopheevii and spelt
wheat. Galen, Properties of foods 6.522, underlines the yellow colour as a com-
mon feature of both pyrós and típhē grains; since people in cities and markets
are familiar with the grain, it’s possible that pyrós was the name used for both
yellow wheats while the yellow grain colour could be attributed both to emmer
and einkorn.
Zeiá (also in plural, zeiai), zéa

Zeiá is one of the earliest wheat terms, and one occurring more frequently than
the other terms denoting glume-wheats, perhaps because it was also used in a
general way, as we have just mentioned citing Dalby’s conjecture.
in Homer zeiá appears twice in Odyssey 4: firstly as food for horses mixed
with barley (4.41; cf. the similar use of ólyra) and a second time as one of the
cereals (pyrós and barley are also mentioned) cultivated in Menelaus’ fertile and
wealthy plains (4.604). We cannot say anything else in terms of its precise botan-
ical identity but that it differed from pyrós and krithḗ. its next appearance is in
the 5th c. BC. According to Herodotus (2.36, cited above) it was a cereal similar
to ólyra, while Xenophon in Anabasis 5.4.28 says that the Greeks in the country
of Mossynoecians (on the south shore of the Euxine, i.e. the Black Sea), found
the new wheats (sítos) stored with their straws, most of which were zeiai. Both
authors obviously used a term familiar to their readers, so that they could re-
cognize more precisely what kind of wheat it was, but we have no further details.
Neither can the two comic fragments, in which zeiá appears, help us in its iden-
tification, since both are one verse fragments with the well-known comic accu-
mulation of foods. in Aristophanes fr. 428 PCG the list comprises different wheat
species (pyrós, zeiá) and a cereal weed (aíra) and different preparations made of
cereals (ptisáne, chóndros, semídalis), while in Pherecrates fr. 201 PCG zeiá and
aíra are mentioned together with pulses. it is interesting that aíra (identified as
Lolium temulentum, Amigues vol. V, p. 264), an obligatory cereal weed (Figure
1.32 above, p. 46) is mentioned together with the wheats in crop lists, and one
wonders whether this was a subtle joke that the audience of the time might have
perceived, about bad things getting mixed with excellent food ingredients. Two
other passages (cited above p. 73) seem to give us contradictory information
about the qualities of zeiá and its products, which are lighter and more laxative
than pyrós according to the Hippocratic Regimen i-iv 2.43 [Vi 542 L.]; according
to Mnesitheus (apud Athenaeus 3.115 F), on the other hand, the bread made of
zeiá is heavy and difficult to break down, if too much of it is eaten. Perhaps this
contradiction can be explained by Galen (Properties of foods 6.513-514, see
above p. 70), who cites Mnesitheus’ excerpt more precisely than Athenaeus and
says that, thanks to Mnesitheus’ precise description, he can conclude that Mne-
sitheus used the name zeiá for ‘rye’, a quite different plant. This is indicative of
the confusion about the names of various wheats. All the remaining references
to zeiá are encountered in the work of Theophrastus on the physical character-
istics of the plant and its cultivation.
The main difference between zeiá and other terms referring to glume wheats
is not the frequency of its presence in the ancient written sources examined here
but the fact that it is also sometimes mentioned by non-scientific authors, and
this seems to be evidence that it was recognized as a particularly widely-used
wheat in everyday life. in light of the available evidence presented above, it is
possible that the word zeiá denoted any species of glume wheat such as einkorn,
emmer, spelt wheat, and also Triticum timopheevii, all attested to in the prehis-
toric archaeobotanical record of Greece and the limited available evidence from
the 1st millennium BC in Greece (Valamoti 2009, Valamoti et al. 2018, Gkatzogia
and Valamoti 2021).
our investigation into the sources shows that there is no decisive information
for the identification of each ancient term with a specific modern glume wheat
species. The existence of a fourth glume wheat in the archaeobotanical assem-
blages of prehistoric and iron Age Greece, Triticum timopheevii, further empha-
sizes the caution that must be taken when botanical species are attributed to the
ancient words for the glume wheats. The differential or overlapping use of some
terms over time, as well as the possible existence of different local names, all pose
serious problems for linking an ancient term with a glume wheat species as it
is known today. Such identification problems have been pointed out by various
scholars such as Jardé (1929), Dalby (1997, 2003) and Amigues (passim). Thus,
in our opinion, it is much safer if all these words ascribed to glume wheats by
ancient writers are treated as a large glume wheat group without further attempts
to identify them in terms of modern species. This ambiguity we have identified
in the texts renders the recovery of archaeobotanical remains from archaeological
sites of the historic periods of utmost importance.
The transformation of wheat grain into food

Prehistoric wheaten preparations, such as bulgur/trachanás examined above (p.
x), as well as plant micro-remains retrieved from processing stone tools (Kas-
apidou 2020) show the deep roots of consuming wheat as food. it is through
ancient texts, however, that an impressive variety of wheat-based food prepa-
rations is revealed as will soon become evident.
A dish made of ‘boiled and diffused pyrós’ grain was called ἀθάρη [athárē];
(also athḗra, Hellanicus FGrHist 4 F 192, Dioscorides De materia medica 2.92)
according to the interpretation in Photius’ Lexicon α 471, who also says that it
was similar to étnos, the gruel made of pulses, esp. Celtic beans (see below p. 106,
107-109), and that the term is much used by Attic authors. We know of about a
dozen passages (most of them are fragments from comedies) from the 5th century
BC on in which athárē occurs: e.g., Aristoph. Knights 1062, Wealth 673, 683, 694
(a pot full of athárē), fr. 136 PCG; Crates fr. 11 PCG (a bowl of étnos and of
athárē); Pherecrates fr. 113.3 PCG (rivers of athárē and black broth). None of
these passages shows that this gruel was made of pyrós, but we can trust Photius
who was obviously drawing from ancient sources (we have such testimonies from
2nd c. AD by Pollux Onomasticon 6.62 and Phrynichus Sophistic preparation 14
de Borries, who confirms that athárē was étnos made of pyrós), although its prepa-
ration from other wheats can’t be excluded, as Dioscorides testifies: ‘Gruel [athḗra]
is made from fine milled zéa. it is a concoction resembling liquid porridge and it
is a suitable thing to give to children’, De materia medica 2.92, transl. Beck p. 132).
Wheat was ground into different types of flour, either finely ground or more
coarsely, as is described in the preparation of chóndros (see below). Different
types of flour were used, bran-free or wholemeal, which could be used for a wide
variety of foods such as breads, gruels and sweet cakes (see below). Grinding
seems to have been accompanied by songs, as Athenaeus (14.618 C-D) informs
us: ‘Tryphon also lists the following terms for songs: the himaios, also known
as epimulios (“mill-stone-[song]”), which they sang while milling grain’ (transl.
olson). The main product of wheat, flour, is called ἄλευρον ([áleuron], and is
apparent in texts since the 5th c. BC; with ἀλείατα [aleíata] also appearing once
in Homer, Odyssey 20-108, and ἄλητον [álēton] several times in the Hippocratic
works, as distinct from álphita (barley flour), as is clear in passages where both
terms coexist, e.g. Homer Odyssey 20.108; Herodotus 7.119 (cited above p. 51);
Xenophon Anabasis 1.5.6, Cyropaedia 5.2.5. of course, áleuron, a common
term appearing frequently in our sources, was also used to denote other flours
(of barley, e.g., Theophrastus On piety fr. 2 Pötscher, or even of pulses, especially
of órobos, see below p. 110, 118), but when it occurs without further determi-
nation we can reasonably believe that it was a product of pyrós and the bread
(called ártos) made from it was a wheaten bread. in Plato’s Republic 372b the
different products of barley and wheat and the techniques for their preparation
are nicely summarized: ‘and for their nourishment they will provide meal from
their barley [álphita of krithḗ] and flour from their wheat [áleuron of pyrós], and
baking and kneading these they will serve noble barley-cakes (máza) and wheat-
loaves (ártos)’ (transl. based on Shorey at Perseus Dig. Libr.).
other products of wheats were chóndros (and trágos), ámylos and semídalis.
The term χόνδρος [chóndros] denotes both coarsely ground wheat (of pyrós,
pseudo-Aristotle Problems 929b, Galen Properties of foods 6.496; also of zeiá
according to Dioscorides De materia medica 2.96.1, ‘chóndros is made of the
so-called zéa dícoccos’; cf. Geoponica 3.7, where chóndros is made of boiled
zeiá, a method not mentioned in our sources from the Classical and Hellenistic
periods) or the dish made of it. So, it seems to be analogous to what ptisánē was
for barley (see above p. 64), and when we read for example in a medical pre-
scription that ‘chóndros or ptisánē of pyrós should be given’ (Hippocrates Af-
fections 44 [Vi 254 L.]), we can assume that the difference between these two
was the coarseness of the wheat grains or the thickness of the dish.
The first appearance of chóndros in Stesichorus fr. 2 PMG denotes a prepa-
ration given with cakes and breads as a gift to a maiden, perhaps at a wedding
symposium, according to Athenaeus 4.172 D-E, who cites the two verses: ‘sesame
cakes, chóndros, honey-and-oil cakes [enkrís, see below p. 88], other pastries,
and pale honey’ (transl. olson); chóndros is translated as “wheat pudding” by
olson (cf. the mention of bread of chóndros by Archestratus SH 135.13 cited
above p. 60f.). in Pherecrates fr. 113.18 PCG we read about ‘chóndros soaked
in milk’, while according to Hecataeus of Abdera (FGrHist 264 F 25) chóndros
boiled with milk was a luxurious food made for Egyptian priests. Alexis fr. 196
PCG talks at length about chóndros from Thessaly, and Antiphanes fr. 36.2-3
PCG reveals that this chóndros was famous for its quality, as was also the chón-
dros from Megara. Since chóndros also appears in other comic fragments, and
in other works, we can conclude that it was a common wheat product. The as-
sociation of chóndros with milk is especially interesting as it is reminiscent of
the mixing of milk with bulgur for the preparation of trachanás at Kosmati, a
village near Grevena in western Macedonia (Valamoti et al. 2021) or the mixing
of soured milk with chóndros (coarsely ground wheat) nowadays in Crete for
the preparation of ‘xinóchondros’, xino- referring to the sour milk that is used
in its preparation (Valamoti and Anastasaki, 2007). Similar products are known
from the Aegean islands, under slightly different names, cháchla on the island
of Lesvos, trachanás in many parts of Greece, tarhana in Turkey, and kishk in
the Near East, a practice that stretches far back in time (see Figure 1.21 and 1.23
above; Palmer 2002, Hill and Bryer 1995, also Valamoti 2011 for a review on
the subject). Let us also add here that from the 1st c. AD onwards the term τράγος
[trágos] occurs for a wheat preparation/ingredient, similar to chóndros (Dio-
scorides De materia medica 2.93, according to whom ‘trágos is less nutritious
than zéa because it has much chaff’), which similarly applies to the gruel prepared
from it (Soranus Gynaecology 3.44.3); Galen Properties of foods 6.520 says that
trágos is made when people grind, in a proper way, high quality ólyra and de-
scribes how it is used, while he speaks of its disposition in 6.530 and 6.687.
The term ámylos is an adjective meaning ‘not ground at the mill’ (LSJ s.v.)
and is used for fine wheat flour that was prepared via a long process, according
to Dioscorides’ detailed description (De materia medica 2.101): the wheat had
to be cleaned, soaked and washed in water which should be poured off five times
a day (and night if possible), and, when the wheat had become very soft, then
it should be threshed with the feet, washed and threshed again; after that, the
bran lying on top should be removed and what remained had to be strained and
finally dried under the hot sun. The term ámylos appears since the 5th c. BC in
masculine form (the noun ártos being implied) denoting a cake or bread made
of the finest flour. it occurs several times especially in comedies (e.g. Aristophanes
Acharnians 1092, Peace 1195, fr. 405 PCG, Metagenes fr. 6.11, 18.2 PCG,
Pherecrates fr. 113.17 PCG, Teleclides fr. 34.2 PCG, Matro SH 534.5 (= fr. 1
olson-Sens 1999), Anaxandrides fr. 42.38 PCG, Eubulus fr. 35.2 PCG), and in
Philoxenus fr. 836 e 18 PMG we read about a cake made of ámylos: ‘a cheese-
cake kneaded together out of milk and honey, an amulos produced in a bread-
pan’ (= Athenaeus 14.643 C, transl. olson). Although it is unknown in the Hip-
pocratic corpus, Galen devotes a small chapter to it (Properties of foods 6.500)
saying that it is made from wheat and its disposition is similar to that of what
he calls ‘washed bread’ (cf. the ‘clean bread’ of Hippocrates’ passage cited below
p. 80), i.e., refined bread free of bran but less nutritious than it, which is congruent
with Dioscorides’ description.
The term σεμίδαλις [semídalis] has also occurred since the 5th century BC.
Aristophanes fr. 428 PCG mentions it among other foods (see above p. 74), Strat-
tis fr. 2 PCG talks about the twin products of semídalis, while Hermippus fr.
63.22 PCG perhaps (the reading is not sure) connects it with Phoenicia (cf. An-
tiphanes fr. 36.4-5 PCG). Archestratus (SH 135.14-5 = 5.14-15 olson-Sens
2000) praises the ‘Tegean son of semídalis, concealed in ashes’, which is the so
called ἄρτος ἐγκρυφίας [ártos enkryphías < κρυπτός ‘hidden’], a bread which
was baked in ashes; probably Tegea was famous for such breads made of semí-
dalis. According to the Hippocratic Regimen i-iv 2.42 [Vi 540-542 L.] boiled
semídalis is powerful and nourishing as are also the breads of semídalis (the so-
called semidalítēs ártos; cf. Dioscorides de materia medica 2.85.1). Although its
exact nature is not clear in any of these passages, semídalis seems to be ‘the finest
wheaten flour’ (LSJ s.v.), analogous but inferior to Latin siligo (according to
Galen Properties of foods 6.483-4).
Cereal bakes: exploring the diversity of ancient Greek bakery

in the preceding sections we have discussed the cereal plant species used as food.
We have explored their properties and a range of preparations, as they are related
in ancient Greek texts, starting from the preparation of the grain by means of
dehusking, sieving and grinding; continuing with various dishes and gruels from
wheat and barley, and we also discussed máza, a bread or cake made of barley.
Here we will focus on mixtures of flour (mostly wheat flour) with a liquid to
form different types of doughs, which were used for preparing a wide range of
bakes, for which various ancient terms exist and which are translated to modern
terms as breads and cakes, although it is far from clear whether the ancient equiv-
alents corresponded to what one would nowadays perceive as a cake. Cereal-
based food preparations were used for daily nourishment but also as food for
special occasions. The rare finds of ancient cereal food preparations deposited
at ancient sanctuaries reveal the use of cereals in rituals (see p. 44-46 above)
while textual evidence offers a wealth of associations of specific preparations
with different celebrations, gods and goddesses.
The ancient words allow further insights into the ancient Greek “boulan-
gerie-patisserie”. The term ártos appears in our sources hundreds of times with
various determinations concerning its means of preparation (see for example
Micha-Lampaki 1984), such that the picture presented in our book is indicative
only and not exhaustive. Besides ártos, however, there are many more terms (e.g.,
pópanon, plakoús, nastós, ítrion, láganon etc.) that denote a variety of prepa-
rations made of cereal flour which, in most cases, are very difficult to ascribe to
some form of corresponding modern preparation. What is certain from ancient
texts is that this wide range of cereal preparations that used flour/meal mixed
with a liquid which was then baked/cooked with the use of heat, differed in terms
of ingredients, ways of baking, shapes etc. This variety is explored in this section,
yet, the reader is warned that in many cases it is difficult to be sure of the correct
corresponding translation of the ancient word to a modern equivalent and words
such as bread, cake, biscuit, or rusk may convey a slightly distorted picture in
relation to the actual ancient foods that were understood in antiquity when the
special ‘bread/cake’ terms presented here were used.
There are extensive sections on ‘breads’ and ‘cakes’ by later ancient authors,
such as by Galen in the first book of Properties of foods and Athenaeus whose
Deipnosophistae (passim, especially 3.109-116 A and 14. 643 E - 648 C) offers
a lot of details on the subject. Here we will insist on choosing what we know
from works from Homer to the Hellenistic period, starting with ártos, the most
important term, that occurs hundreds of times in the literature (also in com-
pounds, such as ἀρτοκόπος [artokόpos], ἀρτοποιΐα [artopoeia], ἀρτόπωλις
[artόpōlis] etc., see LSJ s.vv.).
in Homer’s epic poems the word sítos was mainly used for bread, as we have
seen. Ártos also occurs, though only two times, with the meaning of ‘loaf’ in
Odyssey 17.343 (Telemachus ‘took a whole loaf [ártos]’) and in 18.120 (Amphi-
nomus, one of the suitors ‘picked two loaves [ártos] from the basket and set them
before odysseus’); so the word initially meant a whole, well-shaped bread (sítos),
a ‘loaf’, and over the course of time it took on the meaning of ‘bread’. The original
meaning of the word is also recognized in its other archaic appearance, in Hesiod’s
Works 442, where the meal of a brisk man of forty years is ‘a loaf of four quarters
and eight slices for his dinner’ (transl. Evelyn-White at Perseus Dig. Libr.). From
the fragmentary literature of the 7th and 6th c. BC we know of only a few passages
where ártos is mentioned. in the (perhaps wedding) symposium described in Al-
cman’s fr. 19 PMG there are ‘seven couches and an equal number of tables covered
with poppy-seed bread [ártos], flax seed, and sesame seed’ (= Athenaeus 3.111
A, transl. olson). in Solon fr. 38 West we read about people, of whom some eat
ítrion (cakes, see below p. 88), others bread [ártos], and others goúros (a different
kind of cereal-based preparation [plakoús]) mingled with lentils (see below p.
110). Hipponax fr. 115.8 West speaks of someone who will eat the ‘bread of slav-
ery’ [doúlios ártos] and seems to use the word ártos as a symbol of the way of
life. When Anacreon attacks Artemon, one of his accusations against him is that
he associates with artopṓlides (‘women selling breads’) and prostitutes (fr. 43.4
PMG), which implies that women exercising this profession were of the lowest
status; artopṓlides also appear in comedies, see Aristophanes Wasps 238, 1388-
1416 (an artopṓlis has a brief role), Frogs 858 (‘it is not proper for men who are
poets to abuse each other like women selling bread [artopṓlides]’; we find it even
as title of a work of Hermippus (PCG vol. V, p. 565).
From the ártos-passages since the 5th c. BC we have chosen to refer only to
those offering further information on the preparation of bread, and firstly cite
the oldest treatment on breads from a medical point of view, that in Regimen
i-iv 2.42 [Vi 538-542 L.] from the Hippocratic corpus:
Wheat is stronger and more nourishing than barley, but both it and its gruel
are less laxative. Bread made of it without separating the bran [ártos
synkomistós] dries and passes; when cleaned [ártos katharós] from the bran
it nourishes more, but is less laxative. of the various breads themselves the
leavened [ártos zymítēs] is light and passes. it is light because the moisture
is quickly used up owing to the acid of the leaven, and this is the nourish-
ment. it passes, because it is soon digested; but that which is not leavened
[ártos ázymos] does not pass so well, but nourishes more. That which is
mixed with wheat gruel [chylós] is lightest, affords good nourishment, and
passes. it nourishes because it is made of pure wheat [katharós]. it is light
because it is tempered with what is most light, and is fermented by it and
baked. it passes because it is mixed with the sweet and laxative part of the
wheat [pyrós]. of loaves [ártos] themselves the largest are the most nour-
ishing, because the moisture of these is least consumed by the fire. Those
which are baked in an oven [ártos ipnítēs] are more nourishing than those
which are baked on the hearth [ártos escharítēs] or on a spit [ártos obelías],
because that they are less burnt by the fire. Those which are baked in an
oven [ártos klibanítēs] or under the ashes [ártos enkryphías] are the most
dry; the latter by reason of the ashes, the former by reason of the earthen
oven which imbibes their moisture. The bread made of finest flour [ártos
semidalítēs] is the most strengthening of all, except that which is made of
groats [chóndros], which is very nourishing, but does not pass so well by
stool. Fine flour [álēton] mixed with water and drunk is refreshing, and so
is the water wherein dough [stais, σταῖς] has been washed over a fire. A de-
coction of bran when boiled is light and passes well by stool. Meal [álēton]
boiled in milk passes better by stool than that boiled in water by reason of
the whey, and especially if it is mixed with laxatives. All foods from meals
[álēton] boiled or fried with honey and oil are heating and windy; windy
because they are very nourishing and do not pass by stool, heating because
in one place are fat, sweet and ill-assorted ingredients, which should not
be cooked in the same way. Similago [semídalis] and groats [chóndros]
boiled are strengthening and very nourishing, but do not pass by stool.
(Transl. Jones LoEB Hipp. vol. iV with changes, one of which is discussed
in the following excursion).
Before we proceed with the examination of the breads mentioned in this pas-
sage, we will comment on the word stais, which corresponds to dough. Jones
translates here the word σταιτός (genitive of σταῖς or σταίς) as ‘flour of spelt’
(cf. LSJ interpretation of the word: ‘flour of spelt mixed and made into dough’).
However, there is no indication in the text that the term staís (‘dough’) here refers
to spelt and not to pyrós, the cereal under discussion in this section of Regimen
i-iv as a raw material of álēton (= áleuron, ‘wheat-meal’ see above p. 76) and
ártos. Dough, the immediate preparation of flour, has not been examined in our
treatment of cereals and their products, and we discuss it briefly in this note. The
term firstly appears in the 5th c. BC: when Herodotus explains that Egyptians
make their food from ólyra, which others call zeiá (2.36, see above p. 71-72),
he also says that they knead dough [staís] with their feet, and below (2.47) we
are informed that Egyptians sacrifice pigs only to the Moon and Dionysos, but
poor people, who don’t have the capacity for such sacrifice, mould pigs of dough
[staítinos], bake and offer these to the Moon; so it is reasonable that Herodotus
speaks about dough of ólyra (or zeiá), but this is not the case in other texts where
staís or its adjectives occur. in a one-verse fragment from the same period
(Sophron fr. 27 PCG) the adjective staitítēs‘made of dough’ is mentioned together
with two other breads, the so-called klibanítēs (or krib-) ‘made in an oven’ (see
below) and the hēmiártion ‘half-loaf’, so we can infer that staitítēs was also a
wheaten bread (ártos). The comparison between pyrós and krithḗ in pseudo-
Aristotle’s Problems 927b 21 - 929b 26 makes it clear that staís is made from
áleuron of pyrós, while, according to Athenaeus (14.645 B), Semus (FGrHist
396 F 5) was referring to a kind of cake in Delos called basynías, which was
made of boiled wheaten dough [staís pýrinon] with honey and offered to the
goddess iris. Finally, Galen, in a much later period, used staís to denote the dough
of any wheat (of pyrós, Properties of foods 6.482; of típhē and ólyra, 6.518) but
also of barley (Properties of foods 6.510). We can conclude that the dominant
meaning of staís in the Classical and Hellenistic period was ‘wheaten dough’, re-
gardless of the kind of wheat it was made of, which is also validated by Galen.
returning to the text of the Hippocratic Regimen i-iv 2.42, we get an insight
into various bread-types in the Classical period, named according to how they
were produced, prepared and baked, accounts of which one can also find in sev-
eral works focusing on food in antiquity (e.g. Micha Lampaki 1984, Dalby 2003).
Despite this wide range of breads, some of which are explored below, for some
we cannot give anything more than a simple citation. Ártos synkomistós is a
term that only occurs in technical treatises for the bread that has been made from
unsifted flour, “when the bran-like material has not been separated from the pure
flour” (Galen Properties of foods 6.483, transl. Powell), while in literary texts
we find its synonym autópyros (Alexis fr. 126 PCG) or autopyrítēs (Phrynichus
fr. 40 PCG; also in Hippocrates Internal affections 20, 22, 30 [Vii 216, 222,
245 L.]). ‘Leavened’ bread (ártos zymítēs) occurs once in Xenophon’s Anabasis
7.3.21 (‘there were great loaves of leavened bread fastened with skewers to the
pieces of meat’, transl. Brownson at Perseus Dig. Libr.), while ‘unleavened’ bread
(ázymos) is not found in Classical literature outside the Hippocratic Regimen
i-iv (2.42 and 3.79 [Vi 540, 624 L.]). The remaining terms are only mentioned
a few times: bread baked in an oven [ipnítēs] in Timocles fr. 35 PCG and Polemon
fr. 86 (FHG iii, p. 142); bread baked on the hearth [escharítēs] in Antidotus fr.
3 PCG, Crobylus fr. 2 PCG; bread baked on a spit [obelías] in Aristophanes fr.
105 PCG, Nicophon fr. 6 PCG, Pherecrates fr. 61 PCG ― obelías, according
to Pollux 6.75, was connected with festivals of Dionysus.
A special type of ‘bread’/῾cake’ was baked in a kríbanos (or klíb-), a covered
earthen vessel functioning as an oven, since it was surrounded by hot embers;
this bread was called kribanítēs (or klib-), ‘baked in a oven’, e.g., Aristophanes
Acharnians 1123, fr. 129 (cf. fr. 1) PCG; Amipsias fr. 5 PCG; Sophron fr. 26
and 27 PCG; Hermeias of Methymna fr. 2 (FHG ii, p. 80) (in a festival of Gry-
naeus Apollo). on the basis of Aristophanes Wealth 765 we may infer that it was
with a hole in the middle: ‘and i, by Hecate! i will string you a garland of cakes
[kribanítēs] for the good tidings you have brought me’ (transl. Eugene o’Neill,
Jr. at Perseus Dig. Libr.).
This reference to cereal preparations with a circular shape reminds us of
those ritual breads encountered in the archaeological record (Figure 1.37 above)
dated to the 6th - 4th centuries BC at Monte Papalucio (Primavera et al. 2019).
There is an earlier one, however, from Stillfried in Austria, beyond the Greek
world; it consists of ring-shaped cakes that were found in pits, together with
similar clay rings, perhaps as part of a ritual offering (cf. Heiss et al. 2019 ring-
cakes, Figure 1.48). The circular shape of both the Stillfried rings and the ‘cakes’,
several centuries later, from oria in italy are reminiscent of both the cakes in
Figure 1.48 Stillfried circular cereal objects, 9th c. BC, after Heiss et al. 2020. Fig 12. image:
ÖAW-ÖAi / N. Gail. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216907.g012.
a garland mentioned above as well as the ritual bread kollyx mentioned by

Brumfield (1997). Such bread-like preparations are also reported from Crete,
specially prepared as offerings for the well-being of animals and hung on the
horns of cows (Psilakis and Psilaki 2001). Miniature clay offerings have been
retrieved from the Sanctuary of Demetra at Eleusis (Figure 1.39) representing
a wide variety of breads in terms of decoration and even consistency, as noted
by Brumfield (1997).
Finally, bread baked under the ashes [enkryphías] also occurs in Hippocrates
Regimen in acute diseases Append. 21 [ii 500 L.], Female diseases i-iii 1.34 [Viii
80 L.], and Archestratus SH 135.15 (made of semídalis; see above p. 78). Similar
to enkryphías (or simply a different name for it) was ártos spodítēs (< spodós,
‘ashes’), which occurs in Female diseases i-iii 2.110, 118 [Viii 236, 254 L.] and
Diphilus fr. 2 PCG ‘carry around breads baked in ashes [ártos spodítēs] made
of sifted flour [krēserítēs, a word not found elsewhere]’. The tradition of baking
bread in ashes is still widespread in different parts of the world such as the
Figure 1.49 Baking bread in ashes is a widespread practice in different parts of the world.
Here Bedouin bread baked directly on ashes. (Photograph courtesy of Daniel Noll, Un-
corneredMarket.com.).
Mediterranean and Afghanistan (Figure 1.49).

The dípyros or dipyrítēs ártos, twice-baked bread, was considered a sign of
luxury, as we read in Alcaeus fr. 2 PCG; it was made of hard wheat, according
to a prescription in Hippocrates Internal affections 25 [Vii 230 L.] (‘use baked
bread of wheat [ártos pýrinos] or twice-baked of hard wheat [sklerṓn pyrṓn
dipyrítēs]’), and did not become hard when it was cool (pseudo-Aristotle Prob-
lems 928a 11). Twice-baked cereal food preparations also exist nowadays, as
is the case with the biscuit, meaning twice baked in italian (< bis coctum), and
with ‘paximádi’, a type of traditional Greek rusk, made of wheat, barley or a
mixture of the two, the preparation of which requires the baking of a bread-like
loaf twice (Figure 1.50, for modern recipes from Crete and the Aegean see Psilakis
and Psilaki 2001, p. 237-255, see also Chapter 4 below, p. 149). Another term
for bread made of pyrós was kóllabos: Philyllius fr. 4 PCG ‘i am there carrying
myself hot milk-coloured kóllaboi (probably ‘loaves’), descendants of wheat
[pyrós] that has ripened in three months’; it also occurs in Aristophanes Peace
1196, Frogs 507, fr. 520.7 and 522 PCG.
An ártos plakítēs is mentioned in Sophron fr. 28 PCG, probably a flat bread
similar to plakoús (on which see below; cf. Philetas fr. 9 Kuchenmüller, who ex-
plains that plakoús ártos was a cake which was called krḗion (κρήιον) in Argos
Figure 1.50 Paximádia are rusks made of barley and/or wheat flour. Paximádia drying inside
an oven, Lasithi Plateau Crete; photo courtesy of ioanna Mimi.
and was offered by the bride to the groom at the wedding feast; it was baked
on coals and served with honey). More frequent is the term nastós for a product
that is not clear whether it was ártos or plakoús (Athenaeus 3.111 C, ‘nastós is
the term for a large loaf of leavened bread [ártos zymítēs], according to Pole-
marchus and Artemidorus; but Heracleon says it is a type of flat cake [plakoús]’,
transl. olson); what seems probable, since the adjective nastós means ‘close-
pressed, firm, solid’ (LSJ s.v.), is that this bread or cake was filled, e.g. with cheese
as, we read in Pherecrates fr. 137.7 PCG ‘little nastós [nastískos = diminutive]
with much cheese’, while another fragment of the same comic poet speaks of the
‘luxury of nastoí’ (Pherecrates fr. 113.5 PCG). The word also occurs in Aristo-
phanes Birds 567 (honey-nastós [nastós melitoús] as an offering to gods), Wealth
1142 (well baked nastós), Metagenes fr. 6.3 PCG, Diphilus fr. 45 PCG and Nico-
stratus fr. 13 PCG (‘a nastós as large as this, master, and white; for it was so big
around that it peeked up out of the sacrificial basket. The smell of it, when the
cover was removed, rose straight to my nostrils, along with a sort of stream mixed
with honey; because it was still warm’, transl. olson [Athenaeus 3.111 D]); the
comic poet Plato (fr. 277 PCG) had also used the compound nastokópos‘a person
cutting nastós’. if one wished to find an equally mouth-watering equivalent from
traditional Greek cuisine a Sfakianí píta would match the descriptions offered
above as it consists of two thin layers of pastry filled with cheese, fried in a pan
and with honey then poured over it (Kochilas 2003, p. 429). This would cor-
respond to the ‘little nastós’ mentioned above, while the larger version that would
have required a specialist in cutting it, might be closer to a large pita-like prepa-
ration (see Chapter 4 below, p. 154).
Plakoús was a flat cake mentioned dozens of times from the 5th c. BC on (or
even implied through other terms, e.g., sesamoús and tagēnítēs see below, énchy-
tos ‘a cake cast into a shape’, Menander fr. 409.9 PCG, or epíchytos Nicophon
fr. 6.2 PCG) in the literature of the Classical and Hellenistic periods, especially
in comedy, which shows that it was a common pastry in everyday life. it had a
round shape (Aristophanes Acharnians 1125), being similar to mallow-seed ac-
cording to Phaenias fr. 44 Wehrli (= 49 Hellmann-Mirhady). it was made with
sesame, see Aristophanes Peace 869 (cf. the mention of sēsamoús, i.e., plakoús
of sesame, in Acharnians 1092 and Women in Thesmophoria 570; also Stesi-
chorus fr. 2a PMG), Hippocrates Internal affections 42 [Vii 270 L.], and accom-
panied with honey, see Philetas fr. 9 (cited above) and Archestratus SH 192.15-
18 = 60.15-19 olson-Sens 2000, ‘i praise plakoús born in Athens. And if you
do not have it there go off elsewhere and look for Attic honey, since that is what
makes it saucy’ (transl. olson-Sens). According to Sopater fr. 4 PCG Samos was
a place famous for baking plakoús (plakountopoeós); cf. Plutarch Precepts of
healthcare 124 F, where a Samian plakoús is mentioned as an example of some-
thing rare and luxurious.
it seems that the category of plakoús also comprised pastries known by other
names, such as ámēs (genet. ámētos, dimin. amētískos, explained as a kind of
plakoús by Athenaeus 14.644 F and Pollux Onomasticon 6.77), a word occur-
ring sometimes in comedy: Aristophanes Wealth 999, Teleclides fr. 1.12 PCG,
Alexis fr. 168.5 PCG, Amphis fr. 9.3 PCG, Anaxandrides fr. 42.56 PCG, An-
tiphanes fr. 89.2, 297 PCG, Ephippus fr. 8.3 PCG, Menander fr. 381 PCG; in
Suda α 581 we read that it was a milky plakoús, but the ancient sources we have
cannot certify this. Ephippus fr. 8.3 PCG also mentions a pyramoús, a honey
cake of wheat [pyrós], which was given as a prize, so the word finally ended up
meaning ‘prize’. Perhaps tagēnítēs (or tēganítēs; also tagēnías) ‘pancake’ was also
considered a kind of plakoús; the term occurs as early as Hipponax fr. 26.a West,
where we read about tēganítēs with sesame, and sometimes in comedy (Cratinus
fr. 130 PCG, Magnes fr. 2 PCG, Nicophon fr. 6.3 PCG). This type of food was
prepared on a tḗganon, a frying pan (Figure 1.51), with the use of oil or fat. Galen,
Properties of foods 6.490-491, has a description of its preparation: “The oil is
placed in a frying pan that is put on a smokeless fire, and when it has become
hot the wheaten flour, soaked in a large amount of water, is poured into it. When
cooked in the oil, it rapidly sets and thickens, resembling soft cheese solidifying
Figure 1.51 Cooking pots and pans found in the Athenian Agora. After Sparkes and Talcott
1977, plate 40, courtesy of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Agora Ex-
cavations.
in wicker baskets. At this point those making it turn it to bring the upper surface
underneath, in contact with the pan, bringing what was previously underneath,
which has been sufficiently cooked, to the top; when the under part is now set,
they turn it again, perhaps two or three times, until it seems to them that the
whole has been cooked evenly.”, transl. Powell.
Pópanon was a round cake, which was mainly used at sacrifices and offerings
to the gods (Aristophanes Women at the Thesmophoria 285, Wealth 660; An-
drotion FGrHist. 324 F 16 ‘at the festival of Dipolia a cow ate the pópanon that
had been prepared for the sacrifice’; Theophrastus On piety fr. 8 Pötscher;
Menander Dyscolus 450). Another term connected with religious ceremonies is
pelanós, denoting “any thick liquid substance” (LSJ s.v.) as well as offerings to
gods in liquid form or in the form of pastry, which interests us here. Porridge-
like offerings are mentioned by Brumfield (1997) and attributed to some of the
miniature clay breads from the sanctuary of Demeter at Eleusis, those with im-
pressions on their surface. According to the geographer Pausanias 8.2.3 pelanós
is the name the Athenians were using up until his time (2nd c. AD) for a local
pastry offered on altars, while the contemporaneous lexicographer Pausanias,
in his Collection of Attic words α 116, explains (probably drawing from Diony-
sius Thrax fr. 51 Linke as Suda π 928 shows) that ‘pelanoí were pastries made
of paepálē (παιπάλη, ‘finest flour’) appropriate for sacrifices’ (paepálē is a term
known in the Classical period from Aristophanes Clouds 260-262). Pelanós in-
deed occurs in Classical texts and we can see the meaning ‘pastry, cake for sac-
rifices’ in Aeschylus Persians 204 (a sacrifice to the gods that avert evil), Euripides
Hippolytus 147, Ion 226, 707, Trojan women 1063, Aristophanes Wealth 661
(together with pópanon), Plato Laws 782c 4, Apollonius of rhodes 4.712. in
a fragment of the comic poet Sannyrion a god was saying ‘we gods call pelanós
what you mortal people call álphita’ (fr. 1 PCG), which implies that pelanós also
had the meaning ‘thin flour of barley’ (cf. Apollonius of rhodes 1.1077), probably
for the preparation of cakes for sacrifice. Ampiphṓn, was a cake surrounded by
lighted tapers which was offered to Artemis (Pherecrates fr. 167 PCG, Philemo
fr. 70 PCG‘Artemis, beloved mistress: i’m bringing you this ampiphṓn, lady, and
libation-cakes’ (transl. olson [Athenaeus 14.645 A]), Philochoros FGrHist. 328
F 86a).
From the 7th c. BC we also know enkrís (Stesichorus fr. 2a PMG, cited above
p. 77), explained by Athenaeus 14.645 E as pastry boiled in oil and then covered
with honey; the term occurs (also in the compound enkridopṓles, ‘seller of enkrís’)
in a few fragments from comedies (Aristophanes fr. 269, 276 PCG, Pherecrates
fr. 99 PCG, Antiphanes fr. 273 PCG). Another pastry is known as ítrion, a term
which, although it had occurred since the 7th c. BC (Solon fr. 38 West, see above
p. 80; also in 6th c., Anacreon fr. 28 PMG, ‘i took breakfast breaking off a small
part of thin ítrion’), is not so frequent in the literature (Sophocles fr. 199 TrGF,
Archippus fr. 11 PCG, Ephippus fr. 8.3 PCG; also in the Hippocratic Regimen
in acute diseases Append. 39 [ii 526 L.]). The pastries accumulated in Aristo-
phanes’ Acharnians 1092 ‘ámylos, plakoús, sēsamoús, ítrion’, imply that ítrion
(described by Athenaeus 14.646 D as ‘a thin small pastry [pemmátion] made
with sesame and honey’) was different from plakoús and sēsamoús. Galen in the
2nd c. AD thinks that the ancients used the common name ítria (plural) for the
pastries which were called lágana and rhyḗmata in his time (On substances con-
taining good and bad humours 6.768), while in his Properties of foods 6.492-
494 he has a brief chapter ‘On ítria’, where he explains that ‘there are two sorts
of ítria: the better sort, that people call rhyḗmata, and the inferior sort, the lágana’.
The term rhyḗmata (sing. rhýēma) never appears before Galen and it suggests
a liquid dough that thickens during cooking, something like a doughnut or a
pancake. Láganon appears to be a word used by Matro of Pitane, a poet of the
4th c. BC who wrote epic parodies: ‘they brought grain-fattened birds on silver
serving platters, clean-plucked, all of the same age, like to pieces of lágana over
their back.’ (SH 538 = fr. 5 olson-Sens 1999; transl. olson-Sens, who renders
lágana as ‘wafer-bread’). We know this fragment thanks to Athenaeus’ Deip-
nosophistae (14.656 E), who elsewhere in the same work (3.110 A) writes that
‘Aristophanes mentions láganon in Ecclesiazousae (Women in assembly) by say-
ing λάγανα πέττεται (lágana are being baked)’; he refers to verse 843 of this
comedy, but the manuscripts regarding this Aristophanic verse read the word
pópana, not lágana. in any case, láganon is a quite rare word in Classical and
Hellenistic literature and occurs again in texts from the 1st c. AD.
The exact identity of ítrion and láganon is a matter of dispute. The former
is interpreted as a ‘pasta-like product’ by Dalby (2003, p. 251), ‘wafer biscuit’
by Grant p. 82, “cake” by Powell p. 44; it is possible that the meaning of the
word changed over the course of time (see LSJ s.v. ἴτριον). As for the láganon,
if we take into account the Modern Greek lagána (a feminine noun derived from
láganon), we can understand the interpretation of LSJ (s.v. λάγανον): ‘a thin
broad cake’; cf. Powell’s ‘broad-cakes’ (l.c.). Grant (l.c.) keeps it in its Greek form
as a sort of ‘wafer biscuit’, while olson-Sens, p. 149, interpret it as “a type of
thin wafer-bread, which was made of wheat flour and olive oil and fried on a
skillet” (although some lines below they speak of wafer-cakes). According to Dal-
by (l.c.) the meaning of the term changed from time to time: “Greek laganon,
Latin laganum [our note: interpreted in OLD as ‘a thin flat cake, pancake’] was,
by later Classical times, a flat pasta-like product; in earlier contexts the word is
likened to unleavened bread or to pancake”. in fact, the only sure “early” passage,
that of Matro (the word may also appear in Philippides fr. 10 PCG, but there
it is a modern emendation of the reading λάχανα), does not allow us to realize
what a láganon was: what is the intention of comparing the backs of birds with
it? olson-Sens 1999, p. 149 think of two possible answers: “‘golden brown’ or
perhaps simply “the size of wafer-cakes’”; the former is reasonable conjecture
about the colour of the láganon, suggesting perhaps something crispy. in Flavius
Josephus Antiquities of Jews 7.86 we read about fried láganon, which could be
something like a pancake. A connection between láganon and unleavened pastries
is found in Galen’s On substances containing good and bad humours 6.768: ‘the
lágana and the rhyḗmata by themselves and every unleavened pastry of wheat
[pyrós], especially when cheese is added, are of thick juices’. So, the case of
láganon is a good example of the relativity of our information from ancient
sources on various pastries, cakes etc. and the similar difficulty in finding cor-
respondence between them and products of our time.
Finally, we know (in most cases thanks to Athenaeus’ The Learned Ban-
queters) that from the 5th - 4th c. BC onwards various names of products which
included honey, although we have no further information about their ingredients,
are considered (and translated as) ‘honey cakes’. Μελιτώματα ([melitṓmata],
plur.) is a general term (Hippocrates Epidemics 5.71, 7.82 [V 426, 438 L.], to-
gether with pémmata ‘pastries’; Philetas fr. 8 Kuchenmüller), while the term
μελίπηκτα ([melípēkta], plur.) appears more frequently: Philoxenus fr. e 17
PMG; Menander fr. 451.16 PCG; Antiphanes fr. 79 together with sēsamís, 138
PCG; Hermeias of Methymna fr. 2 [FHG ii, p. 81]. Belonging in the same cat-
egory are Pherecrates’ μελίκηρα ([melíkēra ], fem.; fr. 30 PCG), Philetas’ ἀμόραι
([amórae], plur.; l.c.), interpreted as ‘baked melitṓmata’ by Athenaeus 14.646 D,
and perhaps the κοπτή [koptḗ] of Clearchus (fr. 87 Wehrli) and Sopater (fr. 16
PCG; this one being made of poppy-seeds), which, according to Athenaeus
14.649 A, who cites these fragments, was a melípēkton, and seems to be the same
as the κοπτή σησαμίς [koptḗ sēsamís] mentioned by Artemidorus (Oneirocritica
1.71), i.e. a cake of pounded sesame (on sēsamís see below p. 140).
Attempts to link these ancient bakes to modern recipes can be found in the
final chapter of the present publication, although there is no way to be sure about
such associations with modern recipes that are the outcome of long-term pro-
cesses of change in Aegean cuisine.
Food from other cereals: millets, oats and rye

Besides wheat and barley, other cereals were also known in antiquity, as is sug-
gested by the written sources. in this section only millet will be extensively dis-
cussed. oats appear a few times in our Greek sources, while rye is mentioned
only by Galen Properties of foods 6.514-515, as βρίζα [bríza]. Galen uses the
word bríza to refer to a specific plant growing in Thrace and Macedonia that
caught his attention when he was seeking to identify which plant had been re-
ferred to as zeiá by Mnesitheus (see above p. 74):
noticing many fields in Thrace and Macedonia that contained a plant that
both in its ear and its entirety resembles the típhē growing around me in
Asia Minor, i asked by which name those people called it and they all replied
that the whole plant (including its seed) is called bríza … The bread made
from this grain is black and does not smell nice because, as Mnesitheus
wrote [about zeiá], the grain contains a very fibrous substance. if he had
in addition also written that bread from this grain is black, i would have
more readily believed that it was this same one that he referred to as zeiá’.
(transl. Grant and Powell).
No other Greek term is found in the ancient literature for a plant with such
qualities that can be identified with rye, and we can reasonably conclude that
the Greeks, even if they did somehow know of rye due to contacts with popu-
lations inhabiting areas further north, did not appreciate it at all, so that even
Theophrastus does not refer to it in his treatises on plants. The archaeobotanical
record on rye from Europe is very patchy and it does not appear to be a crop
before the roman period, when it was grown in the northern roman provinces
(see Zohary et al. 2012 for a review of the available evidence). The archaeo-
botanical record from Greece does not provide any evidence for rye being a crop
in prehistoric times as no rye remains have been reported (Valamoti 2023), nor
has it been found in the published archaeobotanical record of Greece for the his-
toric periods (e.g., Megaloudi 2006, Douché et al. 2020, Gkatzogia and Valamoti
2021). Unpublished evidence, however, from Hellenistic Petres in western Mace-
donia and from the 4th c. AD from the city of Dion in central Macedonia in north-
ern Greece shows that rye was at least a contaminant of other cereal crops (see
above, p. 47, 48) and we hope that future archaeobotanical research into the his-
toric periods will allow for greater insight regarding the timing of rye cultivation
in southeastern Europe and the Aegean Greek world.
Brómos (βρόμος; Avena sp., in Modern Greek it is ‘βρόμη’), the ancient
Greek term for oats, apart from a single mention by Polemon fr. 88 (FHG iii,
p. 144), who said that it was one of the ingredients of the vessel in the ceremony
of díon kṓdion [the Sacred Fleece], occurs only in technical treatises: once in the
Hippocratic Regimen i-iv 2.43 [Vi 542 L.] (‘oats [brómos], whether eaten or
drunk as a decoction, moisten and cool’, transl. Jones LoEB Hipp. vol. iV) and
six times in Theophrastus’ treatises, three of which are in the passage Hist. Plant.
8.9.2 cited above p. 66, while it is also interesting that he speaks about the change
of zeiá into brómos (Caus. Plant. 4.5.2, cf. 4.4.5).
Kénchros, κέγχρος (millet) and melínē or élymos (italian millet)

Millet is a cereal that appeared in southeastern Europe and Greece in the late
prehistoric period. it must have reached Greece as a ‘foreign’ cereal, totally dif-
ferent in its growth cycle, shape and nutritional qualities (it is a gluten-free cereal)
to the cereals with which the inhabitants of Greece had been familiar since the
beginning of the Neolithic. What can we glean from the ancient texts as regards
this newcomer that travelled across the steppes of Central Asia before reaching
the lands of Europe?
in our textual sources two kinds of millet appear, common millet (Panicum
miliaceum) called kénchros (since the 6th c. BC or perhaps earlier) and the italian
or foxtail millet (Setaria italica) with the names melínē (also mélinos in
Theophrastus) or élymos (since the 5th c. BC ― melínē was the Attic while élymos
was a later name, according to Galen Properties of foods 6.523); the terms are
used for both the plant and the grain of millet. According to Theophrastus, as
we have seen (above p. 29), kénchros and élymos (together with sesame [sḗsa-
mon]) belong to the group of summer-sown crops which are different from cereals
and legumes, and it is interesting that it is to this characteristic that the Pseudo-
Hesiodic Shield 398-9 refers (which would be the oldest mention of the term of
kénchros, if this passage is authentic): “then the beard grows upon the millet
which men sow in summer” (transl. Evelyn-White at Perseus Dig. Libr.).
The fact that neither of the two kinds of millet occur in comedies, a genre
which enlightens us as to aspects of the everyday life of simple people, may mean
that millet was not in common use in the Classical and Hellenistic periods (al-
though it was broadly used in medicine, as we will see). The way Demosthenes
(Philippics 4.16, a passage discussed above p. 72) refers to melínē (and also to
ólyra), when he speaks of areas growing these crops in Thrace (in Northern
Greece), shows that millet was not appreciated in Athens. This is an interesting
case of identity reflected through food, something that has been argued for in
relation to broomcorn millet for the Late Bronze Age: millet is not encountered
at southern Greek sites from the Late Bronze Age with finds clustering primarily
in the north; some individuals might have consumed it in the south as indicated
by variability detected in skeletal remains, something that could imply specific
groups or members of a community consuming millet (Valamoti 2016). Xeno-
phon Anabasis 2.4.13 is almost the only direct testimony (cf. Theophrastus Hist.
plant. 8.11.6) that melínē was cultivated in Greece: ‘canals issued from the Tigris
river, and from them, again, ditches had been cut that ran into the country, at
first large, then smaller, and finally little channels, such as run to the millet [melínē]
fields in Greece’ (transl. Brownson at Perseus Dig. Libr.). in all the other passages
in the literature since the 6th century BC millet is only mentioned in relation to
foreign ethnic groups or lands: Paeones made a drink of kénchros and fleabane
[kónyza] (Hecataeus of Miletos FGrHist 1 F 154 apud Athenaeus 10.447 C);
the Scythian-Greek tribes of Kallipidai and Alizones on the Black Sea sowed
kénchros among other crops (Herodotus 4.17); millet was abundant in various
regions, such as with kénchros in Babylonia (Herodotus 1.193.4), in Cilicia
(Xenophon Anabasis 1.2.22 kénchros and melínē), and india (Megasthenes
FGrHist 715 F 4, Diodorus of Sicily 2.36.3) or melínē on a specific plain in Asia
belonging to the Persians (Herodotus 3.117); italy was rich in both kénchros
and élymos, as Polybius 2.15 observes with admiration, while Galen says that
the élymos in italy is much better than that in Asia. Melínē especially was cul-
tivated on the south coastal regions of the Black Sea as Xenophon Anabasis 6.4.6,
6.6.1 testifies, who also speaks of a tribe called ‘melínē-eaters’ (7.5.12, Mελινο-
φάγοι [Melinophágoe]). According to Theophrastus, millet was grown on Greek
land (Hist. plant. 8.11.6).
Despite the cultural associations of millet with foreign, non-Greek peoples,
a point that is in agreement with Jardé (1925) and Amouretti (1986), the Hip-
pocratic corpus shows that millet was widely known and used in the Greek world
of the 5th century BC as an ingredient, in the forms of various recipes, mainly
as a millet gruel, sometimes with honey (Diseases i-iii 2.19, 22, 40, 44 [Vii 32,
38, 56, 62 L.], Affections 40, 41 [Vi 250 L], Internal affections 1, 49 [Vii 168,
290 L.]); we also read about roasted millet (Regimen in acute diseases 7 [ii 270
L.]) and millet as food (Diseases i-iii 2.67, 70 [Vii 102, 106 L.]). These cases
show that kénchros (only this term occurs apart from once where a gruel of ély-
mos is mentioned in Female diseases i-iii 2.110 [Viii 236 L.]) was well-known
and widely used, at least in medicine (cf. Philo On Sieges 86 Thévenot = B 1
Whitehead who suggests kénchros as a crop that can be stocked for the prepa-
ration of medicaments). Aristotle also mentions kénchros as one of the crops that
fatten up pigs (Hist. Animal. 595a 28). The frequent references by Theophrastus
to kénchros (about 30 instances), especially the passages where he compares
other plants with it, suggest that his readers understand the characteristics he de-
scribes (Hist. Plant. 1.11.26, 4.2.1, 4.4.10, 4.10.3). There are fewer references
to élymos (five instances: Hist. Plant. 4.4.10, 8.1.1, 8.11.1, Caus. Plant. 4.15.1
and 3) and mélinos (which is how he calls melínē; seven instances: Hist. Plant.
8.1.4, 8.2.6, 8.3.2 and 3, 8.7.3 bis Caus. Plant. 2.12.3); each of these terms is
always mentioned together with kénchros, but never do the two, élymos and
mélinos, occur together, and this allows us to conclude that they are different
names for the same, also well-known, kind of millet, i.e., Setaria italica, although
there is no precise statement to that effect. The Theophrastean comparison be-
tween kénchros and élymos/mélinos concerns their physical characteristics or
their ability to be stocked. Five centuries later Galen, in his short chapter ‘on
kénchros and élymos, which people call melínē’ (Properties of foods 6.523-524),
speaks of the differences concerning the use of these two kinds of millet in ali-
mentation: ‘kénchros is superior to élymos in every respect; it is more pleasant
as food, easier to concoct, less constipating and more nourishing’, but even so
‘there is nothing sweet in these seeds’ and people ‘make bread from them, when
a lack of cereals supervenes’ (transl. Powell).
Galen provides information on millet food preparations (Properties of foods
6.523, 6.524): he reports that peasants boil the flour of millet and eat it mixed
with pig’s fat or oil, or they boil it with milk as they do with the flour of wheat.
Making bread from millet is discussed by Galen l.c. as something to resort to
in cases of wheat/barley shortage, though this bread is considered, as being of
low nutritious quality, dry-textured and thus easily broken, as if it contained no
connecting substance. Low nutritional value is also ascribed to millet by Diosco-
rides (De materia medica 2.97.1) and Galen (On the nature and powers of simple
medications 12.16). Consuming such a bread gave the sensation of eating sand
or ashes (Galen, On substances containing good and bad humours 6.782) and
was the food of peasants (Galen, Commentary on Hippocrates’ Regimen in acute
diseases 15.876) and therefore, presumably, of poor people. As regards recipes
involving millet, our sources up to the 2nd century BC offer no clues and one has
to turn to Galen, in the 2nd century AD, to find out that cereal foods were also
prepared with millet, such as a type of porridge which had a dry texture (Galen
On substances containing good and bad humours 6.782) and thus the addition
of pig or goat fat, oil or sheep’s milk were recommended. its distinct position in
the ancient Greek world may also be indicated by the existence of a specialized
word for the person who ground millet, κεγχραλέτης [kenchralétēs], ‘the millet-
grinder’ (Galen, Explanation of obsolete Hippocratic words 19.128 s.v. πασπα-
λέτης). This might be an indication that millet was ground separately to the other
cereals, perhaps by specialized producers or traders or people of different ethnicity.
overall, however, it seems that unlike the various cereals grouped under sitos
(wheat and barley), millet was a rather minor food ingredient in the ancient Greek
world, usually associated with foreigners and famine.
Concluding remarks on cereals

our overview of archaeobotanical and textual evidence examined in this chapter
suggests that the initial cereals, which had been cultivated since the 7th millennium
BC by the early farming communities of the region, continued to be present
throughout prehistory into the 1st millennium BC and throughout the ancient
Greek world. Glume wheats, free-threshing wheat and barley correspond to ma-
jor plant food staples throughout the seven millennia examined here. These ce-
reals were transformed into food through a wide range of cereal preparations,
with grain ground to different levels of coarseness and mixed with a wide range
of ingredients. our knowledge regarding cereal food preparations and the con-
text of their consumption during prehistoric times is relatively small and frag-
mentary, while much more information is revealed through the textual sources of
later periods, showing the continuity of certain preparations of trachanás/bulgur,
known since the Bronze Age and continuing in the ancient Greek world. Prepa-
rations such as porridges and breads are also very likely to have been present
in prehistoric times, with them being available in a wide range of forms and tastes
during the historic periods, for which the textual evidence is rich and eloquent,
at times allowing us to visualize a delicious plakoús. Millet appears late, during
the Bronze Age in the north of Greece and continued as a food ingredient asso-
ciated with non-Greek populations, although it was also known and used as a
famine food and in medicinal preparations. Both einkorn and italian millet enter
into the political discourse and are used as cultural identity signifiers, shunned
by groups in the south of Greece. The archaeobotanical record of the 1st millen-
nium BC shows that einkorn continued to be grown in iron Age central Mace-
donia and millet continued its Bronze Age culinary traditions. As regards rye and
oats, very little is revealed from the texts, with only oats marginally qualifying
as a famine food. it is therefore the task of future archaeobotanical investigations
to provide further insights into the cultivation and use of these cereal crops.
Chapter 2
Legumes and Pulses
Chedropá and Óspria
Pulses in the archaeobotanical record of Greece:

7th-1st millennium BC
Pulses seem to have been neglected from archaeological and historical narratives
for the Mediterranean, with bread (cereals), wine (grapes) and oil (olives) being
the emblematic components that constitute the concept of the Mediterranean
triad (see, for example, Renfrew 1972, Hadjisavas and Chaniotis 2012, https://ta
volamediterranea.com/2018/02/24/mediterranean-triad-grapes-grains-olives-
epityrum-flatbread/). The central position of pulses, however, in the diets of peo-
ple inhabiting the Aegean, both ancient and contemporary, is beyond any doubt
and Sarpaki very accurately introduced the term ‘the Mediterranean tetrad’ so
as to also include pulses (Sarpaki 1992). The archaeobotanical record of Greece
is an eloquent source of information as regards the longue durée of pulse con-
sumption in this part of Europe. Already by the Early Neolithic lentils (Lens sp.),
bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd.) and grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) feature
in the scarce archaeobotanical record of the period (Valamoti and Kotsakis 2007,
Valamoti 2023). Unlike the Near Eastern ‘package’ of domesticates, where chick-
peas (Cicer arietinum L.) feature as an essential component, this species seems
to have been left out of the ‘boats’ that brought agriculture to Europe from the
Near East, at least as far as Greece is concerned. The few chickpea seeds that
have been found underline the rarity of this pulse in prehistoric Greek meals
(Valamoti and Kotsakis 2007, Valamoti 2009). The same applies to the Celtic
bean (Vicia faba var. minor) which despite its early finds in the Near East, appears
only in the Bronze Age in Greece (Valamoti 2023). The Neolithic pulse crops of
Greece include lentils, grass pea, pea and bitter vetch. All these species have been
95
Figure 2.1 Charred lentil seeds from Early Figure 2.2 Modern lentil plant, courtesy of
Neolithic Sosandra. Parthenopi Ralli, Greek Gene Bank, ELGO-
DIMITRA, photo Eleni Kotali.
found in pure, rich concentrations, often stored inside the houses of farming vil-
lages (Figures 2.1-2.11). Sometimes they are found in special contexts, as is the
case with a very rich concentration of grass pea from Toumba Kremastis Koiladas
(Figure 2.12, Karathanou 2009, Valamoti et al. 2011).
In the Bronze Age, these pulse species continued to be cultivated and new
species appear in the archaeobotanical record, which include Celtic bean (Vicia
faba L. var. minor, Figure 2.13, 2.14) and two more Lathyrus species that are
found on the Aegean islands and Crete, Spanish vetchling (Lathyrus clymenum
L.) and Cyprus vetch (Lathyrus ochrus L. DC.). Spanish vetchling (Figure 2.15,
Figure 2.16) corresponds to fáva Santorinis, still grown on the island of San-
Figure 2.3 Modern lentil seeds of different sizes and colour.

Figure 2.4 Charred grass pea seeds from Figure 2.5 Modern grass pea plant in bloom,
Skala Sotiros, Thassos island, end of 3rd mil- May 2021, plant from Kritika on the island
lennium BC (photo Stavros Dimakopoulos, of Corfu.
courtesy of PlantCult).
Figure 2.6 Modern seeds of grass pea (a) after winnowing in the field near Argyrades, Corfu,
July 2016; (b) clean ready to cook at Pontiglio winery on the island of Corfu, May 2021.
Figure 2.7 Charred seeds of pea from Ark- Figure 2.8 Modern pea in blossom. Photo
adikos Dramas, Late Neolithic. Maria Karanika.
98 Food CroPS iN ANCieNT Greek CuiSiNe
Figure 2.9 Charred seeds of bitter vetch Figure 2.10 Modern plant of bitter vetch in
from Arkadikos, Late Neolithic. blossom.
torini. it has been identified as a crop dating to the Bronze Age, stored inside
houses at the Akrotiri site on Santorini, a settlement buried in the ashes of the
volcanic eruption in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC (Sarpaki 1987). Cyprus
vetch (Figure 2.17, 2.18) is still grown on the islands of Lemnos and Cyprus
under the names of áfkos and louvána respectively (Valamoti in preparation).
Both species have been identified in rich concentrations at knossos-Gypsades
Figure 2.11 Modern seeds of bitter vetch, split into cotyledons with testa removed. The seeds
were provided by Υiannis Stivaktakis, Magoulas village on the Lassithi Plateau, Crete.
Food CroPS iN ANCieNT Greek CuiSiNe 99
Figure 2.12 Concentration of charred grass pea seeds from a pit at Toumba kremastis koi-
ladas, Late Neolithic.
Figure 2.13 Charred seeds of Celtic bean

from Skala Sotiros, Thassos island, end of 3rd
millennium BC (Photo Stavros dimakopou-
los, courtesy of plant cult). Figure 2.14 Modern Celtic bean seeds from
Corfu (bottom row) corresponding to the V.
faba minor variety and modern Celtic bean
seeds (top row) corresponding to dry broad
bean seed.
Figure 2.15 Modern Spanish vetchling (centre and right) and modern Cyprus vetch (left)
split seed packages.
Figure 2.16 Modern Spanish vetchling in

blossom (photo courtesy of Nikos Nikitidis).
Figure 2.18 Modern Cyprus vetch from Figure 2.17 Modern Cyprus vetch from Lem-
Lemnos island: seeds (top), cotyledons (bot- nos island: plant (photo courtesy of Stergios
tom). Salamousas, Agrifood).
on Crete (Bennett 2016) showing that

a wide range of pulses was grown in
the Bronze Age. Processing pulses for
consumption as human food by split-
ting them into cotyledons may be in-
dicated by split cotyledons of bitter
vetch found at Agios Athanasios in
northern Greece (Moniaki 2009, Va-
lamoti et al. 2011). These finds (Fig-
ure 2.19) had also been treated with
Figure 2.19 Split cotyledons from Agios Atha-
water, either by soaking or boiling,
nasios, northern Greece, end of 3rd millenni-
perhaps as part of their detoxification um BC.
as this species is toxic to humans
(Valamoti et al. 2011). Splitting of pulses into cotyledons and the removal of
testa is a first step in the preparation of ‘fáva’ dishes, the equivalent to the dhals
of India, a mushy dish resulting from the prolonged simmering of split pulses
in water, very common in modern Greece and along the Aegean coast of Turkey
(Figure 2.20). Nowadays in Greece and Turkey fáva is mainly made from the
split, testa-free cotyledons of different Láthyrus species and has a yellow colour.
Such species are grass pea, Cyprus vetch and Spanish vetchling. Grass pea is
more widespread in many parts of Greece while the other two are consumed
mainly on the Aegean islands. In the area of Bodrum in Turkey Cyprus vetch
(known locally as Gambilya bakla) is used to make fáva (Ertuğ 2004). Fáva-
type mushes of different colours are also known, made of pea and Celtic bean,
with fáva being present in different culinary traditions across Europe and the
Mediterranean, such as with the British pease porridge (https://www.wise
geek.com/what-is-pease-porridge.htm) and the Egyptian ful medames made of
faba beans.
Figure 2.20 A dish of fáva made of Cyprus vetch on the island of Lemnos, July 2011 (a);
a dish of fáva from the same species with caramelised onions, Thessaloniki 2021; Cyprus
vetch (Bodrum baklasi) sold in a market in Izmir/Smirni in Turkey, November 2011 (c).
Figure 2.21 Charred lentil seeds from the Figure 2.22 Charred bitter vetch seeds from
Acropolis of Vergina, Late Hellenistic Peri- the Hellenistic city of Petres, Western Mace-
od, second half of 2nd - first half of 1st c. BC. donia, northern Greece.
Although pulses do not seem to have been of interest for the Late Bronze
Age archival system of the Mycenaean palaces (Halstead 1994, Valamoti 2009),
the archaeobotanical record briefly reviewed above, shows that they were im-
portant crops and food ingredients. In the Iron Age and the Hellenistic periods
pulses do occur in ‘rubbish’ pits, hearths and houses at various sites and include
the following crops: lentils (Figure 2.21), bitter vetch (Figure 2.22), grass pea
(Figure 2.23), chickpea (Figure 2.24; Faklaris 2010) and Celtic bean (Figure
2.25, 2.26) (see for example Megaloudi 2006, Valamoti et al. 2018, Gkatzogia
and Kotzabopoulou 2020, Gkatzogia 2021).
The range of pulse species represented in the archaeobotanical record of the
1 millennium BC seems to follow in the traditions of prehistoric times as all the
st
main pulse crops continue to appear in the archaeobotanical record of the historic
periods. The prehistoric repertoire continued to be enriched, with two more
Figure 2.23 Charred grass pea seeds from Figure 2.24 Charred chickpea seeds from
Kali Vrysi Dramas, Hellenistic period. the Acropolis of Vergina, Late Hellenistic Pe-
riod, second half of 2nd - first half of 1st c. BC.
FooD CroPs in AnCiEnt GrEEk CuisinE 103
Figure 2.25 Charred Celtic beans from the Acropolis of Vergina, Late Hellenistic Period, ap-
proximately 2nd c. BC.
species becoming regular components of the diet: the chickpea (Figure 2.24),
usually poorly represented at prehistoric sites, and a new pulse crop, lupin. re-
cently examined material from the Acropolis at Vergina has revealed a small con-
centration of lupin (Lupinus albus L.) seeds (Figure 2.27), a crop that is absent
from the prehistoric records of Greece, at least up to the present (cf. Valamoti
2023). Lupins were in all likelihood domesticated in the Aegean (Zohary et al.
2012) certanly by the historic periods
(see below).
As we shall see in the next section,
pulses are frequently encountered in
ancient Greek texts and it seems that
all the pulse species that were cultivat-
ed by the end of the Bronze Age in
Greece, continued to be in historic ti-
mes. some among them appear more
prominent in texts rather than in the
Figure 2.26 Charred Celtic bean (left),
archaeobotanical record of the pre-
chickpea (right) and lentil (middle, bottom)
ceding periods as is the case with from the area of the sanctuary of Eucleia at
chickpea; others are almost absent Vergina, 1st c. BC-1st c. AD.
104 FooD CroPs in AnCiEnt GrEEk CuisinE
Figure 2.27 Charred lupin seeds from the Acropolis of Vergina, Late Hellenistic Period, sec-
ond half of 2nd - first half of 1st c. BC.
from prehistoric sites. this is the case of lupin a pulse most likely cultivated for
the first time by the end of or after the Bronze Age (see below, p. 124). the ancient
terms for pulse species suggest that some of them do not correspond to species
known from the prehistoric archaeobotanical record of Greece, revealing an im-
pressive variability in the range of pulse species grown for food in the ancient
Greek world.
Pulses in ancient Greek texts:

species and the ways of cooking them
Óspria (ὄσπρια) and chedropá (χεδροπά)
Óspria (ὄσπρια) and chedropá (χεδροπά) are the Greek words (the former in
Modern Greek too) denoting pulses and leguminous plants respectively (Amigues
vol. iV, p. 171-172). in our sources we find various terms for plants and seeds
belonging to this group, most of which we can identify with known species of
pulses from the prehistoric past as well as the present. theophrastus, in different
passages (8.1.1, 8.1.3-4, 8.3.1-2, 8.5.1) in the 8th book of his Hist. plant., where
he mainly examines the pulses, names the following pulse species, in this order:
kýamos, erébinthos, písos, ṓchros, thérmos, phakós, aphákē, órobos, láthyros
and dólichos; he does not mention árakos and phásēlos at all, terms that occur
in other texts.
Our starting point will be two passages, one from Theophrastus where he
discusses most kinds of leguminous plants in terms of their morphological char-
acteristics, and one passage attributed to Phaenias, where the use of some pulses
is summarized.
Of leguminous plants some have a round leaf, as kýamos and most others,
some a more oblong leaf, as písos láthyros ṓchros and the like. … Again
the stem of cereals is jointed and hollow; therefore it is called the ‘reed’,
while that of the kýamos is hollow, and that of the other leguminous plants
[chedropá] is more woody, that of erébinthos woodiest of all; … some have
rather a crooked stem, as erébinthos órobos phakós; some a creeping stem
as ṓchros písos láthyros; while dólichos, if long stakes are set by it, climbs
them and becomes fruitful, whereas otherwise the plant is unhealthy and
liable to rust; the kýamos, most of all leguminous plants, if not alone among
them, has an erect stem. (Hist. Plant. 8.3.1-2, transl. Hort).
Athenaeus 9.406 C attributes the following passage to Phaenias, a contem-
porary and compatriot of Theophrastus, who was linked to the Peripatetic
School:
After this, roasted chickens, lentil-soup [phakḗ], and peas [pisós] were
brought around, cookpots and all, along with items of the sort discussed
by Phaenias of Eresus in his On Plants, where he writes the following: Be-
cause all domesticated leguminous plants [chedropá] produce seeds. One
type is sown in order to be cooked (for example beans [kýamos] and peas
[pisós]; for a boiled dish like gruel [etnērón < étnos]* is the result). Other
varieties, on the other hand, are more suited for yellowish [lekithṓdē] gru-
els** (for example árakos), and other for lentil-soup [phakḗ] (for example
lentils [phakós]).*** The second type is planted to provide forage for four-
legged animals (for example bitter-vetch [órobos] for plow-oxen, and tare
[aphákē] for sheep).”
(fr. 48 Wehrli = 53 Hellmann – Mirhady) [transl. based on Olson, see below]
Before we proceed to the examination of each pulse species, there are certain
points concerning Phaenias’ text that need to be discussed, in particular as regards
the translation of some terms (indicated by asterisks above) related to the ways
in which pulses were converted into dishes. We think that Olson’s translation,
on which our translation has been based, is not quite satisfactory, at least not
as we understand his terms ‘soup’ and ‘porridge’. We find more precise older trans-
lations by Meyer, Gulick and Neri. In any case it is worth providing a descriptive
discussion and explanation of these terms:
1) étnos (*) is rendered by Olson as ‘soup’ (“beans and peas … are boiled
to make soup”), which for us calls to mind a rather diluted liquid. However,
étnos denotes a rather thick liquid dish (as modern experience of dishes pre-
pared from Celtic beans and peas also implies), and can better be translated
as ‘gruel’ or ‘purée’, or at least as a ‘thick soup’ (LSJ is somehow confusing,
since s.v. ‘ἔτνος’ has the interpretation “thick soup”, while s.v. ‘ἐτνηρός’ “like
soup”). Meyer (1854) p. 193 translated “aus ihnen [i.e., Bohne und Erbse] wird
ein breiartiges Gericht bereitet” and Gulick LOEB (1930) “a boiled dish like
porridge is the result”; more recently Neri (1998) (apud Hellmann – Mirhady
p. 79) suggests “poltiglioso, infatti, è il bollito che ne risulta”. See more below
p. 107-109. All these are in agreement with the consistency being that of a thick
soup.
2) The adjective lekithṓdē (yellowish) (**) is attributed to the dish prepared
from árakos, also a kind of gruel or puree. All translations but Gulick’s (‘the yolk-
coloured vetches’) omit the reference of the ancient text to the colour, which may
be crucial for recognizing what type of food this might have been, but all rightly
recognize the thickness of this dish: “andere liefern einen mehligen (?) Brei, wie
der Arakos” (Meyer), ‘in quanto ingredienti del puré di legumi’ (Neri), ‘other va-
rieties are more suited to producing gruel’ (Olson). Thus, árakos is just one of
those pulses that when cooked gives a yellow-coloured, gruel-like dish. This de-
scription, of course, brings to mind the ‘fáva’ dish mentioned above, a dish pre-
pared from different pulses, which in most cases has a yellow colour (Figure 2.15,
2.18 and 2.20). This yellow colour does not correspond to the seed colour but
to the colour of the cotyledons. In other words, although Lathyrus ochrus is large
and round with a pale greenish colour and Lathyrus sativus seeds have a colour
that ranges from light brown to off-white, once split and the testa removed, they
reveal the two yellow-coloured cotyledons surrounded by the seed coat (Figure
2.28).This is not characteristic only of the Lathyrus species but also of bitter vetch
(Figure 2.29) and a variety of a small-seeded pea grown on some Aegean islands
known as katsouni (Stavridou et al. 2020). Thus, the information provided by
Phaenias suggests in all likelihood that the yellowish dish (Figure 2.20 above) was
prepared with yellow cotyledons as opposed to a dish made of whole seeds sur-
rounded by their testa.
In the texts we have researched, however, we have not encountered descrip-
tions and comparisons of the pulse seed colour or of the colour of the flower of
each species in a detail that would have helped us clarify the identity of some
pulse species.
3) When the text refers to the pulse boiled to make lentil-soup, manuscripts
determine this pulse as aphákē and phakós; Olson rightly deleted aphákē, which
seems suspicious, since it is mentioned exactly below as a pulse cultivated to
Figure 2.28 Split cotyledons of different Lathyrus species and of arakas/katsouni (small-
seeded pea variety) from the Cyclades; all have a yellow colour, irrespective of the colour of
their seed coat and so does the dish prepared from them (cf Figure 2.20): (from left to right)
Spanish vetchling (Lathyrus clymenum), grass pea (Lathyrus sativus), katsouni pea (Pisum
sativum), Cyprus vetch (Lathyrus ochrus).
be used as fodder for sheep. However, we do not agree with Olson that the dish
made of lentils is ‘porridge’. Although lentil dishes can in fact be of varying
thickness, they are usually of a rather liquid consistency, so that we believe that
‘lentil-soup’ (as Olson himself renders the term phakḗ at the beginning of this
passage) is the most appropriate translation; cf. ‘lentil-sup’ (Gulick), ‘zuppa di
lenticchie’ (Neri). Meyer’s ‘Linsengericht’ does not determine the consistency
of the lentil dish.
The above passages thus list a wide array of pulse species used for culinary
purposes, their seeds transformed into dishes by being boiled into various forms
of which we may infer three general types: a porridge/gruel like (étnos), a yel-
low-coloured one (lekithṓdē) and a soup (phakḗ). Dry pulse seeds can indeed be
boiled into a soup, a liquid form of food (Davidson 2002, p. 882) as well as into
gruels of different consistencies. If left to boil for very long and then left to settle
overnight, pulses can become a thick mush that can be cut with a knife in slices,
especially if the seed coats have been removed (cf. porridge cooked in this way,
Davidson 2002, p. 749; also British pease, see above).
Étnos is the name for a popular thick soup or gruel made of pulses (cf.
108 FOOD CrOPS In AnCIEnT GrEEk CuISInE
Figure 2.29 Split bitter vetch seeds reveal yellow and orange colour of cotyledons. Grinding
performed in the context of PlantCult experimental food processing. Photo Maria Bafill,
PlantCult.
Aristoph. Frogs 505-6: “two or three pots of étnos made of ground pulses”), in
distinction from phakḗ, the lentil-soup (as we just saw, cf. Aristotle Problems
962b 23-24), although at least once we read about étnos made of lentils (pháki-
non étnos, Hippocrates Regimen in acute diseases Append. 21 [II 500 L.], trans-
lated by Potter LOEB Hipp. vol. VI as “thick lentil soup”). In most passages étnos
is mentioned without further specification, and Dalby (p. 49) suggests that in
these cases we can assume that it was made of kýamos (cf. Galen Properties of
foods 6. 529). However, étnos kyáminon in Heniochus fr. 4.7 PCG, if not a
pleonasm, may suggest that it was not so self-evident, and étnos connotes a dish
made of pulses in general. Aristophanes (Knights 1171) and Antiphanes fr. 181.7
PCG mention étnos made of písos (písinon étnos). Galen op. cit. talks about two
versions of this dish: a fluid one cooked in pots and a thick one cooked in pans
(Powell p. 59). It is possible that the latter was like gruel, as suggested by its com-
parison with atháre (Photius a 471; cf. Crates fr. 11 PCG), the gruel made of
cereals (see above Chapter 1).
The term étnos occurs for the first time in Alcman’s fragment 17 PMG, where
the poet comments on his own habits: “And then I’ll give you a fine great cauldron
wherein you may gather a plentiful dinner. But unfired is it yet, though soon to
be full of that good pottage [étnos] the all-devouring Alcman loves piping hot
when the days are past their shortest. He’ll none of your fine confections, not
he; for, like the people, he seeketh unto the common fare.” (transl. Edmonds 1922
= fr. 46). So, from the very beginning étnos was a common food of simple people,
and it is no surprise that it frequently occurs in comedy (Aristoph. Acharn. 245-
6, Knights 1171, Birds 78, Lysistrati 1081, Frogs 62-65, 506, Women in assem-
bly 845, fr. 183.7, 514 PCG; Crates fr. 11 PCG; Pherecrates fr. 137.8 PCG; He-
niochus fr. 4.7 PCG; Mnesimachus fr. 4.30 PCG). Moreover, there was a specific
ladle for cooking étnos and taking it from the pot, the so-called etnḗrysis
(ἐτνήρυσις, Aristoph. Acharn. 245).
As we shall see in detail below for each species, pulses were cooked whole
or coarsely ground or ground finely into a meal, occasionally roasted, soaked
or both, depending on their use. Dishes based on pulses could be soups, gruels
of different consistencies, breads, sprouts of unripe plants, not fully ripe seeds
and roasted seeds. The grinding of their seed was desirable in some cases and
would have rendered cooking faster. Grinding could require prior soaking and
roasting and the consumption of certain species required water to render them
edible. Ancient Greeks were well aware of the effects of pulse consumption if
not processed properly or eaten in excess. They also knew that their consump-
tion caused flatulence at different degrees, depending on the pulse species con-
sumed.
In this section we will examine all these terms that correspond to pulse
species, one by one, including species that are not encountered in the archaeob-
otanical record of the prehistoric or early historic periods. The order in which
the various ancient Greek terms are presented is based on the frequency with
which they are encountered in the archaeobotanical record of prehistoric Greece,
starting from lentils and the various Lathyrus species; followed by bitter-vetch
and pea, pulses that occur already in the Neolithic; followed by Celtic bean, a
Bronze Age crop. Chickpea and lupin, as well as species that do not seem to occur
in prehistoric settlements, are examined at the end of this chapter.
Phakós, φακός (lentil) and phakḗ, φακῆ (Lentil soup)

The term phakós (φακός) was used to denote lentils (Lens culinaris), while the
dish that was prepared with lentils was called phakḗ (φακῆ, lentil soup), a word
which occurs often in ancient Greek sources. Phakḗ, as implied by Phaenias’ frag-
ment cited above, seems to also be a term determining a specific preparation,
probably because of its density, made from phakós (see above p. 105, 106f.): it
denotes a rather liquid soup, different from thicker soup or gruel made of other
pulses (esp. of kýamos), which is known as étnos (see above p. 105, 107f.); thus,
when étnos of phakḗ (phákinon étnos) is mentioned, we may infer that this was
of a thicker consistency.
Lentils occur for the first time in Solon’s fr. 38.3 West, where we read about
a kind of cake [gouroi] ‘mingled with lentils [phakós]’. There are numerous
records of both the seeds and the dish in Aristophanes and other poets of com-
edy of the 5th, 4th and 3rd centuries BC that clearly show that it was a widely
known foodstuff and an important ingredient in the everyday dishes of com-
mon people (see also Micha-Lampaki 1984, Dalby 1997). We also read about
other preparations with lentils, such as the bolbophakḗ (βολβοφακῆ), a soup
of bulbs and lentils, which is glorified by Chrysippus (apud Athenaeus 4.158
B = fr. 709a SVF) as being ‘like ambrosia when the weather’s freezing cold’
(transl. Olson LOEB; cf. Athenaeus 13.584 D), the laganophakḗ, a sweet (pud-
ding or cake) with lentils (in a papyrus fragment, see LSJ s.v. ‘λαγανοφακῆ’),
and the phakoptisánē, a mix of lentils and ptisánē (Galen. Properties of foods
6.527 and 528). There is also a memorable mention of a bread made of lentils
(phákinos ártos, Sopater fr. 1 PCG), which was common and a favourite in
Alexandria, although,according to Galen’s definition four centuries later, ‘peo-
ple call pulse [óspria] those cereals from which bread is not made’ (Properties
of foods 6.524; he starts his section on lentils by saying explicitly that ‘none
makes bread from these’ 6.525). The bread made of lentils described above
could have been a mixture of lentil and cereal flour as it is unlikely that a 100%
lentil flour could be converted into a bread, unless the word bread in this case
was used as a metaphor to refer to a thick porridge that could be cut with a
knife (we thank John Wilkins for this point). The lentil bread presupposes flour
of lentils, and we do find it, but only for medicinal use: áleuron of phakós (Hip-
pocr. Nature of women 105 [VII 420 L.]; cf. phákinon áleuron in Dioscorides
Euporista 1.228.9) álphita of phakós and órobos (Hippocr. Internal affections
23 [VII 226 L.]; cf. Dioscor. de mater. med. 2.108; see also below the mention
of meal of órobos p. 118).
In the Hippocratic corpus we read that ‘the lentil contracts and is laxative, if
it has its hull’ (Regimen in acute diseases Append. 18 [II 486 L.], transl. Potter
LOEB Hipp. vol. VI). Lentils were known for their medicinal properties. A liquid
preparation of lentils (chylós of phakós) for example is prescribed to a man suf-
fering from a severe gastrointestinal infection, a preparation that had to be taken
twice with the consumption of ‘hellebore in lentil broth and … lentil broth in ad-
dition’ (Hippocrates Epidemics 5.10 [V 210 L.], transl. Smith LOEB Hipp. vol.
VII). In another case lentil water with salt is prescribed to treat symptoms of very
high fever with diarrhoea, followed by a dish of unsalted, cold lentil soup (Hip-
pocrates Internal affections 42 [VII 270 L.]). As a cataplasm, lentils are part of a
recipe to treat an infection in the form of an ulcer: lentils had to be boiled in wine,
mushed to a fine paste and mixed with some olive oil (Hippocrates Ulcers 11 [VI
410 L.]). Finally, in some treatises of the Hippocratic corpus we find the term
φάκιον [phákion] for a decoction used as an emetic, often mixed with hellebore
or with vinegar mixed with honey (e.g., Diseases i-iii 2.43, 2.55 [VII 60, 86 L.],
Affections 27 [VI 238 L.], Nature of women 10 [VII 326 L.], Female diseases i-
iii 1.89 [VIII 212 L.]). Thus, although lentils have always been considered as a food
resource in prehistoric Greece, in light of the ancient textual evidence, its medicinal
use should not be discounted for either prehistoric or historic times. Indeed this
suggestion has been put forward for the contents of a pit from Late Neolithic
Makriyalos in northern Greece, which, contained lentils among other plants with
more obvious medicinal properties (Valamoti 2004, Valamoti 2013, Valamoti
2023).
Ancient sources offer insights into the regions where lentils were cultivated
or their absence from certain locations. Herodotus (4.17) mentions that lentils
were cultivated and consumed by some peoples who were Greek colonists in
Skythia (Ἐλληνοσκύθαι) near the river Borysthenes (south Ukraine). Theophras-
tus (Hist. plant. 4.4.9-10), on the other hand reports that in India there are no
lentils but some grain that looked so much like lentils that the Greeks of Alexan-
der the Great’s army called them lentils. Varieties and landraces must have existed
as is the case today (Figure 2.3) and there is a special reference to white lentils,
which are compared to lentils of other colours as having had sweeter seeds, as
appears to also have been the case with other white-seeded varieties of pulse
species (Theophrastus Hist. plant. 8.5.1).
Terms attributed to various Lathyrus species

Láthyros, λάθυρος
Láthyros is identified as Lathyrus sativus (Amigues vol. 5, p. 307, Dalby 167,
Powell 170) and is translated as grass pea by Dalby and Powell (ibidem). Grant
p. 102 translates the same term as marrowfat peas, a common English name
which, however, corresponds to pea and not grass-pea (Savage et al. 2001).
There are very few references to láthyros (λάθυρος) in ancient texts and none
dates to before the 4th century BC. The term appears in two comic fragments
(Alexis fr. 167.12 PCG, Anaxandrides fr. 42.43 PCG) among many other food-
stuffs thus indicating that it was a common ingredient; in Alexis’ text it is explicitly
part of a poor diet. Láthyros is grouped by Theophrastus (Hist. plant. 8.3.2 cited
above) together with ṓchros and písos in terms of its physical characteristics. In
the literature dating from after the 4th century BC the most interesting appearance
of láthyros, apart from its mention by Polemon fr. 88 (FHG III, p. 144) as one
of the ingredients of díon kṓdion (the Sacred Fleece), is in Galen’s discussion ‘on
pulses’ (Properties of foods 6.524-547 passim), in which a brief section on láthy-
ros (6.540) is included and informs us that this pulse which had a wide use in
Asia, Mysia and Phrygia, it is ‘in substance very like ṓchros and phásēlos and
its liquor (chylós) is close in power to these but thicker in consistency, and this
is why it is somehow more nourishing than them’ (transl. based on both Powell
and Grant) (see above, p. 101, 107, Figure 2.20, 2.28, modern seeds of different
Lathyrus species and Modern Greek arakás [Pisum sativum].
The sources make no reference to the colour of the flower or the seeds, nor
do they mention their toxicity and need for splitting or treating with water as
is the case with modern accounts related to Lathyrus and the lathyrism caused
by its heavy consumption in some parts of the Old World (see Valamoti 2023,
Peña Chocarro and Zapata Peña 1999, Butler et al. 1999, Cohn and Kislev 1987
for some archaeological discussions in relation to Lathyrus sativus toxicity). Spe-
cial processing for removal of toxicity by dehulling or treatment with water is
not mentioned for grass pea unlike bitter vetch for which some hints are provided
(see below).
Árakos (ἄρακος and ἄραξ) has been identified as belonging to either of the
two genera, Lathyrus and Vicia. According to Amigues it corresponds to the
wider vetch family, identifying it as Vicia L. spp. (Amigues vol. V, p. 271, IV p.
221, see also below). The term has been translated in English as ‘cow vetch or
bird vetch (Vicia cracca)’ by Dalby (2003, p. 343), as ‘wild chickling or bird vetch
(Lathyrus annuus)’ by Powell (2003, p. 170), and as ‘wild chickling’ by Grant
(2000, p. 103). The term ‘chickling’ is used to describe different species of the
genus Lathyrus (Sarker et al. 2001), including Lathyrus sativus, L. clymenum
and L. ochrus that were cultivated in the Bronze Age Aegean (see above p. 96).
Amigues (vol. IV, p. 221) points out the multitude of meanings attributed to the
word arakás in modern Greek, something that renders any attempted identifi-
cation with a specific modern species problematic. An investigation of the ancient
sources and traditional modern cultivation of pulses on the Aegean islands may
shed some light on the identity of árakos.
Árakos occurs very few times in ancient Greek literature and its oldest
known mention is in Aristophanes fr. 428 PCG, a one-verse fragment listing
foods (árakos, pyrós, ptisánē, chóndros, zeiá, aira, semídalis), thus not allow-
ing further understanding of its meaning. According to Phaenias fr. 48 Wehrli
(cited above p. 105), when it is boiled it creates a yellow-coloured dish that
is different from phakḗ and from the gruels made from kýamos and pisós,
probably a thick gruel like modern fáva (see above Figure 2.15). Even
Theophrastus mentions it only three times, most interesting of which is the
information that a rough and hard kind of árakos grows among phakós like
a weed, as for example aira among pyrós or pelekínos among aphákē (Hist.
Plant. 8.8.3; see Amigues vol. IV, p. 221; this is probably Galen’s árachos, see
below). Philo On Sieges 86 Thévenot (= B 3 Whitehead) counts árakos among
the seeds that are not liable to decay and can be stored for a long time, espe-
cially when they are roasted or even mixed with olive oil lees (amurca). In a
papyrus from the 3rd c. BC the adjective arakóchersos [ἀρακόχερσος] is found,
determining a land ‘dry and fit for sowing árakos’ (LSJ s.v.), while we find
more terms derived from árakos (arakósporos, arakóspermon, arákion,
arakikós) or an alternative form of it (árax; see LSJ s.vv. ἀρακόσπορος,
ἀρακόσπερμον, ἀράκιον, ἀρακικός, ἄραξ) in later centuries. The generation
of new terms in later times suggests that the use of the term árakos might have
become more necessary in the centuries after the Hellenistic period, and Galen
devotes a brief section ‘on árakos’ (Properties of foods 6.541), where he says
that its ‘seed is similar to that of láthyros, and some people do not think they
are separate species, for the general use and power of árakos is similar to that
of láthyros, except that árakos is harder and more difficult to boil and so is
harder to digest than láthyros’ (transl. Grant); he also speaks about ‘a wild
variety that is round and hard, smaller than órobos, and found in cereal crops’
in the place where he lives, called árachos by the local people, and ‘harvesters
throw it away just as they do with axeweed [pelekínos] (cf. Theophrastus
above)’ (transl. Grant).
When Phaenias tells us that a yellow-coloured dish can be prepared by
árakos (see above p. 105-106), we can eliminate pulses like fava bean that would
yield a different coloured étnos, we cannot, however, exclude all those edible
pulse species with yellow cotyledons. It could be any Lathyrus species of those
used as food or a small-seeded pea variety harvested at maturity for the prepa-
ration of an étnos. For this type of yolk-coloured étnos, however, árakos is given
as an example by Phaenias and it is tempting to associate it with Spanish vetch-
ling, in other words fáva Santorinis (Lathyrus clymenum), which is still called
arakás in Modern Greek, a term used on Aegean islands, such as Amorgos, to
describe this pulse (Jones 1992). Alternatively, the similarity between Láthyros
and árakos and the association of the latter with dry land and its occurence as
a crop weed could be pointing to Lathyrus cicera. The confusion in attributing
a species arises from the similarity of the seeds once the cotyledons are split and
the testa removed, yet the difference in the colour of the flowers would have
been sufficient for the distinction of the different species: red for Lathyrus cly-
menum and Pisum sativum var. katsoúni, blue for Lathyrus sativus and yellow
for Lathyrus ochrus.
Aphákē, ἀφάκη
Various species have been associated with this ancient Greek word. We have
listed it together with the Lathyrus species following Dalby (2003, p. 167):
aphákē is one of “the various wild species of Lathyrus and Vicia” which include
“Lathyrus Aphaca (sic), L. Cicera (sic), L. hirsutus, L. grandiflorus, L. Ochrus
(sic) and other related species, known as vetchling and birds’ pease in English”.
Amigues offers an exhaustive discussion of the possible identifications of the
term to a plant species and she concludes that aphákē corresponds to Lathyrus
cicera (Amigues vol. IV, p. 176-7, V, p. 273). Amigues (vol. IV, p. 176) points
out that the identification of this pulse is uncertain at first sight, with various
species of the Vicia and Lathyrus genera with seeds shaped like lentils being po-
tential candidate species for this word; she does not agree with the identification
as Lathyrus aphaca (ibidem) on the grounds that its seeds are dangerous, bitter
and poisonous. She also considers aphákē as a weed of some other pulse crop
rather than as a crop proper, on the basis of references to its occurrence as a
contaminant of lentils (p. 177). Amigues concludes that aphákē corresponds to
Lathyrus cicera L. (p. 177; cf. vol. V, p. 273), yet it remains unclear on what
grounds this inference is made. Powell renders aphákē as ‘dwarf chickling’ (p.
57) and ‘tare’ (p. 68), when he translates Galen’s Properties of foods 524 and
550 respectively, while he identifies it as ‘dwarf chickling’ – Lathyrus cicera in
his commentary (p. 171). ‘Tare’ is the commonest translation of aphákē (Grant
p. 96 and 107; Beck p. 153 ― aphákē is the only possible Lathyrus species men-
tioned by Dioscorides; Olson in his translation of Phaenias’ fr. 48 Wehrli apud
Athenaeus cited above p. 105-106), probably because Galen discusses aphákē
and vetch together in the same section (entitled ‘On aphákē and bíkos’, Prop-
erties of foods 550). We must note here that the ancient Greek word βῖκος
[bíkos] means ‘jar or cask. 2. drinking-bowl’ LSJ s.v., and was never used to de-
note the vetch; the terms βικίον, βικία, βῖκος for the plant and seed of vetch ap-
pear from Galen onwards, probably as transliteration of the Latin Vicia. As
Galen himself explains (op.c. 551), ‘The name bíkos is certainly usual in our re-
gion, and it is referred to only in this way, but among the Athenians it was equally
called árakos and láthyros’ (transl. Powell).
Aphákē, which is ranked among the legumes by Theophrastus Hist. Plant.
8.1.4 (cf. Galen Properties of foods 6.524), is a plant very rarely mentioned in
the literature, but often in comparison to lentils: its seeds were flattened, similar
to those of the lentil [phakós] (Theophrastus Hist. Plant. 8.5.3, Galen Properties
of foods 6.550-551), but smaller than them and black in colour, while it was a
plant taller than the lentil and its pods bigger than those of the lentil (Dioscorides
Pedanius De materia medica 2.148). Aphákē occurs for the first time in a one-
line fragment from the comic poet Pherecrates (fr. 201 PCG) with other foods,
but the lack of context does not allow us to understand anything about its use.
According to Aristotle (Hist. Anim. 596a 25; cf. Phaenias fr. 48 Wehrli cited
above, p. 105) it was excellent fodder especially for sheep, which could be made
more fattening with the addition of salt. It was not a pleasant food, and people
ate its seeds (when they are still green and tender) only in cases of food shortage,
as Galen says (Properties of foods 6.550-551). As this use could apply to different
Lathyrus species, a general attribution to Lathyrus and Vicia would be the most
appropriate translation of this word, as suggested by Dalby (2003, see above).
Approximately 50 pulse seeds resembling L. aphaca have been identified among
lentils at the Neolithic site of Arkadikos in northern Greece, yet, it could have
been just a weed harvested with a lentil crop and subsequently difficult to separate
from the lentil seed (Valamoti 2004).
Ṓchros, ὦχρος
Another word that corresponds to some Lathyrus species is the word ṓchros.
Although Dalby (2003 p. 167) groups ṓchros with aphákē as one of “the various
wild species of Lathyrus and Vicia”, without any further specifications, we find
that Amigues, who considers the ancient name to be related to the pale yellow
colour of the plant’s flower, makes a convincing argument and is right to identify
it as Lathyrus ochrus (Amigues vol. IV, p. 176, cf. V, p. 347). The same iden-
tification as L. ochrus is also encountered in the translations by Powell (see p.
170 and passim in his translation) and Grant (p. 102 and passim in his trans-
lation); yet, when Powell e.g. p. 57, 63 and Grant e.g. p. 96, 102 translate the
ancient word into common English as ‘birds’ peas’ (cf. LSJ s.v., ‘bird’s pease,
Lathyrus Ochrus’ (sic)) this term does not seem to correspond to a specific botan-
ical species. For Olson (translation of Athenaeus 2.54 F citing Phaenias fr. 43
Wehrli = 48 Hellman-Mirhady) ṓchros is ‘Cyprus vetch’, which indeed is the
common name for Lathyrus ochrus.
Apart from the passage concerning pulses in the Hippocratic corpus (Reg-
imen i-iv 2.45 [VI 542 L.]), where ṓchros and dólichos are said to ‘pass better
by stool and are less windy than kýamos and písos but nourishing’ (transl. Jones
LOEB Hipp. vol. IV; he translates ṓchros as ‘the chick-pea, called ochrus’),
ṓchros occurs in the literature from the 4th c. BC onwards. In a few comic frag-
ments (Alexis fr. 167.12 PCG as a component of a poor family’s diet, Anaxan-
drides fr. 42.43 PCG, Antiphanes fr. 294 PCG) it is included in food catalogues,
while Phaenias (fr. 43 Wehrli) stated that ṓchros (as also kýamos and
erébinthos) was consumed as one of tragḗmata when it was still green (Figure
2.30), but boiled or roasted when it was dry. According to Theophrastus (Caus.
Plant. 6.12.9) the tender shoots of ṓchros could also be eaten when they were
Figure 2.30 On the island of Corfu, green pods of Lathyrus sativus are harvested and the
unripe seeds are consumed as a snack. Unripe pods of chick pea and grass pea, Corfu, Strinilas,
Oasis tavern, July 2021.
still green and tender. This use is particularly interesting and, although one
might consider it to be an exaggeration to extrapolate modern practices related
to a specific plant to the past, this ‘recipe’ provided by Theophrastus is still
practiced on the island of Crete: a seasonally available dish known under the
name ‘papoúles’ (Figure 2.31a and b) is made by eating the tender sprouts with
Figure 2.31 ‘Papoules’ from modern Crete, fresh shoots of Lathyrus ochrus (a) eaten as a
salad (b); the same was practiced in antiquity. Photos courtesy of Niki Saridaki.
olive oil and vinegar (Maria Saridaki personal communication, May 2020; also
https://www.cretanmagazine.gr/i-kamplies-tis-kritis/?fbclid=IwAR3UeV
mGkIK0e_9l3gP2qEHVJvRATqETsIPxStHOhAh3EUP4xXXt4r57T2A). If
this were a case of culinary continuity, this piece of information would lend
further support to the identification of ṓchros as Lathyrus ochrus. Ṓchros is
never mentioned as fodder while it is one of the plants that Aristotle advises
to be planted near beehives (Hist. Anim. 827b 16-18). Indeed the pollination
of Lathyrus species is enhanced by bees and bumble bees (Brahim et al. 2001),
and this information provided by Aristotle may be an indication that the cul-
tivation of ṓchros was systematic and the pollination of the plant an important
concern in order to yield a successful crop.
The common Greek name for Lathyrus ochrus on the island of Lemnos, whe-
re it is still grown in both small-scale operations and at larger scale for market
sale and export, is áfkos (Figure 2.32).
It is interesting that in medical texts,
scholia and the work of lexicographers
of the Byzantine period the word αὖ-
χος [áuchos] occurs to denote a com-
mon pulse. In the chapter ‘on pulses’
of the Pseudo-Hippocratic ‘Epistle to
Ptolemaeus on differences of foods’
(498.18-19 Delatte) we read that ‘áu-
chos is lighter and easier digested than
phásēlos and láthyros’. In Suda α 4545
(10 th c. AD) it is interpreted as ‘the
pulse’, which indicates that it was a
common and well-known pulse, while
Tzetzes (12th c.) comments on Aristo-
phanes Frogs 62 that the pulse which in
his days was commonly called áuchos, Figure 2.32 Cyprus vetch sold under the lo-
is the Aristophanic písos (see below). cal Lemnian name of άφκος (áfkos).
Órobos, ὄροβος (bitter vetch)

One of the most common pulse finds in the prehistoric archaeobotanical record
is that of bitter vetch. This species corresponds to the word órobos (ὄροβος), as
all scholars agree (Amigues vol. V, p. 319; Dalby 2003 p. 343, Powell p. 171,
Beck p. 138; only Grant p. 105 renders it as ‘vetch’). The term is mentioned for
the first time in the 5th century BC in the Hippocratic corpus, in which more than
half of its appearances in the literature until the 2nd c. BC occur. This is reasonable:
the greatest usefulness of órobos for people was its use for medicinal purposes
and not in cuisine, since it was mainly considered fodder, and an excellent one,
especially for cattle (Hippocrates Ancient medicine 8 [I 586 L.]; cf. Aristotle Hist.
animal. 595 b 5-6, Phaenias fr. 48 Wehrli cited above p. 105), but even then Aris-
totle warns that, although it increases milk production, it must be avoided for
pregnant cows, because it makes the parturition more difficult (Aristotle Hist.
animal. 522 b 27-30). We also find, however, references to the positive qualities
of bitter vetch: according to the Hippocratic Regimen i-iv 2.45 [VI 544 L.] órobos
is ‘binding, strengthening, fattening, filling and gives a person a good colour’
(transl. Jones LOEB Hipp. vol. IV), yet, elsewhere we read that healthy men must
use it with caution (Hippocr. Ancient medicine 8 [I 586 L.]) and that the inhab-
itants of the Thracian Aenos suffer from knee pain because of eating it (Hippocr.
Epidemics 2.4.3 [V 126 L.]).
Perhaps we can find an explanation for this contradiction in Dioscorides
(De materia medica 2.108.1-2), who says that people make “the so-called meal
of órobos (oróbinon áleuron), which is suitable for medicinal use. But if one eats
it, it gives headaches, it disturbs the abdomen, and it draws blood through the
urine”; moreover “it softens the stool, it is diuretic and it gives nice color” (transl.
Beck). We can assume that the positive qualities attributed to órobos in the Hip-
pocratic text (Reginen i-iv 2.45 cited above) presuppose that the seed was pro-
cessed in a way that removed its toxicity in an effective way; e.g. roasting of bitter
vetch was an important part of this proccess as suggested by Dioscorides descrip-
tion of the above mentioned meal of órobos. “Meal of bitter vetch is made in
this way: choosing viable, white seeds, sprinkle them with water and stir them,
and after allowing them enough time to soak up the water, roast them until their
skin cracks all around; then after grinding and sifting them through a fine sieve,
store the meal.” (transl. Beck). This soaking and roasting would have been crucial
for removing the toxic substances of bitter vetch, thus rendering it suitable for
human consumption as has been reported for other parts of Mediterranean Eu-
rope (Enneking 1995). In this context it is worth mentioning similar processing
steps identified in a concentration of bitter vetch cotyledons from the site of Agios
Athanasios, dated to the end of the 3rd millennium BC: bitter vetch cotyledons
were found with indications of processing with water and grinding, resulting in
split, dehulled cotyledons (Figure 2.19 above, Valamoti et al. 2011). Theophras-
tus (Hist. plant. 2.4.2) makes a distinction between differences concerning tox-
icity between winter-sown and spring sown bitter vetch, the latter being three
times less poisonous than the former, an indication that different varieties and/or
landraces of bitter vetch existed, varying in their levels of toxicity.
Amigues (vol. IV, p. 178) points out that bitter vetch is mentioned 17 times
in Historia plantarum by Theophrastus and concludes that despite attestations
of its inferior status as a food it must have been an important crop intended not
only to feed animals but also humans. Demosthenes’ dismissive manner of speak-
ing in his Speech against Androtion 15 (“You know [Athenians] how it stood
with our city in the last war with the Lacedaemonians when it seemed unlikely
that you could dispatch a fleet. You know that órobos were sold for food”, transl.
Vince at Perseus Dig. Libr.), shows that órobos was not a normal food and was
consumed by people only in cases of crisis (pace Amigues vol. IV, p. 178). Galen,
as regards the consumption of bitter vetch as food refers to Hippocrates who
said that only under circumstances of extreme famine would bitter vetch be con-
sumed as human food; the removal of the unpleasant, bitter taste was done by
boiling the seeds twice and then rinsing many times (Galen Properties of foods
6.546-547).
According to Philo On Sieges 86 Thévenot (= B 1 Whitehead) órobos belongs
to the seeds that are not liable to decay (cf. Theophrastus Hist. Plant. 8.11.6)
and are appropriate to be stored in cases of necessity, while he also mentions
flour of órobos as the ingredient of a drink (op. cit. 89). Órobos is either white,
which is the sweetest, or yellowish-red, and the juices made of them are of the
same colour respectively (Theophrastus Hist. Plant. 8.5.1; Galen Properties of
foods 6.547; cf. the comparison of the colour of bodily fluids to those of the óro-
bos products in the Hippocratic corpus: Regimen in acute diseases Append. 11
[II 462-464 L.] reddish, Epidemics 4.14 [V 152 L.] white, 7.59 [V 424 L.] red,
Diseases i-iii 3.11 [VII 130 L.] red, Critical days 9 [IX 304 L.] red). It is unclear
as to whether the colour description refers to the colour of the cotyledons (Figure
2.29) or to that of the seed coat. Different colours of the seeds could indeed sug-
gest different varieties, those described as white-coloured and sweet perhaps be-
ing the least toxic of all.
Písos, πίσος (also πισός) and píson (πίσον)

Scholars unanimously agree that písos (or pisós) corresponds to pea, Pisum
sativum (Dalby tp. 252, Powell tp. 170, Gran tp. 99, Amigues vol. IV, p. 178,
V, p. 324). It occurs very rarely in the Classical literature, from the 5th c. BC on.
In Aristophanes fr. 22 PCG it seems to be added as an ingredient to something
having been ground, but more important is the mention of ‘a thick soup or gruel
(étnos) of vivid colour and tasteful made of pisós’ (Knights 1171), and, according
to Phaenias (fr. 48 cited above p. 105), this particular preparation (cf. Antiphanes
fr. 181.7 PCG) was the reason why people sowed pisós. Nowadays a variety of
pea is grown on some Aegean islands for the preparation of a yolk-coloured por-
ridge-like preparation like fáva, known as katsoúni (Figure 2.28), a small round
seeded pulse with a green coat and yellow coloured cotyledons (http://flo-
raamorgina.blogspot.com/2014/06/h.html). The ancient texts, however, unlike

for other pulses, give no such information regarding different varieties of peas
grown in antiquity.
In Regimen i-iv 2.45 [VI 542 L.] of the Hippocratic corpus we read that
pisós is ‘less windy and passes better by stool’ than kýamos (transl. Jones LOEB
Hipp. vol. IV). Galen (Properties of foods 6.532) says that pisós is very similar
to kýamos in substance, and both are eaten in the same way, ‘but it differs in two
respects; it is not as flatulent as kýamos and has not any purgative power. It is
therefore slower to pass through the stomach than kýamos’ (based on Grant’s
transl.). So, the two sources offer contradictory information as regards the purga-
tive properties of pisós and kýamos. Finally, according to Theophrastus’ descrip-
tion, the plant of písos has many leaves (Hist. plant. 8.2.3), which are more ob-
long, (8.3.1) and a creeping stem; its pods have no distinctions and the seeds,
which are cylindrical (8.5.3), touch one another (8.5.2) [based on Hort’s transl.].
Kýamos, κύαμος
This pulse is identified as ‘bean, Vicia faba’ (LSJ s.v.; Grant p. 98), or as ‘broad
bean or fava bean’ (Dalby p. 49 and Powell p. 170; Amigues vol. V, p. 304). The
equivalent that is found in the prehistoric archaeobotanical record is that of Vicia
faba minor, i.e. a small seeded Vicia faba and not the variety that is commonly
grown nowadays (Figure 2.9). Since the English term ‘bean’ denotes both the
Vicia faba discussed here and Phaseolus vulgaris L., which is a favourite pulse
in modern Greek cuisine (under the name ‘fasóli’) though originating from the
New World (Bitocchi et al. 2012), we use here the English term ‘fava bean’ (which
includes both Celtic bean and broad bean) to refer to kýamos (in Modern Greek
called ‘koukí’) to avoid confusion. It is most likely that this kýamos was of the
small-seeded variety, like that grown in prehistoric Greece. This is clearly indi-
cated by recent finds reported from the so called ‘nekromanteion’ in Epirus, dated
to the Hellenistic period (Gkatzogia and Kotzabopoulou 2020, Figure 2.33) as
well as finds from Vergina (Figure 2.25 above).
Kýamos, a Bronze Age crop for the Aegean, is one of the two pulses mentioned
in Homer (Il. 13.589; in the context of a simile, cited below p. 122) and described
as ‘black’ (this colour is also attributed to them by Aristophanes, Lysistrata 690).
Eustathius (12th c. AD) comments on this Homeric verse that ‘the ancients write
that the priests do not eat fava beans because they are black’, while, as is well
known, Pythagoras advised to abstain from fava beans (Aristotle fragm. 195
Rose). These testimonies prove that fava bean was already a common crop in the
archaic period, and we know this very well for the following centuries, as black
and white kýamoi were used for the choice of magistrates by lot in Athens (see
FOOD CrOPS IN ANCIENT GrEEK CuISINE 121
Figure 2.33 Celtic bean found in a pure, rich concentration at the Nekromanteion. Photo
courtesy of Tzeni Gkatzogia and Eleni Kotzabopoulou, after Gkatzogia and Kotzabopoulou
2020.
Plutarch, Life of Pericles 27.2-3, Pausanias Gathering of Attic words α 48; cf.
kyameúō ‘choose by beans’, kyameutós and kyamóvolos ‘chosen by beans’, LSJ
s.v.), while fava beans were also used as a means to measure out medicines (ὅσον
κύαμον [hóson kýamon] ‘of the size of a bean’ ―cf. the later adjective κυαμιαῖος
[kyamiaios], LSJ s.v.― is a phrase often occurring in the Hippocratic treatises,
e.g. Diseases i-iii 2.47, 3.15 [VII 68, 142 L.], Nature of women 25, 32, 68 [VII
342, 364, 402 L.]).
Of course it was also used as food, as numerous references in Classical
texts show (e.g. Plato Republic 372.c8, Aristophanes Knights 41, Pherecrates
fr. 201 PCG, Archestratus SH 192.15 = 60 Olson-Sens, Alexis fr. 167 PCG,
Anaxandrides fr. 42.43 PCG, Ephippus fr. 13.2 PCG), although it was con-
sidered by physicians to be an astringent food, causing flatulence (Hippocrates
Regimen i-iv 2.45 [VI 542 L.]; Dioscorides Pedanius, De materia medica 2.105,
associated the consumption of ‘Greek kýamos’ with negative side effects, such
as bad dreams, bad digestion and others, especially when eaten fresh and raw
[chlōrós]). For Archestratus SH 192.15 kýamos was a food for poor people:
‘all those other dainties are evidence of wretched beggary — boiled chickpeas
[erébinthos] and fava-beans [kýamos]’ (transl. Olson-Sens). Kýamos was also

a good fodder crop, especially for generating milk production in sheep, goats
and cattle (Aristotle Hist. Animal. 522 b32-33) and was nutritious for cattle
(op. cit. 595 b5-7).
In a few cases we are informed about places where kýamos was produced
or avoided. In Aristophanes fr. 372 PCG we read that ‘in Lemnos tender and
nice kýamoi grow’, and Theophrastus notes that, although kýamos has seeds that
generally ‘germinate well but soon rot’ (Hist. Plant. 8.11.1), ‘at Apollonia on the
Ionian sea kýamoi are not worm-eaten at all, and therefore they are put away
and stored’ (8.11.3; transl. Hort). According to Herodotus 2.37, however, the
Egyptians neither sow nor eat kýamoi, if any grow, while their priests consider
them an unclean pulse ― he is probably referring to the so-called ‘Greek bean’
(kýamos hellēnikós, e.g. Hippocrates Female diseases i-iii 1.46 [VIII 106 L.],
Dioscorides, De materia medica 2.105, Galen Composition of medicaments
13.31, 13.64), which his readers knew, and must not be confused with the ‘Egyp-
tian bean’ (aegýptios kýamos) mentioned by other authors (e.g. Theophrastus
Hist. plant. 4.8.7-8, Dioscorides De materia medica 2.106), which was a quite
different plant, Nelumbium speciosum. Indeed, archaeobotanical evidence from
Egypt shows that until the Roman conquest fava beans were not being consumed
in Egypt (Dorry in press).
Erébinthos, ἐρέβινθος (chickpea)

One of the pulse species that features extensively in ancient texts but are nearly
absent from the archaeobotanical record of prehistoric Greece is chickpea. Chick-
pea is a component of the so-called Neolithic package that ought to have spread
westwards to Europe with the first farmers, yet upon the arrival of farming to
Europe it failed to become established in prehistoric Greece. Turning to ancient
Greek texts, we see that it is one of the few pulses occurring in the archaic lit-
erature. It is beyond any doubt that chickpea (Cicer arietinum) was called
erébinthos (Dalby p. 84 = Powell p. 170 = Grant p. 100 = Beck p. 135; Amigues
vol. V, p. 284) in ancient Greek. The word occurs as early as the Homeric epics,
together with kýamos, and it is interesting to note that they are the only pulses
we find in Homer, as well as the fact that they were mentioned in a simile (“and
as from a broad shovel in a great threshing-floor the dark-skinned beans [kýamos]
or chickpea [erébinthos] leap before the shrill wind and the might of the win-
nower; even so from the corselet of glorious Menelaus glanced aside the bitter
arrow and sped afar”, Iliad 13.588-592; transl. Murray at Perseus Dig. Libr.
with a change) suggests that they were very common seeds. This is confirmed by
other early passages (7th - 6th c. BC), such as the image of the ‘golden erébinthos’
FOOD CrOPS In AnCIEnT GrEEk CuISInE 123
in Sappho fr. 143 Lobel-Page or of drinking sweet wine and eating erébinthos
near fire in Xenophanes fr. 18 Diehl (ALG). A dozen passages and fragments
from comic or other poets show that it was a common food even for poor people
(e.g. Aristophanes Women in assembly 606, Philoxenus fr. e 20 PMG, Pherecrates
fr. 89, 170 PCG, Alexis fr. 167.13 PCG, Ephippus fr. 13.2 PCG); chickpeas were
eaten as snacks-tragḗmata (Xenophanes fr. 18 Diehl, Plato Resp. 372.c 8; un-
derestimated by Archestratus SH 192.14 = 60.14 Olson-Sens, see above p. 121f.),
when they were still soft, but boiled or roasted (see below p. 160), when they
had been dried, as Phaenias fr. 43 Wehrli (see above) summarizes their use in ev-
eryday life. Chickpeas, which have laxative, diuretic and nutritious properties
(Hippocrates Regimen i-iv 2.45 [VI 542 L.]), are recommended in treatises from
the Hippocratic corpus for various uses (e.g. the juice of boiled chickpeas as an
enema in Regimen in health 5), and white chickpeas especially advocated as a
food or as an ingredient in medicines for specific diseases (e.g. Diseases i-iii 2.38
[VII 54 L.], Internal affections 35, 45 [VII 254, 278 l.], Female diseases i-iii 1.84,
85 [VIII 210 L.]). Theophrastus points out the differences between chickpeas in
size, colour, taste and shape: there are big chickpeas called ‘rams’, others at the
Figure 2.34 A chickpea variety with black seeds, purchased in Sheffield market. Photo cour-
tesy of Mike Charles and Amy Bogaard.
size of órobos and others with intermediate form; the white chickpeas are sweeter
than black and red ones (Hist. plant. 8.5.1 and 8.6.5). Finally, chickpeas were
also fed to animals, especially for the fattening of pigs (Aristotle Hist. animal.
603b 27). It is clear from the texts that a wealth of different varieties existed (Fig-
ure 2.34) which had many uses as food, fodder and medicine.
Thérmos, θέρμος (lupin)

Lupinus albus is a pulse species that is reported only once in the archaeobotan-
ical record of prehistoric Greece, from Middle Bronze Age Akrotiri on the island
of Santorini (Sarpaki 1987); it was found as a minor contaminant in a Lathyrus
clymenum sample. Lupins (Figure 2.27 above), by contrast, are well documented
in ancient Greek texts under the name thérmos (θέρμος; Amigues vol. V, p. 287,
Dalby 2003, p. 201, Powell p. 170, Grant p. 100); it is attested to for the first
time in the Hippocratic corpus, where we read that ‘the lupin is the least injurious
of the pulses’ (Regimen in acute diseases Append. 18 [II 486 L.] transl. Potter
LOEB Hipp. vol. VI) and that lupins are “in their nature strengthening and heat-
ing, but by preparation they become more light and cooling than they are nat-
urally, and pass by stool” (Regimen i-iv 2.45 [VI 542 L.], transl. Jones LOEB
o.c.). Comic fragments from the 4th c. BC (Alexis fr. 167.11, 268.2 PCG, Tim-
ocles fr. 20.4 PCG) suggest that thérmos was a widespread food, mostly for
common people, and this conjecture seems to be confirmed by a fragment of
Lycophron where he satirizes the dinners of philosophers saying that “plenty
of the offending and common thérmos, the fellow-drinker of the poor people
and of the dining room, was dancing on that table” (fr. 2.8-10 TrGF). The idea
of freedom for the cynic philosopher Crates was to carry with him just a small
quantity of lupins and the ability to care about nothing (Crates fr. 18 Diehl
(ALG)). Its seeds were bitter and had to be soaked in order to become sweet
and edible, as is demonstrated by a famous saying from the Stoic philosopher
Zeno of Citium (4/3 c. BC), who compared his condition when drunk with the
sweetening of lupins when soaked in water, as he was normally a person who
was severe to everyone but became a sweet and gentle person whenever he drank
wine (quoted by Diogenes Laërtius Lives of philosophers 7.26 = Zeno fr. 5 SVF).
From a 2nd c. BC inscription (IG II² 1013.20) we know that in Athens there was
a law regulating the trade and sale of thérmoi. Finally, according to Polemon
fr. 88 (FHG III, p. 146) lupins were known in Sparta by the word lysilaȉdai
(λυσιλαΐδαι), while Molpis, a historian of the 2/1 c. BC, in his work on the city
of the Lacedaemonians (FGrH 590 F 1), mentions that lupins [thérmos] were
a component of a dinner called kopís (κοπίς), which was offered to many per-
sons, including foreigners.
Phásēlos and dólichos: two terms that are difficult to identify

Phásēlos (or phasḗolos?) φάσηλος (or φασήολος?)
Scholars believe that pháselos was Vicia unguiculata, ‘black-eyed pea’ or ‘cowpea’
(Dalby 2003, p. 56), or Vigna unguiculata ‘cowpea’ (Powell p. 170) or ‘calavance’
(Grant 102). Vicia unguiculata appears as an unresolved name (http://www.the-
plantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-2451541), and in our text we adopt the Vigna
unguiculata denomination. The term occurs just three times in the 5th c. ΒC, in
comedies: in Aristophanes Peace 1144 a woman is asked to boil phásēlos mixed
with wheat (pyrós) and also offer figs, while figs with phásēlos appear together
in Demetrius I fr. 5 PCG too; in Epicharmus fr. 149 PCG we read about roasted
phásēlos. According to Polemon fr. 86 (FHG III, p. 142) the snacks (tragḗmata)
offered in the Lacedaemonian kopís (see above) were dry figs and tender kýamos
and pháselos. None of these passages allow us to identify this pulse, which is
missing from the treatises of the Hippocratic corpus and Theophrastus (pace
Dalby 2003, p. 56). Galen discusses phásēlos together with ṓchros in a brief sec-
tion of his Properties of foods 6.539-540, which implies a similarity of these two
pulses at least regarding the way of consuming them and their qualities.
It is curious that Galen (and only him) also mentions the term phasḗolos
as an alternative name for dólichos and says that “people give the word four
syllables and so make the term phásēlos with three syllables refer to something
else. Some claim that pháselos is another label for láthyros, whilst others state
that it is just a variety of láthyros.” (Properties of foods 6.541-542; transl.
Grant). A little below (6.543), based on Theophrastus’ instruction (Hist. Plant.
8.3.2, cited above p. 105) that dólichos becomes fruitful only if long stakes are
set by it, Galen concludes that Theophrastus was calling dólichos what people
of his own times call phasḗolos and he reconfirms this conclusion in 6.544, when
he discusses a passage from Diocles. He finally recognizes that, despite the un-
certainty caused by his sources, dólichos and láthyros and other terms can belong
to a single species, however there are differences between them, which demon-
strate that dólichos and phasḗolos are a different variety from láthyros and
phásēlos.
Dólichos, δόλιχος
The few passages of Classical literature where the term occurs, offer only little
help for understanding the identity of dólichos, and “Galen also seems to have
been confused”, as Powell p. 170 puts it. Amigues discusses it extensively (vol.
V, p. 191-192) and convincingly suggests that it corresponds to “dolique, Vigna
unguiculata (L.) Walpers (= V. sinensis (L.) Savi” (vol. V p. 278); so she considers
it the same species attributed to phásēlos, and perhaps this is the reason for her
lapsus that dólichos appeared in the 5th c. BC in Epicharmos (“Le dolique apparait
au Ve siècle dans Épicharme (fr. 151 Kaibel)”), when in fact in this fragment (=
149 PCG) the term phásēlos is written. Powell on the other side seems indecisive:
he cites LSJ interpretation ‘calavance, Vigna sinensis’, explaining that it “is the
identical translation given for phásēlos” (p. 170); in his translation of Galen’s
Properties of foods p. 541 he renders the title of the section as “On dolichos [?
calavance]” and consistently uses the Greek word dolichos in 541-546. According
to Grant p. 103 it was ‘calavance’, while Dalby (2003) says that dólichos was “the
lablab bean or bonavist bean or hyacinth bean (Dolichos Lablab” (p. 192).
In its first appearance in the Hippocratic Regimen i-iv 2.45 [VI 542 L.] dólichos
is mentioned side by side with ṓchros and it is said that ‘they pass better by stool
and are less windy and more nourishing than kýamos and písos’ (transl. Jones LOEB
Hipp. vol. IV; see also above). In the food list of Anaxandrides fr. 42 PCG we read
in v. 43 ‘kýamos, láthyros, ṓchros, dólichos’, while in Theophrastus’ treatises dólichos
is mentioned as a pulse different from erébinthos, ṓrobos, phakós, ṓchros, pisós,
láthyros, kýamos (Hist. Plant. 8.3.2, cited below p. 105), aphákē (op.c. 8.11.1) and
thérmos (Caus. Plant. 2.18.3). This is all we have for dólichos before Galen’s dis-
cussion (Properties of foods. 6. 6.541-546), and obviously the most useful infor-
mation, pointed out by Galen himself, is the instruction of Theophrastus (Hist.
Plant. 8.3.2) that dólichos only becomes fruitful if long stakes are set by it, which
leads Galen to conclude that dólichos is what people in his own time called phasḗo-
los, i.e., a pulse similar to láthyros or pháselos (see above).
For both pháselos and dólichos one cannot emphasize enough the need for
archaeobotanical evidence that will hopefully make an important contribution
towards species identification.
Seven millennia of pulse cultivation

A wide range of pulse species grown in Neolithic times such as lentils, bitter vetch,
grass pea and pea, with Celtic bean, Cyprus vetch and Spanish vetchling appear-
ing in the Bronze Age, form a characteristic element of the prehistoric diet in the
Aegean and the lands of modern Greece. Chickpea, although rare in prehistoric
times, occurs regularly in the historic periods in the archaeobotanical record and
is a prominent element of ancient textual references to plant foods. Two new
species appear in the historic periods: lupin and dólichos. Splitting, roasting,
soaking, boiling, and grinding were some of the ways in which pulses were eaten,
which is associated with dishes such as soups, thick mashes or even eaten as
greens. In the historic periods they were common food ingredients for meals and
snacks but were also used in rituals.
Chapter 3
Other seed crops
Archaeolobotanical finds of oily seeds crops

The preceding chapters have focused on what must have constituted staple foods
for both the everyday and special meals consumed by communities inhabiting
Greece from the Neolithic to the end of the 1st millennium BC, and in certain
cases later periods, as using later sources has been particularly illuminating of
aspects of past plant food uses. In addition to the many cereal and pulse species
encountered in the archaeobotanical record and the rich textual evidence, other
field crops were also used in ancient Greece for food and other uses, including
medicinal and ritual. A wide range of species may have been used for their oil
and as medicine, some harvested from trees and shrubs as is the case with tere-
binth (Pistacia terebinthus L.) and the olive tree (Olea europaea L.), perhaps cul-
tivated in orchards or protected patches of the wilderness, while others could
have been grown in fields or gardens as might have been the case with species
such as flax, Lallemantia sp., opium poppy, sesame and mustard (νᾶπυ [nāpy]
or σίναπι [sínapi]) often identified in the archaeobotanical record as Sinapis/Bras-
sica (see for example Jones and Valamoti 2005, Valamoti 2013).
The oil-yielding plant species grown as field crops discussed here are flax
(Linum usitatissimum L.), Lallemantia sp., opium poppy (Papaver somniferum
L.), and sesame (Sesamum indicum L.). All four plant species produce oil-rich
seeds and have been used for this specific property in different parts of the world
and for different purposes, including medicinal, cosmetic and nutritional. At the
same time, besides their oil, the seeds of these four plants can be used as food
without further processing, while linseed, Lallemantia sp. and opium poppy have
other uses including medicinal and hallucinogenic, depending on the part of the
127
128 Food CroPs IN ANCIeNT Greek CUIsINe
plant that is used. Flax for example is

used for its fibre while its seeds, besides
their culinary uses, constitute ingredi-
ents in medicinal remedies known as
early as antiquity or even prehistoric
times (Valamoti 2011, 2013; kislev et
al. 2011). opium poppy was widely
known for its opium yielding head
since prehistoric times, a substance
used in medicinal and ritual contexts
Figure 3.1 Charred linseed from a rich con-
centration from Late Neolithic Makriyalos. (see Valamoti 2023, Collard 2012).
Lallemantia is a medicinal plant widely
used as such in countries such as Iran and India (cf. Jones and Valamoti 2005,
Valamoti 2023).
Linseed is very common in prehistoric Greece and often found in pure, rich
concentrations of charred seeds, suggesting its cultivation and use (Figure 3.1,
3.2, 3.3) both from Neolithic and Bronze Age archaeological deposits. despite
the difficulties of its preservation through charring, the frequent occurrence of
Figure 3.2 Flax plants in blossom, photo courtesy of Penelope J. Bebeli. Agricultural Univer-
sity of Athens.
FOOd CrOPs in AnCient Greek Cuisine 129
Figure 3.3 Modern flax seeds on a replica grinding slab surface, ready to be ground for the
PlantCult experiments.
single seeds and finds of stored linseed

in houses destroyed by fire, as is the
case with dikili tash (Late neolithic),
Archondiko and Lerna (end of 3rd mil-
lennium BC-check Lerna dates), sug-
gests that it was a common crop. Being
the “most useful” as its Latin name
suggests (Linum usitatissimum) it
could have been used as food, oil, and
medicine as well as for its fibre-rich
Figure 3.4 Opium poppy seeds from Archo-
stems (see Valamoti 2023 for a recent ndiko Giannitson, end of 3rd millennium BC.
review).
Opium poppy (Papaver somniferum) although a commonly occurring com-
ponent of neolithic crops from western and northern europe, has not been iden-
tified in archaeobotanical deposits from Greece prior to the Bronze Age, with
130 FOOd CrOPs in AnCient Greek Cuisine
Figure 3.5 Opium poppy field, Afghanistan. Photo courtesy of Abdul Hafiz Latify.
Figure 3.6 Modern opium poppy seeds purchased in thessaloniki, november 2021.
Food CroPs IN ANCIeNT Greek CUIsINe 131
the exception of a few seeds from Mandalo dated to the early 4th millennium BC
(Figure 3.4, 3.5, 3.6). Although its oil-rich seeds could be accounted for as an
under-representation of this plant among charred archaeobotanical assemblages
(Märkle and rösch 2008), it is unlikely that it would have been almost entirely
absent for such a long period of time and with so many sites systematically in-
vestigated archaeobotanically if it had actually been in cultivation during the
Neolithic. It is more likely that it did not constitute a crop cultivated in Neolithic
Greece and that it was introduced through contact networks with regions, per-
haps to the north, sometime in the Bronze Age (cf. Valamoti 2007, Valamoti
2023). By the 2 nd millennium BC it appears as an established crop, encountered
in pure, rich concentrations in the region of Macedonia in northern Greece such
as Assiros and kastanas (Jones and Valamoti 2005, Valamoti 2013).
Figure 3.7 opium poppy head fragment, karabournaki, northern Greece, Iron Age.
despite the ample archaeobotanical evidence for these crops for prehistoric
times, linseed and opium poppy are rather rare in the archaeobotanical record
of the historic periods. Linseed has been identified at a few sites in the form of
single seeds rather than the rich, pure concentrations of the Neolithic and the
Bronze Age. opium poppy is reported from karabournaki in northern Greece
(Valamoti et al. 2018, Figure 3.7) and later on from Vergina in the 2nd c. BC (Fak-
laris 2010).
Another major oilseed plant from Bronze Age northern Greece is Lallemantia
sp. (Figure 3.8, 3.9), identified at several sites such as Mandalo, Archondiko and
Assiros Toumba (Jones and Valamoti 2005). It is not a native european plant and
it has been argued that it reached northern Greece from the east as its distribution
lies in Central Asia and Anatolia, with its introduction potentially linked to early
Bronze Age tin trade (Valamoti and Jones 2010). As this is not a plant native to
Greece, it is uncertain whether it was locally introduced and cultivated or import-
Figure 3.8 Charred Lallemantia seeds from Archondiko Giannitson, end of 3rd millennium BC.
Photo by Georgios Vily kapetanakis.
ed, yet the former is a strong likelihood given the large storage concentrations of
the plant at several northen Greek sites. A single seed of Lallemantia is reported
from Iron Age karabournaki (Gkatzogia 2021). Yet, our search into ancient texts
has not revealed an oilseed plant like Lallemantia and it might have been a crop
with which only the non-Greek inhabitants of northern Greece were familiar.
Again, this is a case that badly needs archaeobotanical data to contribute to the
discussion and help understand the fate of this ‘exotic’ Bronze Age introduction
originating in Central Asia and Transcaucasia. Perhaps the networks that intro-
duced this plant to the northern Aegean were different to those operating in the
south and Lallemantia, like millet, might be one of those plants with which the
Greek world was not particularly familiar with or fond of, as is the case with millet
(see above, p. 47, 91). If Lallemantia was used as an oil plant in Bronze Age north-
ern Greece as has been convincingly argued (Jones and Valamoti 2005, Andreou
et al. 2013), its absence from the south should not come as a surprise as the olive
had already formed the major source of oil in the southern Aegean since perhaps
the Late Neolithic (Valamoti et al. 2018). The olive was a tree-crop grown in
Mycenaean orchards, which had been introduced to parts of the northern Aegean,
perhaps on a limited scale, as early as the 3rd millennium B.C. (Theodosaki 2021;
Valamoti 2023) and fully established by Hellenistic times, promoted through the
1st millennium colonization of the north Aegean littoral from the south and the
new lifestyles brought to the north by the colonists (Valamoti et al. 2018).
Figure 3.9 Modern plant of Lallemantia iberica, grown in a pot in Thessaloniki.
sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) on the other hand is entirely absent from the
archaeobotanical record of prehistoric Greece. sesame (Figure 3.10, 3.11) has
not been encountered among prehistoric archaeobotanical assemblages of the
region. The word ‘sa-sa-ma’, however, is encountered in Linear B texts and it is
considered as a ‘mot voyageur’ by Melena, originating from the east as it is found
in Akkadian as sammasammu and Ugaritic as ssmn, who also points out the
minute quantities of this plant mentioned in the Linear B texts, implying that it
was used as a condiment, sprinkled on cakes or mixed with honey (Melena 1983).
Cline who considers sesame a semitic word, also sees an oriental origin of this
plant, arriving to Mycenaean Greece from the syro-Palestine region (Cline 2007;
see also douché et al. 2021 for a recent discussion of sesame in ancient Greece).
despite the general consensus that sesame corresponds to the Akkadian word
sammasammu it has also been suggested that it might correspond to linseed (see
Bedigian 2004 for a relevant discussion). It is considered as a crop that was do-
mesticated in India from where it spread westwards to Mesopotamia during the
Bronze Age in the 3rd millennium BC (see Bedigian 2004 for a review of the avail-
able botanical and archaeobotanical literature).
Archaeobotanical finds of sesame from Greece are only reported from the
historic period. Margaritis reports sesame seeds from krania, a coastal town in
central Macedonia dated to the Hellenistic period (Margaritis 2014a) while Man-
Figure 3.10 sesame plant in blossom on the Figure 3.11 sesame plants drying in the field
island of Lemnos. Photo danai sfakianou, after the harvest, Lemnos island, 2020. Photo
Medina. danai sfakianou, Medina.
Figure 3.12 Charred sesame seeds from dioiketerion in Thessaloniki found as loose seeds
(left) and agglomerations of seeds (right).
gafa (1998) identified a rich concentration of more than 50,000 seeds fused to-
gether at the excavations of dioiketerion in the city of Thessaloniki (Figure 3.12,
Mangafa 1998). More recently a mass of fused sesame seeds has been retrieved
from olynthus (douché et al. 2021), a Greek city on the Chalkidiki peninsula
in central Macedonia. The find is dated to the 4th century BC and discussed in
combination with information derived from ancient texts; the authors consider
sesame as a luxury food item, yet, our review of ancient texts shows that it was
a very common and widespread element of ancient Greek cuisine, unlike the pre-
ceding prehistoric periods (see below). As has been the case with other plant
species, ancient texts, offer a wealth of information as regards the variable uses
of these three crops with seeds rich in oil that we examine in this chapter. of the
range of possible uses for these three plants, here we focus mainly on their use
as food, yet some references to their medicinal consumption have also been ex-
amined and are presented in the next sections.
The consumption of linseed, poppy seed and sesame

in ancient Greek texts
Línon, λίνον (linseed)
Flax (Linum usitatissimum) is known as línon (λίνον), the term first occurring
in Linear B as rino (λίνο) (Ventris and Chadwick 1973). It was already widely
known by the time of the Homeric epics as a raw material used in the production
of different objects, so that the term línon itself was used to denote these objects:
‘a fishing net’ (Iliad 5.487), ‘a fishing thread’ (Iliad 16.408), ‘a very fine linen
cloth’ (Iliad 9.661), ‘a bed-sheet’ (Odys. 13.73, 118), a linen cuirass (linothṓrēx
[λινοθώρηξ] is called ‘a man wearing a linen cuirass’, Iliad 2.529, 830), and even
the ‘thread of Fates’ (Iliad 20.128, 24.210, Odyssey 7.198). This metonymic use
of the term remains consistent in texts from later centuries, where we also find
various compounds (see e.g., LSJ s.v. ‘λινέμπορος’ (linémporos) [flax-merchant;
cf. λινοπώλης], λινεργής (linergḗs) [wrought of flax], λινοθήρας (linothḗras)
[one who hunts using nets or snares], λινόπεπλος (linópeplos) [with linen robe]
etc.), attesting to the fact of flax being a common raw material.
The oldest reference to the plant itself is found in Herodotus where he points
out that an additional element demonstrating the connection between egyptians
and the inhabitants of Colchis is that they work flax in the same way: ‘Listen to
something else about the Colchians, in which they are like the egyptians: they
and the egyptians alone work linen and have the same way of working it, a way
peculiar to themselves; and they are alike in all their way of life, and in their
speech. Linen has two names: the Colchian kind is called by the Greeks sardo-
nian; that which comes from egypt is called egyptian.’ (Herodotus 2.105, transl.
Godley at Perseus Dig. Libr.) Also, when he talks about scythia, he mentions that
‘they have hemp growing in their country, very like flax, except that the hemp
is much thicker and taller. This grows both of itself and also by their cultivation,
and the Thracians even make garments of it which are very like linen; no one,
unless he were an expert in hemp, could determine whether they were hempen
or linen; whoever has never seen hemp before will think the garment linen.’
(Herodotus 4.74, transl. Godley ibidem).
It is of interest to note that in the technical treatises of Theophrastus, only
two lines of information are provided for flax. one refers to the sticky and oily
nature of linseed (Nat. hist. 3.18.3), and even this is in the context of a com-
parison to the seed of Paliurus and not as a special consideration of flax. The
other reference to flax states that it needs good land (Caus. plant. 4.5.4).Thus,
despite the broad use of línon as material, we find no meaningful references ei-
ther to the plant or to the seed and their characteristics or their use as food. The
oldest mention of linseed in the context of human food occurs in a fragment
from the poet Alcman (6th c. BC) describing a symposium, perhaps a wedding
one, where seven tables were full of breads kneaded with poppy seed, linseed
[línon] and sesame, as well as honey buns for children (fr. 19 PMG Page). The
next references to such a use of linseed in the preparation of food or drink is
to be found in Thucydides and in the Hippocratic corpus. Thucydides 4.26.8
mentions that during the last phase of the Archidamian war, Helots, at great
risk to their lives, transferred sacks of provisions via the sea that contained hon-
eyed poppy seed and ground linseed for the spartans that had been trapped in
sphacteria. In the Hippocratic corpus, línon appears mainly in cataplasms and
occasionally in recipes for drinks (e.g., Regimen in acute diseases Append. 21
[II 502 L.]), Internal affections 1 [VII 170 L.], Nature of women 10, 32, 34, 38
[VII 326, 354, 374, 382 L.], Female diseases i-iii 51, 63 [VIII 108, 130 L.] and
passim, Superfetation 29 [VIII 496 L.]), while there is a single reference to the
properties of linseed: ‘the seed of flax is nourishing, astringent, and somewhat
refreshing’ (Regimen i-iv 2.45 [VI 544 L.], transl. Jones LoeB Hipp. vol. IV).
Finally, according to Galen (Properties of foods 6.549) flax [línon] (or linseed
[linóspermon], as it is called as a compound word) ‘is bad for the stomach and
difficult to concoct, and produces little nutriment for the body’ (transl. Powell);
nevertheless some people sprinkled it on breads, while as a food it was consumed
mostly roasted and mixed with honey. To sum up, the references to linseed as
a human food are rather limited, and in this respect it is interesting to note that
it does not appear among the very popular food lists that are often mentioned
in ancient comedy.
Mḗkōn, μήκων (opium poppy)

The word mḗkōn, often in the doric form μάκων [mákōn]), denotes various
kinds of poppy (or even other taxa) depending on the adjective that accompanies
the word (Amigues vol. V, p. 167, 312), yet, when encountered on its own we
can be certain that it refers to opium poppy (Papaver somniferum, βλ. LSJ s.v.
‘μήκων’, Amigues vol. V, p. 312). It is this plant that interests us here, used as
food or medicine. The colour distinction between white and black poppy refers
to the colour of the seeds as defined in Aristotle’s On colours 796b 15-16: the
poppy has a red flower while its seeds are either black or white. Both the black
and white-seeded poppy correspond to Papaver somniferum but Amigues (vol.
V p. 167, 312) considers the latter as corresponding to Papaver setigerum. This
is generally considered as the wild opium poppy (Zohary et al. 2012). dioscorides
(De materia medica 4.64) under the entry μήκων (mḗkōn, interpreted by Beck
p. 273 as “Papaver somniferum L., opium poppy”) refers to different kinds of
opium poppy: ‘there is one kind that is cultivated and that is grown in gardens;
its seed is baked into bread to use in a health-inducing diet; they also use it with
honey instead of sesame; it is called thylakítis, having its little head oblong and
its seed white. And there is another kind that is wild, having a capsule that hangs
down and black seed; this one is called pithítis, but some call even this one rhoias,
because the juice flows from this one. A third kind is wilder, smaller, and more
medicinal than these, having the capsule oblong’ (transl. Beck l.c.). It is interesting
that dioscorides points out two varieties of opium poppy, one specifically cul-
tivated for its seed and another growing wild, used for its opium. A modern in-
vestigation of opium poppy varieties cultivated in Turkey shows two varieties
on the basis of seed colour, one with white seeds and another with black ones
referred to as Papaver somniferum L. album and Papaver somniferum L. nigrum
respectively (https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/bulletin/bul-
letin_1950-01-01_1_page004.html). The description of opium poppy varieties
on the basis of poppy seed colour and poppy head shape is very informative of
the different varieties that had developed by the first centuries Ad, presumably
after millennia of cultivation and acclimatization of poppy in different regions,
as is the case in present day Turkey where opium poppy is cultivated and a wide
range of varieties with different head shapes and seed colours exist, in different
combinations (see above). If poppy was used for the medicinal properties of opi-
um, however, one would assume that this poppy, too, would have been cultivated
in plots rather than harvested wild, especially as opium poppy appears to have
been introduced to Greece in the Bronze Age or the end of the Neolithic (Valamoti
2009, Valamoti 2023).
The plant of mḗkōn and its seed are mentioned as early as Homer, where
its use in a simile in the Iliad 8.306-308, for the death of a Trojan soldier (“and
he bowed his head to one side like a poppy that in a garden is laden with its
fruit and the rains of spring; so bowed he to one side his head, laden with his
helmet”, transl. Murray at Perseus Dig. Libr.), means that it was a plant familiar
to the audience of the Homeric poems. It is possible that opium poppy is men-
tioned as an ingredient of breads, in a 7th c. BC fragment by Alcman (fr. 19 PMG
Page, see above p. 136), if the phrase μακωνίας ἄρτους implies breads [ártos]
with poppy seed [mákōn]. Thucydides (4.26.8, see above) mentions honeyed
poppy seed together with ground linseed as food provided to spartan warriors
in sphacteria. other testimonies of poppy as food we find in fragments of come-
dies from the 4th and 3rd c. BC: e.g., Anaxandrides fr. 42.55 PCG, sopater fr.
16 PCG, euphro fr. 10.10-11 PCG (‘twelve seeds of black poppy sprinkled on
turnip’). Polemon fr. 88 (FHG III, p. 144) mentions white opium poppy among
the many ingredients of the foodstuff contained in the ceramic pot that was
handed around the participants in the purification ritual of ‘díon kṓdion’, while
according to Philo (On Sieges 88 Thévenot = B 32 Whitehead) poppy was one
of the ingredients mixed for the preparation of the so called ‘epimenides’ remedy’
against the famine. Beyond human consumption, Aristotle (Hist. Animal. 627b
16-18) mentions the positive influence of opium poppy on apiculture for at-
tracting bees.
The properties of poppy as a food are briefly described in the Hippocratic
Regimen i-iv 2.45 [VI 544 L.] (‘poppy is binding, the black more than the white,
but the white also. It is nourishing however and strengthening’, transl. Jones
LoeB Hipp. vol. IV; cf. dioscorides 4.64 above), while various passages in the
Hippocratic corpus testify to its medicinal use in the treatment of various illnesses,
e.g., as an ingredient in drinks (Nature of women 38, 50 [VII 382, 392 L.], Female
diseases i-iii 1.64 [VIII 132 L.], being white poppy in all cases; Internal affections
40 [VII 266 L.]) or of a gruel (Regimen in acute diseases Append. 30 [II 518 L.]),
also of white poppy).
strangely enough the Hippocratic corpus does not mention the hypnotic
properties of opium poppy, although there are three references (Female diseases
i-iii 1.105, 2.201, 206 [VIII 228, 386, 398 L.]) to the ‘juice of poppy’ (ὀπὸς
μήκωνος [opós mḗkōnos]) as being an ingredient in medicines (Figure 3.13). It
is only in the 3rd c. BC that we first read about someone who has fallen into a
deep sleep as if having consumed an opium poppy drug (Parmeno fr. 1.4 Coll.
Alex. p. 237; also Nicander Alexipharmaka 433-434, ‘Learn further that when
men drink the tears of the poppy, whose seeds are in a head they fall fast asleep’
transl. Gow - schofield). Yet, there are references to opium earlier: Theophrastus
in the 4th c. BC, who underlines that ‘in the case of the poppy the collection of
juice is made from the head; he goes on to state that ‘for this is the only plant
Food Crops in AnCient Greek Cuisine 139
Figure 3.13 Modern opium poppy head with sap oozing out of a cut.
which is so treated and this is its peculiarity’ (Hist. plant. 9.8.2, transl. Hort),
adding that thrasyas of Mantinea (4th c. BC) had discovered a poison that could
make death easy and without pain, using the sap of conium and opium poppy
and the like, so that it had a satisfactory volume (small) and was light, and was
a preparation that could last a very long time (Hist. plant. 9.16.8). this infor-
mation is similar to the one attributed to Heracleides of pontus (according to
Aristotle Fragm. 611.29 rose) about the inhabitants of the island of kea where
a kind of euthanasia was practiced for the elderly of the community so that they
would not have to face diseases (see also Mendoni 2001).
Sḗsamon, σήσαμον (sesame)

the modern term for sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) has its roots in the ancient
Greek word σήσαμον [sḗsamon], which has semitic origins (see Amigues vol.
iV, p. 172-173, who considers sesame a crop that was known to Mycenaean
Greece, despite the lack of archaeobotanical evidence to testify to its presence,
see also the relevant discussion above, p. 133). Sḗsamon is found as early as the
poets of the 7th/6th c. BC (Alcman, solon, stesichorus) and from then it occurs
very frequently in the known literature. According to Theophrastus’ Hist. Plant.,

sesame is one of the summer crops (8.1.1), and is a very productive crop, yielding
large quantities of seed (8.3.4) while white sesame is sweeter than other varieties
with seeds of different colours (8.5.1). The popularity of sesame seeds and of the
products made from them is also attested to by the many derivatives and com-
pounds; some of them occuring in inscriptions from the 4th c. BC (sēsamopṓlēs
‘sesame-seller’, IG 22.1561.23, and sēsamopṓlis ‘a woman selling sesame’, IG
22.1554.40) and papyri from the 3rd c. BC (sēsameía ‘a territory with sesame’,
P Lille 6.1.1; sēsamiká [neutr. pl.] ‘accounts relating to sesame’, P Cair. Zen.
3.14.4; sēsamítis ground ‘planted with sesame’ PSI 522.1; sēsamophóros ground
‘bearing sesame’, P Col. 4.78.24), which proves that sesame was common in ev-
eryday life and in commerce (contra douché et al. 2021).
The oldest appearance of sesame (in the doric form sásamon) as an ingre-
dient in cakes is in the description of a (perhaps wedding) symposium by Alcman
(fr. 19 PMG; see above p. 136), while in a verse from his younger contemporary
stesichorus (fr. 2a PMG; see also above p. 77) we encounter the first mention
of a pastry made of sesame named sasamís (in doric dialect = Attic sēsamís),
e.g. eupolis fr. 176.3 PCG, Antiphanes fr. 79 PCG, ephippus fr. 13.3 PCG (see
also above p. 90 for koptḗ sēsamís or simply koptḗ), probably the same as
sesamḗ, Aristoph. Peace 869, Amphis fr. 9.3 PCG, Menander Samia 125, Hip-
pocr. Internal affections 42). The sēsamoús, occurring twice in Aristophanes
(Acharnians 1092 and Women in Thesmophoria 570), was probably a plakoús
(cake) with sesame (see above p. 86), while Philoxenus fr. 836 e 17, 19 PMG
speaks in doric dialect of ‘honey-cakes (μελίπακτα [melípakta]) that had been
formed and toasted with sesame (σασαμόφωκτα [sasamófōkta])’ (= Athenaeus
14.643 C, transl. olson) and refers to ‘pastries formed of sesame and cheese
(σασαμοτυροπαγῆ [sasamotyropagḗ] that had been boiled in oil (ζεσελαι-
οπαγῆ [zeselaeopagḗ]) and sprinkled with sesame-seeds (σασαμόπλαστα
[sasamóplasta]) were stretched out wide’ (= Athenaeus l.c., transl. olson). In
most cases we have descriptive information, as in Hipponax fr. 26a.2 West, ‘not
seasoning pancakes [tēganítēs] with sesame’, where we see the main use of the
sesame seed in Greece: people put it on cakes and pastries, very often combining
it with honey. This is what the samians made to provide food to the Corcyraean
boys who took refuge in the temple of Artemis, as is related by Herodotus 3.48:
‘when the Corinthians [ambassadors of the tyrant Periander] tried to starve the
boys out, the samians made a festival which they still celebrate in the same fash-
ion; as long as the boys took refuge, mighty dances of youths and maidens were
ordained to which it was made a custom to bring cakes of sesame and honey,
that the Corcyraean boys might snatch these and so be fed’ (transl. Godley at
Perseus Dig. Libr.).
Many other passages in comedies (e.g. Aristophanes Wasps 676, Alexis fr.
132.3 PCG, Anaxandrides fr. 42.60 PCG, Antiphanes fr. 140.2 PCG) and in
the Hippocratic corpus (see also in Philo On Sieges 88, 89 Thévenot = B 32,
38 Whitehead the sesame as being an ingredient in some food-medicaments
against famine) where the sesame seed is mentioned, demonstrate that Greeks
of the Classical and Hellenistic periods were using the seed of this plant and not
sesame-oil as eastern peoples did (see e.g. Herodotus 1.193, Xenophon Anaba-
sis 4.4.13, Ctesias FGrHist 688 F 45 (25). This difference between Mesopotamia
and Greece is already pointed out by Bedigian (2004). The consumption of
sesame oil, however, is mentioned in the 2nd c. Ad among the medicinal remedies
in the works of Galen. references to the plant itself and its cultivation (on which
Theophrastus’ treatises offer various information) associate it with foreign peo-
ple (e.g. Herodotus 1.193, 3.117; Xenophon Anabasis 1.2.22; Megasthenes
FGrHist 715 F 4); the only indication of (seeds on) sesame plants in Greece is
found in Aristophanes Birds 159, where epops (Hoopoe), as representative of
the birds, says ‘we eat in gardens white sesame, myrtle berries, poppies and mint’.
Theophrastus includes sesame with the other summer crops (Hist. plant. 8.1.1)
considering it as the most exhaustive to the land (8.9.3). It is a very productive
plant that yields a lot (8.3.4) and is not eaten by animals when green due to its
bitterness (8.7.3).
Oilseed crops:
integrating archaeobotanical and textual evidence
Based on the archaeobotanical and textual occurrences of linseed, opium poppy
and sesame examined in this chapter it becomes clear that certain oil plants such
as linseed and opium poppy had been cultivated since prehistoric times, the for-
mer being a component of the first fields established by the initial farmers of
Greece, the latter a later introduction in the Bronze Age. sesame, on the other
hand, was a luxury seed of the Late Bronze Age, introduced from the east, yet,
in historic times its consumption was widespread in various forms. The fate of
Lallemantia, a 3rd millennium introduction, probably from Central Asia, remains
unknown as we are not aware of an ancient Greek word that might be linked
to this oilseed crop and the archaeobotanical evidence does not afford any ob-
servations as regards its geographic distribution. It might have been a crop par-
ticular to the north of Greece, as was more or less the case with millet. Ancient
texts, unlike the archaeobotanical remains which can only be silent in this respect,
reveal the wide culinary and other uses of these three plants which, besides their
oily seeds, had many more uses, in cuisine and other domains.
Chapter 4
The connecting thread:
Ancient plant foods in the cuisine
of modern Greece
Plant food ingredients from fields and beyond:

resilient crops, newcomers, seeds lost and found
The chapters of this book have explored plant foods from ancient fields, combin-
ing archaeobotanical evidence and ancient Greek texts. Diverse, colourful and
tasty dishes emerge from the carbonized remains of seeds and grains, along with
the insights from ancient Greek texts that range from comic verses to botanical
and medical treatises. The book’s focus is placed on plant foods derived from cul-
tivated fields and annual crops that include cereals, pulses, and three species with
oil-rich seeds: linseed, opium poppy and sesame. Thus, our culinary journey to
unearth the cuisine of the distant inhabitants of prehistoric and ancient Greece
has left out a wide range of many other plant food resources that could have been
harvested from orchards and the wilderness. Grapes, figs, almonds and olives
were, most likely, initially harvested from the wild while later, at least from the
end of the Neolithic onwards, they were encouraged to grow in managed patches
of wilderness, gaining access to more light and yielding more fruit, which over
time led to them becoming the components of cultivated orchards (cf Valamoti
2015; Valamoti et al. 2020). Linear B texts and Homer’s works are valuable
sources of information as regards the components of Late Bronze Age orchards.
Fig trees, vineyards and olive groves are mentioned in Linear B texts, sometimes
with indications of very large harvests of fruit (a very large quantity of figs is men-
tioned in the F(2) 7346 tablet; Killen 2004: 161). The Homeric poems offer up
images of groves with many different fruit trees: in beautiful, well-tended and
abundant orchards, fig trees, pear trees, pomegranates, apple trees, olives and
143
144 FooD Crops iN ANCieNT GreeK CuisiNe
grapevines grew in different combinations as in the orchards of Alcinous (Odyssey

7.112-122) and Laërtes, odysseus’ father (Odyssey 24.244-247), as well as in
the orchard of the underworld where Tantalus was being tortured (Odyssey
11.588-592). in addition to fruit with a long tradition in the region going back
to the Neolithic period, such as the grapevine, the fig and the olive, new fruit was
also brought into cultivation, most likely from the east: pomegranates in the
Bronze Age (cf. Asouti 2003) and later on peaches and quinces among many others
(Dalby 1997, pagnoux 2019). Wild fruit would have added further variability,
being available fresh depending on the season or alternatively dried or preserved
in brine or grape-syrup, which could be consumed throughout the year for as long
as supplies lasted (Valamoti 2023). raisins, easily prepared according to Hesiod’s
recipe (Works and Days 609-614), and vinegar (solon fr. 39 West; Aeschylus,
Agamemnon 322 and many others) would have also featured in ancient cuisines
besides wine, while síraion (σίραιον, e.g. Aristophanes Wasps 878, Hippocrates
Female Diseases i-iii 1.66 [Viii 140 L.]) or hépsēma (ἕψημα), in other words
boiled grape juice, a natural sweetener, was known for its medicinal properties
(e.g. Hippocrates Regimen i-iv 2.52 [Vi 556 L.]). Besides domesticated fruit, other
wild fruit and nut species were harvested from the wild or from protected enclosed
forests: blackberries, wild pears, acorns, almonds and terebinth nuts to name but
a few, they are all attested to in the archaeobotanical record of prehistoric Greece
and later on in written texts (Figure 4.1).
Figure 4.1 Archaeobotanical remains from Greece and ancient texts highlight the importance
of wild and cultivated fruit as culinary ingredients in various forms, fresh, dried, fermented
and parboiled.
FooD Crops iN ANCieNT GreeK CuisiNe 145
The wide range of wild plant species potentially used in healing contexts in
the Neolithic and Bronze Age, as has been gleaned from the archaeobotanical
record (e.g., Valamoti 2013; Valamoti 2023), is ameliorated further by the im-
pressive wealth of wild plant species attested to as being used as food and
medicine in the works of Theophrastus, the Hippocratic corpus and later treatises
such as those of Galen and Dioscorides (e.g. Wilkins 2015; Krug 1997). Foods
made with fruit or wild plants will be the subject of a future publication that will
integrate the rich, extant, archaeobotanical record with ancient textual evidence,
both researched in the context of the plantCult project. our collection of the rel-
evant data shows that this aspect of ancient plant foods presents a considerable
challenge as the available references relevant to plants such as the grapevine and
the olive are indeed vast (see also introduction, p. 23). What clearly emerges from
the archaeobotanical remains and relevant texts is the impressive range of plant
food ingredients and wide variety in their culinary utilization.
The culinary exploration of plant foods from the field crops of prehistoric
and ancient Greece that has unfolded in this book allows us to appreciate the
long journey in time that many ingredients and even recipes have travelled from
the Neolithic through to the present. Today, crop production is large-scale and
the ingredients for plant-based recipes have often arrived from far-away places:
wheat grain from the russian plains or egypt, malt imported from Germany,
bulgur from Turkey, chickpeas from Mexico and grass-pea from Canada. At the
antipode of food globalization, the movement for safeguarding local landraces,
in Greece and elsewhere in europe and beyond (e.g., https://www.aegilops.gr/en/,
https://www.petitepeautre.com/) emerges as a beacon of hope for preserving bio-
diversity in nature and on the plate, something of paramount importance for
both plant species preservation and human health. Thus, the wide variety of
wheat landraces we have presented in Chapter 1, or minor crops such as Cyprus
vetch and lupins, still have the prospect of passing to the hands of future gen-
erations. What was a matter of praise and amazement and part of agricultural
life 3,000 years ago, such as the long-grained wheat of Bactria (Chapter 2, p.
69), or the particularly white flour from barley grown on eressos and eretria
(see Amigues vol. iV, p. 199 [n. 13] for a review of the relevant ancient sources)
and the Achillean barley, is now a matter of concern, activism and great effort
against a fast-changing world whereby the plant foods we eat are more often
than not a package on a shop shelf, treated in ways that make them last longer
during their journey from distant lands. Ancient texts open up small windows
into past human experimentation with plants. Following the post-pleistocene in-
tervention of gatherer-hunters upon the natural processes of plant reproduction
by sowing wild seeds (cf. Bender 1978) that led to farming, experimentation was
apparently an ongoing process. Landraces were not only the outcome of local
adaptations by the first domesticates in the new lands farmers expanded to but
they were also the outcome of human observation and selection that was not
confined to the crops that have been explored in this book but also extended to
fruit trees. specific varieties of fruit were famous for their special taste, aroma
and sweetness (Dalby 1997). The grapevine in particular had many different va-
rieties according to geographic location, fruit colour etc. (e.g., Dalby 1997, Lo-
gothetis 1974) and archaeobotanical research shows that the roots of this vari-
ability are to be found as early as the Bronze Age (pagnoux 2016; pagnoux et
al. 2021). As with the barley varieties mentioned above, we find grapevine va-
rieties named after specific people such as the Althēphiás (Ἀλθηφιάς; from an
ascendant of the river Alpheios), Anthēdoniás (Ἀνθηδονιάς) and Hypereiás
(Ὑπερειάς) grapevine varieties of Troezenia (Aristotle fragm. 596 rose).
plant food ingredients travelled in the past as we saw with the introduction
of several crops during different periods of prehistory and antiquity. spelt wheat
and millet reached Greece during the Bronze Age, the former probably from Cen-
tral europe, the latter from the steppes of Central Asia (cf. Valamoti 2016, Valam-
oti 2023). The wide range of pulse seeds that were already grown and eaten by
the first farmers became enriched with new species in the Bronze Age with the
addition of Celtic bean, Cyprus vetch and spanish vetchling to the pulses of the
Neolithic. Favourite crops of the ancient Greeks such as chickpeas and lupins
are absent or extremely rare during the Neolithic and the Bronze Age; phásēlos
and dólichos were unknown pulses in prehistoric times and their presence is only
known, at least until now, from ancient texts. Nowadays the variety in pulse
species apparent in Greek cuisine is even greater as over the course of time New
World additions, such as common beans and Lima beans, have come to acquire
a dominant position. Although fasouláda, made of New World beans has been
considered by our generation as the national Greek dish (e.g., Kouris-Blazos and
itsiopoulos 2015), we should really place lentils as the winner at the top of the
podium, being the commonest and oldest pulse consumed in Greece, for at least
9,000 years.
Linseed was the oilseed of the Neolithic to which opium poppy seed was
added in the Bronze Age, along with Lallemantia in the north and later on sesame
in the south. of these, Lallemantia somehow disappears in the historic period
(unless future archaeobotanical finds reveal otherwise) and it remains to be seen
if an ancient word might be attributed to this central Asian plant with oilseeds.
sesame, however, once brought to the Greek world from the east, in Mycenaean
times at least, became an important culinary ingredient of ancient Greece.
The major cereal and pulse species being utilized in the Neolithic continued
to be cultivated during the Bronze Age as well as historic times: wheat, barley
and lentils. several wheat species were not only known to the prehistoric inhab-
itants of Greece but also during the historic periods, as revealed from the relevant
texts, while the distinction between glume wheats and naked wheat, related to
the chaff that tightly surrounds glume wheat grain was well known to ancient
Greek writers. Classifications of different cereals by ancient writers are difficult
to assess, yet, the scorn against foxtail millet and the glume wheat ólyra expressed
by Demosthenes (see Chapter 1, p. 72) allows glimpses into how plant foods con-
verged with identity. Millet, an ‘exotic’ cereal domesticated in China, which
reached Greece in the early 2nd millennium BC or even earlier, continued to be
a foreign cereal for the ancient Greek world, geographically associated primarily
with the northern part of the territory of modern Greece, both in the Bronze Age
and in antiquity.
our exploration of the textual evidence testifies to the culinary use of a wide
range of plants, yet, the archaeobotanical record for these historic periods, which
would be able to clarify or reveal what the texts may lack, such as what the
specific species were, or where and when they became essential elements of past
cuisines, is still poor and inadequate. The integrated consideration of archaeob-
otanical and textual evidence we have attempted in this book has been illumi-
nating as regards specific crop choices and the identity and associations of certain
crops or plant foods with foreigners, enemies, and people and lands that were
looked down upon in the context of political discourse. in some cases, ancient
crop choices may have been points of political argument, constituting elements
of culinary identities, which were transformed and negotiated over time, such
as millet and einkorn being ‘barbarian’ cereals according to Demosthenes; drink-
ing wine from grapes as opposed to the barley wine consumed by foreigners ac-
cording to some sources; consuming pyrós, the wheat par excellence as opposed
to the glume wheats. The potential of integrating archaeobotany and ancient
texts has hopefully emerged through the pages of this book, as well as the need
for solid archaeobotanical data: the former reflect ideas and views of certain sec-
tions of society, ancient writers and their readership/audiences, while the latter
correspond to the remains of what people actually did with their plants.
Ancient plant food recipes in modern Greek cuisine,

alive and kicking
Based on what we have presented in this book we are here tempted to explore
the traces of antiquity that are extant in the current culinary practices of modern
Greece. Nowadays, several of the plant food ingredients of prehistoric and an-
cient Greek fields can only be found on the shelves of health food shops, such
as millet, spelt wheat, emmer and einkorn, together with crops such as quinoa,
Figure 4.2 Millet sold on supermarket shelves in Kirovograd, ukraine, July 2021. photo:
olenka Valamoti.
Figure 4.3 Millet sold at a ‘russian’ supermarket in Thessaloniki, November 2021.

amaranth and buckwheat that were entirely unknown to the peoples of our study
area in the past. Millet is not an ingredient of traditional Greek cuisine as far as
our own experiences, as well as the numerous cookbooks covering traditional
Greek cuisine indicate, and the same appears to have been the case with millet
in the ancient Greek texts explored in Chapter 1 (p. 92). Millet was a crop known
to ancient Greeks but not something they enjoyed eating, although it was used
in medicine, a crop associated with foreign people inhabiting regions such as india
and around the Black sea. Despite the absence of millet in traditional, modern
Greek cuisine, the breakup of the soviet union has made the seeds of the crop
available in ‘russian’ supermarkets in Greece as it is the basic ingredient for the
preparation of kasha among ukrainians who live there (Figure 4.2 and 4.3).
Barley is encountered much less as an ingredient nowadays than in the pre-
historic past and in ancient Greek texts. Back then barley was important, the
main ingredient of máza and ptisánē, a cereal used on secular and ritual occasions,
a cereal that, together with the glume wheats, dominated the prehistoric assem-
blages of Greece. Nowadays barley food products are largely confined to the bar-
ley rusks of Crete and the islands (e.g., psilakis and psilaki 2001), recently be-
coming more widely available on supermarket shelves and in bakery shops (Fig-
ure 4.4, 4.5). such rusks are twice-baked and this idea is also the root of the word
biscuit. The idea is an ancient one and its ancient Greek equivalent is dipyrítēs
(see above, p. 84).
Figure 4.4 Barley rusks, a traditional Greek food product, purchased from a supermarket
in Thessaloniki, November 2021.
Figure 4.5 Wheaten rusks, a traditional Greek food product sold at Frangeas bakery in Kala-
mata, August 2021.
other recipes that we have found, such as the preparation and consumption
of lupins is nowadays very marginal and found either in special gourmet food
shops, or in shops selling locally produced products, such as the Kalamata food
market in the peloponnese (Figure 4.6, 4.7, 4.8). Lupins are still grown on a small
scale in the south of the peloponnese, in the region of Mani, an area where the
ancient texts connect to lupins, yet this was not the only place where they were
eaten: what is nowadays marginal and even unknown was much more wide-
spread in ancient Greece. Yet, a flight to the modern day, and to Marseille for
a cold beer in the summer heat is likely to bring lupins to the table as an accom-
paniment to beer, what could be called trágema, mezé or tápas depending on the
temporal and cultural context. Likewise, poppy seed, is very marginal or even
absent from modern traditional Greek cuisine although as we have seen it was
widely used in various ancient Greek food preparations. its culinary use is to be
found in traditional cuisines further north (see below, p. 160).
What prehistoric culinary traces remain in modern Greek dishes from the
first farmers that harvested seeds and grains from their fields? Can we detect any
of the ancient Greek recipes we have discovered in the written texts to be still
surviving in today’s kitchens, cookbooks, restaurants, or pastry and bakery
shops? Alongside salty potato-chips, rice-rusks, tortillas and popcorn, supermar-
kets also sell bulgur, trachanás, barley rusks, split grass-pea seeds, grape syrup,
raisins, dried figs and figs turned into a ‘cake’.
The omnipresent link of course is the raw ingredients. Many of the very same
Figure 4.6 Lupins sold as dry seed (left) and soaked for several days (right), both purchased
in Kalamata, August 2021.
species we have traced in the preceding

chapters feature nowadays in modern
Greek cuisine, despite the discovery of
new lands, the introduction of New
World crops and, more recently, food
globalization. Ground cereal grains
are to be found in different forms in
kitchen pantries, being either home-
made or produced large-scale and sold
from supermarket shelves or markets.
precooked, ground wheat in the form
of bulgur and trachanás, different op-
tions for converting cereals into pre-
cooked ingredients with a long shelf-
life, were already available in prehis-
toric times as has been identified, de-
spite the problem of determining the
liquid in which wheat had been boiled
to create bulgur (water) or trachanás
(milk). Yet, nowadays, the nourishing
Figure 4.7 Lupins, prepared by soaking for
several days, ready to eat, Kalamata market, barley soup that was also medicinal,
August 2021. ptisánē, does not form part of modern
152 Food CroPs in AnCient GreeK Cuisine
Figure 4.8 Lupins prepared, ready to eat, produced at Areopolis in Lakonia, Peloponnese,

purchased in Kalamata, August 2018.
Greek dishes in either cities or the countryside, nor is it encountered in cookbooks
with traditional, regional recipes. Τrachanás soup, instead, seems to have been
the main substance for breakfast and main courses of the day in modern Greece
(Valamoti 2011). so, trachanás and bulgur appear to be resilient enough over
the millennia; although fewer people may be preparing their own, their consump-
tion continues with the younger generations, the Millennials at least, thus along-
side the fast-food of today like burgers, the hearty fast-food of prehistoric times
(cf. Valamoti 2011) continues to warm the palate and stomach, especially on
cold winter evenings. these ancient ingredients even have a gourmet future that
safeguards their continued use, transformed through a more sophisticated inter-
pretation into bulgurotós and trachanotós (see e.g., ioannidis 2020).
Many ideas we have encountered in ancient texts about transforming doughs
into food also have their modern counterparts. thus, the idea of mixing flour
and grape juice or grape syrup for example, encountered in preparations such
as oenoútta (see above, p. 63) and γλυκίνας [glykínas], a Cretan plakoús made
of sweet wine and oil (Athenaeus 14.645 d), makes us think of the main ingre-
dients of modern ladópita, prepared on the island of Lefkada, or moustokoú-
loura, which mixes grape juice and flour (e.g., Kochylas 2003). Likewise, the nat-
ural sweetener, grape syrup (see above p. 144) which is made from boiled grape
juice just like modern petimézi (e.g., Valamoti 2023), might have also been used
as a sweetener for cereal-based preparations, yet, our research into ancient texts
did not reveal such a recipe before the times of Galen. Galen, (Properties of foods
6.519) in the 2nd c. AD, describes a food preparation called apóthermos which
was made of dehusked típhē, which was boiled and mixed with grape syrup (hép-
sēma or síraion, see above p. 144). one wonders whether modern moustalevria,
a thick, cream-like preparation made of flour mixed with grape juice, is a relative
of ancient Greek apóthermos.
Mixing a type of pastry with honey (see above p. 63, 77, 78, 81, 85-86),
sesame (see above p. 77, 86, 88, 90) and cheese (see above p. 78, 85, 140), or
even with poppy seed (see above p. 90, 136, 138), led to a variety of (mostly
sweet) products with different names, probably belonging to broader categories,
such as mázai and plakoúntes. in modern times plakénta is indeed a sweet that
survives in parts of Greece such as Lesbos (psilakis and psilaki 2001, p. 315) and
among the Greek roma, in the latter case in a savoury version with cheese and
rice (Konstantinidou 2021). This preparation is made with several dough sheets
filled with sweet or savoury fillings and is also encountered in romanian cuisine
under the name plăcintă. The word plăcintă is considered of roman origin from
the Latin word placenta (Dănila 2017), which was derived from the Greek word
plakoús (Georgescu 2020). A similar origin is also attributed to Austrian
palatschinken and Hungarian palacsinta. The mouth-watering nastós, a kind of
plakoús filled with cheese and honey, described in a fragment from the comic
poet Nicostratus (see above p. 85), reminds us of the Cretan Sfakianí píta (Figure
4.9; for a recipe see e.g., psilakis and psilaki 2001) or of modern bugátsa, or
pitta, a type of pastry encountered in Greece and the Balkans (Figure 4.10).
Nastós could come in the form of a large preparation in which case special skills
were required for cutting it into pieces and experts specializing in this job were
in charge of cutting the pie (see Chapter 1, p. 84-86).
Frying doughs was also a practice well-known in antiquity as can be seen
in the form of a cereal-based sweet preparation ‘made with boiled olive oil’ (see
Chapter 1). perhaps the ancient term zeselaiopagḗs (Athenaeus 14.643, ζεσε-
λαιοπαγῆ [zeselaeopagḗ], neut. plur.) corresponds to some early form of fried
dough, similar to pancakes/crepes, bannocks, the scottish griddle cake, Greek
loukoumádes or lallágia, or the pontic Greek otía and many more kinds of fried
dough preparations that exist nowadays in Greece and elsewhere (Figure 4.11).
This, in fact, might be among the oldest references to fried doughs. İtrion, de-
scribed as a form of dough with a runny consistency, fried and consumed in the
form of pie with honey and sesame makes the association with Cretan xerotígana
Figure 4.9 sfakiani pitta (a) preparation of the dough and mixing with cheese; (b) shaping
the dough; (c) baking on a pan; (d) sprinkling with honey before eating, Moires, Heraclion,
Crete. photo courtesy of Maria and Niki saridaki.
and díples of the southern peloponnese hard to resist (Figure 4.12). Another fried
dough preparation is tiganópsomo, prepared in parts of Greece on a frying pan
(e.g. Maltezou 2004, p. 80) and is usually eaten freshly fried and not prepared
to last long. This modern bread might have affinities with a bread mixed with
oil fried on a brazier [escharítēs] or on a pan [apó tēgánou] (as Athenaeus 3.115
e describes it), which was, for this reason, considered heavy for the stomach. Tē-
ganítēs (see above p. 86) might correspond to a type of pancake; https://histo-
rydollop.com/2018/08/19/teganitai-ancient-greek-pancakes/) or even a xerotí-
gano, a traditional preparation whereby dough is fried in oil and sprinkled with
sesame and honey, offered at celebrations such as christenings and weddings (psi-
Food CropS in AnCient GreeK CuiSine 155
Figure 4.10 A spinach and cheese pita and a trachanopita, prepared using home-made phyllo

pastry at Kosmati, Grevena, September 2017.
Figure 4.11 lallágia purchased in Kalamata, August 2021.

156 Food CropS in AnCient GreeK CuiSine
Figure 4.12 díples purchased in Kalamata, August 2021.
lakis and psilaki 2001), and is a Cretan version of what is known as ‘dípla’ in
Mani in the peloponnese (see Figure 4.12, above). All these cereal-based food-
stuffs could have been prepared with the elaborate equipment of ancient Greek
kitchens that comprised several cooking pans and types of cooking installations
(Figure 1.51, Chapter 1, p. 87).
A fascinating discovery from exploring the ancient texts is the description
of the preparation of a ritual bread called basynías, which was made from a
dough that was ‘boiled’, with the boiling presumably occurring before the dough
was baked (see Chapter 1, p. 81). this idea is nowadays encountered in the prepa-
ration of bagels and pretzels, of Jewish and German origin respectively, whereby
the dough is first poached for a minute or two before being baked (ingram and
Shapter 1999). Likewise, two pontic Greek recipes with turkish names, ‘sou
bourek’ and ‘souporegin’ use dough that is dipped in boiling water for 1-2 minutes
(Kiziridou 2002, pp. 144-145), a recipe which is also encountered in turkish
cuisine under the name su böreği (‘su’ meaning water in turkish).
our research suggests that the idea behind several modern cereal food prepa-
rations go back in time at least to ancient Greece while similar culinary prepa-
rations might well have been more widely spread geographically. Compared to
the wholemeal flours of prehistoric and ancient Greece, the modern norm of
white, often gluten-enriched flour was most likely not a regular option in the
past. thus, if we were to identify culinary affinities between the cereal foodstuffs
of today and those of ancient Greece and the earlier prehistoric peoples that in-
habited our study area, we would need to replace the white, fine flour of today
with wholemeal flour, at least for the Neolithic and the Bronze Age. our loukou-
mádes, díples, xerotígana and ladópita would turn out very different in texture
and shape with bran in the flour. We can nevertheless imagine different textures
and baking qualities characterizing the cereal bakes of antiquity based on the
ancient texts that we have reviewed that show the availability of very fine, bran-
free flours; ingredients such as paepálē, the finest flour, were reserved for prepa-
rations for special religious occasions while another form of very fine flour, ámy-
los, was also available (see Chapter 1, p. 77-78). such fine flours, perhaps frowned
upon by ancient doctors, might have been converted to delicious preparations
only available once a year in the context of specific religious festivals, and there-
fore much anticipated throughout the year, a sense largely lost nowadays when
one can buy any type of food throughout the year, with few exceptions, such as
the melomakárona of Christmas, a simple recipe mixing flour, oil, ash-water, wal-
nuts and honey (Figure 4.13).
Ancient cereals were transformed into a broad spectrum of foodstuffs, from
porridges and soups to precooked ground cereal foods such as bulgur and rusks,
as well as a wide range of breads, of which only the names sometimes survive.
Despite the centuries that have intervened, the wide range of breads encountered
in ancient texts reveals a rich cuisine, especially when one considers the condi-
ments often added, such as sesame seed, linseed and/or opium poppy seed. Yet,
there is no way to be certain about associations with modern recipes that are the
outcome of long-term processes of change in Aegean cuisine. Plakoús being a
flat pastry preparation with various fillings, sweet or savoury, could correspond
to some version of the very widespread modern ‘píta’, a type of dish encountered
in traditional Greek cuisine and also throughout the Balkans (Figure 4.10). one
Figure 4.13 Melomakarona, a traditional Christmas sweet in Greece, simple to prepare using
basic ingredients available since prehistoric times: honey was probably a luxury ingredient
in the past and walnuts were not available before the 1st millennium BC.
Figure 4.14 A saj used to bake pita of various types, Kosmati 2017.
version still prepared in modern Greece on a household level involves the baking
of the píta on a round metal surface, the saj (a term borrowed from Turkish),
heated prior to baking (Figure 4.14). A version with a long storage life, known
among the pontic Greeks, is perék, a type of round phyllo pastry, made of dough
that is baked on the saj, that can be stored in a dry form and used upon demand
for making pies, a recipe also widely used in Turkish cuisine (Figure 4.15).
Moving to pulses, the connecting thread between prehistory and the present
is indeed impressive as regards how we eat pulses nowadays. They are converted
into soups of liquid consistency; thick porridge-like gruels where a large percent-
age of the seeds have dissolved (Figure 4.16, lathýri Corfu), as well as coming
in the form of mashes/purees, such as the typical Greek fáva (Figure 2.20) made
of different kinds of Lathyrus seeds (e.g. Kochilas 2003, p. 306-307; https://www.
slowfood.de/publikationen/broschueren/slf_kochbuch_true_dina5_210118_en
_final.pdf, p. 26). This is further illustrated by the ways in which pulses are cooked
on the island of Lefkada under the name of magerémata (μαγερέματα): they
are left to soak, then they are boiled until the seeds swell and the testa opens up,
then they add olive oil and salt and squeeze the pulse seed onto the pot walls so
that they turn into a thick gruel, adding further water and boiling a bit more for
a thicker consistency (Voutsina 2008, p. 65). The ancient recipe in Chapter 2 for
bolbophakḗ (p. 110) has a modern equivalent in the combination of Muscari
FooD CroPs in AnCient Greek Cuisine 159
Figure 4.15 Dried, round thin sheets of baked dough (perek) that can be stored and used
to prepare a pita upon demand by soaking and then baking the sheets with the filling; here
the ingredients of such a pie, perek on the left and fresh poppy greens, shown on the right.
Figure 4.16. Lathyrus sativus soup prepared at Petaleia, Corfu, July 2016, by Freideriki Vla-
chou.
160 FooD CroPs in AnCient Greek Cuisine
Figure 4.17 roasted chickpeas purchased in thessaloniki, november 2021. they are eaten
together with other snacks, usually raisins.
Figure 4.18 Šimtalapis sold in a market in Vilnius, Lithuania, september 2016.

FooD CroPs in AnCient Greek Cuisine 161
bulbs with fava beans in a dish on the island of Crete (Lambraki 1997, p. 168).
equally interesting is the modern combination of lentils and rice, fakórizo (Psi-
lakis et al. 2003, p. 321), reminiscent of an ancient combination of lentils with
a cereal grain; except the ancient preparation required pre-processed barley,
ptisánē. the combination of lentils with a cereal-based product can be found in
traditional Greek recipes such as that of the Pontic Greeks (kiziridou 2001, p.
362), Laconia (karabela 2005, p. 80) and further north in Germany in the tra-
ditional swabian spaetzle mit Linsen. As components of tragḗmata, roasted, de-
hulled chickpeas continue to be prepared and sold as a snack known under their
modern Greek name, stragália (Figure 4.17). Lupins, on the other hand can only
be found in special shops in Laconia and Messenia in the Peloponnese, tradition-
ally reserved mainly for Lent before easter.
the use of poppy seed in pastries encountered in ancient texts has no coun-
terparts in modern Greek cuisine. Yet, it is found in cereal-based preparations
such as the Bulgarian bread kolach and the nordic bread called tresse with poppy
seeds sprinkled on their surface (e.g. ingram and shapter 1999, p. 86, 210); in
Hungary and Poland a form of sweet is made of a dough roll filled with poppy
seeds, sugar and in some versions other ingredients such as almonds and raisins
(e.g. ingram and shapter 1999, p. 208); in Lithuania a similar sweet is called
Šimtalapis (Figure 4.18) and has two versions, one with phyllo pastry, considered
to be of Crimean origin, and another one made with dough that is spread out,
Figure 4.19 sesame seeds cooked with honey and left to settle are very common snacks in
modern Greece. their roots can be traced back to antiquity. Here sesame bars and honeyed
almonds, made in kalamata, August 2021.
filled with poppy seeds and rolled (Laužikienė and Laužikas 2019; Giedre Mo-
tuzaite-Matuzeviciute pers. comm.). Likewise, in the ukraine, poppy seed is a
common ingredient in sweet preparations (Artiukh 2001).
of the three oil-rich seeds, sesame appears to be the most resilient over time
although not the most ancient in the region, that being linseed which has been
grown since Neolithic times. Although the pastélia of today (Figure 4.19) are
very much reminiscent of the sesame with honey combination mentioned in an-
cient Greek texts, nothing like the opium poppy seeds with honey mixes can be
found today or in traditional Greek cookbooks. Yet, they were the supplies for
the trapped spartans on sphacteria island during the peloponnesian War as we
saw in Chapter 3 (p. 138). To find an equivalent preparation, one needs to turn
to the northern european bakes and sweets described above (see p. 161). The
original Tatar version of a poppy sweet brought to Lithuania in the past, called
šimtalapis, meaning ‘a hundred leaves’ is made with thin pastry sheets wrapped
around a coat of opium poppy seeds with sugar (http://kulinarinispaveldas.
blogspot.com/2019/01/nuo-placentos-iki-simtalapio-vieno.html); it is reminis-
cent of what a poppy seed plakoús might have been, the sugar, however, being
replaced with honey in antiquity (see above Figure 4.18).
We do not know whether the ancient preparations of sesame mixed with
honey came in the form of bars, like the modern ‘pastéli’, yet, the association of
similar snacks available in supermarkets and sweetshops is inevitable. Further-
more, it is of interest that philo’s two similar recipes of food medicaments against
famine (On Sieges 88-89 Thévenot = B 32-38 Whitehead, mentioned above p.
141), could be considered as some kind of equivalent to our modern energy bars;
these recipes involved the mixing of various ingredients such as Scilla, sesame,
poppy and honey in one version, while the other required the mixing of sesame,
honey, almonds and Scilla; with the latter being baked. (*Scilla can be poisonous,
see comment on page 30).
The so-called ‘epimenidean potion’
“is duly put together when one has boiled down <squill and rinsed it in
water and both dried it and> chopped it as fine as possible and then mixed
into it a fifth part of sesame and around a fifteenth of poppy; and when
all these (ingredients) have been pounded in the same (vessel), mix with
best-quality honey and divide into (balls) the size of the largest olives; and
anyone taking one of these around the second hour (of daylight) and one
around the tenth should suffer nothing terrible from hunger.
There is another potion somewhat similar to this, which it is necessary
to put together in the following way. Take an Attic half-hekteus (4.377
l.) of sesame and a half-chous (1.642 l.) of honey and a kotyle (0.274
l.) of oil and a choinix (1.094 l.) of peeled sweet almonds; toast the
sesame and grind down and sieve the almonds; then thoroughly peel the
squills and cut off the roots and the leaves and, having portioned them
small, put them into a mixing-bowl and crush them as fine as possible;
after that, crush the crushed squills smoothly with <an equal amount
of> the honey together with the oil, pour into a pot, place on the coals,
and boil; when it begins to bubble, add the sesame and the almonds and
stir with a piece of wood until everything combines, when it has become
exceedingly solid, remove it (from fire) and divide it into small morsels,
and anyone taking one in the morning and one in the evening should
get adequate nourishment.” (transl. Whitehead).
The preparation is reminiscent of similar bars on sale, without Scilla but with
the addition of orange-peel for example as is the case of the melekoúni of rhodes.
ritual bakes were a common practice in religious contexts, and from ancient
sources we know many of them under different names. We have referred to some
of them in Chapter 1 (melitóessa máza, p. 63, basynías, p. 81, pópanon, pelanós,
ampiphṓn p. 87-88), and Athenaeus’ The learned Banqueters in the sections de-
voted to breads and cakes (see above p. 79) mentions others too: e.g., ἀχαΐνη
[achaḯnē] was a bread “produced for Demeter and persephone. The loaves are
large, and the festival is called the Megalartia (“Large Loaf Festival”)”
(Athenaeus 3.109 F, transl. olson); θάργηλος [thárgēlos], “the first bread pro-
duced after the harvest” (Athenaeus 3.114 A, transl. olson), was made for
Thargḗlia, a festival of Apollo for the first fruits and the new wheat (perhaps this
is why this bread was also called θαλύσιος [thalýsios], Athenaeus l.c., since
Thalýsia was a similar festival in honour of Demeter); ἀνάστατος [anástatos]
was called the bread that was prepared for the ἀρρηφόροι [arrhēphóroe], the
girls who participated in the procession during the celebration of Arrhēphória,
related to goddess Athena. Also interesting is the information about cakes in the
shape of female genitalia: for example the syracusans were making sweets of
sesame and honey in the shape of female pudenda for the celebration of Thes-
mophoria; they were called μύλλοι [mýlloi] and carried in processions in honour
of Demetra and persephone (Athenaeus 14.647 A); κριβάνη [kribánē] was a pla-
koús in the shape of female breast, which was used in sparta at the feasts of wom-
en (Athenaeus 14.646 A; cf. 3.115 A).
The many bakes, boils, sweet and savoury foods and snacks based on plant
ingredients we have explored through the archaeobotanical record and ancient
texts were not only important for sustaining past populations. They also marked
the days of the year, connected people with the land and the unseen world, that
of gods and ancestors who safeguarded their existence or challenged it through
famine and illness. For prehistoric times this element of plant foods remains elusive
and only occasionally can we glean some information, ambivalent and hypothetic,
Figure 4.20 Cretan, heavily decorated wedding bread with dough decorations (koumbaro-
koúlouro) offered from the bride to the bridesmaid after the wedding ceremony. Bread pre-
pared at Gergeri, Herakleion, Crete (idaia Gi, Women’s Co-operative), July 2019. photo cour-
tesy of Niki saridaki.
as is the case for example with the four kilos of charred grass pea placed in a Late
Neolithic pit at Toumba Kremastis Koiladas (Valamoti et al. 2011) or of some
clean, charred emmer grains accompanying an early Neolithic burial in Mavropi-
gi-Fillotsairi (Valamoti 2011b). sometimes patterns emerge in the Bronze Age that
become more telling compared to the Neolithic finds, for example the placing of
oil/ointment pots as burial offerings, linking the underworld with plant oils (e.g.,
Andreou et al. 2013) or the placing of charred plant remains in burials (Margaritis
2014). Turning to texts, however, the ritual aspects of plant foods and plant food
offerings become undisputed and their context is often clearly described.
such aspects of plant foods nowadays mainly survive in religious ceremonies,
cereal grain, fruit or pulses marking special days of the Greek orthodox calendar,
their roots sometimes probably going back in time to prehistory. Wheat grain
is used for kóllyva (Megaloudi 2004) a special dish prepared in funerary contexts
and for commemorating the dead, when their souls visit the earth to eat with
their descendants (psilakis and psilaki 2001). Christianity has led to the disap-
pearance of breads in the form of phalluses or female genitalia (see above, p. 163)
yet a wide range of ritual breads have persevered in traditional Greek orthodox
Figure 4.21 Chickpeas are cooked and blessed on the island of Amorgos for the festival of
st John the Theologian. The cooked dish is then communally consumed. photos courtesy of
Nikos Nikitidis.
rituals in the form of body parts of babies, the latter known as Lazarákia, pre-
pared for the Lazarus saturday breads (psilakis and psilaki 2001). Harvest breads
and special wedding breads are known from various parts of Greece and else-
where in europe (e.g. psilakis and psilaki 2001, Figure 4.20). sometimes the sim-
ilarity in decoration between the ancient breads and modern traditional breads
is striking indeed (cf. Brumfield 1997).
pulses form the official ritual meal of certain festivals when large pots of
chickpeas are cooked and blessed (Figure 4.21) while a mixture of cereal and
pulse grains as well as pomegranate form the special dish of polyspória (meaning
‘many seeds’, cf. the ancient panspermía, e.g., Håland 2012), a celebration linked,
in modern Greece. with the feast of saint Barbara on the 4th of December (for
the recipe see e.g. psilakis and psilaki 2001). such preparations lead us back to
the many grains of different species that composed the díon kṓdion (mentioned
several times above, p. 91, 112, 138). in special contexts such as weddings, the
many seeds of sesame, components of sweets when mixed with honey, both in
ancient and modern Greece are linked to wedding rituals in the Aegean islands
starting with the cleaning of sesame seed, its mixing with honey and other in-
gredients, and subsequently being offered to the wedding guests (psilakis and
psilaki 2001, p. 305).
The legacy of ancient Greek plant foods –

some thoughts for the future
Despite the affinities we have been able to trace between the present and the past
as regards some cereals, pulses and sesame as well as certain recipes, many other
seed crops we have explored in this book can only partly be traced in modern
traditional Greek cuisine. A look into the recipes described by ancient texts and
the snapshots of Neolithic and Bronze Age cuisine offered by the rare archae-
ological finds of charred breads, porridges, precooked cereals, soups and sweets,
reveals a rich variety of foods (e.g., Valamoti et al. 2019, Valamoti et al. 2021).
This culinary variability becomes more tangible and manifest in the historic pe-
riods through a wealth of plant-based foods that emerge through the texts we
have examined in this book. Textual evidence, in this respect, offers an abundant
inventory of food preparations based on cereals, pulses and oily seeds and reveals
continuities and differences from prehistoric to historic times regarding the pre-
vailing plant food crops and the foods prepared from them.
The large variety of breads and other cereal food preparations we observed
in the texts, diverging on ingredients, shape, ways of baking or baking equipment
used and occasion for which they were prepared is indeed impressive; likewise,
if one explores traditional forms of converting cereal dough into various bakes,
the range is similarly impressive (psilakis and psilaki 2001). This long tradition
of having great variety in converting cereals into foodstuffs nowadays faces a
major challenge for survival and continuation over future generations. Mass food
provision is the dominant modern paradigm and this includes the range of bakery
products, being frozen doughs with preservatives, sometimes travelling long dis-
tances. The maintenance and survival of a diverse culinary tradition is under sig-
nificant pressure and is by no means guaranteed. This long-surviving culinary
wisdom, such as preparing one’s own sourdough and making bread with it, run
the risk of becoming fossilized, the subject of academic research, or a fad only
pursued by a small group of people fascinated by the tastes of an idealized past
that is by definition better than the present, yet, at the same time enjoying the
considerably easier ways of living that technology and modern lifestyles have of-
fered humanity in many parts of the world.
perhaps the hope to keep this knowledge alive and kicking rests in the realm
of the family, through grandchildren who have enjoyed the plant foods prepared
by their grandparents, learning the recipes and gaining an appreciation for them,
even though the special days when unique bakes were prepared have lost their
symbolic meaning. The context in which a grandchild might learn how to make
xinochondros or syrup from wild pears may be the encounter between the
younger generation with prehistoric plant foods, disseminated through archae-
Figure 4.22 Grass pea mash, called ‘tsoukali’ (centre), prepared on the island of Corfu, in
the region of Lefkimi, pontiglio Winery, July 2021. photo Georgios Vily Kapetanakis.
ology university courses based on my experiences at Kakodiki on the island of

Crete (Valamoti and Anastasaki 2007) and at Kosmati Grevenon in the region
of Western Macedonia in northern Greece (Valamoti and Mimi 2016). it is in
this way, through interaction with students, that another surviving tradition with
roots in the Neolithic and ancient Greece, was revealed to me on the island of
Corfu: grass pea cultivation and consumption. Through fieldwork in July 2016
and June/July 2021 it became possible to explore grass pea from the field to the
plate and connect the numerous charred, prehistoric seeds of a crop that is 9,000
years old in Greece to a modern tradition still alive yet on the verge of becoming
extinct.
Millennia-old recipes are ‘translated’ into similar lookalikes. Their survival
in the context of a globalized economy may be through using imported ‘fáva’,
split, dehulled Lathyrus seeds from Canada with the cooking being performed
in the mash/étnos manner, such that the ‘fáva’ of today, that is very popular in
the Aegean, is a form that resembles the lekithṓdē we saw in Chapter 2. Yet, when
this Aegean fáva recipe is applied to grass pea cooking in Corfu with a touch of
saffron (e.g., Karounou 2014), the actual culinary variability that is still alive
on the island is masked, potentially leading it to oblivion. unlike the Aegean tra-
dition of lekithṓdē /fáva, the versions i discovered on the island of Corfu, by ask-
ing local people are very different. First of all the seeds (Figure 4.16 above) are
cooked whole, not split into cotyledons as in the Aegean version. secondly, they
are prepared in two ways, one in the form of a very thick soup where nearly half
of the seeds have dissolved and another whereby grass-pea seeds are boiled to-
gether with beans (fasóli) until they dissolve into a thick purée with the help of
a wooden spatula or, nowadays, an electric bender (Figure 4.22). in the latter
case a lot of olive oil is used in the making of the puree and it is eaten with different
accompaniments. Both preparations, but especially the latter, require a lot of
work and commitment and often the dish is prepared in correlation with religious
festivals such as the Feast of the Cross on the 14th of september. What is even
more exciting is that the Corfiot fáva, which they call tsoukáli, combines a pulse
from the Greek Neolithic with a New World pulse, common bean, leading to the
ultimate ‘fusion’ dish between prehistory and the present. Thus, we observe that
behind the charred seeds and the ancient words lies a wealth of variation in how
people transformed grains and seeds into food, a variation surviving to the pre-
sent, despite tourism, industrialization and the abandonment of the countryside.
How hopeful can we be about safeguarding these millennia-old preparations
for future generations? How can our children preserve the grain and the recipe
when for the last decades farming has been shunned and the youth (including
our generations) have been directed to university studies and the opportunity of
a clean job in an office? perhaps this old way of life is doomed to disappear as
has happened several times in human history (including prehistory). or, the seed
might survive in the hands of a few farmers who have a romantic fascination
with ancient crops. it might even do well and expand, its production geared to
gourmet Greek restaurants with a flair for ancient and prehistoric Greece. Learn-
ing about these plant food preparations as part of a deep-seated culinary heritage
that is alive and always changing is an important first step. realising that ancient
ingredients and recipes can continue, not as fossils of the past but as live traditions
that evolve and change as has been the case over the course of the 9,000 years
of farming in Greece will hopefully allow informed decisions for the future and
the safeguarding of this ancient legacy. We hope this book has made a small con-
tribution towards this end.
Ancient authors
Brief information
Name / Work Era Genre

Aeschylus 6 - 5 c. BC Tragedy
Alcaeus 4 c. BC Comedy
Alcman 7 c. BC Lyric poetry
Alexis 4 - 3 c. BC Comedy
Amipsias 5 - 4 c. BC Comedy
Amphis 4 c. BC Comedy
Anacreon 6 c. BC Lyric poetry
Anaxandrides 4 c. BC Comedy
Androtion 5 - 4 c. BC History
Antidotus 4 c. BC Comedy
Antimachus 5 / 4 c. BC Elegy & Epic poetry
Antiphanes 4 c. BC Comedy
Apicius (Latin) 1 c. AD Cookery
Apollonius of Rhodes 3 c. BC Epic poetry
Archestratus 4 c. BC Parody
Archilochus 7 c. BC Elegy, Iambic poetry
Archippus 5 c. BC Comedy
Aristophanes 5 - 4 c. BC Comedy
Aristotle and Aristotelian corpus 4 c. BC Philosophy
Artemidorus Daldianus 2 c. AD Interpretation of dreams
Athenaeus of Naucratis 2 - 3 c. AD Second Sophistic
Bacchylides 5 c. BC Lyric poetry
Choerilus 5 c. BC Epic poetry
Chrysippus 3 c. BC Philosophy
Clearchus of Soli 4-3 c. BC Philosophy
Crates of Athens 5 c. BC Comedy
Crates of Thebes 4 - 3 c. BC Philosophy (& Poetry)
Cratinus 5 c. BC Comedy
Crobylus 4 c. BC Comedy
169

Ctesias of Cnidus 5 - 4 BC History & Medicine
D(e)inon of Colophon 4 c. BC History
Demades 4 c. BC Oratory
Demetrius 5 / 4 c. BC Comedy
Demosthenes 4 c. BC Oratory
Diodorus of Sicily 1 c. BC History
Diogenes Laertius 3 c. AD Biography
Dionysius of Halicarnassos 1 c. BC History, Rhetoric
Dionysius of Thrace 2 c. BC Grammar
Dioscorides Pedanius 1 c. AD Medicine, Pharmacology
Diphilus 4 - 3 c. BC Comedy
Ephippus 4 c. BC Comedy
Epicharmus 5 c. BC Comedy
Erasistratus 3 c. BC Medicine
Eubulus 4 c. BC Comedy
Euphron 3 c. BC Comedy
Eupolis 5 c. BC Comedy
Euripides 5 c. BC Tragedy
Eustathius 12 c. AD Philology, Theology
Galen 2 c. BC Medicine, Pharmacology
Geoponica 10 c. AD Natural history
Hecataeus of Miletos 6 - 5 c. BC History
Hecataeus of Abdera 4 - 3 c. BC History
Hellanicus 5 c. BC History
Heniochus 4 c. BC Comedy
Heraclitus 6 - 5 c. BC Philosophy
Hermias 4 c. BC History
Hermippus 5 c. BC Comedy
Herodotus 5 c. BC History
Hesiod 8 / 7 c. BC Epic poetry
Hippocrates (and Hippocratic corpus) 5 - 4 c. BC Medicine
Hipponax 6 c. BC Iambic poetry
Homer 8 c. BC Epic poetry
Homeric Hymn to Apollo 7 c. BC Epic poetry
Homeric Hymn to Demeter 7 c. BC Epic poetry
Josephus 1 c. AD History
Lycophron 4 – 3 c. BC Tragedy

Magnes 5 c. BC Comedy
Matro of Pitane 4 c. BC Parody
Megasthenes 4 - 3 c. BC History
Menander 4 - 3 c. BC Comedy
Metagenes 5 c. BC Comedy
Mnesimachus 4 c. BC Comedy
Mnesitheus 4 c. BC Medicine
Molpis 2 - 1 c. BC History
Nicander of Colophon 2 c. BC Epic Poetry
Nicander of Thyateira 3/1 c. BC History
Nicophon 5 - 4 c. BC Comedy
Nicostratus 4 c. BC Comedy
Parmeno of Byzantium 3 c. BC Iambic Poetry
Pausanias Periegete 2 c. AD Geography
Pausanias 2 c. AD Lexicography
Phaenias 4 c. BC Philosophy
Pherecrates 5 c. BC Comedy
Philemon 4 - 3 c. BC Comedy
Philetas of Cos 4 - 3 c. BC Elegy, Grammar
Philippides 4 c. BC Comedy
Philo of Byzantium (Mechanicus) 3 - 2 c. BC Mechanics
Philochorus 4 - 3 c. BC History
Philoxenus of Leucas 5 - 4 c. BC Lyric poetry
Philyllius 5 - 4 c. BC Comedy
Photius 9 c. AD Lexicography, Philology
Phrynichus 5 c. BC Comedy
Phrynichus the Arab 2 c. AD Grammar, Philology
Pindar 6 - 5 c. BC Lyric poetry
Plato 5 - 4 c. BC Philosophy
Plato 5 - 4 c. BC Comedy
Pliny the Elder (Latin) 1 c. AD Natural history
Plutarch 1 - 2 c. AD Biography, Philology
Polemon Periegete 3 - 2 c. BC History, Geography
Pollux 2 c. AD Grammar, Lexicography
Polybius 3 - 2 c. BC History
Sannyrion 5 c. BC Comedy
Sappho 7 - 6 c. BC Lyric poetry

Semus of Delos 3 - 2 (?) c. BC History
SSolon 7 - 6 c. BC Elegy, Iambic poetry
Sopater 4 - 3 c. BC Comedy
SSophocles 5 c. BC Tragedy
Sophron 5 c. BC Writer of mimes
SSoranus 1 - 2 c. AD Medicine
Stesichorus 7 - 6 c. BC Lyric poetry
Straton 4 - 3 c. BC Comedy
Strattis 5 c. BC Comedy
SSuda (or Suidas) 10 c. AD Lexicography
Teleclides 5 c. BC Comedy
STheognis 6 c. BC Elegy
Theophrastus 4 - 3 c. BC Philosophy, Natural history
Thucydides 5 c. BC History
Timocles 4 c. BC Comedy
Tryphon 1 c. BC Grammar
Tzetzes Ioannes 12 c. AD Scholiast, Philology
Xenophanes 6 - 5 c. BC Philosophy, Elegy, Epic poetry
Xenophon 5 - 4 c. BC History
Zeno 4 - 3 c. BC Philosophy
Abbreviations
Coll. Alex. J. U. Powell, Collectanea Alexandrina, Oxford 1925

D.-K. Diels – Kranz: Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, griechisch und deutsch, von
Hermann Diels, sechste verbesserte Auflage, herausgegeben von Walter Kranz,
Berlin-Grunewald, Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1951-1952, 3 volumes
FGrHist F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der Griechishen Historiker, Leiden 1923-1969
FHG K. and T. Müller, Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum, 5 volumes, Paris 1841–
1870
L. Littré (see Hippocrates and Hippocratic Corpus)
LSJ H. G. Liddell - R. Scott - H.S. Jones - R. McKenzie, A Greek–English Lexicon
with a Supplement, Oxford 91940 (reprint 1985)
OLD Oxford Latin Dictionary, Oxford 1968
PCG R. Kassel - C. Austin, Poetae Comici Graeci, 8 volumes, Berlin – New York
1983–2001
PMG Poetae Melici Graeci, edidit D. L. Page, Oxford 1962
SH H. Lloyd-Jones - P. Parsons, Supplementum Hellenisticum, Berlin and New
York 1983
SVF H. von Arnim, Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, 1903-1905 (reprint 1964)
TrGF B. Snell - R. Kannicht - S. Radt, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, 5 volumes,
Göttingen 1971–2004
173
Bibliography – Ancient Texts:
Editions, Translations, Commentaries
Internet sites cited for providing translations used in the book

Perseus Digital Library:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/collection?collection=Perseus:collection:Greco-Roman
Lacus Curtius:
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/roman/home.html
The Internet Classics Archive:
http://classics.mit.edu
1. Ancient Authors/Texts: Editions, Translations, Commentaries
ALCMAN
Edmonds (1922): Lyra Graeca in three volumes. Newly edited and translated by J. M. Ed-
monds. Volume I including Terpander, Alcman, Sappho and Alcaeus, London – New
York [LOEB]
ANTIMACHUS OF COLOPHON
Matthews, V. J. (1996): Antimachus of Colophon: text and commentary, Leiden: E.J. Brill
[Mnemosyne, Suppl. 155]
Wyss (1936): Antimachi Colophonii reliquiae, collegit, disposuit, explicavit B. Wyss, Berlin
ARCHESTRATUS
Olson-Sens (2000): S. Douglas Olson and Alexander Sens, Archestratos of Gela: Greek Cul-
ture and Cuisine in the Fourth Century BCE. Text, Translation, and Commentary, Ox-
ford
ARCHILOCHUS
West: vol. 1 [see “Iambic Poetry (Fragments)”]
Edmonds (1931): Elegy and Iambus, 2 volumes, London [LOEB], 2nd vol. (available online
at the Perseus Digital Library)
ARISTOPHANES
O’Neill Jr., Eugene: The Complete Greek Drama, edited by W. J. Oates and E. O’Neill Jr.,
2 volumes, Random House, New York 1935, 2nd vol. (available online at the Perseus
Digital Library)
ARISTOTLE AND ARISTOTELIAN CORPUS
D’Arcy: The Works of Aristotle Translated into English under the Editorship of J. A. Smith
and W. D. Ross. Vol. IV. Historia Animalium by D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson, Oxford
1910 (available online at The Internet Classics Archive)
Forster: The Works of Aristotle Translated into English under the Editorship of W. D. Ross.
Vol. VII. Problemata by E. S. Forster, Oxford 1927 (reprint 1957)
175
Rose: Aristotelis qui ferebantur Librorum Fragmenta collegit Valentinus Rose, Lipsiae 1886
[TEUBNER]
ATHENAEUS OF NAUCRATIS
Gulick, Ch. B.: Athenaeus The Deipnosophists, London – New York 1927-1941, 7 volumes
[LOEB]
Olson, S. Douglas: The Learned Banqueters, 8 volumes, Cambridge, MA – London 2006-
2012 [LOEB]
BACCHYLIDES
Snell - Maehler.: Bacchylidis Carmina cum fragmentis, post Brunonem Snell edidit Heruicus
Maehler, Leipzig 101970 [TEUBNER]
CHOERILUS
Bernabé: Poetarum epicorum Graecorum: testimonia et fragmenta, Pars I, edidit A. Bernabé,
Leipzig 1987 [TEUBNER]
CLEARCHUS OF SOLI
Wehrli, F.: Die Schule des Aristoteles. Texte und Kommentar, Heft III Klearchos, Basel –
Stuttgart : Schwabe 21969
CRATES OF THEBES
Diehl (ALG): Anthologia Lyrica Graeca, edidit Ernestus Diehl, Fasc. 1, Poetae elegiaci, Lipsiae
3
1949 [TEUBNER]
DEMADES
De Falco. V.: Demade Oratore. Testimonianze e Frammenti, Naples 21954
DEMOSTHENES
Vince, J. H.: Demosthenes Orations 21-26, Cambridge, MA: London 1935 [LOEB] [including
the Speech Against Androtion] (available online at the Perseus Digital Library)
DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSOS
Cary, E.: Dionysius of Halicarnassus: Roman Antiquities, Cambridge, MA 1937 [LOEB]
(available online at the Lacus Curtius)
DIONYSIUS THRAX
Linke: K. Linke, W. Haas, S. Neitzel, Die Fragmente des Grammatikers Dionysios Thrax, Die
Fragmente der Grammatiker Tyrannion und Diokles, Apions Γλῶσσαι Ὁμηρικαί,
Berlin/New York: De Gruyter 1977
DIOSCORIDES PEDANIUS
Beck: Pedanius Dioscorides of Anabarzus De material medica, translated by Lilly Beck,
Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann 2005 [Altertumswissenschaftliche Texte und Studien 38]
ELEGY (FRAGMENTS)
See below “Iambic Poetry (Fragments)”
GALEN
Grant, M. (2000): Galen On Food and Diet, London and New York
Powell (2003): Galen On the Properties of Foodstuffs. Introduction, Translation and Com-
mentary by Owen Powell, with a Foreword by John Wilkins, Cambridge
HERODOTUS
Godley, A. D.: Herodotus, London – New York 1920-1925 [LOEB] (available online at the
Perseus Digital Library)
HESIOD
Evelyn – White, Hugh G.: Hesiod. The Homeric Hymns and Homerica, Cambridge, MA –
London 1914 [LOEB] (available online at the Perseus Digital Library)
Merkelbach – West: R. Merkelbach – M. L. West, Fragmenta Hesiodea, Oxford 1967
HIPPOCRATES AND HIPPOCRATIC CORPUS
Jones LOEB vol. I: Hippocrates with an English translation by W. H. S. Jones, vol. I, London
– Cambridge, MA 1923 (reprint 1957) [including Ancient Medicine]
Jones LOEB vol. IV: Hippocrates with an English translation by W. H. S. Jones, vol. IV, London
– Cambridge, MA 1931 (reprint 1959) [including Regimen i-iv]
Littré, É.: Oeuvres Completes d’ Hippocrate, Paris 1839-1861, 10 volumes (the volume- and
page-numbers of this edition are the standard referencing system and we mention it to-
gether with the citation of books and chapters or paragraphs of each Hippocratic pas-
sage)
Potter LOEB vol. VI: Hippocrates with an English translation by Paul Potter, Cambridge,
MA – London 1988 [including Regimen in Acute Diseases (Appendix)]
Smith LOEB vol. VII: Hippocrates with an English translation by Wesley D. Smith, Cambridge,
MA – London 1994 [Epidemics Books 2, 4-7]
Pseudo-HIPPOCRATES
Delatte: Anecdota Atheniensia et alia. Tome II Textes Grecs relatifs à l’histoire de science,
édités par A. Delatte, Paris (1939)
HIPPONAX
HOMER
Murray, A. T.: Homer: The Iliad, London 1924 [LOEB] (available online at the Perseus Digital
Library)
IAMBIC POETRY FRAGMENTS
West, M. L.: Iambi et elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum cantati. Oxford 1989-1992, 2 volumes
MATRO
Olson - Sens (1999): Matro of Pitane and the Tradition of Epic Parody in the Fourth Century
BCE. Text, Translation, and Commentary, S. Douglas Olson – Alexander Sens, Atlanta,
Georgia
NICANDER OF COLOPHON
Gow – Scholfield: Nicander. The Poems and Poetical Fragments, edited with a Translation
and Notes by A. S. F. Gow and A. F. Scholfield, Cambridge 1953
PHAENIAS
Hellmann – Mirhady: Phaenias of Eresus, edited by Oliver Hellmann and David Mirhady,
London and New York: Routledge 2015
Meyer, Ernst H. F.: Geschichte der Botanik, Erster Band, Königsberg 1854
C. Neri: “Spigolature leguminose (Phaen. fr. 48 Wehrli)” Eikasmos 9 (1998) 121–134
Wehrli, F.: Die Schule des Aristoteles. Texte und Kommentar, Heft IX Phainias von Eresos,
Chamaileon, Praxiphanes, Basel – Stuttgart: Schwabe 21969
PHILETAS
Kuchenmüller G.: Philetae Coi reliquiae, Dissertatio inauguralis, Berlin 1928
PHILO OF BYZANTIUM (MECHANICUS)

Thévenot M.: the first editor of Philo’s work in 1693, mentioned in the book (always in com-
parison to Whitehead’s edition) because his page- and line-numbers are still the standard
referencing system
Whitehead, D.: Philo Mechanicus: On Sieges. Translated with Introduction and Commentary,
Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag 2016 [Historia Einzelschriften, 243]
PHRYNICHUS THE ARAB
De Borries, J.: Phrynichi Sophistae Praeparatio Sophistica, Leipzig 1911
PLATO
Bury, R. G.: Plato. Timaeus. Critias. Cleitophon. Menexenus. Epistles, Cambridge, MA 1929
[LOEB] (available online at the Perseus Digital Library)
Shorey, Paul: Plato. The Republic, 2 volumes, London – Cambridge, MA 1935 (available on-
line at the Perseus Digital Library)
PLINY THE ELDER
Bostock and Riley: The Natural History of Pliny, translated by John Bostock, and H. T. Riley,
London 1855-1857, 6 volumes (available online at the Perseus Digital Library)
SAPPHO
Lobel – Page: Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta, edited by Edgar Lobel and Denys Page, Ox-
ford 1955
SOLON
THEOPHRASTUS
Amigues, S.: Théophraste. Recherches sur les plantes. Texte établi et traduit par Suzanne
Amigues, Paris: Les Belles Lettres 1988-2006, 5 volumes [we refer to this work with vol-
ume and page]
Hort, A.: Theophrastus: Enquiry into Plants and Minor Works on Odours and Weather Signs,
London – New York 1916 [LOEB]
Pötscher, W. (1964): Theophrastus. Περὶ εὐσεβείας. Herausgegeben, übersetzt und eingeleitet
von W. Pötscher, Leiden: E. J. Brill
THEOGNIS
THUCYDIDES
Crawley, R.: Thucydides. The Peloponnesian War, London – New York 1910 (available online
XENOPHANES
Diehl (ALG): see “Crates of Thebes”
XENOPHON
Brownson, Carleton L.: Xenophon. Anabasis, Cambridge, MA 1922 [LOEB] (available online
Miller, W.: Xenophon. Cyropaedia, London 1914 [LOEB], 2 vols (available online at the
Perseus Digital Library)
Bibliography – Studies
Alonso, Natàlia
2019 A First Approach to Women, Tools and Operational Sequences in Traditional Manual
Cereal Grinding. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 11(8): 4307–4324.
Amouretti, Marie-Claire
1986 Le Pain et l’huile dans la Grèce Antique: De l’araire au moulin. Centre de Recherche
d’Histoire Ancienne 67. Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 328. Les
Belles Lettres, Paris.
Andreou Stelios
2013 Smelly Barbarians or Perfumed Natives? An Investigation of Oil and Ointment in
Use in Late Bronze Age Northern Greece. In Diet, Economy and Society in the Ancient
Greek World: Towards a Better Integration of Archaeology and Science. Proceedings
of the International Conference Held at the Netherlands Institute at Athens on 22-
24 March 2010, edited by Sofia Voutsaki and Soultana Maria Valamoti, pp. 173-
185. Pharos Suppl. 1. Peeters, Leuven.
Arnott, William Geoffrey
1996 Alexis: The Fragments. A Commentary. Cambridge Classical Texts and Commen-
taries 31. Cambridge University Press.
Arrington, Nathan T., Domna Terzopoulou, Marina Tasaklaki, Mark L. Lawall, Demetrios
J. Brellas, and Chantel E. White
2016 Molyvoti, Thrace, Archaeological Project: 2013 Preliminary Report. Hesperia 85(1):
1-64.
Artiukh Lidia 2001
Asouti, Eleni
2003 Wood Charcoal from Santorini (Thera): New Evidence for Climate, Vegetation and
Timber Imports in the Aegean Bronze Age. Antiquity 77(297): 471 – 484.
Bedigian, Dorothea
2004 History and Lore of Sesame in Southwest Asia. Economic Botany 58(3): 329–353.
Bekiaris, Tasos, Danai Chondrou, Ismini Ninou, and Soultana Maria Valamoti
2020 Food-Processing Ground Stone Tools in the Greek Neolithic and Bronze Age: A Syn-
thesis of the Published Data. Journal of Greek Archaeology 5: 135–195.
Ben Brahim, Nejla, Daniel Combes, and Mohamed Marrakchi
2001 Autogamy and Allogamy in Genus Lathyrus. Lathyrus Lathyrism Newsletter 2: 21-
26.
Bender, Barbara
1978 Gatherer-Hunter to Farmer: A Social Perspective. World Archaeology 10(2): 204-
222.
179
Bitocchi, Elena, Laura Nanni, Elisa Bellucci, Monica Rossi, Alessandro Giardini, Pierluigi
Spagnoletti Zeuli, Giuseppina Logozzo, Jens Stougaard, Phillip McClean, Giovanna
Attene, and Roberto Papa
2012 Mesoamerican Origin of the Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is Revealed by
Sequence Data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(14): E788-
E796.
Blatter, Robert H. E., Stefanie Jacomet, and Angela Schlumbaum
2004 About the Origin of European Spelt (Triticum spelta L.): Allelic Differentiation of
the HMW Glutenin B1-1 and A1-2 Subunit Genes. Theoretical and Applied Genetics
108(2): 360-367.
Braun, Thomas
1995 Barley Cakes and Emmer Bread. In Food in Antiquity: Studies in Ancient Society and
Culture, edited by John Wilkins, David Harvey and Michael J. Dobson, pp. 25-37.
University of Exeter Press.
Brumfield, Allaire
1997 Cakes in the Liknon: Votives from the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore on Acro-
corinth. Hesperia 66: 147-172.
Butler, Ann, Zelealem Tesfay, Catherine D’Andrea, and Diane Lyons
1999 The Ethnobotany of Lathyrus sativus L. in the Highlands of Ethiopia. In The Ex-
ploitation of Plant Resources in Ancient Africa: Proceedings of the 2nd International
Workshop on Archaeobotany in Northern Africa, held June 23-25, 1997 in Leicester,
United Kingdom, edited by Marijke van der Veen, pp. 123-136. Kluwer Academic/
Plenum, New York.
Camp, John M.
2009 Οι αρχαιότητες της Αθήνας και της Αττικής (The Archaeology of Athens). Trans-
lated in Greek by Mary Kleopa. Kardamitsa, Athens.
Chondrou, Danai, Maria Bofill, Haris Procopiou, Roberto Vargiolu, Hassan Zahouani, and
Soultana Maria Valamoti
2021 How Do You Like Your Cereal? A Qualitative and Quantitative Use-Wear Analysis
on Archaeological Grinding Tools from Prehistoric Greek Sites. Wear 476: 203636.
Cleymans, Sam, Dries Daems, Bea De Cupere, Elena Marinova, and Jeroen Poblome
2017 A Taste of Time Foodways and Cultural Practices in late Achaemenid-early Hellenistic
Düzen Tepe (SW Anatolia). HEROM 6(1): 63-96.
Cline, Eric H.
2007 Rethinking Mycenaean Trade with Egypt and the Near East. In Rethinking Myce-
naean Palaces II: Revised and Expanded Second Edition, edited by Michael L. Galaty
and William A. Parkinson, pp. 190-200. Monograph 60. University of California/
Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles.
Cohn, Dan F., and Mordechai E. Kislev
1987 Human Neurolathyrism. Adler Museum Bulletin 13(1): 5-8.
Collard, David
2012 Drinking with the Dead: Psychoactive Consumption in Cypriote Bronze Age Mor-
tuary Ritual. In Food and Drink in Archaeology 3, edited by Dave Collard, Jim Morris
and Elisa Perego, pp. 23-32. University of Nottingham Postgraduate Conference
2009. Prospect Books, Totnes.
Craik, Elisabeth
2018 Hippocrates and Early Greek Medicine. In The Oxford Handbook of Science and
Medicine in the Classical World, edited by Paul T. Keyser and John Scarborough, pp.
215-232. Oxford University Press.
Czajkowska, Beata I., Amy Bogaard, Michael Charles, Glynis Jones, Marianne Kohler-Schnei-
der, Aldona Mueller-Bieniek, and Terence A. Brown
2020 Ancient DNA Typing Indicates that the “New” Glume Wheat of Early Eurasian Agri-
culture is a Cultivated Member of the Triticum timopheevii Group. Journal of
Archaeological Science 123: 105258.
D’Andrea, Catherine, and Mitiku Haile
2002 Traditional Emmer Processing in Highland Ethiopia. Journal of Ethnobiology 22(2):
179–217.
Dalby, Andrew
1997 Siren Feasts: A History of Food and Gastronomy in Greece. Routledge, London.
2003 Food in the Ancient World from A to Z. Routledge, London.
Dănilă, Alina
2017 Trade Names of Pastries: Pies. Studii si Cercetari de Onomastica si Lexicologie
10(1/2): 243-249.
Davidson, Alan
2002 The Penguin Companion to Food. Revised ed. Penguin, New York.
Dimakopoulos, Stavros, Athanasia Papamartzivanou, Eleni Manakidou
2022 Απεικονίσεις δημητριακών και προϊόντων τους στην αρχαία ελληνική τέχνη
(αγγειογραφία, μεγάλη ζωγραφική, πλαστική, μικροτεχνία, νομίσματα) (The
Representation of Cereals and their Products in Ancient Greek Art: Pottery, Wall
Painting, Sculpture, Minor Art, Coins).
Dorry, Mennat-Allah El
in press Forbidden, Sprouted, Stewed: An Archaeobotanical and Historical Overview of Fava
Beans in Ancient Egypt, in press.
Douché, Carolyne, Kyriaki Tsirtsi, and Evi Margaritis
2021 What’s New during the First Millennium BCE in Greece? Archaeobotanical Results
from Olynthos and Sikyon. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 36: 102782.
Dragana, Filipović
2015 “Granaries” of Early Iron Age Kalakača, Northern Serbia and the Issue of Archaeob-
otanical Taphonomy. Bulgarian e-Joural of Archaeology 2: 99-115.
Dvorak, Jan, Karin R. Deal, Ming-Cheng Luo, Frank M. You, Keith von Borstel, and Hamid
Dehghani
2012 The Origin of Spelt and Free-Threshing Hexaploid Wheat. Journal of Heredity
103(3): 426–441.
Ekroth, Gunnel
2002 The Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Hero-Cults in the Archaic to the Early Hellenistic
Periods. Kernos Suppl. 12. Centre International d’ étude de la Religion Grecque An-
tique, Liège.
Enneking, Dirk
1995 The Toxicity of Vicia Species and their Utilisation as Grain Legumes. Centre for
Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture (CLIMA), Occasional Publication 6. Univer-
sity of Western Australia, Nedlands.
Ertuğ, Füsun
2000 Linseed Oil and Oil Mills in Central Turkey: Flax/Linum and Eruca, Important Oil
Plants of Anatolia. Anatolian Studies 50: 171–185.
2004 Recipes of Old Tastes with Einkorn and Emmer Wheat. TÜBA-AR (Turkish Academy
of Sciences Journal of Archaeology) 7: 177-188.
2010 The Consumption of Flax: Linseed Oil Production in Turkey. In Tradiciones y Trans-
formaciones en Etnobotánica. Proceedings of the 5th International Congress of Eth-
nobotany (ICEB), September 2009, San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina, edited by
María Lelia Pochettino, Ana H. Ladio and Patricia M. Arenas, pp. 123–127. Red
Iberoamericana de Saberes y Prácticas Locales sobre el Entorno Vegetal (RISAPRET)/
Cyted, San Salvador de Jujuy.
Faklaris, Panagiotis, and Vasiliki Stamatopoulou
2010 Βεργίνα. Η αποκάλυψη της οχύρωσης στον αγρό Μπέλα (Vergina. The Uncov-
ering of the Fortification walls in the Field Bela). Proceedings of the Archaeological
Work in Macedonia and Thrace (AEMTH) 24: 113-120.
Flint-Hamilton, Kimberly
1999 Legumes in Ancient Greece and Rome: Food, Medicine, or Poison? Hesperia 68(3):
371-385.
Frachetti, Michael D., C. Evan Smith, Cynthia M. Traub, and Tim Williams
2017 Nomadic Ecology Shaped the Highland Geography of Asia’s Silk Roads. Nature
543(7644): 193-198.
Fuller, Dorian Q.
2011 Finding plant domestication in the Indian subcontinent. Current Anthropology 52,
Suppl. 4: 347-362.
Fuller, Dorian Q., and Emma L. Harvey
2006 The Archaeobotany of Indian Pulses: Identification: Processing and Evidence for Cul-
tivation. Environmental Archaeology 11(2): 219-246.
Garnsey, Peter
1988 Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World: Responses to Risk and Crisis.
Cambridge University Press.
Gennadios, Panagiotis
1997 Λεξικόν Φυτολογικόν (Phytological Lexicon). Reprinted. Trochalia, Athens. Orig-
inally published 1914, Leonis, Athens.
Georgescu, Irina
2020 Carpathia, Food from the Heart of Romania. Frances Linkoln, London.
Gkatzogia, Eugenia
2021 Οι κοινωνίες της Εποχής του Σιδήρου στην Κεντρική Μακεδονία μέσα από τα
αρχαιοβοτανικά κατάλοιπα: διατροφικές συνήθειες, αγροτικές πρακτικές και
χρήση του χώρου (Iron Age Societies in Central Macedonia through the Archaeob-
otanical Record: Food Habits, Agricultural Practices and Use of Space). PhD disser-
tation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
in press Προσεγγίζοντας τις χρήσεις των φυτών στη Χαλκιδική των ιστορικών χρόνων: το
αρχαιοβοτανικό υλικό από τις συστηματικές ανασκαφές 2003-2008 της αρχαίας
Ακάνθου (Approaching plant uses in Chalkidiki during the historic period: the archaeob-
otanical evidence from excavations at ancient Acanthos, 2003-2008). Proceedings of the
Archaeological Work in Macedonia and Thrace (ΑΕΜΤΗ) 30: 459–468.
Gkatzogia, Eugenia, and Kotjabopoulou, Eleni
2020 Archaeobotanical Evidence from the Acheron Oracle of the Dead: Rethinking Site
Interpretation through the Stored Food Products. In Des dieux et des plantes: monde
végétal et religion en Grèce ancienne, edited by Ariadni Gartziou-Tatti and Athanassia
Zografou, pp. 263–283. Kernos Suppl. 34. Presses Universitaires de Liège.
Gkatzogia, E. and Valamoti, S.M.

2021 Χρήσεις των φυτών μέσα από την αρχαιοβοτανική έρευνα στην αποικία της Αρ-
γίλου και σε γειτονικούς οικισμούς της Κεντρικής Μακεδονίας στους ιστορικούς
χρόνους (Archaeobotanical investigations on plant uses at the colony of Argilos and
neighbouring settlements of Macedonia in historic times). In Άργιλος, 25 χρόνια
έρευνας. Οργάνωση πόλης και χώρας στις αποικίες του βορείου Αιγαίου, 8ος-
3ος αι. π. Χ. (Argilos, 25 Years of Research). Proceedings of a conference, 26–27
May 2017, Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, edited by Z. Bo-
nias and J. Y. Perreault, pp. 253–278. Publications of the Canadian Institute in Greece,
No 13, Athens.
Grando, Stefania, and Helena Gomez Macpherson (editors)
2005 Food Barley: Importance, Uses and Local Knowledge. Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Workshop on Food Barley Improvement, 14-17 January 2002, Hammamet,
Tunisia. ICARDA, Aleppo.
Griffin, Audrey
1982 Sikyon. Oxford Classical and Philosophical Monographs. Oxford University Press.
Gruben, Gottfried
2015 Ιερά και ναοί των αρχαίων ελλήνων (Heiligtümer und Tempel der Griechen). Trans-
lated in Greek by Dimitra Aktseli. Kardamitsa, Athens.
Hadjisavvas, Sophocles, and Angelos Chaniotis
2012 Wine and Olive Oil in Crete and Cyprus: Socio-Economic Aspects. British School
at Athens Studies 20: 157–73.
Håland, Evi Johanne
2012 Dead Ensure the Food. Death and the Regeneration of Life Through Festivals, Food
and Social Gathering during the Ritual Year in Modern and Ancient Greece. Cosmos:
The Journal of the Traditional Cosmology Society 28: 309-346.
Halstead, Paul
1994 The North-South Divide: Regional Paths to Complexity in Prehistoric Greece. In De-
velopment and Decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age, edited by Clay Mathers
and Simon Stoddart, pp. 195-219. Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 8. J. R. Col-
lis, Sheffield.
1995 Late Bronze Age grain crops and Linear B ideograms *65, *120 and *121. The An-
nual of the British School at Athens 90: 229-234.
Halstead, Paul, Amy Bogaard, and Glynis Jones
in press Staple Grains in the Later Bronze Age of the (Southern) Aegean: Archaeobotanical,
Textual and Ethnographic Insights. In Cooking with Plants in Ancient Europe and
beyond, edited by Soultana Maria Valamoti, Anastasia Dimoula and Maria Ntinou.
Sidestone Press, in press.
Heiss, Andreas G., Ferran Antolín, Marian Berihuete Azorín, Benedikt Biederer, Rudolf Erlach,
Niki Gail, Monika Griebl, Robert Linke, Michaela Lochner, Elena Marinova, Daniel
Oberndorfer, Hans-Peter Stika, and Soultana Maria Valamoti
2019 The Hoard of the Rings: “Odd” Annular Bread-Like Objects as a Case Study for Ce-
real-Product Diversity at the Late Bronze Age Hillfort Site of Stillfried (Lower Aus-
tria). PLoS ONE 14(6): e0216907.
Hill, Stephen, and Anthony Bryer
1995 Byzantine Porridge: Tracta, Trachanás, and Tarhana. In Food in Antiquity: Studies
in Ancient Society and Culture, edited by John Wilkins, David Harvey and Michael
J. Dobson, pp. 44–54. Exeter University Press.
Hillman, Gordon C.
1981 Reconstructing Crop Husbandry Practices from Charred Remains of Crops. In Farm-
ing Practice in British Prehistory, edited by Roger Mercer, pp. 123-162. Edinburgh
University Press.
1984 Traditional Husbandry and Processing of Archaic Cereals in Recent Times: The Op-
erations, Products, and Equipment Which Might Feature in Sumerian Texts. Part I:
The Glume Wheats. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 1: 114-152.
1985 Traditional Husbandry and Processing of Archaic Cereals in Recent Times: The Op-
erations, Products, and Equipment That Might Feature in Sumerian texts. Part II:
The Free-Threshing Cereals. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 2: 1-31.
2011 The Grain from the Granary. In Well Built Mycenae: The Helleno-British Excavations
within the Citadel at Mycenae, 1959-1969, fasc. 16/17 - The Post-Palatial Levels,
edited by E. B. French, Susan Sherratt and Gordon C. Hillman, pp. 748-781. Oxbow,
Oxford.
Hort, Arthur (translator)
1916 Theophrastus, Historia Plantarum (Enquiry into Plants). The Loeb Classical Library
70, 79. Heinemann, London.
Hrisrova, Ivanka, Juliana Atanassova, and Elena Marinova
2017 Plant Economy and Vegetation of the Iron Age in Bulgaria: Archaeobotanical Evi-
dence from Pit Deposits. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 9(7): 1481–
1494.
Ingram, Christine, and Shapter Jennie
1999 The Cook’s Guide to Bread. Hermes House, London.
Ioannidis, Panos
2020 Risotti. Patakis, Athens.
Jarde, Auguste
1925 Les céréales dans l'antiquité grecque. E. de Boccard, Paris.
Jones, Glynis
1983 The Use of Ethnographic and Ecological Models in the Interpretation of Archaeo-
logical Plant Remains: Case Studies from Greece. PhD dissertation, University of
Cambridge.
1992 Ancient and Modern Cultivation of Lathyrus ochrus (L.) DC. in the Greek Islands.
Annual of the British School at Athens 87: 211-217.
Jones, Glynis, Paul Halstead, Kenneth A. Wardle, and Diana Wardle
1986 Crop Storage at Assiros. Scientific American 254(3): 96-103.
Jones, Glynis, and Soultana Maria Valamoti
2005 Lallemantia, an Imported or Introduced Oil Plant in Bronze Age Northern Greece.
Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 14(4): 571–577.
Jones, Glynis, Soultana Maria Valamoti, and Michael Charles
2000 Early Crop Diversity: A ‘New’ Glume Wheat from Northern Greece. Vegetation His-
tory and Archaeobotany 9(3): 133-146.
Karamitrou-Mentesidi, Georgia, Nikos Efstratiou, Małgorzata Kaczanowska, Janusz K.
Kozłowski, Yannis Maniatis, Antonio Curci, Stefania Michalopoulou, Anastasia Pa-
pathanasiou, and Soultana Maria Valamoti
2013 New Evidence on the Beginning of Farming in Greece: The Early Neolithic Settlement
of Mavropigi in Western Macedonia (Greece). Antiquity 87(336): Project Gallery.
http://antiquity.ac.uk
Karathanou, Angeliki
2009 Αρχαιοβοτανικές έρευνες στη νεολιθική θέση Κρεμαστή Κοζάνης (Archaiobotan-
ical Investigation in the Neolithic Site Kremasti of Kozani). Master’s thesis, Aristotle
University of Thessaloniki.
Karounou, Vasiliki
2014 Κερκυραϊκή Κουζίνα. Αναζητώντας τις χαμένες κανκιόφολες (Corfiot Cuisine. In
Search of the Lost Sunroots). Patakis, Athens.
Killen, John T.
2004 Wheat, Barley, Flour, Olives and Figs in Linear B Tablets. In Food, Cuisine and Society
in Prehistoric Greece, edited by Paul Halstead and John C. Barrett, pp. 155-173.
Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 5. Oxbow, Oxford.
Kislev, Mordechai E., Orit Simchoni, Yoel Melamed, and Lior Maroz
2011 Flax Seed Production: Evidence from the Early Iron Age Site of Tel Beth-Shean, Israel
and from Written Sources. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 20(6): 579-584.
Kiziridou, Thomais
2002 Ποντίων εδέσματα (Foods of the Pontic People). Kyriakidis, Thessaloniki.
Kochilas, Diane
2003 Η Ελλάδα της Γεύσης (The Greece of Taste). Ellinika Grammata, Athens.
Konstantinidou Vivi, and Michalis Pappas
2021 Romane Hamata (Foods of Roma). Kathimerini Newspaper, Issue ‘Gastronomos’
178 February: 58-84. Athens, Greece.
Kotsakis Kostas
2001 Mesolithic to Neolithic in Greece: Continuity, Discontinuity or Change of Course?
Documenta Praehistorica 28: 63-73.
Kouris-Blazos, Antigone, and Catherine Itsiopoulos
2015 Longevity in Elderly Greek Migrants to Australia May Be Explained by Adherence
to a Traditional Greek Mediterranean Diet? In Reading, Interpreting, Experiencing:
An Intercultural Journey into Greek Letters, edited by Michael Tsianikas, George
Couvalis and Maria Palaktsoglou, pp. 217-238. Modern Greek Studies Association
of Australia and New Zealand, Sydney.
Kroll, Helmut
1983 Kastanas. Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Make-
doniens 1975-1979: Die Pflanzenfunde. Prähistorissche Archäologie in Südosteu-
ropa 2. Volker Spiess, Berlin.
Krug, Antje
1997 Αρχαία ιατρική: επιστημονική και θρησκευτική ιατρική στην αρχαιότητα
(Heilkunst und Heilkult. Medizin in der Antike). Translated by Eleni Manakidou.
Papadimas, Athens.
Langridge-Noti
2015 Unchanging Tastes: First Steps Towards the Correlation of the Evidence for Food
Preparation in Ancient Laconia. In Ceramics, Cuisine and Culture: The Archaeology
and Science of Kitchen Pottery in the Ancient Mediterranean World, edited by Michela
Spataro and Alexandra Villing, pp. 148-156. Oxbow, Oxford. http://www.jstor.org/st
able/j.ctt19893rv.17
Laužikas Rimvydas, and Anželika Laužikienė
2019 Graikija. Alyvmedis, vynmedis ir laivas (Greece: Olive, Vine and Ship). Terra Publica,
Kaunas.
Liddell-Scott-Jones
2018 The Online Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon. Available at www. steph
anus.tlg.uci.edu/lsj. accessed [date]
Livarda, Alexandra
2012 The Archaeobotanical Evidence of the Late Bronze Age and Protogeometric Occu-
pation under the Roman Villa Dionysus, Knossos, Crete, and an Overview of the
Protogeometric Data of Greece. Annual of the British School at Athens 107: 189–
209.
Logothetis, Vasilios
1974 Η συμβολή της αμπέλου και του οίνου στον πολιτισμό της Ελλάδος και της
Ανατολικής Μεσογείου (The Contribution of Vine and Wine to the Culture of Greece
and Eastern Mediterranean). In Επιστημονική Επετηρίς της Γεωπονικής Σχολής
και Δασολογικής Σχολής του Αριστοτελείου Πανεπιστημίου Θεσσαλονίκης (Sci-
entific Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture and Forestry of Aristotle Univer-
sity of Thessaloniki) 17: 1-286.
Lowe, Nick J.
1998 Thesmophoria and Haloa: Myth, Physics and Mysteries. In The Sacred and the Fem-
inine in Ancient Greece, edited by Sue Blundell and Margaret Williamson, pp. 120-
146. Routledge, London.
Margaritis, Evi
2013 Annexe 3: Archaeobotanical Analysis Seed assemblage from the Refuse Pit Fo221.
In Samuel Verdan, Sandrine Huber, Patrice Méniel, Tatiana Theodoropoulou, Evi
Margaritis, Nigel D. Meeks, and Paul T. Craddock. Eretria XXII. Le sanctuaire
d’Apollon Daphnéphoros à l’époque géométrique, pp. 267-269. Infolio, Gollion.
2014a The Kapeleio at Hellenistic Krania: Food Consumption, Disposal, and the Use of
Space. Hesperia 83(1): 103-121.
2014b Acts of Destruction and Acts of Preservation: Plants in the Ritual Landscape of Pre-
historic Greece. In Physis: l’environnement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans
le monde égéen protohistorique. Actes de la 14e rencontre égéenne internationale,
Paris, Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art (INHA), 11-14 décembre 2012, edited
by Gilles Touchais, Robert Laffineur and Françoise Rougemont, pp. 279-285. Ae-
gaeum 37. Peeters, Leuven/Liège.
2016 Agricultural Production and Domestic Activities in Rural Hellenistic Greece. In The
Ancient Greek Economy Markets, Households and City-States, edited by Edward
M. Harris, David M. Lewis, and Mark Woolmer, pp. 187-204. Cambridge University
Press.
2017 Domestic and Ritual Use of Plants in Early Iron Age Greece. In Regional Stories To-
wards a New Perception of the Early Greek World, University of Thessaly Press, Vo-
los, 735-746. Acts of an International Symposium in Honor of Professor Jan Bouzek
Volos 18-21 June 2015, edited by A. Mazarakis Ainian, Alexandra Alexandridou
and Xenia Charalambidou, pp. 735-746.
Marinatos, S., Crete and Mycenae, Thames and Hudson, London 1960, p. 147, plates 103-
105
Marinova, Elena, and Soultana Maria Valamoti
2014 Crop Diversity and Choice in Prehistoric Soutehastern Europe: Cultural and Envi-
ronmental Factors Shaping the Archaeobotanical Record of Northern Greece and
Bulgaria. In Plants and People: Choices and Diversity through Time, edited by
Alexandre Chevalier, Elena Marinova and Leonor Peña-Chocarro, pp. 64-74. Early
Agricultural Remnants and Technical Heritage (EARTH): 8,000 Years of Resiliance

and Innovation, Vol. 1. Oxbow, Oxford.
Märkle, Tanja, and Manfred Rösch
2008 Experiments on the Effects of Carbonization on Some Cultivated Plant Seeds. Veg-
etation History and Archaeobotany 17, Suppl. 1: S257-S263.
Marston, John M., and Kathleen J. Birney
2021 Hellenistic agricultural economies at Ashkelon, Southern Levant. Vegetation History
and Archaeobotany.
Mayerson, Philip
2002 Three Pharaonic Crops in Ptolemaic Egypt: ὄλυρα (Emmer Wheat) and Maslins of
κριθόπυρον and ὀλυρόκριθον. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 141: 210-
213.
Megaloudi, Fragkiska
2004 Funeral Plant Offerings from Greek Historical Sites: A Preliminary Study. In Spatial
Analysis of Funerary Areas, edited by Ladislav Šmejda and Jan Turek, pp. 109-114.
University of West Bohemia, Plzeň.
2005a Burnt Sacrificial Plant Offerings in Hellenistic Times: An Archaeobotanical Case
Study from Messene, Peloponnese, Greece. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany
14(4): 329–340.
2005b Wild and Cultivated Vegetables, Herbs and Spices in Greek Antiquity (900 B.C. to
400 B.C.). Environmental Archaeology 10: 73-82.
2006 Plants and Diet in Greece from Neolithic to Classic Periods: The Archaeobotanical
Remains. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1516. Archaeopress,
Oxford.
Megaloudi, Fragkiska, Stratis Papadopoulos, and Marina Sgourou
2007 Plant Offerings from the Classical Necropolis of Limenas, Thasos, Northern Greece.
Antiquity 81(314): 933–943.
Melena, José Luis
1983 Olive Oil and Other Sorts of Oil in Mycenaean Tablets. Minos 18: 98-123.
Mendoni 2001
Micha-Lampaki, Aspasia
1984 Η διατροφή των Αρχαίων Ελλήνων κατά τους αρχαίους Κωμωδιογράφους (The
Nutrition of Ancient Greeks according to the Poets of Ancient Greek Comedy). PhD
dissertation, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens.
Jemal Mohammed, Semeneh Seleshi 1, Fetene Nega, Mooha Lee
2016 Revisit to Ethiopian traditional barley-based food. J Ethn Foods 3 (2016) 135e141
Moniaki, Aikaterini
2009 Η αρχαιοβοτανική έρευνα στον Άγιο Αθανάσιο Θεσσαλονίκης (The Archaeob-
otanical Investigation of Aghios Athanassios Thessaloniki). Master’s thesis, Aristotle
University of Thessaloniki.
Moritz L. A.
1955 Husked and ‘Naked’ Grain. The Classical Quarterly 5(3-4): 129 – 134.
Motuzaite-Matuzeviciute, Giedre, Richard A. Staff, Harriet V. Hunt, Xinyi Liu, and Martin
K. Jones
2013 The Early Chronology of Broomcorn Millet (Panicum miliaceum) in Europe. Antiq-
uity 87(338): 1073-1085.
Nassib A.M., S.A. Khalil, and A.H.A. Hussein

1991 Faba Bean Production and Consumption in Egypt. In Present Status and Future
Prospects of Faba Bean Production and Improvement in the Mediterranean Coun-
tries. Proceedings of the Zaragoza/Spain seminar, 27-29 June 1989, edited by José
Ignacio Cubero and Mohan C. Saxena, pp. 127-131. Options Méditerranéennes:
Série A. Séminaires Méditerranéens 10. CIHEAM, Zaragoza. http://om.ciheam.org/
om/pdf/a10/92605145.pdf
Nelson, Max
2005 The Barbarian’s Beverage: A History of Beer in Ancient Europe. Routledge, London.
Ninou, Ismini, Nikos Efstratiou, and Soultana Maria Valamoti
in press Grinding and Pounding in Early Neolithic SE Europe: Culinary Preferences and Social
Dimensions of Plantfood Processing. In Cooking with Plants in Ancient Europe and
beyond, edited by Soultana Maria Valamoti, Anastasia Dimoula and Maria Ntinou.
Sidestone Press, in press.
Orendi, Andrea, Achim Lichtenberger, and Oren Tal
2021 Food in a Colonial Setting: The Flora Assemblage of a Short-Lived Seleucid-Founded
Site in the Near East. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 30(5): 641–655.
Pagnoux, Clémence
2016 Émergence, développement et diversification de l’arboriculture en Grèce du Néoli-
thique à l’époque romaine: confrontation des données archéobotaniques, morpho-
métriques, épigraphiques et littéraires. PhD dissertation, Université Paris 1.
2019 Fruitiers connus et cultivés en Grèce du Néolithique à l’époque romaine. Confronta-
tion des données archéobotaniques et des sources écrites, ArcheoSciences 43(1), pp.
27-52.
Pagnoux, Clémence, Laurent Bouby, Soultana Maria Valamoti, Vincent Bonhomme, Sarah
Ivorra, Eugenia Gkatzogia, Angeliki Karathanou, Dimitra Kotsachristou, Helmut
Kroll, and Jean-Frédéric Terral
2021 Local Domestication or Diffusion? Insights into Viticulture in Greece from Neolithic
to Archaic Times, Using Geometric Morphometric Analyses of Archaeological Grape
Seeds. Journal of Archaeological Science 125: 105263.
Palmer Ruth
1992 Wheat and Barley in Mycenaean Society. In Mykenaïka: actes du IXe Colloque in-
ternational sur les textes mycénians et égéens organisé par le Centre de l’Antiquité
Grecque et Romaine de la Fondation Hellénique de Recherches Scientifiques et l’
École Française d’ Athènes (Athènes, 2-6 octobre 1990), edited by Jean Pierre Olivier,
pp. 475-491. BCH Suppl. 25. E.F.A., K.E.R.A., Athénes/Diffusion de Boccard, Paris.
Palmer, Carol
2002 Milk and Cereals: Identifying Food and Food Identity among Fallāhīn and Bedouin
in Jordan. Levant 34(1): 173-195.
Peña-Chocarro, Leonor, and Lydia Zapata-Peña
1999 History and Traditional Cultivation of Lathyrus sativus L. and Lathyrus cicera L.
in the Iberian Peninsula. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 8(1-2): 49-52.
Perlès, Catherine
2001 The Early Neolithic in Greece: The First Farming Communities in Europe. Cam-
bridge University Press.
Piergiovanni, Angela R., Rosanna Simeone, and Antonella Pasqualone
2009 Oriental Wheat an Underutilised Tetraploid Wheat Species. A Case Study: Nutritional
and Technological Traits of Kamut. Food 3(1): 33-38.
Popov, Hristo, Elena Marinova, Ivanka Hristova, and Stanislav Iliev

2018 Plant Food from the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Hilltop Site Kush Kaya, Eastern
Rhodope Mountains, Bulgaria: Insights on the Cooking Practices. In Social Dimen-
sions of Food in the Prehistoric Balkans, edited by Desislava Takorova, Philipp W.
Stockhammer, Maria Ivanova, Bogdan Athanassov and Vanya Petrova, pp. 263-299.
Oxbow, Oxford.
Primavera, Milena, Andreas G. Heiss, Soultana Maria Valamoti, Gianni Quarta, Maurizio
Masieri, and Girolamo Fiorentino
2019 Inside Sacrificial Cakes: Plant Components and Production Processes of Food Of-
ferings at the Demeter and Persephone Sanctuary of Monte Papalucio (Oria, Southern
Italy). Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 11: 1273–1287.
Procopiou, Hara
2003 Les techniques de décorticage dans le monde égéen: étude ethno- archéologique dans
les Cyclades. In Le traitement des récoltes: un regard sur la diversité,du Néolithique
au Présent: actes des XXIIIe Rencontres internationales d’archéologie et d’histoire
d’Antibes, 17-19 octobre 2002, edited by Patricia C. Anderson, Linda S. Cummings,
Thomas K. Schippers and Bernard Simonel, pp. 115–136. APDCA, Antibes.
Psilakis, Nikos, and Maria Psilaki
2001 Το ψωμί των Ελλήνων και τα γλυκίσματα της λαϊκής μας παράδοσης (The Bread
of the Greeks and the Sweets of our Popular Tradition). Karmanor, Herakleion.
Psilakis Nikos, Maria Psilaki, Elias Kastanas
2003 Ο Πολιτισμός της Ελιάς-Το Ελαιόλαδο (The Culture of the Olive-Olive Oil). Kar-
manor Publications, Herakleion Crete.
Rackham, Oliver
1996 Ecology and Pseudo-Ecology: The Example of Ancient Greece. In Human Landscapes
in Classical Antiquity: Environment and culture, edited by Graham Shipley and John
Salmon, pp. 16-43. Leicester-Nottingham Studies in Ancient Society 6. Routledge,
London.
Reingruber, Agathe
2018 Geographical Mobility and Social Motility in the Aegean before and after 6600 BC.
Praehistorische Zeitschrift 93(1): 1–24.
Renfrew, Colin
1972 The Emergence of Civilisation: The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millenium
BC. Methuen, London.
Robkin, A. L. H.
1979 The Agricultural Year, the Commodity SA and the Linen Industry of Mycenaean Py-
los. American Journal of Archaeology 83(4): 469-474.
Rotroff, Susan I.
2015 The Athenian Kitchen from the Early Iron Age to the Hellenistic Period. In Ceramics,
Cuisine and Culture: The Archaeology and Science of Kitchen Pottery in the Ancient
Mediterranean World, edited by Michela Spataro and Alexandra Villing, pp. 180-
189. Oxbow, Oxford.
Rowan, Erica
2019 Same Taste, Different Place: Looking at the Consciousness of Food Origins in the
Roman World. Theoretical Roman Archaeology Journal 2(1): 5.
Rudolph, Kelli C. (editor)
2017 Taste and the Ancient Senses. Routledge, London.
Ruibal-Mendieta, Nike L., Raoul Rozenberg, Dominique L. Delacroix, Géraldine Petitjean,

Adrien Dekeyser, Chiara Baccelli, Carole Marques, Nathalie M. Delzenne, Marc
Meurens, Jean-Louis Habib-Jiwan, and Joëlle Quetin-Leclercq
2004 Spelt (Triticum spelta L.) and Winter Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Wholemeals
Have Similar Sterol Profiles, as Determined by Quantitative Liquid Chromatography
and Mass Spectrometry Analysis. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 52(15):
4802−4807.
Samuel, Delwen
1994 An Archaeological Study of Baking and Bread in New Kingdom Egypt. PhD disser-
tation, University of Cambridge.
Sarpaki, Anaya
1987 The Palaeoethnobotany of the West House Akrotiri, Thera: A Case Study. PhD dis-
sertation, University of Sheffield.
1992 The Palaeoethnobotanical Approach: The Mediterranean Triad or Is It a Quartet?
In Agriculture in Ancient Greece: Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium
at the Swedish Institute of Athens, 16-17 May 1990, edited by Berit Wells, pp. 61-
76. Paul Åströms, Stockholm.
2001 Processed Cereals and Pulses from the Late Bronze Age Site of Akrotiri, Thera - Prepa-
rations Prior to Consumption: A Preliminary Approach to Their Study. Annual of
the British School at Athens 96: 27-40.
Savage, Geoffrey P., Grace E. Savage, Adrian C. Russell, and John P. Koolaard
2001 Search for Predictors of Cooking Quality of Marrowfat Pea (Pisum sativum L) Cul-
tivars. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 81(8): 701-705.
Sarker, Ashutosh, Ali Abd El Moneim, and Nigel Maxted
2001 Grasspea and Chicklings (Lathyrus L.). In Plant Genetic Resources of Legumes in
the Mediterranean, edited by Nigel Maxted and Sarita Jane Bennett. Current Plant
Science and Biotechnology in Agriculture 39. Springer, Dordrecht.
Sokolov, Raymond A.
1991 Why We Eat What We Eat: How the Encounter Between the New World and the
Old Changed the Way Everyone on the Planet Eats. Summit Books, New York.
Brian A. Sparkes, and Lucy Talcott
1977 Pots and Pans of Classical Athens. Excavations of the Athenian Agora, Picture Book
1. Reprinted. The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton. Orig-
inally published 1958.
Stavridou, Evangelia, Georgios Lagiotis, Lefkothea Karapetsi, Maslin Osathanunkul, and
Panagiotis Madesis
2020 DNA Fingerprinting and Species Identification Uncovers the Genetic Diversity of
Katsouni Pea in the Greek Islands Amorgos and Schinoussa. Plants 9(4): 479.
Tashi, Nyima, Tang Yawei, and Zeng Xingquan
2013 Food Preparation from Hullless Barley in Tibet. In Advance in Barley Sciences. Pro-
ceedings of 11th International Barley Genetics Symposium, edited by Guoping
Zhang, Chengdao Li and Xu Liu, pp. 151-158. Zhejiang University Press/Springer,
Dordrecht.
Thanopoulos, Ricos, Tilemachos Chatzigeorgiou, Konstantina Argyropoulou, Nikolaos-Mar-
ios Kostouros, and Penelope J. Bebeli
2021 State of Crop Landraces in Arcadia (Greece) and In-Situ Conservation Potential. Di-
versity 13(11): 558.
Thermou, Maria
2017 Στα Μαγειρεία των Αρχαίων (In the Kitchens of the Ancients). Olkos, Athens.
Thesaurus Linguae Grecae
2018 Thesaurus Linguae Grecae, a Digital Library of Greek Literature. Available at
www.stephanus.tlg.uci.edu, accessed [date]
Tiverios, Michael, Eleni Manakidou, Despoina Tsiafaki, Soultana Maria Valamoti, Tatiana
Theodoropoulou, and Eugenia Gatzogia
2013 Cooking in an Iron Age Pit in Northern Greece: An Interdisciplinary Approach. In
Diet, Economy and Society in the Ancient Greek World: Towards a Better Integration
of Archaeology and Science. Proceedings of the International Conference Held at
the Netherlands Institute at Athens on 22-24 March 2010, edited by Sofia Voutsaki
and Soultana Maria Valamoti, pp. 205-214. Pharos Suppl. 1. Peeters, Leuven.
Toulemonde, Françoise, Frédérique Durand, Laura Berrio, Emmanuelle Bonnaire, Geneviève
Daoulas, and Julian Wiethold
2015 Records of “New” Glume Wheat in France: A Review. Vegetation History and Ar-
chaeobotany 24(1): 197–206.
Tromaras, Leonidas M.
1991 Η Μαγειρική των Ρωμαίων (The Cooking of Romans/APICIUS: DE RE COQUI-
NARIA). University Studio Press, Thessaloniki.
Ulaş, Burhan, and Girolamo Fiorentino
2020 Recent Attestations of “New” Glume Wheat in Turkey: A Reassessment of Its Role
in the Reconstruction of Neolithic Agriculture. Vegetation History and Archaeob-
otany.
Valamoti, Soultana Maria
2002 Food Remains from Bronze Age Archondiko and Mesimeriani Toumba in Northern
Greece? Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 11(1-2): 17-22.
2004 Plants and People in Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece: An Ar-
chaeobotanical Investigation. British Archaeological Reports International Series
1258. Archaeopress, Oxford.
2007 Food Across Borders: A Consideration of the Neolithic and Bronze Age Archaeob-
otanical Evidence from Northern Greece. In Between the Aegean and Baltic Seas:
Prehistory Across Borders. Proceedings of the International Conference Bronze and
Early Iron Age Interconnections and Contemporary Developments between the
Aegean and the Regions of the Balkan Peninsula, Central and Northern Europe, Uni-
versity of Zagreb, 11-14 April 2005, edited by Ioanna Galanaki, Helena Tomas, Yan-
nis Galanakis and Robert Laffineur, pp. 281-293. Aegaeum 27. Université de Liège/
University of Texas at Austin.
2009 Η αρχαιοβοτανική έρευνα της διατροφής στην προϊστορική Ελλάδα (An Ar-
chaeobotanical Investigation of Diet in Prehistoric Greece). University Studio Press,
Thessaloniki.
2011a Σπόροι για τους νεκρούς; Αρχαιοβοτανικά δεδομένα από τη Μαυροπηγή
Κοζάνης, θέση Φυλλοτσαΐρι (Grain for the Dead? Archaeobotanical Remains from
Mavropigi near Kozani, site Fyllotsairi). AEAM (Proceedings of the Archaeological
Work in Upper Macedonia)1, 2009: 245-256.
2011b Ground Cereal Food Preparations from Greece: The Prehistory and Modern Survival
of Traditional Mediterranean “Fast Foods.” Archaeological and Anthropological Sci-
ences 3(1): 19-39.
2011c Flax in Neolithic and Bronze Age Greece: Archaeobotanical Evidence. Vegetation
History and Archaeobotany 20(6): 549-560.

2013 Healing with Plants in Prehistoric Northern Greece: A Contribution from Archaeob-
otany. In Von Sylt bis Kastanas: Festschrift für Helmut Johannes Kroll zum 65.
Geburtstag, edited by Claus von Carnap-Bornheim, Walter Dörfler, Wiebke Kirleis,
Johannes Müller and Ulrich Müller, pp. 479-494. Offa 69/70 (2012/2013). Wach-
holtz, Neumünster.
2016 Millet the Late Comer: On the Tracks of Panicum miliaceum in Prehistoric Greece.
Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 8(1): 51–63.
2017 Culinary Landscapes and Identity in Prehistoric Greece: An Archaeobotanical Ex-
ploration. In Balkan Dialogues: Negotiating Identity between Prehistory and the
Present, edited by Maja Gori and Maria Ivanova, pp. 169-194. Routledge Studies
in Archaeology 25. Routledge, London.
2018 Brewing Beer in Wine Country? First Archaeobotanical Indications for Beer Making
in Early and Middle Bronze Age Greece. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany
27(4): 611-625.
2023 Plant Foods of Greece: A Culinary Journey to the Neolithic and Bronze Ages. Ar-
chaeology of Food Series. University of Alabama Press.
Valamoti, Soultana Maria, and Stella Anastasaki
2007 A Daily Bread – Prepared but Once a Year. Petits Propos Culinaires 84: 75-100.
Valamoti, Soultana Maria, Eugenia Gkatzogia, Ivanka Hristova, and Elena Marinova
2018 Iron Age Cultural Interactions, Plant Subsistence and Land Use in Southeastern Eu-
rope Inferred from Archaeobotanical Evidence of Greece and Bulgaria. In Archae-
ology across Frontiers and Borderlands: Fragmentation and Connectivity in the
North Aegean and the Central Balkans from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age, edited
by Stefanos Gimatzidis, Magda Pieniążek and Sila Mangalağlu-Votruba, pp. 269–
290. OREA 9. Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna.
Valamoti, Soultana Maria, and Kostas Kotsakis
2007 Transitions to Agriculture in the Aegean: The Archaeobotanical Evidence. In The
Origins and Spread of Domestic Plants in Southwest Asia and Europe, edited by Sue
Colledge and James Conolly, pp. 75-91. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek.
Valamoti, Soultana Maria, Elena Marinova, Andreas G. Heiss, Ivanka Hristova, Chryssa Petri-
dou, Tzvetana Popova, Stavroula Michou, Lambrini Papadopoulou, Panagiotis
Chrysostomou, Pascal Darcque, Dimitrios Grammenos, Stanislav Iliev, Stavros Kotsos,
Chaido Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Krassimir Leshtakov, Dimitra Malamidou, Nikos
Merousis, Vassil Nikolov, Krassimir Nikov, Κrastina Panayotova, Aikaterini Papan-
thimou, Hristo Popov, Liana Stefani, Zoï Tsirtsoni, and Tatjana Kanceva Ruseva
2019 Prehistoric Cereal Foods of Southeastern Europe: An Archaeobotanical Exploration.
Journal of Archaeological Science 104: 97-113.
Valamoti, Soultana Maria, and Ioanna Mimi
2016 Preserving Pyrus amygdaliformis for Later Consumption: Archaeobotanical and
Ethnographic Observations. Poster presented at the 17th Conference of the Inter-
national Work Group for Palaeoethnobotany, 4-9 July 2016, Paris. Program and Ab-
stracts: 73.
Valamoti, Soultana Maria, Aikaterini Moniaki, and Angeliki Karathanou
2011 An Investigation of Processing and Consumption of Pulses among Prehistoric So-
cieties: Archaeobotanical, Experimental and Ethnographic Evidence from Greece.
Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 20(5): 381–396.
Valamoti, Soultana Maria, Aikaterini Papanthimou, and Angeliki Pilali
2008a Cooking Ingredients from EBA Archondiko: The Archaeobotanical Evidence. In Pro-
ceedings of the 4th Symposium of the Hellenic Society for Archaeometry, National
Hellenic Research Foundation, Athens 28-31 May 2003, edited by Yorgos Fakorellis,
Nikos Zacharias and Kiki Polykreti, pp. 187-194. British Archaeological Reports
International Series 1746. Archaeopress, Oxford.
Valamoti Soultana Maria, and Chryssa Petridou
2021 Μαγειρεύοντας με δημητριακά στις κουζίνες του Αρχοντικού Γιαννιτσών: μια
αρχαιοβοτανική διερεύνηση της φάσης IV (Cooking with Cereals at the Kitchens
of Archondiko Giannitson: An Archaeobotanical Exploration of Phase IV). Myrinni,
in press.
Valamoti, Soultana Maria, Chryssa Petridou, Marian Berihuete-Azorín, Hans-Peter Stika,
Lambrini Papadopoulou, and Ioanna Mimi
2021 Deciphering Ancient ‘Recipes’ from Charred Cereal Fragments: An Integrated Metho-
dological Approach Using Experimental, Ethnographic and Archaeological Evidence.
Journal of Archaeological Science 128: 105347.
Valamoti, Soultana Maria, Delwen Samuel, Mustafa Bayram, and Elena Marinova
2008b Prehistoric Cereal Foods from Greece and Bulgaria: Investigation of Starch Micro-
structure in Experimental and Archaeological Charred Remains. Vegetation History
and Archaeobotany 17, Suppl. 1: S265-S276.
Vassiliadou, Ioanna L.
2011 Αρχαιολογικά τεκμήρια για την αγροτική ζωή από την αρχαία Πιερία (Archae-
ological evidence about agricultural life from ancient Pieria). PhD dissertation, Aris-
totle University of Thessaloniki.
Ventris, Michael, and John Chadwick
1973 Documents in Mycenaean Greek. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press.
Weckerle, Caroline S., Franz K. Huber, Yang Yongping and Sun Weibang
2005 The Role of Barley among the Shuhi in the Tibetan Cultural Area of the Eastern Hi-
malayas. Economic Botany 59(4): 386-390. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4257021
Wilkins, John
2000 The Boastful Chef: The Discourse of Food in Ancient Greek Comedy. Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
2015 Medical Literature, Diet and Health. In A Companion to Food in the Ancient World,
edited by John Wilkins and Robin Nadeau pp. 59-66. Wiley- Blackwell, Oxford.
2015 Good Food and Bad: Nutritional and Pleasurable Eating in Ancient Greece. Journal
of Ethnopharmacology 167: 7–10.
Wilkins, John, and Shaun Hill
2006 Food in the Ancient World. Blackwell, Oxford.
2011 Archestratus: Fragments from the Life of Luxury. Revised ed. Prospect Books, Totnes.
Wilkins, John, and Robin Nadeau
2015 A Companion to Food in the Ancient World. Wiley- Blackwell, Oxford.
Zech-Matterne, Véronique, Margarete Tengberg and William Van Andringa
2015 Sesamum indicum L. (sesame) in 2nd Century BC Pompeii, Southwest Italy, and a
Review of Early Sesame Finds in Asia and Europe. Vegetation History and Archaeob-
otany 24(6): 673–681.
Zohary, Daniel, Maria Hopf, and Ehud Weiss
2012 Domestication of Plants in the Old World: The Origin and Spread of Domesticated
Plants in Southwest Asia, Europe, and the Mediterranean Basin. 4th ed. Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Layout - Printing

Publishers of Academic Books and Journals
32, Armenopoulou str., 546 35 Thessaloniki, GREECE
94, Solonos str., 106 80 Athens, GREECE
Tel. +30 2310 208731, +30 2310 209637, Fax +30 2310 216647
E-mail: info@universitystudiopress.gr
Website: www.universitystudiopress.gr
Discover the plant-based dishes of Ancient
Greece as revealed by ancient texts and
archaeobotanical remains.
The book unfolds an impressive variety
of culinary transformation of ancient field
crops and detects the antiquity of some
modern cooking ideas.
ISBN 978-960-12-2588-3

2022 - Food Crops in Ancient Greek Cuisine

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2022 - Food Crops in Ancient Greek Cuisine

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soultana-Maria Valamoti

UNIVERSITY STUDIO PRESS

UNIVERSITY STUDIO PRESS

UNIVERSITY STUDIO PRESS

     

   

Soultana Maria Valamoti (sval@hist.auth.gr) is Professor of Prehistoric Ar-

Vasileios Fyntikoglou (vasfynt@lit.auth.gr) is Associate Professor of Latin

Konstantinos Symponis is a Classical Philologist, graduate of Aristotle Uni-

Terms attributed to various Lathyrus species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Ancient authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

tion on poppy seed sweets in Lithuania was provided by Rimvydas Lauzikas

W hen a bowl of warm lentil soup or a slice of delicious ‘trachanópita’, a pie

discussed by Galen in the 2nd century Ad. We therefore limited ourselves to

Cereals as food: the archaeobotanical record

Figure 1.7 Charred T. timopheevii terminal Figure 1.8 Modern T. timophee-

occur as a main component of pit ﬁlls

Early historic periods

in the context of the wider Greek world, archaeobotanical publications over

iron Age free-threshing wheat and

Figure 1.38 Cereal food mass from the sanc-

palucio in italy (Primavera et al. 2019, Figure 1.37). recent archaeobotanical

Cereals in ancient Greek texts

Cereals: Sítos, σῖτος (barley and wheat)

Krithḗ, κριθή (barley)

Dioscorides (De materia medica 2.86.1).

Processing barley for food

Weckerle et al. 2005). A wide range of

call it χόνδρινος ([chóndrinos] made of chóndros, so a wheaten bread); obviously

in light of the above Theophrastean information, we have included pyrós,

Free-threshing wheats – Πυρός [pyrós]

Zeiá (also in plural, zeiai), zéa

The transformation of wheat grain into food

Cereal bakes: exploring the diversity of ancient Greek bakery

a garland mentioned above as well as the ritual bread kollyx mentioned by

Mediterranean and Afghanistan (Figure 1.49).

Food from other cereals: millets, oats and rye

Kénchros, κέγχρος (millet) and melínē or élymos (italian millet)

Concluding remarks on cereals

Pulses in the archaeobotanical record of Greece:

Figure 2.3 Modern lentil seeds of different sizes and colour.

Figure 2.13 Charred seeds of Celtic bean

Figure 2.16 Modern Spanish vetchling in

on Crete (Bennett 2016) showing that

Pulses in ancient Greek texts:

Phakós, φακός (lentil) and phakḗ, φακῆ (Lentil soup)

Terms attributed to various Lathyrus species

Órobos, ὄροβος (bitter vetch)

Písos, πίσος (also πισός) and píson (πίσον)

raamorgina.blogspot.com/2014/06/h.html). The ancient texts, however, unlike

[erébinthos] and fava-beans [kýamos]’ (transl. Olson-Sens). Kýamos was also

Erébinthos, ἐρέβινθος (chickpea)

Thérmos, θέρμος (lupin)

Phásēlos and dólichos: two terms that are difficult to identify

Seven millennia of pulse cultivation

Archaeolobotanical finds of oily seeds crops

plant that is used. Flax for example is

single seeds and ﬁnds of stored linseed

Figure 3.9 Modern plant of Lallemantia iberica, grown in a pot in Thessaloniki.

The consumption of linseed, poppy seed and sesame

Mḗkōn, μήκων (opium poppy)

Sḗsamon, σήσαμον (sesame)

very frequently in the known literature. According to Theophrastus’ Hist. Plant.,