A CITY IN TRANSITION URBAN CHANGES IN LATE ANTIQUITY AND THE CONTRIBUTION OF ARCHAEOZOOLOGY

A CITY IN TRANSITION URBAN CHANGES IN LATE ANTIQUITY AND THE CONTRIBUTION OF ARCHAEOZOOLOGY Word count: 29,329 Julie Reynaert Student number: 01400597 Supervisors: Prof. dr. Frank Vermeulen, Prof. Veerle Linseele A dissertation submitted to Ghent University in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Archaeology Academic year: 2017-2018 Copyright © 2018 The author and the supervisors give the permission to make this study accessible for consultation for personal use. All other uses fall under the limitations of the copyright, especially with regard to the obligation to explicitly mention the source when citing data from this study. The copyright with regard to the data mentioned in this study rests with the supervisor(s). The copyright is limited to the manner in which the author handled and described the problem. The author hereby respects the original copyright of each individually cited study and any potential accompanying documentation, such as tables and figures. PREFACE This thesis came into being due to a cooperation between different researchers from the University of Ghent and from the University of Pisa. Different people have provided guidance in the development and completion of this work and without them it would not have been possible for this study to come into existence. I would like to thank prof. Frank Vermeulen for the directions given at the start and at various points of my research and for advice in the development of certain ideas. The contact that he has made with the researchers of the University of Pisa provided the starting point for the rest of this study. Thanks go out to prof. Veerle Linseele for advice on the use of archaeozoological techniques and help with the processing of the studied archaeozoological remains. I am grateful for the information that she has provided to supplement and expand my basic knowledge of archaeozoology. I give thanks to prof. Simonetta Menchelli for the opportunity to study an archaeozoological sample from Roman Luni, which has provided the foundation for this study, for the aid given during the three weeks that were spent in Pisa to study this sample and for the help in the months thereafter. Thanks go out as well to the rest of prof. Menchelli’s team in Pisa for the assistance and information provided. I would furthermore like to thank prof. Claudio Sorrentino for the help given with the study of the archaeozoological remains in Pisa and for allowing me to make use of the reference collection of the Università di Pisa and of the laboratory for archaeozoology, including all needed material. Lastly, thanks go out to my family, for giving me time and space to work on this thesis and for providing help however and whenever it was needed. CONTENTS Abstracts ............................................................................................................................................ 1 List of Figures .................................................................................................................................... 2 List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 5 2. The Transition of the City in Late Antiquity ........................................................................... 9 2.1. Decline and Continuity ....................................................................................................... 10 2.2. Factors of Change ............................................................................................................... 16 2.3. Ruralization of the city ....................................................................................................... 27 2.3.1. Archaeological evidence for ruralization ........................................................................ 28 3. Luni on the Transition from Roman to Late antique Times: Study of the Archaeozoological Remains ........................................................................................................................................... 35 3.1. Luna, the City ..................................................................................................................... 35 3.2. Luni, Domus presso Porta Marina ..................................................................................... 40 3.3. Archaeozoological Material ............................................................................................... 42 3.3.1. Methodology .............................................................................................................. 42 3.3.2. Studied contexts, preservation and taphonomy ......................................................... 45 3.3.3. Information by species .............................................................................................. 49 3.3.4. Butchery practices and animal consumption ............................................................ 62 3.4. Results: the animals at Luni ............................................................................................... 65 4. A Broader Archaeozoological View: Contexts from Central Roman Italy ........................... 69 4.1. Currently Known Archaeozoological Contexts .................................................................. 69 4.2. Comparison of Archaeozoological Remains ...................................................................... 73 4.2.1. Presence of cattle, sheep/goat and pig on central Roman Italian sites ............................ 77 4.2.2. Mortality age of sheep and goat and secondary products ............................................... 88 4.2.3. Presence of chicken on central Roman Italian sites ........................................................ 90 4.3. Transition between Imperial Times and Late Antiquity: Archaeozoological Evidence ... 92 5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 95 Bibliography .................................................................................................................................... 99 Internetsources ............................................................................................................................ 115 Antique sources .......................................................................................................................... 115 Appendix 1. Catalogue of Studied Material .................................................................................. 117 Appendix 2. Skeletal Element Distribution ................................................................................... 143 Appendix 3. Butchery Marks ......................................................................................................... 146 Appendix 4. Measurements of Pig Remains .................................................................................. 149 Appendix 5. Archaeozoological Sites in Central Roman Italy ...................................................... 151 Appendix 6. NISP Data for Analysed Contexts ............................................................................ 156 Appendix 7. Percentages of Mammals Based on NISP ................................................................. 159 Appendix 8. Percentages of Mammals Based on MNI .................................................................. 162 Appendix 9. Percentages of sheep/goat, Cattle and Pig Based on NISP ....................................... 164 Appendix 10. Percentages of Sheep/Goat, Cattle, Pig and Chicken Based on NISP .................... 168 Word count: 29,329 ABSTRACTS A large amount of research has in recent decades been published about the period of Late Antiquity. Yet there still exist many conflicting opinions about this time, especially about transformations in the urban environment. This study aims to find out in what ways archaeozoology can contribute to the current knowledge of the city in Late Antiquity. For this, important and recent publications regarding Late Antiquity were examined to discern the current, varying theories amongst different scholars and to discern the most important factors of change between the Roman Imperial period and Late Antiquity. In order to connect this with archaeozoological evidence, a sample of animals remains from five contexts from Luni were analysed to gain an insight in the animal use in this Late Antique city. This was supplemented by an analysis of 127 known archaeozoological contexts form central Roman Italy, largely based on the work of Michael Mackinnon (2004). From this data, specific information was gained about the city of Luni and broad patterns for animal use in Late Antiquity could be distinguished. It was possible to make some observations about the Late Antique city, which should be further specified by analyses of specific regions, cities or animals, or by broadening the dataset to include the rest of Roman Italy and other periods. Keywords: Late Antiquity, Archaeozoology, Late Antique City, Luni, Central Roman Italy In recente jaren is uitgebreid onderzoek verschenen over de Late Oudheid, een periode waar ondanks dit onderzoek toch nog verschillende tegenstrijdige meningen over bestaan, voornamelijk over verandering in de stedelijke omgeving. Het is het doel van deze studie om te onderzoeken op welke manier archeozoölogie kan bijdragen aan de huidige kennis van de stad in de Late Oudheid. Hiervoor zijn belangrijke en recente publicaties omtrent deze periode bekeken om de verschillende wetenschappelijke theorieën te onderscheiden en om de meest belangrijke factoren te achterhalen die zorgden voor verandering tussen de Romeinse Keizertijd en de Late Oudheid. Om dit te koppelen aan archeozoölogisch bewijs werden vijf contexten met dierlijke resten uit Luni onderzocht, zodat een inzicht verkregen kon worden in het gebruik van dieren in deze Laat-Antieke stad. Dit werd aangevuld met onderzoek van 127 gekende archeozoölogische contexten van centraal Romeins Italië, grotendeels gebaseerd op het werk van Michael Mackinnon (2004). Van deze gegevens kon specifieke informatie verkregen worden over de stad Luni en konden algemene patronen worden onderscheiden voor het gebruik van dieren in de Late Oudheid. Observaties konden worden gemaakt over de stad in de Late Oudheid, welke aangevuld zouden moeten worden met onderzoek naar specifieke gebieden, steden of dieren, of met een uitbreiding van de dataset waarin andere gebieden, van Romeins Italië, of andere periodes worden opgenomen. Trefwoorden: Late Oudheid, Archeozoölogie, Laat-Antieke stad, Luni, Centraal Romeins Italië 1 LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 1. Late Antique houses built upon a first century CE street in Hierapolis, from Arthur 2012, 280, fig. 10.2. Fig. 2. Late Antique shops created in the portico of the classical stoa of Messene by building walls between the stoa’s columns, from Saradi 2006, 191, fig. 28a. Fig. 3. Late Antique wall in Athens built from remains of former public structures, from Saradi 2006, 368, 47a. Fig. 4. Stratigraphic section of the San Giorgio site in Bologna. Numbers 508 and 486 indicate a layer of dark earth that is situated above the Roman levels and under the Medieval and later levels, from WardPerkins 1997, 160, fig. 3. Fig. 5. Map of Late Antique (Lombard) Brescia with indication of open area for cultivation (striped area), from Brogiolo 1993, 87, fig. 62. Fig. 6. Map of Late Antique Ravenna with indication of churches (black dot), burials (cross) and inhabited areas (striped area), which shows that large part of the city was uninhabited, from Augenti 2006, 200, fig. 18. Fig. 7. Map of the ancient city of Luni with indication of uncovered archaeological remains, from Menchelli, Sangriso, Genovesi 2016, 104, fig. 1. Fig. 8. Current location of Luni in Italy and in the lower Magra valley, with indication of the surrounding mountains and close-by marble quarries, from Delano Smith et al., 84, fig. 1. Fig. 9. Two houses built over the former forum area of Luni in the sixth century CE, from Ward-Perkins 1981b, 93, fig. 1, 95, fig. 2. Fig. 10. Location of the site of Domus presso Porta Marina in the city of Luni, from Menchelli, Sangriso, Genovesi 2016, 104, fig. 1. Fig. 11. Domus presso Porta Marina, the excavated structures and layers, from Menchelli et al. forthcoming(a), fig. 1. Fig. 12. Worked bone fragment from US 1006, interpreted as needle or instrument, photograph by Julie Reynaert. Fig. 13. Measurements of pig bones in comparison to a wild boar standard. Fig. 14. Metatarsus, metacarpal, tarsalia, astragalus and calcaneum of a horse from US 1124, photograph by Julie Reynaert. Fig. 15. Recovered mollusc remains from US 1124: Murex sp., Cardium sp., Glycymeris glycymeris, Ostrea sp., photograph by Julie Reynaert. Fig. 16. Pig vertebrae, longitudinally chopped in half, from US 1124, photographs by Julie Reynaert. 2 Fig. 17. Ovicaprine atlas with a chop mark from US 1124, photograph by Julie Reynaert. Fig. 18. Distribution of consumed animals (sheep/goat, cattle, pig and chicken), based on NISP data, MNI data and total weight of the identified bones per species. Fig. 19. Relative meat contribution of sheep/goat, cattle and pig, based on meat weight estimates calculated with NISP and MNI data. Fig. 20. Comparison of the distribution of cattle, sheep/goat and pig in the city of Luni, based on the relative NISP percentages of these three groups of animals. Fig. 21. Location of the 99 analysed Roman sites in Central Italy. Fig. 22. Percentages of mammal, bird, fish, reptile and amphibian remains for central Roman Italian contexts, based on the NISP data. Fig. 23. Percentages of mammalian species for central Roman Italian contexts, based on NISP data. Fig. 24. Percentages of mammalian species for central Roman Italian contexts, based on MNI data. Fig. 25. Distribution of cattle, sheep/goat and pig on central Italian sites throughout Roman times, based on NISP from a total of 122 contexts. Fig. 26. Distribution of cattle, sheep/goat and pig throughout Roman times on urban 1, urban 2, rural and special sites in central Italy, based on NISP data from a total of 122 contexts. Fig. 27. Distribution of cattle, sheep/goat and pig throughout Roman times on sites located in Campania, Lazio en Toscana, based on NISP data from a total of 81 contexts. Fig. 28. Distribution of cattle, sheep/goat and pig from the Imperial period to Late Antiquity in the city of Alife, based on NISP data from 2 contexts. Fig. 29. Distribution of cattle, sheep/goat and pig from the Imperial period to Late Antiquity in the city of Ostia, based on NISP data from 2 contexts. Fig. 30. Distribution of cattle, sheep/goat and pig from the Imperial period to Late Antiquity in the city of Ferento, based on NISP data from 2 contexts. Fig. 31. Distribution of cattle, sheep/goat and pig from the Imperial period to Late Antiquity in the city of Luni, based on NISP data from 3 contexts. Fig. 32. Distribution of cattle, sheep/goat and pig from the Imperial period to Late Antiquity in the city of Naples, based on NISP data from 6 contexts. Fig. 33. Distribution of cattle, sheep/goat and pig from the Imperial period to Late Antiquity in the city of Rome, based on NISP data from 14 contexts. Fig. 34. Comparison of mortality data for sheep and goat for the Republic, Roman and Late Antique period, based on a total of 17 contexts. Fig. 35. Percentages of chicken on central Italian sites throughout Roman times. 3 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Studied archaeozoological material from Luni, Domus presso Porta Marina, divided per excavated context. Table 2. Domus presso Porta Marina, Number of Identified Animals and Minimum Number of Individuals per context. Table 3. Degree of preservation of the recovered archaeozoological remains, based on the Number of Identified Specimens and the number of teeth. Table 4. Degree of fragmentation of the archaeozoological remains, based on the total sample of recovered remains and the Number of Identified Specimens. Table 5. Fusion data for sheep and goat remains. Table 6. Dental data for sheep and goat elements. Table 7. Fusion data for cattle remains. Table 8. Dental data for cattle elements. Table 9. Fusion data for pig remains. Table 10. Dental data for pig elements. Table 11. Fusion data for horse remains. Table 12. Calculation of withers height of horse using standards given by May 1985. 4 1. INTRODUCTION Archaeology studies the remains of people in the past. Information can be gained through the study of former habitations, used tools or ceramics, or through the study of the animals that lived and were used on the sites of these past cultures. Archaeozoology is the discipline that studies the remains of these animals, and especially their bones, in archaeological contexts. It is a branch of archaeology that only gained importance and became more commonly in use from the 1960s onwards. For Roman period excavations it took at least another decade, sometimes two, before archaeozoology was incorporated in the general archaeological research and faunal reports became part of the publications (Mackinnon 2007). Around the same time, another discipline started to gain interest in the archaeological world. Unlike the years before, the period of Late Antiquity started to be appreciated as a period separate from previous Roman times and the later Middle Ages and came to be seen as an object of study on its own. Various studies were published that focused on those elements that were characteristic of Late Antiquity and differed from the previous and following periods (Bowersock, Brown, Grabar 2000, vii-xiii; Lewit 2001, 33-34; Dey 2015, 5). Despite these numerous publications, conflicting opinions still exist about this period and many aspects are not yet fully researched. Especially the fate of the city in Late Antiquity is heavily debated (see Chapter 2). It is the aim of this study to bring these two disciplines together and find out in what ways archaeozoology can contribute to the current knowledge of the city in the Late Antique period. In order to answer this question, many of the most important or most recent publications in the research field of Late Antiquity studies were read and analysed to discern firstly the varying opinions and diverging or common theories amongst the different scholars interested in this period. Secondly, the most important factors of change between the Roman Imperial period and Late Antiquity were determined. Attention was hereby paid to one development in particular, namely the process of ruralization where the classical Roman city is transformed over time into an urban environment with open spaces used for cultivation and rural activities (see Chapter 2.3). In cities outside of Roman Italy archaeozoology was able to identify and clarify this particular process. In addition to this literature study, analysis of an archaeozoological sample from the city of Luni, in northern-central Italy, was conducted. This sample consisted of animal remains excavated by the Università di Pisa from five Late Antique contexts dated between the fifth and the eight century C.E. Analysis of these remains has provided insight in animal use in the Late Antique city and 5 comparison of previously researched archaeozoological remains from the city has allowed for a comparison between the Imperial period and Late Antiquity. This research was supplemented by an analysis of known (and published) archaeozoological contexts from central Roman Italy, including the Late Antique period, in order to gain a broader archaeozoological view. These contexts, in large part derived from the study of Michael Mackinnon (Mackinnon 2004), were compared according to period, type of site and region in order to see if any patterns or trends could be distinguished for animal use in Late Antiquity. While missing the experience and knowledge of a learned archaeozoologist, it was attempted to the best of abilities to create a decent and integrated analysis of the studied remains, according to the knowledge, theory and time available. The period of Late Antiquity, as primary focus of this study, has been defined by different scholars in (slightly) different ways, concerning both terminology and chronology, changing according to the specialty, interest and perspective of the scholars (Cameron 1993, 7-8; 128). The beginning has been set in the third century CE, when many cities in the Roman Empire seem to have reached their most prosperous period, and where, towards the end of the century, the first changes can be seen that seem to be so characteristic for this period (Brown 1971; Liebeschuetz 1992; Cameron 1993; Bowersock, Brown, Graber 2000). According to others the beginning of the period and of these changes should be placed in the fourth century (Christie 2006; Cirelli 2014). The end of the period has been placed between the seventh and the eight century CE (Liebeschuetz 2001a), around 700 CE (Brown 1971; Ward-Perkins 2005) or around 800 CE (Liebeschuetz 1992; Bowersock, Brown, Graber 2000; Christie 2006). In accordance with these ideas it has been decided that for this work the period of Late Antiquity will be defined as ranging from 200 up and until 800 CE, as to include both the first signs and mechanisms of the changes concerning the period as the final products that resulted from these changes. This is a period with many changes, contrasting cultures and divergent ideas, for which it can be beneficial to look at the events that seemed to play in both the eastern and western areas of the former Roman world (Cameron 1993, 43; 128). It is for that precise reason that the second chapter of this work will give a broader view of the changes happening in the urban environments across different regions that once were under control of the Roman Empire, before focussing on a more local, Italian view in the third and fourth chapters. 6 This study was primarily born out of a personal interest in archaeozoology and in the information that can be gained from the analysis of the remains of past animals, in combination with a personal interest in the Roman period. When an opportunity was presented to study an archaeozoological sample from a Roman city in Italy, it similarly presented an opportunity to incorporate this research into a bigger framework and to delve into some broader problems and discussions regarding a period of which previous knowledge was only limited. The research of the archaeozoological sample, the incorporation of other studied contexts and the addition of an extensive amount of literature has created a study in which the archaeozoological remains can be seen and analysed in the light of changing circumstances in the city during the Late Antique period. 7 8 2. THE TRANSITION OF THE CITY IN LATE ANTIQUITY The classical Roman city can be defined by a series of characteristics that seem to have been common across the Empire. Equipped with a legal and administrative status, the city was responsible for the administration and taxes of its (sub)urban and rural territory, including the villages, towns and other habitations present in this area. The territory supplied to the agricultural needs of the city, allowing the urban citizens to participate in specialized activities rather than to provide for their own sustenance, creating an urban fabric with different functions unrelated to rural activity. Next to the administrative and legal role, these include religious, political, cultural, social and economic functions. In contrast to the rural territory, these functions and activities were executed in a distinctive way and concentrated in a greater number on a smaller area, with a higher degree of integration. In addition, the proportion of the population concerned with these activities was more elevated in the cities than in the countryside (Liebeschuetz 2001a, 2-3; Wickham 2005, 593; Zavagno 2009, 4-5; Esmonde Cleary 2013, 97-100; Dey 2015, 4-5). Concerning the physical layout, the Roman city had a fairly standard collection of architectural structures. A network of streets, aligned with porticoes, connected the forum to the public buildings concerned with the more official role of the city, like the curia and the basilica, and to spaces like the baths and the theatre where the citizens could come to enjoy their free time and take part in public activities. Many of these buildings were frequented and often heavily subsidized by the local elite (Cameron 1993, 158-159; Liebeschuetz 2001a, 2-3; Dey 2015, 4-5). Starting in the third and fourth century, changes started to occur in the layout and the concept of the classical city, in part related to the investment of the elite building and maintenance programs. By the sixth century, these changes could be seen throughout the Mediterranean region. (Cameron 1993, 43; 158-159; Liebeschuetz 1992, 3-4; Cirelli 2014, 39). As will be discussed in the coming chapter, these changes and the factors related to them are a significant aspect of the transitional Late Antique period. 9 2.1. DECLINE AND CONTINUITY Before continuing to the different factors of change in the Late Antique city, some attention should be given to the debate surrounding the period of Late Antiquity, and the fate of the cities, that has taken the interest of a great number of historians and archaeologists over the past decades. Traditionally, Late Antiquity was viewed as a period of decline. This vision was heavily influenced by the 18th century work of Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Gibbon 1906) in which the period between the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages is seen as a degradation of the sophisticated Classical world and an impoverishment of a rich material culture, first and foremost under influence of the barbarian invasions. It was a well-accepted point of view at this time, when imperial superiority and the inferiority of foreign cultures were as common day as they (supposedly) had been in Roman Imperial times, especially in Great Britain. Not only Gibbon, but other historians (like Robertson 1976) around the same time wrote about the loss of Roman civilization in this dark period after the fall of the glorious Roman Empire (Cameron 1993, 4-5; Lewit 2001, 33-35; Liebeschuetz 2001b, 233-238; Ward-Perkins 2005, 1-2). These views continued into the 19th and 20th century, where they were adapted into works like The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (Rostovtzeff 1926) and The Later Roman Empire, 284-602, A social economic and administrative survey (Jones 1964). Especially regarding the development of the ancient city after Imperial times, an overall decline and degradation seems to have been the common outcome (Rostovtzeff 1926; Abbott and Johnson 1926, 197-231; Jones 1964; Lepelley 1992, 51-52; Cameron 1993, 4-5; Kirilov 2007, 3-4; Zavagno 2009, 8). In general, the Roman period, and especially the Imperial period, was regarded as one of the heydays of ancient history, while the following centuries were seen as inferior, filled with trouble and crisis, unworthy of any attention or more detailed study (Lewit 2001, 33). This changed in the second half of the 20th century. While at first the idea of decline was readily accepted, now scholars were turning their attention towards the continuities of the Roman world into the Late Antique period, which came to be more appreciated and studied as a period on its own. From the 1980s onward Late Antiquity was recognized as an intriguing, dynamic period, with its own specific characteristics, either continued or transformed from elements of the previous Roman period (Bowersock, Brown, Grabar 2000, vii-xiii; Lewit 2001, 33-34; Dey 2015, 5). The general decline of the Classical city was challenged and instead focus was directed towards the signs of 10 continued existence of urban centres (Ostrogorsky 1985; Cameron 1993, 152-175; Zavagno 2009, 8). Studies like The World in Late Antiquity, From Marcus Aurelius to Muhammad (Brown 1971) and The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity, AD 395-600 (Cameron 1993) were developed with the Late Antique period as its primary subject and attention was especially given to the changes, transformation and continuities of this transitional time (Brown 1971; Cameron 1993, 5-6; 198-200; Ward-Perkins 2005, 3-4). A new project, The Transformation of the Roman World, funded by the European Science Foundation and initiated in the 1990s, offered the opportunity to scholars to attend conferences and workshops, work together on publications and in general contribute to the discussions surrounding different aspects of the Late Antique period. As the project title suggests, emphasis was again directed towards the changes and transformations in Late Antiquity and away from the idea of decline (Christie 2004, 1; Halsall 2007, 19-22). Whilst in previous times the archaeological evidence was either largely ignored, minimalistically used or interpreted without reference to any other possibility except that of decline (Jones 1964, vii; Lepelley 1992, 51-52; Cameron 1993, 4-5; Lewit 2001; Liebeschuetz 2001b, 233-238), it was with the increasing interest in the Late Antique period that the archaeological remains began to show their worth. As excavations in various contexts, both urban and rural, started to provide more and more Late Antique remains (due to the changed interest of the excavators), new methodologies were developed to better uncover and research this new data. Studies of pottery types and other material groups provided new points of reference for chronology and comparison of different sites. Information from excavations were analysed in light of known historical sources and data from older excavations was revised. The advances in non-invasive survey techniques offered new views of the historical countryside and the relation with the surrounding (urban) settlements (Cameron 1993, 67; 153-157; Ward-Perkins 1996, 9; Liebeschuetz 2001b, 233-238; Wickham 2005, 9-10; Christie 2006, 1; Zavagno 2009, 11; 18). Interest in the development of ancient urban centres continued to increase. Archaeological research of Roman and Medieval centres, without neglect of the intermediate period, provided various and interesting results. Amongst others, thought was given to the direct comparison and evaluation of Roman, Late Antique and Medieval urban levels and to the changes and repairs made to Roman public buildings in later periods (Cameron 1993, 6-7; WardPerkins 1997, 157; Lavan 2012, 649-650). With the rise of excavations, surveys and material research, an increasing amount of archaeological evidence became available to contribute to the 11 Late Antiquity debate. New information came forward about diverse aspects of Late Antiquity like settlement, exchange, and population, all of which, due to the large amount of evidence, could be used for comparison between different sites and regions and for more comprehensive interpretations of life in Late Antiquity (Christie 2004, 1-3; Kulikowski 2004, xvii; Esmonde Cleary 2013, 102). As the archaeological data of the Late Antique period was now available in such a significant amount, including data which clearly showed processes unrelated to decline, scholars came to realize that the idea of an overall crisis of civilization and urban life could no longer be fully accepted (Lewit 2001, 34). In recent years, both theories of decline and of continuity have been favoured and rejected by historians and archaeologists alike. On the one side of the debate there are those who argue to no longer use the term decline, saying it has a too strong cultural connotation, carrying with it the emotions and ideologies of the previous generations of scholars. When used to describe the developments of Late Antiquity, it too often automatically implies a shift towards something inferior. In addition, while the term can be used to describe local, specific and small-scale events, it is too frequently used as an explanation for the period as a whole, and to describe general, empirewide phenomena, without taking into account regional and local variations (Whittow 1996, 58; Cameron 2001, 238-239; Whittow 2001, 241-243). These scholars view Late Antiquity as a continuity of the previous Roman period, and a transition to the following Medieval times, with many of the developments, transformations and changes finding their origin in Roman institutions and ideas (Kulikowski 2004, xv-xvi; Dey 2015, 5-7). On the other side, there are those who argue that decline as a concept should not be blindly cast aside and is in fact valuable to use. Processes of change can contain both positive developments and factors of decline and it would be naive to ignore decline and put too much focus on the positive elements. For by doing this, Late Antiquity is seen as smooth, peaceful transition, with practically no elements of crisis, and as a consequence a false representation of the period is created. Several Roman traditions and ideals did in fact come to an end, and the period was not without its own troubles and problems. In contrast, one should not put too much focus on decline, as positive aspects and the rise of new elements will in turn go unnoticed (Liebeschuetz 2001a, 414-415; Liebeschuetz 2001b, 233-238; Ward-Perkins 2001, 239-241; Ward-Perkins 2005, 182-183; Wickham 2005, 1112; Halsall 2007, 19-22). In the eyes of most of these scholars, Late Antiquity was a chasm between 12 the Roman and the Medieval period, where old elements disappeared to create a space where new elements arose (Liebeschuetz 2001a, 414-415; Dey 2015, 5-7). Contributing to the ongoing discussions between different scholars are of course the problems that the evidence and the period bring with them. The changing and growing archaeological evidence requires constant revisions to older theories and hypotheses, as the interest in the period, quality of methods and amount of excavations increase. Unfortunately, interpretation of archaeological remains is not always straight-forward and can lead to different outcomes depending on the training, intellectual background, national origins and interests of the excavator. In addition, definitions of certain concepts (like town), are not always definite and can lead to diverse arguments (Cameron 1993, 6-7; 163-164; Ward-Perkins 1996, 4-16; Ward-Perkins 1997, 157; 176-171; Wickham 2005, 9-10). While either the vision of continuity or that of decline formed the framework of many publications of the past couple of decades1, recently a trend developed where the old debate was pushed to the side-lines and emphasis was directed to varying and contrasting developments of individual regions and cities. As the Roman Empire fell apart, the regions that once were part of this common unit came under control of different processes and developments. These developed at different times, under varying circumstances, resulting in a pattern of diverse regional situations throughout the area that once was part of the Roman Empire. It is sometimes problematic to gather all these varying trajectories into one single time period, but it can be said that these changes and regional variations characterise the end of Roman times and are one of the characteristics that make Late Antiquity such an interesting period. The study of these processes and trajectories, with focus on specific regions or development of individual cities, make it possible to distinguish different models and eventual similarities between different regions and bigger areas (Cameron 1993, 200; Lavan 2001b, 243-245; Destro 2004, 101; Ward-Perkins 2005, 171; Wickham 2005, 10-13; Christie 2006, 185; Poulter 2007, 2; Zavagno 2009, 14-15; 153; 170; Esmonde Cleary 2013, 101-102; Dey 2015, 8). 1 For a bibliographic overview of works regarding the Late Antique city, divided by theme and geographical scope of the publication, see Lavan 2001a. 13 In line of these arguments, and in order to offer a framework for the coming chapter, a broad overview of the regional developments in various regions of the Roman Empire, with emphasis on the urban environment, seems appropriate. Starting in the north-west corner of the Empire, Britain was one of the regions where the break with the former Roman culture seems to have been the strongest. During the fourth and fifth centuries AD, with Roman legions gone from the island, central authority and elements of Roman culture seem to diminish and with them the classical urban patterns. Many towns were abandoned or seemed to develop into small unorganized settlements, very different from the model of the classical Roman city (Wacher 1975, 411-422; Liebeschuetz 1992, 9; Reese 1992; Faulkner 2000, 25-50; Dey 2015, 8; 128). A similar pattern can be seen in the east, in the Lower Danube, Eastern Balkan region, where from the beginning of the third century the disappearance of Roman control and administration in the region and the invasion of new cultures from the east caused the diminution of Balkan cities, eventually resulting in the almost complete disappearance of urban settlement from the middle of the fourth century onwards (Liebeschuetz 1992, 9; Poulter 2007; Dey 2015, 8; 128). In the other Eastern provinces, cities seem, in generally, to have survived much longer. In the Aegean and Anatolia, due to the vicinity of Constantinople, cities developed with a certain prosperity during Late Antiquity. Anatolian urbanism suffered some decrease in the mid-fifth and sixth centuries, but many cities still existed in the seventh century, when the prosperity of the countryside seems to have taken the upper hand and the rural environment seems to have taken control of the urban landscapes. In the Aegean and the Near East, urbanism seems to have endured into the Middle Ages, although in the eight century clear changes and sometimes deteriorations can be seen in the Eastern cities (Liebeschuetz 2001a, 400; Zavagno 2009, 19; 169-170; Niewöhner 2012, 39-10; Dey 2015, 189-213). In Northern Africa, cities seems to have maintained their classical layout without many transformations into the fourth century, only changing with the arrival of the Vandals, when new cultural institutions and structures began to replace the traditional Roman systems (Lepelley 1992). The cities in Spain, during Late Antiquity subject to alternating periods of crisis and invasions and of peace and prosperity, were reduced in number but in general seem to have endured into later times. Of great influence were the political administration and ecclesiastical structures that needed the cities as centres of influence (Díaz 2000; Kulikowski 2004, 87; Martínez Jiménez 2013; Dey 2015, 154-159). In Gaul, cities equally seemed to have thrived under the influence of the church, the ruling political power and in some places the remaining influence of the 14 classical elite. Even though some centres disappeared, others were subject to many new (ecclesiastical) building activities or received a new urban status (Liebeschuetz 2001a, 82-89; Dey 2015, 176). Italy in general remained a region with a high degree of urbanization, although there were pronounced variations within different areas of the peninsula (Zavagno 2009, 19; Dey 2015, 178). In northern Italy most cities endured during Late Antiquity and into Medieval times, as they took part into the alternating conflicts between Ostrogoths, Byzantines, Lombards and Merovingian Franks, which resulted on the one hand into changed relationships and forms of control while on the other hand many elements remained unchanged (La Rocca 1992; Brogiolo 2000; Cirelli 2013). While regions such as Romagna in the north experience a period of prosperity in the fifth century (Cirelli 2014), in other regions like Marche, just to the south of Romagna, the urban environment seems to have diminished and many cities were abandoned between the sixth and the eight century (Destro 2004; Cirelli 2014). In the south of the peninsula, classical Roman cities seem to have experienced in general one of two developments, either an endurance into later times, often in relation with a revival of the urban environment, or a deterioration of the city’s fabric, followed by abandonment. These two different developments are at times even noted between two cities at a fairly short distance from one another (Raimondo 2006; Volpe 2006). It seems that developments can advance in a fairly similar way throughout an entire region, yet when attention is paid to more local circumstances, different trajectories can be distinguished for cities within the same regional area. 15 2.2. FACTORS OF CHANGE Different developments are noted as different regions are compared with one another. Even so, one general trend can be recognized when the urban environment of the Roman and Late Antique period is considered. The classical model of the Roman city seemed to have changed significantly throughout Late Antiquity. Although not every city endured over the course of the Late Antique period, in each of them adaptions can be seen in the physical layout of the urban fabric, in addition to a transformation of the functional role of the city and its place in the surrounding social network. Multiple and varying factors will have brought about these changes and caused the formation of the Late Antique city (Liebeschuetz 1992, 16-17; Cameron 1993, 157-162; Zavagno 2009, 15-16; 169; Dey 2015, 9-10). The most noted and especially most archaeologically visible changes are those transformations that happened in the physical layout of the cities. In general, the urban landscape was transformed and public and private spaces obtained different functions compared to the classical Roman city. More specific, several developments in the urban environment can be distinguished. First of all, the public buildings underwent a certain process of demonumentalization, where they gradually fell into disuse and in many cases were eventually deserted. Alongside the public buildings, central places like the fora eventually lost their importance and the material of their monumental structures was often extracted and re-used in other areas of the city. Buildings which can be associated with pleasure and comfort, like the theatres, stadia and the baths were adjusted for other uses, reduced in size, abandoned or, as often seen in the case of the large public baths, replaces by smaller, more private structures. A second phenomenon is the encroachment on public areas, roads and inside public buildings by new, usually small and fairly simple, constructions. These constructions generally include either private residential structures or small shops and workplaces, often built on the streets or the forum, or between the columns of a colonnaded street (see fig. 1 and 2). Additionally, varying structures were built within larger domestic structures to divide these into multiple, smaller living units for the occupation of different families. All of these new structures were in general constructed with the use of basic and crude methods, in simple, often perishable materials like wood, or re-used (stone) material from deserted buildings. The simple, small residential structures came to take the place of the larger, materially richer houses of the previous period, of which relatively few were newly built in the Late Antique period. Due to the overtake of the new structures on the streets and 16 public spaces, the original street grid started to transform which eventually resulted in a fragmentation of the classical urban fabric. What can also be seen in the Late Antique period is that more and more people were buried inside the city walls, often close to residential areas or even on previous public spaces. As this had not occurred before in many cities, it can be seen as a change of ideologies associated with the urban environment. As the public monumental structures started to deteriorate and the function of many public spaces was transformed, new monumental structures started to take their place. New building projects of the Late Antique period can in general be limited to a select group of building types. Most prominent of these are on the one hand the city walls, often built from material of the former public buildings, and on the other hand the churches and religious buildings. These religious structures were continuously built, new and in monumental style, throughout Late Antiquity and came to replace the deserted classical temples. Over time, as people started to move closer to the churches and the church grew in importance, the social centre of the city shifted from the classical forum to the neighbourhood of the church. Next to the religious buildings and the city walls, residences of varying kinds of rulers were one of the select types of buildings that were newly erected during the Late Antique period. Some classical elements of the Roman cities continued to exist, but most had attained a new function in the transformed urban fabric and few elements will have remained completely unchanged. While the overall trend of demonumentalization, encroachment, a shift towards simpler (residential) structures, changes in the urban network and the rise of churches and city walls can be seen in many different cities throughout the area of the former Roman empire, not one city will have experienced the exact same changes as another. Varying developments will have taken place, at different times, with different combinations and due to different factors. The variety of urban transformation, each city moving away from the classical Roman urban model in its own distinct way, is a process that distinguishes Late Antiquity from the unity of the previous Roman period (Cameron 1993, 129; 160-162; Ward-Perkins 1997, 164; Liebeschuetz 2001a, 29-103; 369-374; 387; Wickham 2005, 591-692; Christie 2006, 183-280; Saradi 2006, 148-208; Zavagno 2009, 6-7; 155; 171; Delogu 2010, 40-48; Lavan 2012; Esmonde Cleary 2013, 113-149; 431-435; Dey 2015, 9; 127; 135). The different factors that are currently seen as the most influential contributors to the changes in the Late Antique city, although not each of them applicable to every city and every region, shall now be discussed. 17 Fig. 2. Late Antique houses built upon a first century CE street in Hierapolis Fig. 1.Late Antique shops created in the portico of the classical stoa of Messene by building walls between the stoa’s columns Fig. 3. Late Antique wall in Athens built from remains of former public structures 18 The impact of the curial class and of its disappearance In Roman imperial times, the city’s administration was controlled by the curia, a city council made up of a group of local landowning elites, called the curiales or decuriones, with membership handed down to their successors over the generations. Alongside the city administration, the curia was responsible for maintaining the order and for the upkeep of the city, for executing the tasks set by the government and for the collection of taxes. For the curiales, the city was their main responsibility and concern. To show their involvement in the well-being of the city, generous contributions were made to various building projects, often in competition with their fellow curiales (Jones 1964, 724732; Whittow 1996, 56-57; Liebeschuetz 2001a, 3). This traditional model began to undergo several changes from the third century onwards, as financial, political and administrative reorganizations were implemented and reduced the previous autonomy of the curiales. Taxes were heightened and the greater part of the locally collected funds now fell directly under the control of the imperial government, instead of the local council. These developments reduced the resources of the curiales and provided them with a heavy burden as taxes became increasingly harder to collect. Over the course of the fourth century, the status of the curial class became increasingly unfavourable, causing multiple members of the curia to seek for ways to escape their hereditary role. Laws were implemented to ensure that the curiales would perform their tasks, yet many found alternatives that allowed them to evade the financial and social troubles of the fourth century curia. While some gained a place into the imperial service, bringing with it the chance to regain status and influence, others joined the church and the clergy or moved away to another city or to the countryside. As the amount of curiales was reduced and the funds of the remaining members of the curia were greatly diminished, less means were available for the funding of major building projects and the maintenance of existing public structures (Jones 1964, 69-70; 732-766; 1301-1302; Liebeschuetz 1992, 6-15; Cameron 1993, 168-169; Whittow 1996, 56-57; Liebeschuetz 2001a, 104-136; Dey 2015, 25-33; 130-131). During the fourth and the fifth century CE, a further development reduced the influence and status of the curiales. A change took place in local administrations as the authority of the curia was replaced by a new form of city government. While in previous times the city’s administration was run by the curiales, selected by the council on ground of their hereditary position, it was now ruled by a group of notables, selected by and with direct relations to the government. These imperial officials did not, in contrast to the curiales, have an official, collective obligation to the well-being 19 of the city and its citizens and therefore did not spend the same amount of expenses on the upkeep of the public domain and its infrastructure. The notables mostly gathered inside private residential buildings, causing the public buildings of the council, including the curia and the basilica, to become unnecessary and gradually fall into disuse. By the end of the sixth and the seventh century CE, the curial class seems to have completely disappeared (Jones 1964, 69-70; 737-766; Whittow 1996, 56-57; Liebeschuetz 2001a, 104-136; 401-408; Zavagno 2009, 13-14; Dey 2015, 25-33; 130131). Significant in this development is that as the manner in which the city was ruled changed, alongside with the kind of people who were in charge, the city was undoubtedly transformed, maybe not everywhere in the physical sense, but certainly in its internal administrative, social and cultural structure (Cameron 1993, 268-169). The role of the local elite If at first the curiales played an important part in the maintenance of public infrastructure, the new imperial officials equally played a role in the falling in disuse of different structures. With the disappearance of the curiales, new elite groups took their place, including the imperial notables and members of the church, and especially the bishops (Jones 1964, 760-766; Liebeschuetz 2001, 104136; Dey 2015, 25-33). The local elite have always been an important factor of development in Classical and Late Antique cities, amongst others influencing different networks of distribution and production with their interests and needs, at the same time drawing others, like craftsmen and merchants, to the urban centres. As the ideologies, and therefore the priorities, of the elite changed, so did the way in which their resources were spent, leading to transformations in the overall fabric of the city (Cameron 1993, 170; Wickham 2005, 595; Zavagno 2009, 6; 14; 155-156; 169; Martínez Jiménez 2013, 77). This phenomenon can be seen in the city of Buthrotum, modern Butrint in Albania, where during the third and fourth century CE, at the same time that the public spaces of the city, like the forum, started to fall into disuse, large elite residence were built, enlarged and vastly improved. Clearly the public infrastructure had lost in importance compared to the own private residences. This lasted until the end of the fifth century, when the private residences reduced in size and material richness (with the exception of imported products), and instead resources were spent on the erection of multiple religious buildings throughout the city’s territory (Bowden, Hodges 2012, 215-218; 232). 20 In the eyes of the elite and the current ruling authority, the cities fulfilled an important function as a place where their status and power could be displayed. This was true in Roman times and continued to be true in the Late Antique period. Cities which had a certain relation with important leaders or members of the elite, for instance as places of residence or capitals of a certain region, tended to receive more funding and in general had a higher degree of construction and conservation of public buildings. In cities without this connection, signs of abandonment and disuse of public areas are much more prominent (Delogu 2010, 46-47; Dey 2015, 11-15; 137; 150). In Spain, for instance, it can be seen that during Late Antiquity most physical changes to the cities occurred in periods of peace, when the Visigothic kings gave the towns new functions in their newly established states and used monumental buildings projects to support these functions and to display their own power as the new rulers (Martínez Jiménez 2013, 83-86). The influence of the Church With the diminishing power of the curiales, and gradually of other (government) officials, opportunities were created for the growing institution of the Christian Church to take part in the upper levels of the city’s administration and organization. Starting from the second century CE, the influence of the Church and especially of its local leaders, the bishops, started to increase. This was augmented when Christianity was accepted as a religion of the state in the fourth century CE and gained more recognition within the higher imperial networks. Over time, the members of the Church and the bishops became more involved in different aspects of the city and its territory and developed good relations with the leading members of the city. Gradually, as the different members of the local government and administration started to change and their numbers started to decrease, the Church started to take over several administrative tasks, causing their position of authority within the city to increase. By the fifth and the sixth century, the bishop had become in many cities one of the most (if not the most) influential and powerful persons. In many urban centres, attested amongst others in Italy and Gaul, the bishop was at that time seen as the leader of the city. Due to the expansion of influence and the changing relations with local members of government, the resources that previously went to the local council and administration now were in large part redirected towards the Church. In combination with the growing amount of land and property in control of the Church, this led to an increase of the prosperity of the local ecclesiastical institutions. These funds were on the one hand used to provide assistance to the local community and to people in need, and on the 21 other hand to contribute to public buildings activities, as the curial class had done before them. Not only a large amount of religious structures were erected, but the Church also took care of the construction of structures beneficial to the social wellbeing, like walls, baths, aqueducts and harbours (Cameron 1993, 165-170; Nicholas 1997, 17-18; Liebeschuetz 2001a, 137-168; Christie 2006, 74-182; Saradi 2006, 181-184; Dey 2015, 18). Regarding building activities, most attention must surely have gone to the construction of churches. In general, cities in Late Antiquity contained a large amount of churches that, as they were built, came to dominate the urban environment. At first most were situated on the outside of the towns, in the suburbs or adjacent to the city walls, as it was not always possible to obtain building space inside the walled area. As the significance of the Church in the social life of the citizens started to increase and the religious buildings became the new places for congregation and gatherings, focus from the citizens moved from the old classical centre towards the often suburban churches and other religious institutes, causing classical structures like the forum to lose its social importance. These classical places thus frequently fell into disuse and could be confiscated by the Church to be re-used or to serve as a surface over which to build new religious structures. It is therefore often that Late Antique churches can be found on the same spot as the Roman forum or an imperial palace. In some cities, the only substantial new buildings that were erected during Late Antiquity were religious buildings and especially churches (Cameron 1993, 165-166; Nicholas 1997, 17-18; Díaz 2000, 23-25; Kulikowski 2004, 215-255; Christie 2006, 74-182). Next to a transformation of the physical layout of the city, the new churches also provided a new point of attention for both the social and the mental world of the people. Not only did they cause the local citizens to shift their attention towards the new structures and sometimes even move residences closer to these (suburban) buildings, they often attracted pilgrims and travellers from other regions. Especially when churches started to accommodate relics and bodies of saints, more and more people were attracted to the churches. In particular in the East (in the homeland of Christ), many places became widely popular and even received funds from emperors to construct and enlarge religious structures. Due to this increased attention and an influx of many different kinds of people, cities gained in prosperity and sometimes even expanded beyond their former Roman limits (Harries 1992; Walmsley 1996, 127-128; Liebeschuetz 2001a, 387; Christie 2006, 74-182). With the new religion, the physical appearance of the city was changed and gradually the social world and views of the citizens were transformed (Cameron 1993, 165-166; Liebeschuetz 2001, 22 412). This changed way of life caused people to think differently about previously common institutions. Many of the former elements of the classical city, like the theatre and the amphitheatre, the public baths and the forum were viewed as indecent, profane and even sinful. These new ideologies influenced the continued disuse of these public places and in part caused them to become rejected as part of urban life (Cameron 1993, 165-169; Kirilov 2007, 18). Also the views of the local elite were altered, firstly as many members of the curiales sought to evade their administrative roles and enrolled into the institution of the Church, thereby causing the elite families to become more involved in the religious spheres (Jones 1964, 69-70; 737-757; Cameron 1993, 169-170; Whittow 1996, 58; Liebeschuetz 2001a, 104-136;). Secondly (partly due to the first phenomenon), because the most efficient way in which to express their status in this period was, instead of contributing to the classical public infrastructure, to fund the construction of religious structures and enrich the interiors by providing rich materials like marble and silver (Whittow 1990, 28-29; Whittow 1996, 58; Nicholas 1997, 17; Saradi 2006, 181-183; Zavagno 2009, 7). As in the previous paragraph, the local elite contributed to the transformation of the (Christian) urban fabric. New occupiers, invasions and warfare Throughout Late Antiquity, various regions of the former Roman Empire were subjected to invasions of new groups of people, coming mostly from northern and eastern regions and frequently bringing conflict and warfare. These developments often causes a decrease in the population, both in cities and on the countryside, along with changes in settlement models as habitations were abandoned, people moved to more secure locations and fortifications were built to defend against the invaders. In addition, some settlements and cities were deserted as the inhabitants were not able to maintain the structures and themselves with a reduced population or with the destruction caused by the conflicts. (Liebeschuetz 1992, 15-16; Cameron 1993, 3-4; 11; 159-166; 197-198; Halsall 2007; Kirilov 2007, 18-19; Giudice 2013, 8-9; Dey 2015, 134).2 In Italy, the invasions and accompanying conflict, especially during the fifth and sixth centuries, had various effects on the urban environment. Many cities were damaged, some partly abandoned leaving open, unused spaces, others completely deserted. Fortifications were built around the cities, in times including only limited parts of the city, at others moved towards better defendable positions. 2 An overview of the different invasions, the new occupiers and the different temporal developments in different regions can be found in Cameron 1993, Chapter 2, 33-56, and more in detail for the Roman West in Halsall 2007. 23 Often the threats and the associated developments led cities to shrink to the size of a simple village or to become a purely military settlement (Brogiolo 1993, 85-96; Christie 2012, 11-14). In the city of Interamnia, Teramo in Abruzzo, a fortification was built at the end of the sixth century, including only a limited part of the former urban area. Interestingly, the cathedral was included inside the fortifications, but the walls were built across the ancient forum area, reusing material from classical structures that had fallen out of use (Christie 2012, 11-14). This shows that times of insecurity can cause the urban layout to be transformed, dismissing former prominent areas and giving importance to the structures inside the new fortifications. Another effect of the arrival of new people is that they often had a different view on aspects of the urban environment than the previous inhabitants. In some cases the new occupiers had no affiliation with the existing urban centres, choosing to cast them aside in favour of their own kind of settlement. This kind of phenomenon can be seen for instance in Anatolia, where the arrival of the Turks meant that cities were constructed and developed in ways that were distinctly related to their cultural ideas, leading to a rejection of the former Roman elements (Dey 2014, 128-129; 212). In Africa, the new groups of Vandals did continue to occupy the former classical centres, but they had no interest in keeping the traditions and elements of the former system, as they had no connection or knowledge hereof, leading to a gradual deterioration of these classical elements (Lepelley 1992, 68). The arrival of the Lombards in Italy in the sixth century resulted in a similar development. The Lombard chiefs took their place as new leaders of the city and claimed its territory and its public buildings as their own property. Any structure that was of use in its current form was maintained, while others were transformed, amongst others into residences, and the ones that seemed unnecessary were abandoned or used as a source for building material. In addition new buildings were erected, in their own cultural style, burials plots were laid out inside former public buildings and buildings activities were primarily directed towards the upkeep of the city walls (La Rocca 1992). Natural factors Several natural factors can have an (partial) effect on developments and transformations in the urban environment. Climate changes, leading to periods of draught or, adversely, to times with an abundance of floods, can lead to a reduction in the food supply and a decline in the supply of water, causing famine, possibly followed by decease, and often forcing people to leave their current 24 habitations for places with more resources or to form bigger communities where resources can be shared in other to help one another. Other natural events, like earthquakes or volcanic eruptions, can destroy many structural elements of the city, which were not always restored. In Late Antiquity it is often seen that priority was given to the rebuilding of churches, relating to the changed religious ideologies, or to the renovation of the city’s fortification, in line with the insecurity of the times (while in some cases the invasions did leave no opportunity for the surviving population to restore the damaged structures). Depending on the individual local and regional conditions, a city was either able to regain itself after a large natural event, or was left in ruins. Mostly, it is seen that the inhabitants did as much as possible to salvage the damages and to be able to continue life in their city. Periods of prolonged trouble, in combination with economic, political or social changes, often had the most effect on the urban transformations (Liebeschuetz 2001a, 409-410; Saradi 2006, 4041; Vanhaverbeke, Martens, Waelkens 2007, 636-637; Christie 2012, 15-18; Martínez Jiménez 2013, 85). An event that is seen as characteristic of the Late Antique period is the emergence of the plague. From the first half of the 6th century CE till the second half of the 8th century CE, this disease spread across the former Roman Empire, appearing in different regions for varying periods of time and in varying intensity. Primary consequence was the devastating mortality and the extensive loss of population, especially in the urban environment where people lived in close quarters. In general, the plague and the declined population it itself did not have a major impact on urban transformations, but it made the city fragile, giving other factors like invasions, famine, economic and cultural crisis, the chance to do more damage to the urban infrastructure (Cameron 1993, 164; Liebeschuetz 2001, 53; 391-392; 409-410; Saradi 2006, 40; Kulikowski 2007; Little 2007; Christie 2012, 15-18; Martínez Jiménez 2013, 81-85; Dey 2015, 143). Conclusions Considering the above mentioned factors, it should be noted that an attempt was made to discuss the most common factors noted by scholars dealing with the change of the city in Late Antiquity and that probably not every single cause of change has been considered. It can be concluded, however, that not one factor was on its own responsible for changes in the Late Antique city, like the desertion or reuse of public buildings, the appearance of new, simpler, structures on former public areas, or the upsurge of new religious structures. Cities will each individually have had to deal with its own set of factors and experienced its own form of transformations. 25 As shown above, the physical changes in the city can reflect the underlying changes in the social, religious and cultural networks of the urban environment (Cleary Esmonde 2013, 104). It is clear that the traditional model of the Roman city, as described in the beginning of this chapter, had experienced multiple transformations and can even be said to have disappeared over the course of Late Antiquity. It is the question if the remaining cities and settlements can still be seen as urban centres. Although they were often smaller, with a reduced population and some of the structures less monumental than in previous centuries, it can certainly be said that they still had important functions as administrative centres, as residence of the local elite (in varying forms throughout time) or as military places. Whether this is sufficient to classify a city as urban, has to be evaluated in combination with regional elements, individual characteristics and the material remains (WardPerkins 1997, 162; Liebeschuetz 2001a, 5-6; Cirelli 2014, 39). What emerged from these transformations, varied in each city and each region, is an array of different kinds of cities which can be broadly grouped into a few categories, none excluded from variations and from overlap between categories. The first kind is, controversially, the continuous city, where almost no transformations in the Roman urban fabric can be noted and the classical structures were continued to be used in a great extent in the same way as before. Second is the shifted city, where the main habitation had moved to a different part of the city, as a result from a shift of attention (for example from the classical forum to the new church), or where a large part of the population had moved to a different place altogether, resulting in a new settlement on a new location. A third kind, partly similar to the second, is the fortified city, where the most important functions of the city are collected or moved within a walled area, often as a reaction to changed social and cultural circumstances. Fourth is the city of islands where the settlement is concentrated in different areas, often around important structures, belonging together but separated by open areas. Fifth and finally is the ruralized city where open spaces are deliberately retained within the former urban area, to be worked and maintained for agricultural cultivation (Brogiolo 2000, 312-313; Zavagno 2009, 11; 18). The ruralized city, and in part the city of islands, shall be the subject of the next chapter. 26 2.3. RURALIZATION OF THE CITY The process of ruralization, in the context of Late Antiquity, is the development of a classical Roman city into an urban environment with open spaces used for cultivation and rural activities. This development can both result in a ruralized city or a city of islands as previously described, or a variation hereof (Brogiolo 2000, 312-313). In general, the process involves the gradual disuse of certain areas within a city which are then reutilized as gardens for the cultivations of vegetables and other edible greens, as vineyards or as fields for the pasturing and maintenance of domestic animals. These areas could be situated all over the city, both in more secluded parts or just outside the city walls in the suburbia, as well as in the more occupied parts, right alongside the residential areas. A large part of the urban population was engaged in the upkeep of these rural areas, the maintenance of the gardens and the care of the animals. These were either citizens who had put their previous urban occupations aside in exchange for rural activities, or inhabitants from the (surrounding) countryside who had moved into the urban area and brought rural knowledge and techniques with them (Ostrogorsky 1959, 65; Mannoni 1983, 263; Bierbrauer 1988, 515; Wickham 1988, 650; Ward-Perkins 1997, 164; Brogiolo 2000, 312-313; Saradi 2006, 447-459; Baron, Reuter, Marković 2018, 2). It is sometimes argued that the simple construction techniques that characterize many residential structures in Late Antiquity, which are similar to techniques used in structures in the countryside, indicate a shift towards rural habits and beliefs (Mannoni 1983, 263; Saradi 2006, 447459). The contrast between the city and its surrounding rural environment seemed to have become less distinct than it had been in Roman times, as more rural activities were executed within the urban limits and amid previously important public structures, yet the city will probably have remained a separate urban centre within its rural territory (Wickham 1988, 650; La Rocca 1992, 173; Christie 2006, 259-263; Saradi 2006, 448; Baron, Reuter, Marković 2018, 2). The ruralization of the city should not necessarily be viewed as a negative development, a process where (parts of the) urban environment disappeared and gradually the rural environment came to take its place. Instead, it should be seen as an active evolution of the citizens towards a greater independence from the larger, changing system. The population sought to find ways to ensure a more reliable food-supply, to adjust quickly to changing conditions and to be able to rely, if necessary, solely on the local environment and resources. Therefore the techniques, activities and open areas that were at first situated outside the urban environment were now introduced inside the city, in many cases even inside controlled and secured sections (Curta 2001; Delogu 2010, 45-47; 27 Giudice 2018, 2; Baron, Reuter, Marković 2018). That this process can be seen as a choice of the citizens does not exclude situations where the population was forced to start cultivation within the city walls in order to survive in times of crises. In his Funeral Oration over Julian, Libanius wrote in the fourth century CE how war and famine cause a decline in population and a search for food, until "the cities themselves formed both city and farmland and the uninhabited spaces inside the defences provided land enough for farming” (Libanius Orations 18.35; Saradi 2006, 454). The process of ruralization, as in the transformation of the classical urban environment with the introduction of open areas and rural activities (Brogiolo 2000, 312-313), should not be confused with another process that is frequently labelled as ruralization. This is the process in Late Antiquity where the city’s elite seemed to have moved away from the city to take up residence in the surrounding rural environment. This would have been demonstrated by the large number of villas that seemed to have been built and enlarged during the third and fourth centuries CE (Liebeschuetz 2001a, 129; Chavarría Arnau 2004, 71; Kulikowski 2004, 85; Wickham 2005, 168-232; Dey 2015, 19-20; Niewöhner 2017, 46-48). Despite the fact that this process shall no further be discussed in this study, it should be noted that archaeological evidence is available that contradicts this theory (especially for Spanish regions) and challenges the idea of the elite moving away from the city (Kulikowski 2004, 130-133; 149). 2.3.1. Archaeological evidence for ruralization The ideas about ruralization have been primarily based upon archaeological evidence related to this process. Before individual examples of several cities will be discussed, some attention shall be paid to phenomena that archaeologists have noticed during excavations of Late Antique levels and that can possibly be related to ruralization. Often involved in discussions about ruralization are the so called layers of dark earth (terra scura in Italian or terres noires in French) that are frequently found above Roman levels and underneath Medieval levels, usually forming a separation layer between the two periods. The layers are composed of a dark, highly organic earth in varying levels of thickness and with little or no archaeological material. Despite multiple analyses, it is not yet certain how and from what material these layers are formed. It seems like there are different processes that can lead to the formation of 28 the dark earth layers and that they are not limited to the Late Antique period, or any period at all, or specifically to an urban environment. What is currently known is that they are often the result of changed human actions and specifically the changed use of a certain area, in particular when the layers are found above older, abandoned buildings. In general, they are interpreted as either the decayed remains of wooden structures, or as an area used for agricultural activities, like gardening or the keeping of animals, with the organic content of the layer derived from the plants, animals or from imported fertile soil. Although often, and especially in the past, viewed as layers of abandonment, and sometimes even used as an argument for ceased urban activities, the dark earth layers should rather be seen as an indication of changes in the way that the traditional urban environment was used (Ward-Perkins 1997, 160; Verslype, Brulet 2004; Christie 2006, 259-263; Halsall 2007, 357-359). Fig. 4. Stratigraphic section of the San Giorgio site in Bologna. Numbers 508 and 486 indicate a layer of dark earth that is situated above the Roman levels and under the Medieval and later levels Next to the levels of dark earth and open areas noticed inside Late Antique cities, other indications for increased rural activities inside the urban environment are noted, namely the appearance of agricultural tools and installations. Tools with specific functions related to agricultural and rural activities are found inside the city, indicating the use of these tools by the urban citizens. Discovery of cowbells inside the city walls could be an indication that cattle was kept within the city (Milinković 2007; Baron, Reuter, Marković 2018, 2)3. In addition, several installations like oil and wine presses, mills and ovens, of large size and with considerable production capacity, are found inside Late Antique cities, often on the location of former public buildings, inside private residences and encroached onto the streets and porticoes. While smaller installations did appear in Roman cities, the kind of installations found in Late Antiquity were previously only located in the suburbs or in the countryside (Saradi 2006, 447-459). The presence of these tools and installations inside the urban area show the increased desire of the citizens to be able to provide for themselves. 3 These finds have been attested in particular in the Balkan area. 29 Fig. 5. Map of Late Antique (Lombard) Brescia with indication of open area for cultivation (striped area) Fig. 6. Map of Late Antique Ravenna with indication of churches (black dot), burials (cross) and inhabited areas (striped area), which shows that large part of the city was uninhabited 30 Ruralization in the cities The process of ruralization has been attested for several Late Antique cities in Italy. The city of Brescia in northern Italy had transformed over several centuries from a classical Roman city to the seat of a Lombard duke. In the seventh century, the city consisted of a small population, mostly concentrated in the north of the settlement. In the eastern part, excavations have discovered several dark layers of earth, in some areas more strongly attested than others, with a high content of organic material. These layers were dated to the seventh century CE (sometimes continuing until the twelfth century CE) en were in multiple places found on top of the remains of earlier buildings. It seems that a large area in the eastern part of the Lombard town was open, agricultural ground (see fig. 5). This area is interpreted as land for the cultivation of crops and the keeping of domesticated animals. Soil would have been brought inside the city from the surrounding rural territory to create this area, which main function was probably to supply to the duke and the city’s elite (Brogiolo 1993, 88-96; Brogiolo 2000, 313-316; Christie 2004, 9; Christie 2006, 261). Late Antique Ravenna, located in north-east Italy, has been characterized as a city with different foci of settlement as both simple and more elaborated buildings were grouped around the churches and separated by open areas (see fig. 6), of which several were used for agriculture and gardening (Augenti 2006, 199200). A similar pattern can be seen in nearby Classe, where the population is concentrated around the churches and the harbour and where open areas near the residences are used for cultivation (Augenti 2012, 67). In sixth century CE Ascoli, located in the valley of the river Tronto in Adriatic Marche, large open areas have been recognized which were previously, in Roman times, occupied by different structures and buildings. These structures seem to have been fallen in disuse, amongst others due to Lombard invasions in the sixth century, and were re-used as gardens and cultivation areas. A possible stimulus for the re-use of these areas for cultivation, instead of the rebuilding of public and residential structures, was the poverty of the countryside at that time, caused by the ongoing invasions and warfare and accordingly the move of the rural population towards safer places (Giorgi 2004, 327329; Cirelli 2014, 43). In another city in Marche, Suasa, a large domus building achieved new functions during Late Antiquity, as a part of its monumental garden was transformed into a small cemetery, several areas within the houses were subdivided to create smaller residences and another part of the garden was turned into a cultivation area, probably for gardening and growing of vegetables (Bogdani, Giorgi 2010, 335-352; Giorgi, Lepore 2010; Cirelli 2014, 41). In Pisaurum, 31 modern Pesaro in Marche, new, smaller, walls were built at the end of the third century CE. Inside these walls, more open spaces were distinguished, which were used as burial ground or for cultivation (Vermeulen 2012, 87). Several examples of this ruralization process can also be attested for cities outside of Italy. In Caesarea, on the coast of modern Israel, an area in the south of the city had fallen into disuse, probably around the seventh century, possibly earlier, and the Roman buildings gradually fell into decline. The area was then reused for cultivation, as irrigation channels were laid out across the area and cultivation plots were created between the channels (Holum et al. 1992, 98-100; Liebeschuetz 2001a, 58-59). The city of Hierapolis in western Anatolia saw a transformation of its forum area during the tenth century CE. As the forum and surrounding areas were deserted, soil coming from the nearby hills was allowed to accumulate and fill the area, creating a new surface that could be used for agriculture. Some small water channels have been found close by the Nymphaeum which probably might have been in relation with some cultivation areas. Some agricultural installations, including wine and oil presses were installed and a couple of small residence have been excavated that probably belonged to rural workers (Arthur 2012, 288). In Calleva Atrebatum, modern Silchester in south Britain, evidence has been found for the keeping of animals inside and in the immediate neighbourhood of the town during the fifth to seventh centuries CE, including the procession of their bones for extraction of fats. In combination with the small-scale production of iron, this shows that the population were making use of local resources and specific skills to maintain their (small) habitation at a time when a large portion of the population had moved to other locations (Fulford 2012, 346). The case studies presented above show indications for ruralization, primarily based on structures and layers found (or absent) inside the city and their distribution compared to the previous Roman settlement. In addition to this, it is possible to find indications of ruralization with the incorporation of archaeobotanical and archaeozoological remains, in relation with the archaeological material evidence and some other techniques. The city of Justiniana Prima, at present an archaeological site called Caričin Grad in southern Serbia in the Balkans, was built in the sixth century and existed for a couple of generations before being deserted around 615 CE. Although not a former Roman Imperial city, interesting archaeozoological 32 and archaeobotanical remains have been able to prove ruralization in the Late Antique city. From the analysis of the animal remains and the comparison between the first phase of the city and the second, last phase, it was noted that the use of domesticated animals changed over time. While in the first period the citizens mainly used the animals for their primary products (meat, bones, fat and skin), this changed in the second period when more emphasis was put on milk and wool, secondary products. In the second period the sheep and goats remains were namely derived from animals which were kept alive until a later age (over 3 years) than in the first period, thereby allowing people to use their secondary products for a longer time. In addition, it was seen that percentages of cattle remains decreased over time as that of pig and especially sheep and goat increased. This is because sheep and goats could be kept closer or even inside the cities and were less demanding to maintain than cattle. The analysis of the archaeobotanical remains showed that a diversity of cereals were grown in the surrounding of the city and some structural installations indicate that these cereals were processed inside the city walls. This evidence gathered from Justiniana Prima indicates that a specific rural strategy was maintained inside and close by the city, allowing it to provide for its own resources without necessary dependence on a regional network (Baron, Reuter, Marković 2018). In Sagalassos, a city in southern Anatolia, research has provided much insight in the development of the city from Roman into Late Antique times. With its height of prosperity in the fourth century CE, Sagalassos witnessed a transformation during the successive centuries. As in other Late Antique cities classical monuments fell into disuse while churches took their place, fortifications were build, larger structures were subdivided and newer structures were erected on previous public places. At the end of the fifth century and during the sixth century CE transformations can also be seen in agricultural activities in the immediate neighbourhood of the city, along with altered strategies for (local) food productions and changed use of several areas inside the city. The city was gradually becoming more ruralized, a process that has been attested in several parts of the city thanks to extensive archaeological, archaeobotanical and archaeozoological research. Inside the city’s structures several indications have been found for a more rural use of space. Some water reservoirs were re-utilized as a dump of urban waste, including butchery refuse. Rooms inside formerly highstandard buildings were similarly used as a dumping space, while other were used for keeping animals or for the storage of animal manure. A public latrine of a large bathing complex was in the seventh century CE converted for the accumulation of waste material. With the use of different techniques, including faecal biomarkers, calcium analysis and macro botanical and pollen analysis, 33 the corresponding seventh century layers were analysed and it was discovered that the majority of the waste material consisted of the excrements of herbivores. Probably these excrements were collected from animals kept inside or close to the city, gathered in the former latrines to create a fertile compost that could thereafter be used to enrich nearby cultivation areas. Analysis of the archaeobotanical remains of the city have further showed that walnut and cereals, including millet and barley, were cultivated in the nearby suburbs or even within the city itself. Additionally, study has been conducted on the excavated animal bones. As animals take up certain chemical elements from their environment through their food and the pasture in which they are grazing, which then accumulate in their bones, it was decided to study if polluting human activities like metallurgy, garbage disposal and fertilization of the fields had any impact on the animals living in ancient Sagalassos. These analyses have shown that elements derived from these polluting activities, including arsenic, manganese, lead and zinc, were present in much higher amounts in the domestic animal bones during the fifth and sixth centuries CE than in the fourth century CE. This indicated that the animals were kept much closer, in the immediate environment or even inside of the city, where they would take up more polluting elements. When the percentages of the domestic animals were compared, it was also noted that the amount of cattle tended to decrease in the course of Late Antiquity, as the amount of sheep and goat increased. This means that not only were the animals held nearer to the city, there was also a higher emphasis on smaller, less expensive animals that could be easier transported or held within the urban area, and had fewer consequences if one was lost. Sagalassos turned more towards local resources that could be found, kept and maintained in close proximity, offering more security in less certain times (De Cupere 2001; Degryse et al. 2004; Vanhaverbeke et al. 2004; Vanhaverbeke, Martens, Waelkens 2007; Baeten et al. 2012). The above examples show that ruralization can not only be attested through the presence of open areas and agricultural structures within a city, but that the analysis of archaeozoological (and archaeobotanical) remains can give an indication of changing processes within the urban environment. In general, a strategy towards smaller animals, so more sheep, goat and pig instead of cattle, and towards the keeping of these animals nearby or within the city walls can point to an increased aspect of ruralization within a certain city. 34 3. LUNI ON THE TRANSITION FROM ROMAN TO LATE ANTIQUE TIMES: STUDY OF THE ARCHAEOZOOLOGICAL REMAINS Study of the Roman and Late Antique remains of Luni, both in older and in more previous years, has provided much information about the two periods and the changes between them (Frova 1973; Frova 1977; Potter 1992, 11; 73-74; Menchelli, Sangriso, Genovesi 2016; Menchelli et al. forthcoming(a)) and offers an opportunity to relate this information to the excavated archaeozoological remains. 3.1. LUNA, THE CITY The city of Luna was founded as a colonia on Ligurian territory in 177 BCE. Its location had already proved beneficial for the overtake of the Ligurian tribes, as a point of departure when travelling overseas to Spain and as a stopover for travellers along the Tyrrhenian coast. In Roman times situated in the region of Etruria, nowadays the city of Luni is located in Liguria, between Carrara and Sarzana (Pliny the Elder Naturalis Historia 3.5.50; Banti 1937; Frova 1973, 34-36; Potter 1992, 74). With its foundation, the city was laid out in an orthogonal street grid within the city walls, which form a more or less rectangular shape, save from the south-eastern corner (see fig. 7). The Decumanus Maximus was part of the Via Aurelia which connected Genoa to Pisa and Rome and ran from west to east through the city, passing along the southern edge of the forum. The Cardo Maximus ran in a north-south direction towards the Porta Meridionale and probably the city’s harbour, only to be interrupted in the middle by the forum. The centre of the city was occupied by the forum with its porticoes and by the Capitolium temple, situated just to the north of the forum and the Decumanus Maximus. To the south of the forum some residential and storage buildings and a small religious structure have been excavated. In the northern part of the city, a second larger temple, the Grande Tempio was located, while in the north-east corner there was a roofed theatre. Apart from the central forum area, another area of public importance was located in the west of the city, where excavations have revealed the location of the third-fourth century curia, which in later centuries was converted and rebuilt into a Christian basilica. To the east of the city, on the outside of the city walls, an amphitheatre was located (Banti 1937, 62-64; Frova 1973, 29-48 ; Potter 1992, 75). 35 Fig. 7. Map of the ancient city of Luni with indication of uncovered archaeological remains Fig. 8. Current location of Luni in Italy and in the lower Magra valley, with indication of the surrounding mountains and close-by marble quarries 36 Geographically, the city of Luni is located on a coastal area at the foot of the Apennine mountains, where the river Magra flows into the Mediterranean sea (see fig. 8). It was situated at the eastern side of the river and its harbour can probably be situated in one of the river bends, close by the sea (Banti 1937, 57-62; Delano Smith et al. 1986; Fazzini, Maffei 2000; Bini et al. 2009). The mountains, the coastal area and the river valleys provided opportunities and limitations for the inhabitants of Luni’s territory. In general, the area was a rough landscape with unfertile grounds, only suitable for agriculture (of cereals) in limited areas along the coast and in the river valleys. Not much agricultural production would have been possible in the area, except for the cultivation of olives, vines, fruit trees, pine and chestnut on terraced hills. Corresponding to this idea, habitation in the territory of Luni has been shown to consist mostly of small farms located on the hills between the second century BCE and the first century CE, probably for the purpose of growing vines and olives. On these rough grounds, and even higher up the mountain, sheep and goats could well be herded, as they are perfectly suited to graze on poor terrain (Delano Smith et al. 1986, 85-93; 107109). The products known from Luni correspond with these circumstances. According to Pliny the Elder the best wine in Etruria was made in the territory of Luni (Pliny the Elder Naturalis Historia 14.8.68), and a specialized cultivation on the hillsides for the production and export of wine, and possibly oil, is assumed (Ward-Perkins 1981a, 184; Delano Smith et al. 1986, 107-109). Another product mentioned by the classical authors are the enormous cheeses of Luni with a symbol of a half-moon. These were said to weigh around 450 kg and be able to feed a large amount of people. It is certain that these cheeses were bigger than the average Roman cheeses and probably these were produced with new high-temperature and high-pressure techniques so that they could be preserved for a longer period of time. As this cheese is listed by Pliny amongst other types of sheep cheese, these cheeses were probably produced from sheep’s milk (Pliny the Elder Naturalis Historia 11.97.241; Martial Epigrammaton Libri 13.30; Frova 1973, 58; Kindstedt 2012, 103-108). Next to these products, and the possible export of timber (Strabo Geographika 5.2.5; Frova 1973, 58), Luni was most renowned for its white Luni marble4. From around 40-30 BCE the marble which was amply present in the city’s territory was exported and used in high amounts in public building projects in Rome, other parts of Italy and in the provinces. This local resource contributed highly to 4 Also called Carrara marble, as the current marble quarries are situated in modern Carrara (Potter 1992, 11; 75; 166). 37 the importance of the port of Luni and thereby increased the prosperity of the city and its territory (Strabo Geographika 5.2.5; Banti 1937, 494; Frova 1973, 56-57; Ward-Perkins 1981a, 184; Potter 1992, 11; 75; 166). As the export and (overseas) trade of these products continued to increase and benefitted to the growth of the city, it became a prosperous urban centre which did not seem to be limited by its poor rural territory. This changed when in the first century CE wine from the provinces, especially Spain, came to dominate the market and the vine farms on the hills around Luni could no longer cope with the competition and fell into disuse. The use of Luni marble declined drastically in the third and fourth century CE and eventually also that source of income for the city fell away. Trade still continued as Luni remained an important centre on exchange routes from the northern inlands, through the Apennine river valleys, towards the coast, and for people travelling along the Tyrrhenian coast, but was more limited, small-scale and local than it had been in previous times. The city came to depend more on local, basic resources and the cultivation of vines on the hills was largely replaced by chestnut trees, which were probably of great importance to the city’s economy (Ward-Perkins 1981a; Delano Smith et al. 1986, 140-143). During the third and fourth century CE many public monuments of the city were deserted and stripped of their marble. The forum fell into disuse and, like other Roman structures, was gradually covered with an layer of earth. In the sixth century new residential structures were built over the former public centre of the city. These houses (see fig. 9) were made of perishable material, presumably wood, with a floor of yellow clay and walls supported by wooden posts and in some parts built upon older Roman remains of for instance the forum portico (Ward-Perkins 1977, 633638; Ward-Perkins 1981a; Ward-Perkins 1981b; Ward-Perkins 1997, 157-159; Potter 1992, 211212). In this period the city was part of the Byzantine territory and was a residence to a bishop. This lasted till 640 CE when the city fell under the control of the Lombards (Ward-Perkins 1981b; Potter 1992, 218-219; Fazzini, Maffei 2000, 247-249). The changes of new control in the seventh century were likely accompanied by natural events, as increased episodes of rain would have created flooding in several parts of the city, probably causing residences to no longer be accessible for habitation (Fazzini, Maffei 2000, 258-259). Luni continued as a settlement, and especially as a Christian centre with a bishop, during the following centuries, with its cathedral a point of attraction for the inhabitants of its territory. When the cathedral was moved to Sarzana in 1200 CE, habitation ceased to exist and the city was deserted (Ward-Perkins 1977; Ward-Perkins 1981a, 79; Delano 38 Smith et al. 1986, 82; Potter 1992, 218-219; Fazzini, Maffei 2000, 247-249). Not every part within Luni’s city walls has yet been researched or excavated but it would seem that habitation in Late Antique Luni was mostly focused around the area of the cathedral, while some other residences and buildings were loosely scattered over the remaining part of the, largely unoccupied, urban area (Ward-Perkins 1977, 633-638; Ward-Perkins 1981a, 79; Potter 1992, 218-219). Fig. 7. Two houses built over the former forum area of Luni in the sixth century CE 39 3.2. LUNI, DOMUS PRESSO PORTA MARINA The archaeozoological material under consideration for this study is part of a larger selection of material (both osteological and non-osteological) collected during excavations carried out by the Università di Pisa in Luni. These excavations, initiated in 2014 and currently still in progress, are situated in the south-east sector of the Roman city, close by the Porta a Mare and possibly the city’s harbour, and directly to the east of the Cardo Maximus, an area with little previous research. In this location, named Le Domus presso Porta Marina, two domus were unearthed, both built at the beginning of the first century BCE (see fig. 10-11; Menchelli, Sangriso, Genovesi 2016; Menchelli et al. forthcoming(a)). Of the northern domus (A) a cubiculum (A1), part of an ala (A2) and an atrium (A3) have been identified. Structural reorganizations between the fourth and fifth century CE have destroyed some of the original remains of the domus. These reorganizations include the enlargement and modification of the impluvium in a large rectangular basin (with the original floor of the impluvium still in situ), the addition of a round cistern in the cubiculum and the connection of these two structures with a pipe system. This new installation has been interpreted as possibly belonging to a fullonica, a place for the cleaning and processing of clothes, changing the function of the house from residential to productional. In the sixth century CE the installation fell out of use and was covered by several levelling layers, on top of which a wall and a wooden structure were built (Menchelli et al. forthcoming(a)). The southern domus (B) was slightly bigger and better preserved than its neighbour. A total of seven rooms have been excavated, amongst which an atrium (B4) and a tablinum (B7) with mosaic floors have been identified. As with the northern domus several changes were made to the house structures over the course of the centuries. In the tablinum a channel and a pit were cut through the mosaic and a wall was built on top of it. These changes, of which the chronology is not yet clear, probably indicate the transformation of the room in an outside area. In Late Antiquity a large structure, still partly excavated, was built on top of the atrium. With walls with a thickness of 120 cm and a small adjacent room, the structure has been interpreted as a tower, probably with a defensive function. Several ground-levelling layers have been excavated in the southern domus that seem to be contemporary with the construction and/or use of this tower. Activity, both in the area of the southern and the northern domus seems to end in the seventh – beginning of the eight century (Menchelli et al. forthcoming(a)). 40 Fig. 8. Location of the site of Domus presso Porta Marina in the city of Luni Fig. 9. Domus presso Porta Marina, the excavated structures and layers 41 3.3. ARCHAEOZOOLOGICAL MATERIAL 3.3.1. Methodology The animal remains from the excavation at Domus presso Porta Marina were collected by hand and carefully excavated with trowels. Except from the too small and fragmented items, all bone material was collected. The studied material comes from five different contexts (which are discussed in more detail below), of which only the youngest layer (US 1006) could have had some later disturbances. All of the other contexts were found undisturbed (Personal communication prof. Menchelli). Following table shows the amount of material studied, divided in the amount of non-identifiable elements and the number of identified specimens. Stratigraphic unit (US*) Non-identifiable elements Number of Identified Specimens (NISP) Total 1135 5 12 17 1194 1 5 6 1156 144 84 228 1124 279 449 728 1006 347 348 697 Total 776 898 1,674 Table 1. Studied archaeozoological material from Luni, Domus presso Porta Marina, divided per excavated context. *US is the context, the stratigraphic unit (unità stratigrafica in Italian), to which the material belongs For the identification of the material, use was made of the archaeozoological reference collection of the Università di Pisa and the work of Robert Barone (Barone 1980). Of the total amount (N=1,674) of archaeozoological elements, 53.6% could be identified as belonging to a certain class or species5. The non-identifiable elements are those animal remains that were too fragmented and did not have any morphological features to allow recognition of which class it belonged to (Reitz, Wing 2008, 164). Different methods were used for the quantification of the archaeozoological remains. Firstly, the Number of Identified Specimens (NISP), the number of bone fragments that could be identified (Reitz, Wing 2008, 202-205; Groot 2010, 109-110), was counted. Each fragment was seen as a 5 Of the total NISP of 900, 15 remains could not be identified as belonging to a certain species, but only as fish, bird or mammal remains. 42 single specimen, except when they could be reconstructed with another fragment to form a larger piece of bone6. Of the identified species, the Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI), the minimal amount of individual animals that will have contributed to the creation of the excavated remains, was calculated. As many animals have a right bone and a left bone for specific skeletal elements (for instance one humerus in the left leg and one humerus in the right leg), it is possible to calculate if the bones of more than one animal are present in an archaeozoological sample. Two left specimens of a certain bone will indicate that at least two animals were present (Reitz, Wing 2008, 205-210; Groot 2010, 110-11). For the MNI calculation, all fragments of a certain species were analysed per context. The skeletal elements per species were separated and for each element the amount of right and left fragments was counted. Attention was hereby paid to fragments that could have belonged to the same bone, including the amount of separate distal and proximal ends. The NISP and MNI data for each context is represented in table 2. Lastly, all bones were weighed and measured. The measurements were taken according to the criteria described by Von den Driesch 1976. The specific information per identified specimen, including weight, measurements and conservation, can be found in Appendix 1. Criteria for the determination of the mortality age of the animals was based on Silver 1963 for the fusion data and Grant 1982 and Higham 1967 for the dental data. The fusion data for sheep/goat, cattle and pig were categorized according to the fusion age categories used by Michael Mackinnon (Mackinnon 2004, 239, Appendix 19). These categories are based on the ages of fusion listed by Silver (1963). Most of the ageing data, especially the dental data, was based on a limited amount of specimens. Therefore too little information was available to allow for any seasonal patterns of mortality. No pathological conditions could be noted on the bones, probably due to the limited expertise in this area. Due to limited research time and inadequate experience, it was not possible to make a clear differentiation between goat and sheep remains, with the exception of some horn fragments. It was therefore decided, as done more often in archaeozoological research for Roman Italian sites (Mackinnon 2004, 102), to take these two species together as one group of ovicaprines. 6 In that case, the two fragments would be glued together as one. 43 US 1135 Molluscs Murex sp. Cardium sp. Glycymeris Glycymeris Ostrea sp. Unidentified mollusks Fish Unidentified fish Birds Chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus) Galliforms (Galliformes sp.) Unidentified birds Microfauna Mouse Wild mammals Fallow Deer (Dama dama) Roe Deer (Capreolus capreolus) Domesticated mammals Cat (Felis catus) Dog (Canis familiaris) Donkey (Equus asinus) Horse (Equus caballus) Pig (Sus domesticus) Cattle (Bos Taurus) Sheep / Goat (Ovis aries / Capra hircus) Sheep (Ovis aries) Goat (Capra hircus) Unidentified mammals Total US 1194 US 1156 US 1124 US 1006 NISP MNI NISP MNI NISP MNI NISP MNI NISP MNI - - - - - - 7 6 1 3 - 7 6 1 3 - 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 - - 2 2 - - - - 2 1 1 1 - - 5 2 19 4 28 3 - - - - 3 1 1 1 10 2 - - - - 1 1 4 2 4 4 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 - - 1 1 - - - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - 3 1 2 1 - - - - - - 1 1 3 1 - - - - - - 2 1 - - - - - - 1 1 28 2 - - 5 1 3 1 32 4 170 8 161 9 2 1 - - 21 3 82 3 50 2 3 1 - - 19 2 117 5 79 4 12 5 5 3 1 84 1 16 3 2 449 2 2 49 2 348 1 33 Table 2. Domus presso Porta Marina, Number of Identified Animals and Minimum Number of Individuals per context. Contexts are arranged in chronological order. ‘Unidentified’ means the element could not be identified on species level, solely on class level. 44 3.3.2. Studied contexts, preservation and taphonomy On the previous page the archaeozoological remains per context, divided into NISP and MNI data, can be found. Information about the excavated contexts can provide insight in the taphonomic processes to which the animal remains were subjected. For the location of the contexts in the excavation area, see fig. 11. on page 41. US 1135 was found inside structure USM 1131 and was interpreted as the garbage fill of this small room adjacent to the tower. Aside from the animal remains, the layer contained building material, earth and material from the larger tower structure (USM 1153). Similar garbage fills have been found on several locations in the city of Luni and are probably related to the collapse of the city’s sewer system in Late Antiquity. The context is dated to the fifth century CE (Menchelli et al. forthcoming(a); Personal communication prof. Menchelli and team). US 1194 is similarly a context in relation to the tower and constitutes the fill of the foundation ditch, located on the inner side of the tower structure (USM 1153). Next to some residual Late Republican material connected with the building of the original domus, the context contained no absolute dating elements. In relation to other structures and layers, this context can be roughly dated to the fifthsixth century CE (Menchelli et al. forthcoming(a); Personal communication prof. Menchelli and team). US 1156 is to be located in the tablinum (B7), where in Late Antiquity a channel and round pit were dug through the mosaic, probably for the draining of rain water. This pit was later used as a garbage dump and filled with black earth, some ceramics and a large amount of bones. Due to preservation measures for the mosaic no further excavations were possible in this area and the fill could not be precisely dated, but its use as garbage-pit should be located somewhere in the fifth-sixth century CE (Menchelli et al. forthcoming(a); Personal communication prof. Menchelli and team). Unlike the previous contexts, US 1124 is located in the northern house. It is one of the three layers found in the rectangular basin in room A3. These layers were part of building activity to level the ground and create a new walking surface after the installation of the fullonica fell in disuse. This filling layer can be dated to the middle of the sixth century CE (Menchelli, Sangriso, Genovesi 2016, 18; Menchelli et al. 2018, 5; Personal communication prof. Menchelli and team). 45 US 1006 consists of the very last layer of activity in the excavation area. Directly underneath the modern agricultural layers, this context was present throughout the excavation area7 and was made up of a black-grey clay mixed with building material, ceramics, metal and bones. Based on several amphora fragments this context was dated to the seventh-eight century CE (Menchelli, Sangriso, Genovesi 2016, 110; 118-119; Personal communication prof. Menchelli and team). In general all the contexts showed a fair conservation of the animal remains. The bones seemed relatively sturdy and did not show much cracks and signs of flaking. There were fresh breaks visible on the bones, yet older break patterns as well, indicating that the bones had already been broken when they were deposited in Late Antique times. For a more objective analysis of the bone preservation, it is possible to calculate the amount of teeth that survived in relation with the number of identified specimens. As teeth generally preserve better than bones, the ratio between the two gives an indication of the preservation of the animal remains after they were deposited. Good preservation and the deposition of the complete skeleton will give a 20-30% of recovered teeth. If the ratio is lower than 10%, only parts of the animals were deposited (post-cranial bones excluding the head and teeth) or during excavation not all fragments have been recovered. The use of a sieve during excavation could for instance uncover more small teeth fragments than recovery by hand. If the ratio if greater than 50%, more cranial elements with teeth might have been deposited or taphonomic processes might have affected the bones in a higher degree than the deposited teeth (Mackinnon 2004, 47-51). Stratigraphic unit Number of teeth NISP8 1135 2 12 Degree of preservation (%) (number of teeth/NISPx100) 17 1194 1 5 20 1156 16 84 19 1124 96 432 22 1006 83 343 24 Total 198 876 23 Table 3. Degree of preservation of the recovered archaeozoological remains, based on the Number of Identified Specimens and the number of teeth. 7 And therefore not explicitly indicated on fig. 11. Mollusks have been excluded from this Number of Identified Specimens count, as this calculation considers the number of identified bones and teeth. 8 46 From the degree of preservation as shown in table 2 it can be concluded that all the contexts have a fairly good, and similar, preservation, with the ratio around 20%, and that recovery techniques and taphonomic processes had no great influence on the conservation of the animal remains. There was however a reasonable amount of fragmentation, as most of the unidentifiable bones consisted of very small fragments and even unidentifiable fragments from larger elements were present in the sample. Of the identified bones, about two thirds were preserved for less than half of the total element9. To calculate the rate of fragmentation, the total number of retrieved skeletal fragments (bones and teeth10) is divided by the NISP data. A higher ratio indicates a higher percentage of elements that were too fragmented to allow identification, and therefore it indicates a higher degree of fragmentation (Mackinnon 2004, 51-52). Stratigraphic unit Total Sample NISP Degree of fragmentation (Total sample/NISP) US 1135 17 12 US 1194 6 5 1.4 1.2 US 1156 228 84 2.7 US 1124 728 432 1.7 US 1006 697 343 2.0 1676 876 1.9 Total Table 4. Degree of fragmentation of the archaeozoological remains, based on the total sample of recovered remains and the Number of Identified Specimens. The data shown above indicates that the ratio of the contexts falls between 1.2-2.7. Use of this method for Roman-period sites in Central Italy has shown that a ratio between 1.5-2.5 is an indication for a moderate, but not extreme, degree of fragmentation (Mackinnon 2004, 52). The data therefore indicates that the contexts show a moderate degree of fragmentation. The preservation and fragmentation of the remains is highly influenced by the various taphonomic processes that the archaeozoological sample is subjected to before, during and after deposition (Mackinnon 2004, 47; Groot 2010, 77). The studied material is derived from contexts that were identified as garbage fills or levelling layers, often containing multiple kinds of material, like ceramic, metal and building material, next to the animal bones. Analysis of the bones has shown that on a number of fragments11 indications of fire were found. Several fragments were found either 9 Percentages of preservation of the specific specimens can be found in Appendix 1. Mollusks have again been left out. 11 9 bones out of the total 898 NISP 10 47 with black marks or a completely black colour, in a few cases they showed white marks. No pattern was visible in the burn marks and it does not seem like the bones were subjected to fire on purpose, as the marks are only limited. Possibly they were laying on the surface in the vicinity of a small (cooking) fire. In addition to the burning marks, on a very limited amount of bones12 gnawing marks were found. They can be seen as an indication that at least a small part of the bone material was not buried immediately, but left on the surface and accessible to carnivores, pigs and dogs (Groot 2010, 82). It seems probable that the animal bones were not always immediately deposited, but in some cases were left in places accessible to animals living on the site or to fire, before being thrown into garbage pits or gathered with the surrounding ground to create a new levelling layer. This could have caused some fragmentation of the bones. There is no specific information on the acidity of the soil, but from the in general good preservation of the finds the excavators have the impression that the acidity of the soil is not very aggressive and damaging (Personal communication prof. Menchelli). The collection of the material by hand might have had some influence on the sample, as very small fragments were not collected (Personal communication prof. Menchelli). This recovery technique might have caused smaller bones to be overlooked, thereby influencing the sample of the smaller animal species. It will however have little influence on the sample of medium-sized and larger (mammal) species (Mackinnon 2004, 45-46). In US 1006 one worked bone had been uncovered (see fig. 12). The fragment is 10,7 cm in length, and has a width of 11 mm at its widest point and 5 mm at its smallest point. Traces of the working and polishing of the bone are still visible and it was decorated with three lines around its body. It was interpreted as a needle, possibly for the making of nets, or as an instrument for cosmetics or medicine. No other worked bones were found on the site (Personal communication prof. Menchelli, prof. Sorrentino). Fig. 10. Worked bone fragment from US 1006, interpreted as needle or instrument 12 4, possibly 5, out of a total of 898 identified bones 48 3.3.3. Information by species Sheep/Goat (ovicaprines) The ovicaprine bones constitute about 24.8 % of the total identified animal remains. As previously mentioned (see 3.3.1), no differentiation was made between sheep and goats and the two species were analysed together. The distribution of the skeletal elements of the studied species are represented in Appendix 2. The separate skeletal elements are additionally grouped according to the major parts of the body (head, torso, front legs, hind legs and leg extremities). The leg extremities are taken as a separate group, as these elements carry a low amount of meat compared to the rest of the leg. This grouping of elements allows for a better insight in the complete or only partial deposition of animals (Mackinnon 2004, 196; Groot 2010, 112-114). Regarding the sheep/goat remains it seems that almost all skeletal elements are represented in the sample and that the separate body parts are represented in fairly equal amounts. Only elements from the head are present in a larger number, but this can be explained by the large number of teeth, which are generally better preserved (Mackinnon 2004, 47). It seems that in general whole ovicaprines were deposited or used on the site. Fusion age (months) 12 14-36 47-48 48-60 scapula, pelvis, humerus dis., radius pr. phalanx 1, phalanx 2, tibia dis., femur pr., ulna metapodial dis., femur dis., tibia pr. calcaneus, radius dis., humerus pr. US 1135 NF - Fus - F - NF - fus - F 1 NF - fus - F - NF - fus - F - US 1156 - - 3 - - 2 - - 1 - - - US 1124 - - 6 3 2 9 - - 1 1 - - US 1006 - - 6 - - 5 - - 1 2 1 3 Total 0 0 15 3 2 16 0 0 3 3 1 3 Percentage 0 0 33 7 4 35 0 0 7 7 2 7 Table 5. Fusion data for sheep and goat remains (n=46). The bones are grouped into unfused elements (NF – not fused), elements of which the fusion line is still visible (fus – in fusion) and bones that are fully fused (F – fused). Under the fusion age in months, the (part of the) skeletal elements are given that fuse at this age. 49 For the determination of age, 46 out of the 223 sheep/goat elements could be used for the fusion data and 10 elements could be used for the dental data. The fusion data are similar for all contexts, with an absence of animals under 12 months. 7% of the remains belong to individuals that died before the age of 3, and 7% to animals younger than 4-5 years. Of 7% can be said with certainty that they are of animals that surpassed the age of 5. Dental age category (in months) 0-2 3-6 7-12 12-24 24-36 36-48 48+ 72+ US 1124 - - - 1 4 1 1 - US 1006 - - - - - - - 1 Total 0 0 2 1 4 1 1 1 Percentage 0 0 20 10 40 10 10 10 Table 6. Dental data for sheep and goat elements (n=10). The dental data allow to break down the mortality patterns of the ovicaprines in more precise categories, but there was only data available from 10 contexts and a total number of 10 mandible fragments. No elements are present for animals under 7 months, 2 elements belong to individuals that died between 7 and 12 months, and 1 element to an individual between 1 and 2 years. Most of the elements, a total of 4, belong to ovicaprines between 2 and 3 years of age, and another element belongs to an individual between 3 and 4 years. One element belongs to an animal that seems to have survived to 8-10 years. From the ageing data, it is clear that sheep and goat were probably primarily kept for their secondary products like wool, goat-hair and milk, rather than for their meat. To profit from these products, the animals were kept till an older age, generally between 2 and 6 years, so they could be used for their milk and wool/hair, before being killed for their meat (De Cupere 2001, 87; Mackinnon 2004, 121131). The fusion and dental data seems to correspond to the exploitation of the secondary products. No very young animals were killed, only a few were killed under 1 year of age. Most animals seem to have been killed between 2 and 4 years, and a number seem to have survived beyond 5 years. Probably the production of wool and hair, used for the manufacturing of clothes, carpets and blankets (Toynbee 1973, 163-166), and the production of milk were the primary reasons for keeping 50 these animals. Although the cheese from Luni is primarily known from the Imperial age (Pliny the Elder Naturalis Historia 11.97.241; Martial Epigrammaton Libri 13.30), it is possible that the milk of these animals in Late Antiquity was used to produce similar kind of cheeses. The presence of butchery marks on the bones (see Appendix 3 and the discussion in Chapter 3.3.4.), suggests that these animals have been used for consumption, probably as a secondary purpose. Most of the bones will probably have derived from consumption refuse. No elements for the identification of the sex of sheep and goat were available and due to the fragmentation of the bones, it was not possible to take good measurements for the calculation of size or height. Cattle The cattle remains constitute 17.3% of the total number of identified animals, a total of 155 elements. Of these elements 33 could be used for the determination of age, 30 for the fusion data and only 3 for the dental data. Fusion age (months) 7-10 12-18 24-36 42+ scapula, pelvis humerus dis., radius pr., phalanx 1, phalanx 2 tibia dis., metapodial dis., calcaneus femur, tibia pr., humerus pr., radius d., ulna NF Fus F NF fus F NF fus F NF fus F US 1156 - - - - - 1 - - - - - 1 US 1124 - - 3 - 1 9 - - 4 2 - 1 US 1006 - - - - - 6 - - - - - 2 Total 0 0 3 0 1 16 0 0 4 2 0 4 Percentage 0 0 10 0 3 53 0 0 13 7 0 13 Table 7. Fusion data for the cattle remains (n=30). Bones are grouped into unfused elements (NF), elements in fusion (fus) and fully fused elements (F). The majority of the bones with fusion data (53%) are bones that fuse between the age of 12 and 18 months. As these bones could also belong to animals which are older, even 4 or 10 years old, it only tells that most of the cattle survived beyond 1.5 years. More informative are the bones which are yet unfused or in fusion. These show that 3% of the cattle remains belong to individuals that had died 51 between 12 and 18 months and 7% to individuals younger than 3.5. The bones which fuse last indicate that at least 13% of the remains belong to animals that survived beyond 3.5 years. It would seem that the cattle generally died at an older age. Dental age category (in months) 0-6 6-12 15-18 18-24 24-36 36+ 48+ 60+ Us 1156 - - - - 1 - - 1 US 1124 - - - - 1 - - - Total 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 Percentage 0 0 0 0 67 0 0 33 Table 8. Dental date for cattle elements (n=3). Although the dental data for cattle was derived from only 3 mandible fragments, it does complement the fusion data. Two of the fragments belong to younger animals which died around the age of 2.5, while the third fragment belongs to an older animal of 5-6 years. Next to using their meat for consumption, cows could be used as workforce or for their milk. Although cow’s milk was not as common throughout Roman Italy as sheep or goat’s milk, at least at some sites there is evidence for its use. In general cows would be able to produce milk from the age of 3 onwards (Toynbee 1973, 149-162; MacKinnon 2004, 93-94). Looking at the fusion and dental data, it would seem that a part of the cattle on the site died before 2.5-3.5 years of age. As these were younger animals, not yet capable of milk production, their main use seems to have been for their meat. In contrast to this, the animals that died at an older age were probably also used as a working animal, for breeding purposes and possibly for the production of milk. An abundance of skeletal elements which carry a high portion of meat, like the scapula, humerus, pelvis or femur, might indicate that only the meat-bearing bones had been imported into the settlement and the animal had been slaughtered (and raised) elsewhere. On the other hand, if a high proportion of elements from the leg’s extremities are found, this might suggest that these elements were dumped as waste and the animal’s meat was transported somewhere else (Mackinnon 2004, 196-198). When considering the skeletal elements of cattle (as presented in Appendix 2), it does not seem like a specific part of the animal was favoured above another, suggesting that the whole animal 52 was used on site. Butchery marks (see Appendix 3 and Chapter 3.3.4) confirm that cattle was used for consumption. Not enough complete elements were present to allow a determination of the sex or a size reconstruction of the cattle. Pig The highest percentage (41.3%) of the total archaeozoological sample consisted of pig remains. As differentiation between wild and domestic pig was not possible based on the morphological traits of the bones, the measured bones were compared to a standard of a wild boar population using the logarithmic size index method. With this method, all the measurements of different skeletal elements are converted so that they can be compared to one standard (Payne, Bull 1988; Meadow 1999). The standard, derived from a modern wild boar population in Turkey (Payne, Bull 1988), and the measurements from the studied contexts are presented in Appendix 4. Fig. 11. Measurements of pig bones (n=49) in comparison to a wild boar standard (0) derived from Payne, Bull 1988. The data show that all measurements fall below the standard of the wild boar and therefore seem to belong to domesticated pigs. The data seem to be grouped as a normal distribution, indicating that the animals belonged to a single population (Personal communication prof. Linseele). Additionally, withers height was calculated (see Appendix 4) and compared to other data from Roman Italian sites to see if these correspond to other domesticated pigs in the same time period. The calculations are based on three astragali and although the astragalus is not the most reliable for 53 this calculation, it is the most commonly used for Roman Italian sites and therefore good for comparison (Mackinnon 2004, 110; 147). From this (limited) sample, it seems that the pigs on the site had a withers height between 62.7 and 78.7 cm. When compared to data from other Late Antique sites in Italy, this corresponds well with the height ranges known for domesticated pigs in this period13 (Mackinnon 2004, 147-148). Fusion age (months) Foetus 11 19-23 31-35+ scapula, pelvis, radius pr., humerus dis., phalanx 2 tibia dis., metapodial dis., fibula dis., phalanx 1 calcaneus, femur, humerus pr., radius dis., tibia pr., ulna, fibula pr. Juvenile NF fus F NF fus F NF fus F US 1135 - - - - - - - 1 - - - US 1156 - - - - 9 1 - 3 - - - US 1124 - 2 1 - 15 8 2 12 8 1 - US 1006 3 3 - - 5 10 4 9 4 1 1 Total 3 5 1 0 29 19 6 24 12 2 1 Percentage 3 5 1 0 28 19 6 24 12 2 1 Table 9. Fusion data for pig remains (n=102). Bones are grouped into unfused elements (NF), elements in fusion (fus) and fully fused elements (F). For the determination of age, 129 out of a total of 372 pig elements could be used, 102 for the fusion data, 27 for the dental data. Looking at the fusion of the long bones, and particularly at the bones which had not yet fully fused (and therefore indicate that the animal it belonged to had not yet reached a certain age), it is noted that the majority of the pigs died at a younger age. Around 9% of the remains belong to individuals that died younger than 1 year (3% belonging to foetuses), around 25% to individuals younger than 2 years and around 14% to individuals that had yet to reach the age of 3. Of only 1% of the remains can be said with certainty that they belong to individuals that had surpassed the age of 3. 13 North Italy: 59.8-78.8 cm, Central Italy: 57.3-84.1 cm, South Italy: 62.1-71.6 (Mackinnon 2004, 148, Table 44). The data corresponds somewhat better to the ranges known from North and Central Italy, which is expected as Luni is located in Liguria, in northern-central Italy. 54 Dental age category (in months) fetal/ newborn 1-3 3-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24+ 30+ 60+ US 1156 - - - 1 - - - - - US 1124 - - - 1 3 2 4 3 4 US 1006 - - - 2 1 2 4 - - Total 0 0 0 4 4 4 8 3 4 Percentage 0 0 0 15 15 15 30 11 15 Table 10. Dental data for pig elements (n=27). The dental data, based on the eruption and wear of teeth, give us no information about animals younger than 6 months, but do allow to break down the mortality patterns of the older ages into more detailed categories. An even spread can be seen between 6 months and 2 years, with 15% of the remains in the 6-12, the 12-18, and in the 18-24 month category. A large group of the remains (30%) belongs to individuals between 2 and 2,5 years and another 11% to individuals over 2,5 years. In contrast to the fusion data, the dental data indicates that 15% of the remains belong to individuals that survived past the age of 5. According to the fusion and dental data, the majority of the pigs died before the age of 3, with the biggest portion between 1 and 2,5 years. As pigs in ancient times would have reached their maximum weight and optimum meat quality around 2-2,5 years, it seems that these animals were used and bred for consumption. The presence of some older animals, used for breeding, and some foetuses and very young animals, might suggest that the pigs were bred on the site (MacKinnon 2004, 156; Baron, Reuter, Marković 2018, 9). The distribution of the skeletal elements (Appendix 2) and the butchery marks (Appendix 3, Chapter 3.3.4), similarly suggest the animals were used for consumption and that in general all parts of the animal were used. Determination of sex was possible based on the canine teeth. These are larger for males than for females and slightly differently shaped for each sex (Mackinnon 2004, 143). A total of 24 canine fragments were recovered, of which 2 could be attributed to females and the other 22 to males, 55 resulting in a 92% of male pigs on the site. This high percentage might be explained because the male canines are bigger and possibly more noticeable during excavations, or because males were unnecessary in large amounts for the continuation of the livestock and could therefore be used for consumption. Especially if the pigs were not kept on the site, but needed to be imported from somewhere else, it is to be expected that a larger amount of expendable males were sent to the consumption site (Mackinnon 2004, 158). Equids The equid remains make up 3.5% of the total NISP. Of the 31 identified equid remains, 29 were identified as belonging to horse, while 2 teeth fragments could be attributed to donkey. As shown in the element distribution (Appendix 2), one horse radius was uncovered in US 1156, while the remaining equid fragments all derived from US 1124. The horse fragments from US 1124, with exception from the teeth, all belonged to either the front or the hind leg. Several fragments of the hind leg (several tarsalia, astragalus, calcaneum and a metatarsus, all left, see fig. 14), seem to belong to a single individual. The relative completeness of the horse bones, in comparison with the cattle, pig and sheep/goat bones, and the absence of any butchery marks, indicate that horse was probably not consumed. This corresponds with current knowledge of the use of the horse in antiquity. Horses were generally not used for consumption, but instead were used for transport, as a riding animal or in some cases to pull a vehicle, or as an aid for hunting (Toynbee 1973, 185-196; De Grossi Mazzorin, Riedel, Tagliacozzo 1998; Mackinnon 2004, 74). Fig. 12. Metatarsus, metacarpal, tarsalia, astragalus and calcaneum of a horse from US 1124 56 Fusion age (months) 9-15 15-24 36-42 scapula, phalanx 2, phalanx 1 humerus dis., radius pr., metapodial dis., pelvis, tibia dis. calcaneum, humerus pr., femur, tibia pr., radius dis., ulna NF F NF F NF F US 1156 0 0 0 0 0 1 US 1124 0 3 0 7 1 0 Total 0 3 0 7 1 1 Percentage 0 25 0 58 8 8 Table 11. Fusion data for horse remains (n=12). Bones are grouped into unfused elements (NF) and fused elements (F). Information about mortality was available based on the fusion of the long bones. Out of the 29 bones, 12 could be used for age determination. The radius fragment of US 1156 belonged to an individual over 3-3.5 years of age. Based on two elements of US 1124 belonging to the hind leg of the same animal, one fused metatarsus and one unfused calcaneum, it can be said that this animal had died between the age of 15 months and 3 years. Other elements in this context belong to animals at least older than 15-24 months. Withers height could be calculated for three specimens using the greatest length and the lateral length of the metacarpus, according to the method of May (May 1985; Groot 2010, 117). Skeletal element GL (mm) L1 (mm) Withers height GL (cm) Withers height L1 (cm) metacarpus Right 213 205 127.5 131.3 metacarpus Right 230 222 138.5 142.2 metatarsus Left, with fragmented distal end 272 265 142.5 141.3 Table 12. Calculation of the withers height of horse (n=3), using standards given by May 1985. These measurements seem to correspond with calculated withers heights from other Late Antique Italian sites, falling between 131.2 and 153.9 cm (De Grossi Mazzorin, Riedel, Tagliacozzo 1998, 91, Table 1). Interestingly, specimen 1124.11 is the fused metatarsus that belonged together with other tarsalia fragments, of which an age between 15-36 months could be calculated. So one of the horses on the site was a 15-36 year old individual with a withers height of 141.3-142.5 cm. Sex could not be determined for the equid remains. 57 For donkey, only two teeth fragments were identified. Except for the presence of donkey on the site, not much information could be gained from these two fragments. Determination of age was attempted, but proved unsuccessful. In antiquity, the donkey was seen as a strong animal that could be used for severe and tough chores while requiring only little and simple feed (Toynbee 1973, 185196). Possibly the animal here was used for that kind of heavy labour. Cats and Dogs The cat remains, consisting of 5 fragments, constituted only 0.6 % of the total NISP. In US 1124 one mandible with teeth and two fragments of the right hind leg were found, possibly belonging to the same individual. In US 1006 two fragments of the front leg were found, again possibly from the same individual. All these elements were fused and all the adult teeth were present on the mandible and had fully erupted, indicating that the cat remains probably belonged to adult individuals. No information of sex or size could be obtained. Domestic cats in Roman times were mostly used to catch rodents (Toynbee 1973, 90) and as these have similarly been attested on the site (see below), it is likely that these felines were kept for this purpose. The dog remains consist of 4 fragments and constitute 0.4% of the total NISP. These remains consists of one mandible in US 1124 and a canine, a fragment of a metatarsus and a fragment of a pelvis in US 1006. All these elements belonged to adult individuals. No information about sex was available and unfortunately the elements did not allow for a reconstruction of size. Dogs could be used for multiple purposes in antiquity, including hunting, guarding, guiding sheep or as companion (Toynbee 1973, 102-134). The limited amount of material does not allow for a good interpretation of the use of these individuals. Cats and dogs were generally not used for consumption in Roman times (Mackinnon 2004, 74), and the absence of butchery marks on the limited sample seems to confirm this. 58 Wild mammals 0.3 % of the total NISP belonged to wild mammal species. The identified wild mammals are fallow deer (one fragment of the cranium and one fragment of the tibia) and roe deer (one phalanx). Save from the presence of these animals, not much information could be gained from these three fragments. The limited amount of wild mammals in the sample conforms with the data known from Roman Italy, as in general these species take up only a very small part of the total archaeozoological remains. Most of the times these remains derived from hunted animals, brought to the sites for consumption, with deer generally one of the most commonly consumed wild animals on Roman sites (Mackinnon 2004, 190-191; 212-213). Microfauna Only 1 rodent bone was identified (0.1% of the total NISP). This femur fragment could be identified as belonging to a mouse species, but a more specific attribution was not possible. The distal end was unfused, indicating that this belonged to a young animal. Although some mice, specifically the dormouse, were kept and fattened by the Romans for consumption (Toynbee 1973, 203-204), this bone element should best be interpreted as an intrusive, presumably just an animal living on the site in the period that it was occupied, with its bones mixed with other human refuse after the animal had died (Gautier 1987, 49). Birds The bird remains constituted 8.5% of the total NISP, of which 5.9% could be identified as belonging to domesticated chicken, 1.6 % as belonging to galliforms14 and 1% could only be identified as (wild) birds. From the element distribution (Appendix 2) it can be seen that most fragments belonged to either elements of the wings or of the legs. Especially the femur and the tibia, elements of the leg, are well represented. Of the 53 chicken fragments, 28 were fused. Of the others no fusion data was available due to fragmentation. It would seem that most of the animals were of an adult age, although it should be noted that the bones of young chickens are generally less well preserved and often not noticed during excavations (De Cupere 2001, 32-33). Sex of chicken could be established based on the presence of 14 More specific identification was not possible. 59 spurs on the tarsometatarsus of roosters (Groot 2010, 70). Ten tarsometatarsus elements of chicken were identified, of which 4 had a visible spur and could be identified as male. As the absence of a spur or signs of a spur does not necessary mean the bone is from a hen (De Cupere 2001, 33), and due to the fragmentation of the bones, the further elements could not be sexed. Measurements of humeri of chicken15 were compared to measurements from other archaeozoological contexts from Roman Italy (De Grossi Mazzorin 2005). From this analysis it seemed that the chicken on the site were similar in size to small and medium sized chickens from other Late Antique (fifth to eight century CE) contexts. As meat of chicken was frequently consumed in Roman times (De Grozzi Mazzorin 2005, 353-355), the chicken remains are here, even with the absence of butchery marks, interpreted as consumption refuse. The other bird elements, including the galliforms, are not counted as remains of consumption, as too little sure information for this attribution could be obtained from their remains. Fish and Molluscs A total of 4 fish elements were identified (0.4% of the total NISP), two in US 1194 and two in US 1006. The three vertebrae and one mandible could not be attributed to a specific fish species. Several fragments of molluscs were identified, contributing to 2.4% of the total NISP. Four different species of molluscs could be identified. For their distribution in the contexts see table 2 on page 44. Murex sp. is an edible Mediterranean gastropod that is primarily known for its use in the production of purple dye. The seven identified shells are however too small in number and not fragmented enough to be used for the production of purple dye, and consumption should rather be assumed (Reese 2002, 296-298; Alberti 2008). Cardium sp. is a Mediterranean cockle that is present in waters close by the shore and that was commonly used for consumption (Reese 2002, 299-300). Glycymeris glycymeris, dog-cockle in English, is another Mediterranean species that can be used for consumption (Reese 2002, 300-302). Ostrea sp., oyster, is an edible Mediterranean species that was consumed and even cultivated in Roman (and later) times (Reese 2002, 303). 15 Greatest length (GL) and greatest breadth of the distal end (Bd) of three humeri (von den Driesch 1976, 117; De Grossi Mazzorin 2005), one from US1124 and one from US1006. 60 As Luni was located close to the sea and the identified molluscs are all Mediterranean species, it is possible that they arrived on the site due to floods or unintentional actions by humans, but as they are all edible species, it is similarly possible that they were brought to the site for consumption. Fig. 13. Recovered mollusc remains from US 1124. From top to bottom, left to right: Murex sp., Cardium sp., Glycymeris glycymeris, Ostrea sp. 61 3.3.4. Butchery practices and animal consumption In US 1156, US 1124 and US 1006 butchery marks were found on the bones of pig, cattle and sheep/goat. No marks were found on the material of US 1135 and US 1194, but this could be due to the small sample of the contexts. Only on a small portion of the bones butchery marks were found16, and although slightly more butchery marks were found on pig bones, no significant difference can be seen between the three animal groups. The location and the type of butchery marks are represented in Appendix 3. Both cut- and chop-marks are found, mostly on the distal or proximal ends of the bones. Marks on the scapula and pelvis indicate slaughtering patterns where the legs were separated from the torso. Marks on humerus, radio and ulna elements, and on femur and tibia elements, indicate the further division of the legs into smaller pieces of meat. Marks have also been found on phalanxes, indicating that the feet was similarly separated from the rest of the leg. Several vertebrae were found chopped in half, longitudinally (see fig. 16), possibly indicating that the carcass was divided into a left and a right halve (MacKinnon 2004, 163-171). On one sheep/goat atlas a deep chop mark was found (see fig 17), which can possibly be related to the slaughtering of the animal by a blow to the neck. Fig. 14. Pig vertebrae, longitudinally chopped in half, from US 1124 Fig. 15. Ovicaprine atlas with a chop mark from US 1124 16 Of the total bones of pig, cattle and sheep/goat, 1% contained butchery marks in US 1156 (n=1), 10% in US 1124 (n=36) and 6% in US 1006 (n=16). So a total of 53 bones contained butchery marks. 62 For an idea of the consumption of meat on the site, a comparison is made of the relative presence of the main consumed species, namely sheep/goat, cattle, pig and chicken. For this comparison three different methods are used to allow for a more detailed analysis, as they all represent different data. The NISP represents the number of excavated (and identified) remains per species, the MNI represents the (minimum) number of animals on the site and the bone weight represent the contribution of the different animals to the diet, as the bones of animals that carry more meat, like cattle, are heavier than the bones of medium-sized animals with lesser meat (Groot 2010, 109-111). Fig. 16. Distribution of consumed animals (sheep/goat, cattle, pig and chicken), based on NISP data (n=802), MNI data (n=58) and total weight of the identified bones per species (total = 8712 g) A comparison of the NISP of these species show that pig is the most abundant animal, followed by sheep/goat, cattle and chicken. When the MNI data is considered, pig and then sheep/goat remain the most abundant, but chicken has surpassed cattle. So although fewer chicken remains were uncovered17, chicken and cattle seem to have been present in about the same amount on the site. 17 This can be explained because chicken bones are more fragile and smaller than cattle bones (and other mammal remains), causing them to be more susceptible to taphonomic processes and be more often overlooked during excavations (De Cupere 2001, 32). 63 The total bone weight per species18 shows that cattle, instead of pig, takes up the biggest amount. Although fewer individuals were present or brought to the site, their meat probably had a greater contribution to the diet that the meat from the other animals, as one cow contains more meat than a single pig. Pig does still take up about a third of the total bone weight, while sheep and goat only contribute to 17%. Chickens, with their light bird bones, take up only a very small percentage of the total bone weight. Aside from the bone weight, it is possible to calculate the contribution of each animal to the meat consumption by comparing the average amount of meat each animal contains. For this calculation meat weight constants have been established for sheep/goat, cattle and pig19 in Roman Italy, respectively 27.5 kg, 200 kg and 50 kg per individual. By multiplying these constants with the NISP and/or the MNI a better representation will be given of the relative amount of meat each species will have delivered (Mackinnon 2004, 189-196; 228-233). Fig. 17. Relative meat contribution of sheep/goat, cattle and pig, based on meat weight estimates calculated with NISP and MNI data From these calculations come forward that cattle will have contributed to more than half of the meat consumption on the site, while pig contributed to about a third and sheep/goat only to 11-13%. Chicken will also have been consumed, but only in small amounts compared to the other animals. Presumably, just like sheep and goat, they were primarily used for their secondary products and therefore of inferior importance for their meat compared to pig and cattle. 18 Teeth and horn were excluded from the weight calculations. Chicken has been left out of these calculations, as not mea weight constant was available for this species, and as their remains probably constituted only a small percentage of the total meat weight. 19 64 3.4. RESULTS: THE ANIMALS AT LUNI Analysis of the archaeozoological material has provided an insight in the presence and use of animals on the site of Luni, Domus presso Porta Marina. The most common animals on the site are sheep/goat, cattle and pig, with pig the most abundant species. This species was primarily used for consumption and it seemed that most pigs were killed when they had reached their maximum weight and would have provided the most meat. Interestingly, their abundance seems to correspond with the theory that pig predominated in the more northern Roman regions (including northern Italy), where they were boiled or cooked in closed cooking pots, resulting in a tender, broth-like dish ideal for colder climates (Arthur 2007). This was confirmed by the ceramic material, as the majority of the cooking ware found on the site were closed cooking pots (Menchelli et al. forthcoming(b)). After pig, sheep and goats were the most numerous animals on the site. While used for consumption, their meat was presumably of secondary importance as it is suspected that their wool, hair and milk will have been the primary reasons these animals were kept. Cattle, while not as numerous in number as pig, sheep and goat, had the highest contribution to the consumed meat on the site, as a single individual could provide for a large amount of meat. It is possible that some of the older animals might have served as a working animal. Besides these three main domesticated animals, horse and donkey were identified, and some cats and dogs seem to have been present on the site. These animals will not have been consumed, but probably served to aid the occupants of the site with labour, transport, guarding or keeping away small pests. Wild animals were only present in small amounts, but include two species of deer, possibly hunted, and one small rodent. Bird remains have also been recovered, of which the majority belonged to domesticated chicken. Influence from the nearby sea can be seen in the presence of a few fish remains and several molluscs species, all Mediterranean and edible. Other archaeozoological material from Luni has been published for the excavations in the forum area of the city20. The Roman material is derived from one context dated to about 200 A.D. and four 20 Aside from this published material, archaeozoological remains from Luni have also been studied by Judith Cartledge and presented in her master thesis: Cartledge J., 1979. Faunal studies in northern Italy, Master Thesis, Department of History and Archaeology, University of Sheffield (Ward-Perkins 1981a, 183). Unfortunately, due to various circumstances, this thesis is not readily available and could not be used in this study. 65 contexts of Late Antiquity (300-700 A.D.)21. As with the material presented above, the animal remains show that pig, sheep/goat and cattle were the most abundant animals. From the data it was concluded that sheep and goats were kept for their secondary products, with the animals grazing in the nearby coastal plain and mountains. Cattle was either slaughtered at a young age for its meat, or kept as a work animal and killed at an old age. Pigs were consumed before they reached the age of 3 and were probably kept in pastures near the city (Barker 1977). It has been noted that in LateAntiquity many chestnuts were planted on the hills surrounding the city, which could have been used for the pasturing of pigs (Ward-Perkins 1981a). The context from the Imperial period allows for a comparison of the animal remains between Imperial times and Late Antiquity. The three groups of domesticated mammals were compared, as these constituted the majority of the animal remains and can give insight in changing patterns of animal consumption. Fig. 18. Comparison of the distribution of cattle, sheep/goat and pig in the city of Luni. The data is based on the relative NISP percentages of these three groups of animals, derived from the Imperial forum context (n=106 (total NISP for cattle, sheep/goat and pig)), from the Late Antique forum contexts (n=1,526) and from the Domus presso Porta Marina contexts (n=750). 21 Three other contexts were also published, but these are dated to later centuries and therefore fall outside the scope of this study. 66 From this analysis, it can be noted that the amount of cattle reduces over times, while the amount of pig, sheep and goat increases. The increase of sheep and goat in Late Antique Luni can possibly be viewed in the same light as the previous described developments in Sagalassos and Justiniana Prima (Chapter 2.3). Growing insecurity and the willingness to control their own resources caused people to give preference to sheep and goat over cattle, as these smaller animals were cheaper, easier to maintain and to transport and could provide more than just their meat (De Cupere 2001, 139-145; Degryse et al. 2004; Vanhaverbeke, Martens, Waelkens 2007; Baron, Reuter, Marković 2018). Cattle were expensive animals to purchase and to maintain and therefore valuable to loose. Sheep and goat on the other hand do not require rich pasture or a lot of water, can be kept close to the city or moved to other places if needed, and can provide for milk and wool/hair in addition to their meat. Similarly, pigs do not necessary require any pasture, can even be kept inside of the city and can provide for an ample amount of meat that is relatively easy to preserve (Mackinon 2004, 95-96; 121-123; Baron, Reuter, Marković 2018, 9-14). In changing times people might have been persuaded to rely more on these smaller mammals that could adapt easier to changing circumstances. In Late Antiquity the city of Luni experienced a reduction of long-distance trade and therefore a diminishment of its resources. Power over the city moved from Roman to Byzantine to Lombard control and areas of the city were abandoned as habitation moved to the cathedral and presumably only a limited amount of residences remained in the rest of the urban area (Ward-Perkins 1977; Ward-Perkins 1981a; Ward-Perkins 1981b; Delano Smith et al. 1986; Ward-Perkins 1997; Potter 1992, 211-219). It is likely that parts of the city that were now no longer occupied were used for cultivation, or for the pasture and keeping of sheep, goat and pig. The increase of sheep and goat, and of pig, in Luni can be related to the process of ruralization, as the city became less densely inhabited, impoverishment of the city and reduction of trade caused the inhabitants to rely more on local resources and as tensions between different groups in power may have created additional reasons for keeping these smaller, easier manageable species, presumably in close distance to the city. 67 68 4. A BROADER ARCHAEOZOOLOGICAL VIEW: CONTEXTS FROM CENTRAL ROMAN ITALY An analysis of other archaeozoological contexts from Roman Italy can provide an insight in animal use throughout the Roman period and can confirm if the situation noted in Late Antique Luni corresponds to or rather deviates from the general pattern. Additionally, it can provide information about possible trends and changes in animal use throughout the transition from Imperial times to Late Antiquity. 4.1. CURRENTLY KNOWN ARCHAEOZOOLOGICAL CONTEXTS In order to obtain a dataset for the comparison and analysis of the archaeozoological remains, a list has been compiled of archaeozoological contexts that are currently known (and published) from Roman sites on the Italian peninsula. Similar lists have previously been published by Anthony King, in a comparison of mammal bones across the Roman Empire, with emphasis on diet and therefore pig, goat, sheep and cattle remains (King 1999), and by Michael Mackinnon, who has produced a detailed analysis of zooarchaeological remains for Roman Italy in his study (Mackinnon 2004). The work of Mackinnon consists of a total of 97 sites with data collected both from published works and from unpublished studies by himself and other researchers (Mackinnon 2004, 37-39) and has been taken as the foundation on which this study will build. To create a reasonable data sample, the study area was delineated to central Roman Italy, as here the majority of the archaeozoological contexts were found (Mackinnon 2004, 37) and as this would include both the case study Luni and important urban centres like Rome and Pompeii. The area that is here taken as central Italy consists of the current Italian regions which are separated from the north and the south of the peninsula by the Apennine Mountains, namely Liguria, Toscana, Umbria, Marche, Lazio, Abruzzo, Molise and Campania (following Mackinnon 2004, 33-34). To the 57 central Italian sites presented in MacKinnon’s study (Mackinnon 2004, 38-40), another 42 sites have been added. These sites were derived from more recent publications, dating between 1990 and 2018. An overview of the complete list of central Roman Italian sites, a total of 99, with 69 reference to the publications from which the data have been derived22, can be found in Appendix 5. For the geographical location of the sites, see fig. 21. As this list of zooarchaeological sites is in fact a continuation of Mackinnon’s list, a large part of the terms and definitions he used will be similarly used here. For a more detailed comparison of the data, the sites23 are also grouped into a settlement/site type, a specific time period and a geographical location. The sites are divided into four different types, primarily based on the definition of the city in the publications and reports, in some cases supplemented by factors as size and status. Firstly, a distinction has been made between rural sites, and sites located in the urban environment. Of the sites located in the urban environment, two types were recognized. Urban 1 sites are the settlements that in Roman times had been given the status of municipium and contained certain elements like a forum, public buildings, fortifications and an aqueduct. Their influence and size may have differed throughout the centuries and need not have been exactly similar as another urban 1 site. Any other settlement or site within an urban environment, often with an unknown status, is grouped as an urban 2 site. In many cases this category includes sites which have been identified as a village or as a smaller settlement in the suburban environment of a larger city. The last type, the special sites, include (ritual) deposits, burials, sometimes of specific animals, and sanctuaries. The special types form a separate category, as they do not always give information about food consumption or economy and often have a specific selection of animal remains (Mackinnon 2004, 32-33). Because some sites are fairly accurately dated to a specific century and others can only generally be appointed to a specific period, and because some cultural periods are not always chronologically similar over the whole of Italy, three general time periods have been created into which the different sites are grouped. The Republic period covers the years from 500 till 50 BCE, the Imperial period 22 For the unpublished reports there will be referred to Mackinnon 2004, with reference of the listing of this report in his publication. Data from unpublished reports have been derived from Mackinnon 2004, as it was not available elsewhere. 23 The names of the sites names are either derived from their location or the way the site is called in the excavation reports. 70 Fig. 19. Location of the 99 analysed Roman sites in Central Italy. additional information about the sites can be found in Appendix 5. Names and 71 ranges from 50 BCE till 300 CE, and Late Antiquity is seen as the period from 300 till 500 CE24 (Mackinnon 2004, 35-36). In light of this study, the Late Antique period shall be broadened till 800 CE, in order to gather more Late Antique data and to include the complete period of interest. In some cases sites were used over multiple centuries and the excavated archaeozoological remains belong to multiple of the above mentioned time periods. When possible, if information was given in the publications on specific chronology of the remains or excavated contexts from which they derived, the data was grouped into the corresponding time period. Some sites therefore include different time periods. To avoid confusion, the datasets belonging to a certain time period are labelled as contexts within a certain site (Mackinnon 2004, 56). The site of Campochiaro, for instance, has two different contexts, one dating to the first period and the other dating to the third period. Similarly, the site of Pompeii, House of Amaranthus has two contexts because one contains the remains of a ritual deposit, a special deposit, while the rest of the data corresponds to the surrounding urban 1 settlement. So while 99 sites make up the list in Appendix 2, in fact a total of 127 contexts are analysed and compared in this study. Lastly, the sites are grouped according to the current Italian region in which they are situated. These eight regions of central Italy are largely similar to the regions in Roman (Augustan) times (Mackinnon 2004, 33). As it is not always certain to which region a site belonged in antiquity, it has been chosen to look at the current geographical location and therefore the current region in which the site is situated. It is noted that the archaeozoological sites are not evenly situated across central Italy, as 51 sites are located in Lazio (of which 22 in Rome), 17 in Toscana, 15 in Campania, 8 in Molise, 4 in Abruzzo, 2 in Liguria and 2 in Umbria, and none in Marche. This can possibly be explained due to the interests and focus of different archaeozoologists and the availability of the data. A lot of publications were for instance available from Jacopo De Grossi Mazzorin, who has done extensive research in Rome. All sites located in Molise were uncovered and researched in the Biferno survey project (Barker and Clark 1995; Mackinnon 2004, 37-39), without which no archaeozoological site in Molise could have been added to the current list. In order to allow comparison with Mackinnon’s data, the period 300-500 CE is used instead of the 200-500 CE period of Late Antiquity as described in the introduction. 24 72 4.2. COMPARISON OF ARCHAEOZOOLOGICAL REMAINS For the analysis of the animal remains and in order to distinguish certain trends during the transition from Imperial times into Late Antiquity, it is necessary to find datasets that are comparable between different sites. Therefore a method of quantification is needed that is commonly used amongst different researchers. In the case of the archaeozoological record, this is the NISP quantification method. NISP is the number of identified specimens per animal species, a count of the total number of bone fragments that could be identified as belonging to a certain animal species (Reitz, Wing 2008, 202-205; Groot 2010, 109-110; ). The NISP numbers were recorded for (almost) each context in the list and can offer a good comparison between the relative quantity of animals in and between contexts (Mackinnon 2004, 61-62). In Appendix 6 the NISP data for the different contexts can be found. The total NISP count of the contexts has been given, together with the according NISP data for the mammal, bird, fish, reptile and amphibian remains. It should be noted that the numbers given in the table are approximate. As mentioned by Mackinnon, the total number of bones that were excavated, including the fragments that could not be identified, were not always recorded in the excavations reports. In some cases, only mammal bones were recorded, without making mention of the other animal classes (MacKinnon 2004, 56). Only identified animal bones have been included in these NISP counts. Molluscs and invertebrates have been left out, as have the remains that could only be identified on a general level (belonging to a small, medium or big animal, not more specific). 25 The attempt has been made to be as complete as possible with the collection of the data, but due to the availability of the data and/or the way in which it was published, this was not always achievable. In the appendix the abbreviation na has therefore been included to indicate when the data was not available. A comparison of the percentages of NISP for the different classes of animals can give an indication of the animal remains that are found in the contexts of central Roman Italy (see fig. 22). The majority of the animal remains belong to mammalian species (91%), while only a small portion of bird remains, and even less fish, reptile and amphibian remains, are recovered on the Roman sites. When the data is considered only for the specific kinds of contexts, either urban 1, urban 2, rural or special, 25 This can only be said with certainty for the contexts added for this study, but not surely for each site that was studied in Mackinnon 2004, as it was not possible to re-examine each of the studied sites (like the unpublished reports). 73 the same trend can be seen. Mammal remains clearly predominate, the bird remains constitute between 7.0 to 8.4% of the animal remains (with an exception of the urban 2 contexts), while the fish, reptile and amphibian remains together occupy only 1.2 to 2.7 % of the total recovered remains.26 No remains of these last three classes have been recorded in the seven urban 2 contexts, but there seems to be some bias here because of the low number of urban 2 contexts in the database. When the three other types of contexts are considered, it seems that all of them have at least the same amount of contexts where no fish, reptile and amphibian remains are recorded.27 Fig. 20. Percentages of mammal, bird, fish, reptile and amphibian remains for central Roman Italian contexts, based on the NISP data. The number of contexts used in the analysis is indicated next to the type of site. As the mammal remains take up the biggest percentage of the recovered (and recorded) animal remains of Roman sites in central Italy, a further analysis of the NISP for different mammal species has been carried out (see Appendix 7 and fig. 23). The most common animal in every type of context is the pig, followed by sheep/goat and by cattle. The remaining animals make up only 14.2 % of the total mammal remains (between 4.0 and 28.3% when specific context types are considered). The special contexts show a higher percentage of these 26 These small amounts can partly be explained by the small size of many bird, fish, reptile and amphibian species compared to mammals, causing the remains of these animals to preserve in lesser amount, to be less recognizable during excavations and to be harder to identify. 27 18 urban 1 contexts, 8 rural contexts and 13 special contexts have no recorded remains of fish, reptiles and amphibians. 74 other animals, especially dogs, when compared to the other three types of contexts. This can be explained when the nature of the special contexts is considered, as these in general do not conform to the general pattern and more often reflect cultural and ritual practices instead of food consumption and husbandry techniques (Mackinnon 2004, 33; 121; 142; 192; 201-204). For instance, 4 out of 32 special contexts are dog burials, where (nearly) all of the remains are made up of dog bones, thereby contributing to the high percentage of dog remains for the special contexts. Rural contexts also show a higher percentage of other animals, including dogs and wild animals. Dogs were possibly more frequently kept (and buried) on rural sites as hunting dogs, guard dogs or for sheep herding (Toynbee 1973, 102-134). Wild animals were in general more consumed at rural settlements and therefore make up at greater part of the animal remains in the rural contexts than in the urban or special contexts (Mackinnon 2004, 60; 212; 244). Fig. 21. Percentages of mammalian species for central Roman Italian contexts, based on NISP data. The number of contexts used in the analysis is indicated next to the type of site. Another method for the quantification of animal bones is the determination of the MNI, the Minimum Number of Individuals. Here the amount of left and right elements of the identified bones are considered to calculate the minimal number of individual animals that will have contributed to the creation of the archaeozoological collection of a certain context (Reitz, Wing 2008, 205-210; Groot 2010, 110-111). The MNI data is presented in Appendix 8 and in fig. 24. 75 When the data from the MNI counts is considered, similar patterns are visible as with the NISP count. Pigs take up the highest percentage, followed by sheep and goat and by cattle. These three groups of animals still take up the majority of the animal remains, but in the MNI count the percentages of the other animal groups are higher. This is due to the fact that with MNI a single fragment will always contribute to an MNI of 1, while multiple fragments of different skeletal elements can similarly contribute to an MNI of 1, therefore causing species of which less elements are present in the contexts to be represented in higher frequencies than would be the case with NISP counts (Groot 2010, 110). Whilst MNI does show similar patterns, it was only recorded for 74 out of the total 127 contexts. MNI is a quantification method that is less frequently used, or in any case less frequently mentioned in published reports for Italian zooarchaeological studies (Mackinnon 2004, 61), and is therefore not further considered for this study. Similarly, as calculations of the meat weight (as in Chapter 3.3.4) are rarely represented in publications (Mackinnon 2004, 189-190; 227), these are not further considered here. Fig. 22. Percentages of mammalian species for central Roman Italian contexts, based on MNI data. The number of contexts used in the analysis is indicated next to the type of site. The three types of data presented above, the NISP counts for the different animals classes and specified for the mammalian species, and the MNI counts for the mammalian species, show that the most frequent animals found on archaeological sites in central Roman Italy are pigs, sheep and goats, and cattle. This trend, and the greater abundance of mammals, was previously noted by 76 Michael Mackinnon (Mackinnon 2004, 61; 74), and now seems to be confirmed by the addition of archaeozoological contexts of recent years. These four species formed an important part of daily life and diet in Roman times and were an essential resource in antiquity (Mackinnon 2004, 74; Salvadori forthcoming). Therefore the presence of these animals throughout Roman times and into Late Antiquity shall be analysed in more detail. 4.2.1. Presence of cattle, sheep/goat and pig on central Roman Italian sites The relative percentages of pig, sheep/goat and cattle has been calculated for the studied contexts based on the available NISP data (see Appendix 9).28 To gain a general idea of the relative presence of these animals on central Italian sites, their numbers have been compared for the three time periods under study (Republic, Imperial and Late Antiquity), together spanning the time from 500 BCE till 800 CE. Fig. 23. Distribution of cattle, sheep/goat and pig on Central Italian sites throughout Roman times, based on NISP from a total of 122 contexts. 28 Five contexts (Fidene, Musarna, , Nomentana, Pompeii 94 and S. Angelo di Civitella) have been left out of these calculations, as no NISP data for pig, sheep/goat and cattle was available for these sites. 77 In general a pattern can be seen when looking at the changes in the pattern from Imperial times into Late Antiquity.29 There is a decrease in the amount of cattle and in the amount of pig, while the amount of sheep and goat seems to increase in the Late Antique period. This pattern would seem to correspond with the ideas of the changing times of Late Antiquity and the possible processes of ruralization and insecurity that have been discussed in Chapter 2. With the continuing changing patterns of power and control in Late Antique Italy, with frictions between the Romans, the Ostrogoths, The Byzantines, the Lombards and the Franks, and the battles that sprung forth from these, the feeling of unity in the peninsula will have fallen away and an increasing sense of insecurity will be felt amongst the local people (Wickham 1981; Brogiolo 2000; Arthur 2004; Cirelli 2013). As in other regions of the former Roman Empire, like the Balkans and Anatolia, sheep and goats might be favoured over cattle as those species are not as sensitive to reduced resources, less costly to maintain, less valuable to loose, easier to keep close to town and to move when needed, and can furthermore provide for multiple secondary resources as milk, cheese, wool and hair (De Cupere 2001, 139-145; Degryse et al. 2004; Mackinnon 2004, 95-96; 121-123; Vanhaverbeke, Martens, Waelkens 2007; Baron, Reuter, Marković 2018). Pigs are similarly easier to maintain, even within the urban environment, but as pigs are primarily used for their meat (De Cupere 2001, 143; Mackinnon 2004, 153-156; Baron, Reuter, Marković 2018, 14), this might explain why in a less secure time preference is given to species that can provide multiple useful products. A more detailed analysis of the data is required to discern if this general pattern is also applicable when more specific situations are regarded. An analysis of the percentages of cattle, sheep/goat and pig has therefore been carried out for the four specific types of contexts, in order to see if this pattern could also apply to urban environments and the ruralization of the city. 29 Focus will be put on these two periods and changes from Republican times into Imperial times will be represented but not discussed, as they fall outside the scope of this study. 78 79 Fig. 24. Distribution of cattle, sheep/goat and pig throughout Roman times on urban 1, urban 2, rural and special sites in central Italy, based on NISP data from a total of 122 contexts. When comparing the different settlement and context types an overall decline in the amount of cattle in Late Antiquity can be noted, most pronounced in urban 2 and special contexts (decline of 8-9 %) and somewhat less prominent but still visible (-3%) in urban 1 and rural contexts. Additionally, an overall increase in the amount of sheep and goat seems to have occurred from the transition of Imperial times to Late Antiquity. While only a slight increase in urban 1 contexts (+3 %), the others contexts show an increase of 14-17 %. The amount of pig seems to diminish during Late Antiquity in urban 2, rural and special contexts (6-11 % decrease), while it seems to remain more or less the same in urban 1 contexts (0.5 % increase). The decrease in cattle does not appear to be limited to the transition to Late Antiquity, but is in fact visible throughout the Roman period (500 BCE – 800 CE). The only exception here are the special contexts, but, as noted before, these contexts reflect specific cultural and religious practice and not the general pattern of economic and food management strategies (Mackinnon 2004, 33; 121; 142; 192; 201-204). To further study this pattern, an analysis of the relative percentages has likewise been carried out for the specific geographical regions of central Italy (see fig. 27). The regions of Abruzzo, Liguria, Molise and Umbria have been left out of this analysis, as the total number of contexts for these regions30 fell under the amount of 10 and was therefore deemed too small for a proper and reliable analysis. Special contexts are not included here, so as to exclude the influence from religious and cultural practices. Again, a decrease in the amount of cattle can be noted from Imperial times to Late Antiquity in all three studied regions. However, an overall decrease throughout Roman times is only visible for Lazio, as in Campania and Toscana a slight increase of cattle is noted in Imperial times, to be followed by a decrease in Late Antiquity. The amount of sheep and goat seems to increase in all three regions in Late Antiquity (3% in Campania, 4% in Lazio and 10% in Toscana). The percentages of pig, however, show an increase of 1% in Campania, but a decrease of 2% in Lazio and of 9% in Toscana. 30 Abruzzo (n=1), Liguria (n=3), Molise (n=7), Umbria (n=3). Marche has been excluded from the total study as no zooarchaeological contexts were found in this region. 80 Fig. 25. Distribution of cattle, sheep/goat and pig throughout Roman times on sites located in Campania, Lazio en Toscana, based on NISP data from a total of 81 contexts. 81 Except for the percentages of pig, the same broad pattern of a decrease of cattle and an increase of sheep and goat in Late Antiquity is visible from the regional studies. A thorough regional analysis however, including more detailed analysis of the diverse trends for pig, does not yet seem fully possible at this point. First and foremost, there is an uneven division of the found and published archaeozoological contexts throughout Roman Italy. While some regions contain over 50 contexts, other have less than 5 or even none. The division of types of contexts in a specific region is similarly not equalled divided, especially in Lazio where 33 out of 56 contexts are grouped as urban 1, and out of these, 22 contexts are situated in Rome alone. An attempt to compare coastal and inland contexts proved equally unreliable, as there are often only a few coastal contexts available for a certain period or type of site, compared to double, triple or even six times the amount of inland sites. Italy is a land with diverse geographical and natural conditions (Arthur 2004, 103-105) of which the comparison in relation with the archaeozoological material could offer intriguing and interesting results, but at this moment more contexts are needed so that multiple regions can be reliably compared to one another. As the focus of this study is on the transformations in the urban environment during Late Antiquity and the changes in the city compared to the Imperial period, a specific look at the percentages of cattle, sheep and goat, and pig in urban 1 contexts is required. The general pattern of an increase of sheep and goat and a decrease of cattle seems to hold true when all urban 1 contexts together are considered, as seen above (fig. 26), but it is the question if this remains true when cities are considered separately. It has been discussed in Chapter 2 that cities react in their own way to changing circumstances and that different sets of factors will cause different transformations within a single city (Liebeschuetz 1992, 16-17; Cameron 1993, 157-162; Wickham 2005, 10-13; Christie 2006, 185; Zavagno 2009, 15-16; 169-170; Dey 2015, 8-10). It is therefore to be expected that not every city will conform to this general pattern and that different developments might emerge when the data for single cities is analysed. To increase reliability and to ensure for a large enough sample, only contexts with a total NISP above 100 have been included in this analysis. Of 6 different cities contexts were available to allow for a comparison of the pig, sheep/goat and cattle remains from the Imperial period and Late Antiquity. 82 Fig. 26. Distribution of cattle, sheep/goat and pig from the Imperial period to Late Antiquity in the city of Alife, based on NISP data from 2 contexts In the Campanian town of Alife, the data shows an increase of cattle, a decrease of sheep and goat and a slight increase of pig in Late Antiquity. This information is derived from a single site, the cryptoportico, of which the faunal remains could be divided into two contexts, one dating from the first to third century CE, the other from the third till the seventh century CE. Most prominent is the high percentage of pig, over 80% both in the Imperial period and in Late Antiquity. The other two groups show a contrasting pattern from what has been described above. It has however been noted by the original researcher of the site that the high percentage of cattle remains dated to the Late Antique period is due to the presence of a bone workshop in the cryptoportico, of which the waste products were mingled with consumption refuse (Carannante et al. 2012). The data might therefore not show the normal pattern of animal use (for consumption) in the Roman city. More contexts from Alife should be added to this data for a good analysis of the use of these three groups of animals in the Imperial and Late Antique city. 83 Fig. 27. Distribution of cattle, sheep/goat and pig from the Imperial period to Late Antiquity in the city of Ostia, based on NISP data from 2 contexts A similar analysis has been made for two contexts from a single excavated site in Ostia. The animal remains excavated from the Roman baths show an increase of cattle and pig in Late Antiquity and a decrease in sheep and goat. It is the question, as with the contexts from Alife, if a single excavated spot in the city can give an indication of animal use throughout the entire settlement. The addition of multiple archaeozoological contexts and supplementary information of the evolution of the city in Late Antiquity might provide a clearer view of transformations in Late Antique Ostia. Fig. 28. Distribution of cattle, sheep/goat and pig from the Imperial period to Late Antiquity in the city of Ferento, based on NISP data from 2 contexts 84 Two contexts were available for the city of Ferento in Lazio, each context from a different part of the city. The Late Antique context shows an increase in both cattle and sheep/goat remains, while the percentage of pig is reduced drastically when compared to the Imperial period context. The researcher of these contexts has noted that the Late Antique context, fossa 1918, seems to deviate largely from previous Roman and later Medieval contexts on the site, and might be viewed as distinct from the other archaeozoological contexts (Alhaique, De Bernardis, Fortunato 2011). Again, a change can be seen from the Imperial Period to Late Antiquity, but more contexts should be added to gain a reliable analysis. Fig. 29. Distribution of cattle, sheep/goat and pig from the Imperial period to Late Antiquity in the city of Luni, based on NISP data from 3 contexts The contexts of Luni have been analysed before in Chapter 3. The three contexts conform to the general pattern and show an increase in pig, sheep and goat and a decrease in cattle throughout the centuries. As discussed before, this seems to be related to a process of ruralization in the city during Late Antiquity, when people turned to local resources due to the reduction of trade and financial shortage in the city compared to previous centuries, and when more open, uninhabited, areas seemed to have appeared in the city, probably used for cultivation of plants and animals (Ward-Perkins 1977; Ward-Perkins 1981a; Ward-Perkins 1981b; Delano Smith et al. 1986; Ward-Perkins 1997; Potter 1992, 211-219). 85 Fig. 30. Distribution of cattle, sheep/goat and pig from the Imperial period to Late Antiquity in the city of Naples, based on NISP data from 6 contexts More contexts were available for the city of Naples. The data shown in fig. 32 is derived from 2 contexts31 dated to the Imperial period and 4 contexts dated to Late Antiquity. It shows a decrease of cattle, an increase of sheep and goat and a decrease of pig, conforming to the general pattern seen in central Roman Italy. It is know from Early Medieval Naples (nine-tenth centuries CE) that open, probably cultivated, areas were present within the city walls, in some cases even clearly reserved and administered as vegetable gardens (Skinner 1994, 283). It is possible that these areas were already present in the previous centuries and that the sheep and goats might be kept nearby or even within the city walls. 31 The context of Naples Santa Sofia only has a NISP of 46, but has none the less been added tot his analysis to create a bigger sample for period 2. 86 Fig. 31. Distribution of cattle, sheep/goat and pig from the Imperial period to Late Antiquity in the city of Rome, based on NISP data from 14 contexts Most contexts were available for the city of Rome, in total 14 different contexts, 8 dated to the Imperial Period and 6 to Late Antiquity. The data from these contexts show that in Late Antiquity there was a decrease in the amount of pig and an increase in the amount of sheep and goat, while the amount of cattle found in the Roman capital stayed more or less the same (1% decrease). Like the previous two cities, and the general pattern of pig, sheep/goat and cattle in Central Roman Italy, there seems to be an increased use of sheep and goat. Not much clear information could be found on a possible ruralization of Rome during Late Antiquity, although it seems that by the tenth century many areas within the urban walls were abandoned and people lived primarily close by and along the banks of the Tiber (Hubert 1990, 81). From the data analysed above it can be concluded that at least three of the studied cities seems to conform to the general pattern observed for Late Antiquity, namely an increase of sheep and goat and (in most cases) a decrease of cattle. The evolution of the amount of pig in Late Antiquity seems to be more variable, in some cities showing an increase while in others a decrease can be noted. In the regional analysis presented above this was similarly a group of animals that seems to show more variable patterns, so perhaps regional variations had more influence on the use and consumption of pig in Antiquity. This could provide for an interesting study subject when more archaeozoological data will become available in the future. The three other analysed cities showed contrasting patterns, with an increase of cattle and a decrease of sheep and goat. It should be taken into account that these 87 analyses are in all three cases based on only two contexts, sometimes derived from the same excavated site, and that factors like the location of the context or cultural and manufacturing practices other than consumption can have had an impact on the formation of the contexts, thereby creating an animal sample that might deviate from the general pattern of the whole city. Possibly the patterns shown above are a good reflection of animal use in these Late Antique cities, but without further information this cannot be concluded with certainty. Interestingly, as ruralization seems to have happened in the city of Luni (Chapter 3) and possibly in the city of Naples (based on the nine-tenth century observations – Skinner 1994, 283)32, it would seem that the general pattern of pig, sheep/goat and cattle use in Late Antiquity, to which these cities do conform, could possibly be related to a general process of ruralization in central Roman Italy, where the keeping of sheep and goat became more favoured above the keeping of cattle, as insecurities rose and people tended to turn to more reliable resources. 4.2.2. Mortality age of sheep and goat and secondary products As mentioned before, sheep and goats were used for more than just their meat and could provide the people with products like wool and hair, milk and thereof cheese and other products. If sheep and goats were kept till an older, adult age, they could provide for wool, hair and milk, while animals slaughtered at a younger age (generally below 3 years) were kept solely for their meat. The mortality pattern of sheep and goat can therefore give an indication of the use of these animals for secondary products (Mackinnon 2004, 132; Groot 2010, 73-75; Baron, Reuter, Marković 2018, 9). To see if any information about the ruralization of cities could be gained from the mortality pattern of ovicaprines, data from urban 1 contexts in central Roman Italy was compared (see Appendix 9). As some publications only gave information about the relative division of the sheep/goat population into different age categories (ranging from fetal to old) instead of more detailed fusion or dental data, it was chosen to group all available data into these age categories. The division between subadults and adults was put at 36 months, as conforming to ideas put forth by Payne and Hambleton (Payne 1973; Hambleton 1999; Greenfield, Arnold 2008, 838). The way in which the epiphyseal fusion data was represented in the publications, as a percentage of animals younger than a certain 32 More information is needed for the city of Rome in order to include it to the list. 88 age or only as a number of bones that were fused on unfused (Mackinnon 2004, 134-145), was often unclear and rarely properly explained. In addition, the fusion data represents if a bone is older or younger than a certain amount of months, based on the fusion of the epiphyses (the ends of the long bones), but this is not always as specific as dental data. When an epiphysis fuses at an early age, for instance, it could either belong to a young animal, of which the epiphysis has just fused to the rest of bone, or to an older animal, of which the bones have been fused for several years (Reitz, Wing 2008, 173-174; 219-222; Groot 2010, 62-66). This phenomenon, in combination with the ambiguity of the published data, made it difficult to group the fusion data into the different age categories and therefore this data has been omitted from the analysis. Fig. 32. Comparison of mortality data for sheep and goat for the Republic, Roman and Late Antique a total of 17 contexts period, based on The mortality data for sheep and goat for contexts from central Roman Italy show that in the Late Antique period there was a reduction of animals killed at a younger age (fetal, neonate and juvenile animals, all under 1 year of age) compared to the previous two periods. This shows that there was a reduction of young animals used solely for their meat. It is known that lamb was commonly eaten in Roman times (Toynbee 1973, 164). Perhaps different circumstances in Late Antiquity caused the people to see greater advantage in keeping the animals till an older age, possibly for longer use of secondary resources. The data does show an increase of subadult animals, meaning that in Late Antiquity more sheep and goats were killed between the age of 1 and 3 than in the previous centuries. While these not yet fully adult animals probably were of little use for milk production, depending 89 on what age their first lamb would be born, they might have contributed to the amount of wool and hair obtainable from a herd. Of course, this analysis is based on a sample of only 17 contexts, with only 3 dated to Late Antiquity, as not much information about age patterns was provided in the archaeozoological publications. This small sample is very restricted for giving clear results and the data presented above seems insufficient to see if the use of secondary products of sheep and goats had actually increased in Late Antiquity. A more detailed analysis, with a more specified look at the age pattern of single sites and perhaps an analysis of the amount of female and male ovicaprines, might give a better indication of this trend. Unfortunately, such an analysis falls outside of the scope of this study. 4.2.3. Presence of chicken on central Roman Italian sites As discussed at the beginning of this Chapter (4.2) the NISP data for the contexts of central Roman Italy show that only a small percentage (7.4 %) of the total identified remains belonged to bird species (see fig. 22). No specific study of the distribution of bird species, as with the distribution of mammal species, has been undertaken, but it could be concluded from the analysis of the individual archaeozoological publications that chicken constitutes a large part of the excavated bird remains. As chicken is another domesticated animal that was frequently consumed in Roman times, besides pig, cattle, sheep and goat (Mackinnon 2004, 244; Nicholson 2018, 997), it might prove interesting to see if a pattern is visible in the use of chicken throughout Roman times and especially from the Imperial period to Late Antiquity. In Appendix 10 the contexts have been listed where the amount of chicken remains were published, with the total NISP of the animal finds and the NISP of the chicken remains. The percentages of chicken have been calculated in relation with the percentages of cattle, sheep/goat and pig, as in some publications this was the only manner in which the data of the chicken remains was published33. At those sites, no NISP is available for chicken, only a percentage. 33 For instance in De Grossi Mazzorin, Minniti 2010, 53. 90 Fig. 33. Percentages of chicken on central Italian sites throughout Roman times. Percentages are calculated compared to the total NISP of cattle, sheep/goat, pig and chicken remains. When the total remains are compared, an increase of chicken in Late Antiquity can be noted. However, if the contexts are divided per type, different patterns emerge. The urban 1 sites show an increase of chicken throughout the Roman period. For the rural sites, information was only available for the Imperial period and for Late Antiquity, and these data show a decrease of chicken. The special sites show a very high increase of chicken in Late Antiquity. There might be some influence here of specific cultural practices where the (ritual) use of chicken is attested, like the cult of Mithras (De Grossi Mazzorin 2005). One of the two special contexts from the Late Antique period is located in the Mitraeum of the Crypta Balbi in Rome, where chicken constituted 68.6% of the remains of the four groups of domestic animals. For the urban 2 sites there was no data for chicken remains. Overall, the results from these 42 contexts show that no general pattern in the use of chicken can be attested. 91 4.3. TRANSITION BETWEEN IMPERIAL TIMES AND LATE ANTIQUITY: ARCHAEOZOOLOGICAL EVIDENCE Analysis of the animals remains from 127 different contexts from Central Roman Italy has provided insight in the animal use in this historical period. The relative percentages of ovicaprines, cattle and pig, the most abundant animals recovered in these contexts, were compared according to the different periods, different types of contexts and different regions. From this, a trend of the use of these three groups of domesticated animals in Late Antiquity could be recognized. In general, it seems that in Late Antiquity there was a higher percentage of sheep and goat, and a lower percentage of cattle, compared to the previous periods. This high amount of sheep and goat in Late Antiquity had previously been recognized and was said to be related to a reduction of the population, an increase in areas of pasture that had in previous centuries been used for cultivation, and a ruralization of the urban environment (Arthur 2007, 16). This ruralization of the urban environment has already been discussed for the city of Luni, and for the cities of Sagalassos and Justiniana Prima. Archaeozoological research for Anglo-Saxon England seems to show a similar pattern, where sheep and goat seems to predominate in this Late Antique period and animals were primarily used for their secondary products and in small amounts for their meat (Rizzetto, Crabtree, Albarella 2017; Nicholson 2018, 997). Of course this was primarily a rural society (Nicholson 2018, 76), unequal to the more urban oriented world of Late Antique Italy (La Rocca 1992; Wickham 2005, 644-656; Dey 2015, 78), but it is interesting to see that a similar pattern, an increase in ovicaprine remains, can be seen in different parts of the former Roman Empire in Late Antiquity. The increased use of these animals has in all cases been interpreted as a move away from the larger cattle, which were more costly to maintain, required more attention and whose meat was more difficult to distribute than that from the smaller ovicaprines, which could survive on lesser resources and needed less work to maintain (De Cupere 2001, 139-145; Degryse et al. 2004; Mackinnon 2004, 95-96; 121-123; Vanhaverbeke, Martens, Waelkens 2007; Rizzetto, Crabtree, Albarella 2017; Baron, Reuter, Marković 2018). Ovicaprines seemed to have been favoured and probably were more fitting to the circumstance in Late Antiquity. The use of pigs seems to have been more variably and a more detailed regional analysis, at yet not reliable possible, could give more insight in the use of this species in Late Antiquity. 92 The increase in ovicaprine remains could possibly be interpreted as a process towards a more rural environment. A detailed analysis of urban zooarchaeological contexts has shown this increase in both Luni and Naples, cities for which a ruralization in Late Antiquity can be assumed. For the identification of ruralization in the Late Antique city, the archaeozoological evidence does not yet seem fully reliable. It could provide an indication, but an incorporation of archaeological remains, including analysis of architectural remains and excavated stratigraphy for both Imperial and Late Antique periods, and possible information known from classical texts, seems necessary to make any conclusions about ruralization in the city. Specialized studies for individual cities, with detailed incorporation of the archaeozoological remains, could provide interesting results about their evolution in Late Antiquity. The current dataset34 has however provided for an interesting preliminary insight in the evolution of domesticated animals throughout antiquity. A trend has been established for Late Antiquity and a start has been made for further studies. The study as presented in this chapter could further be broadened to incorporate north- and south-Italian regions, to see changes from Late Antiquity into the Middle Ages (as has recently been attempted by Frank Salvadori (forthcoming)), to focus on specific species throughout time or in different regions, to incorporate other methods like ageing patterns (with bigger samples than the analysis presented above), or to study specific settlements. 34 Larger than the dataset provided by Michael Mackinnon (Mackinnon 2004), whose work was an essential foundation for this work, and probably yet not as large as it could be in the nearby future with continuing excavations and hopefully increasing publications. 93 94 5. CONCLUSION The city in Late Antiquity and its development compared to the previous Roman periods is a subject on which extensive research has been published by both archaeologists and historians. This study has attempted to explore the subject from a less viewed angle and to see in what ways archaeozoology can provide additional information and possible new insights about the city in the Late Antique period. Analysis of current information on the Late Antique city has shown that multiple changes occurred in the classical Roman city over the course of Late Antiquity. Public buildings were abandoned, new simple structures were erected over former public areas and churches came to dominate the urban landscape. Various factors, including the influence of the curia, the church and of new occupiers, may have contributed to these changes and determined the way in which the cities were transformed. A number of these changes and factors have been identified in the city of Luni, an important case study in this thesis. Public structures on the forum were deserted and overbuilt by small houses in perishable materials. First century CE habitation in the south of the city was restructured and rebuilt for other purposes. The classical curia fell out of use, probably due to the disappearance of the curial class, and became the location of a new Christian cathedral. Habitation moved closer to the cathedral as the influence of the Church and the bishop in the city increased. Other factors that will have influenced transformations in the urban layout were the changing control over the city by the Romans, the Byzantines and the Lombards, possibly creating uncertain circumstances when tensions between these groups increased, and the diminishment of long distance trade, causing reduced prosperity of the city and its territory. The combination of these factors will have caused a process of transformation that, in the city of Luni, caused a ruralization of the urban environment. Areas in the city became uninhabited and were probably transformed into gardens for cultivation or plots for the pasture of animals. Precisely this process of ruralization has been given specific attention in this study, because it is a process that might possibly be determined through the analysis of archaeozoological remains. Some previous studies outside of Roman Italy have shown that a strategy of smaller domesticated animals like sheep, goat and pig, which are kept in the vicinity of the city, can point to increasing ruralization in the city. Study of the archaeozoological remains excavated in Luni indeed show an abundance of pig, sheep and goat, with cattle present in lesser amounts (but with a high contribution to the meat 95 consumption). Compared to remains from the Imperial period, it seems like pig and especially sheep and goat have increased in importance while the amount of cattle seems to decrease. A similar pattern has emerged from the analysis of archaeozoological contexts from central Roman Italy. In different kind of sites and different regions the contexts of Late Antiquity show an increased amount of sheep and goat and a lower amount of cattle compared to the previous centuries. This has been related to changing circumstances and an increased sense of insecurity in this later period, causing people to rely more on easier maintainable and moveable species. In general, this pattern has also been noted in the cities, although more information is needed for specialized analysis of individual cities as a variety of urban transformation existed in Late Antiquity and cities may have reacted to these changes in their own distinct way. Analysis of zooarchaeological remains of Roman, and especially Late Antique, contexts in Central Italy, in the form of both a detailed study for a specific context and a broader comparison of a collection of contexts, has provided an insight in the use of animals in Late Antique Italy. Although mainly focused on the domesticated (consumed) mammals and based on a restricted amount of contexts, it does show that sheep and goat had gained an increased importance in this period, something that seems to be confirmed by studies from other regions in the former Roman Empire. As for the Late Antique city, archaeozoology has confirmed this pattern for some Central Italian cities, while others still require more data and a bigger archaeozoological sample. Clearest information seems to have derived from the city of Luni, where the detailed study of the zooarchaeological remains and the incorporation of other archaeological research allowed for a more comprehensive study and a better interpretation of the Late Antique city. Although many limitations have been noted for the analysed contexts, including unequal regional and typological distribution of the uncovered remains and the availability and detail of the presented data, their study has shown that archaeozoology can provide information about the (changed) use of animals in the Late Antique city and its broader environment. In this study mostly general patterns have been presented, but detailed analysis of zooarchaeological contexts for specific cities will provide even more information and will help to understand a bit more about a particular period in the city’s history. Further incorporation of other aspects of archaeological research will help to complete the picture and compare different situations. 96 The study of archaeozoological remains can provide information about general patterns of animal use in a certain region or in certain types of settlements or cultural contexts. Information may be gained about the consumption of certain animals, use of their secondary products and changing preferences throughout time. Regarding the Late Antique city, archaeozoology can similarly distinguish broad patterns and resemblances between different cities. More interestingly, it can provide information about the animal use and consumption in the Late Antique city, the differences compared to other periods and, in combination with other archaeological evidence, it might be able to give information about processes of ruralization inside the urban environment. “Animals are just as likely to be made or modified by humans as would a ceramic vessel, a coin, or any other arguably typical artefact” (Mackinnon 2007, 496). Archaeozoology is therefore just as valuable to studies of Late Antiquity as any other archaeological discipline. 97 98 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbot F.F., Johnson A.C., 1926. Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire, New York: Princeton University Press. Albarella U., 1992. La fauna, in: Arthur P., (ed.), L’Isola e il Santo, La chiesa di San Constanzo alla Marina Grande di Capri, scavi 1990, Napoli: Editoriale Scientifica, 53-57. Albarella U., Ceglia V., Roberts P., 1993. S. Giacomo Degli Schiavoni (Molise), An Early Fifth Century AD Deposit of Pottery and Animal Bones from Central Adriatic Italy, Papers of the British School at Rome 61, 157-230. Alberti M.E., 2008. Murex Shells as Raw Material, The Purple-Dye Industry and its By-Products, Interpreting the Archaeological Record, in: Kaskal, Rivista di storia, ambienti e culture del Vicino Oriente Antico 5, 73-90. Alhaique F., 2018. Zooarchaeological remains from the Tincu House at Gabii, in: Opitz R., Mogetta M., Terrenato N., (eds.), A Mid-Republican House from Gabii, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 137-160. Alhaique F., De Bernardis D., Fortunato M.T., 2011. Attività produttive legate allo sfruttamento delle risorse animali tra età romana e medioevo, il caso di Ferento, in: De Minicis E., Pavolini C., (eds.), Risorse naturali e attività produttive, Ferento a confronto con altre realtà, Atti del 2° Convegno di studi in memoria di Gabriella Maetzke, Viterbo, 27-28 aprile 2010, Daidalos 12, Viterbo: DISBEC, 195-208. Alhaique F., Fortunato M.T., 2015. Possible evidences for a dog sacrifice at Ferento (Viterbro) in the Late Antique Period, in: Thun Hohenstein U., Cangemi M., Fiore I., De Grossi Mazzorin J., Atti del 7° Convegno Nazionale di Archeozoologia, Annali dell’Università degli Studi di Ferrara, Museologia Scientifica e Naturalistica 11/2, 109-114. Arthur P., 2004. From Vicus to Village, Italian Landscapes, AD 400-1000, in: Christie N., (ed.), Landscapes of Change, Rural Evolutions in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Aldershot: Ashgate, 103133. Arthur P., 2007. Pots and Boundaries, On Cultural and Economic Areas between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, in: Bonifay M., Tréglia J.-C., (eds.), LRCW 2, Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean, Archaeology and Archaeometry, Volume I, British Archaeological Reports International Series 1662/1, Oxford: Archaeopress, 15-28. Arthur P., 2012. Hierapolis of Phrygia, The Drawn-Out Demise of an Anatolian City, in: Christie N., Augenti A., (eds.), Urbes Extinctae, Archaeologies of Abandoned Classical Towns, Farnham: Ashgate, 275305. 99 Augenti A., 2006. Ravenna e Classe, archeologia di due città tra la tarda Antichità e l’alto Medioevo, in: Augenti A., (ed.), Le città italiane tra la tarda Antichità e l’alto Medioevo, Atti del convegno (Ravenna, 26-28 febbraio 2004), Firenze: Edizioni All’Insegna del Giglio, 185-217. Augenti A., 2012. Classe, Archaeologies of a Lost City, in: Christie N., Augenti A., (eds.), Urbes Extinctae, Archaeologies of Abandoned Classical Towns, Farnham: Ashgate, 45-75. Azzaroli A., 1979. Su alcuni resti di cavalli protostorici dell’Italia centrale, Studi Etruschi 47, 231-236. Baeten J., Marinova E., De Laet V., Degryse P., De Vos D., Waelkens M., 2012. Faecal biomarker and archaeobotanical analyses of sediments from a public latrine shed new light on ruralisation in Sagalassos, Turkey, Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 1143-1159. Banti L., 1937. Luni, Firenze: Instituto di Studi Etruschi. Barker G., 1976. Animal husbandry at Narce, in: Potter T.W., (ed.), A Faliscan town in South Etruria, Excavations at Narce 1966-1971, London, 295-307. Barker G., 1977. L’economia del bestiame a Luni, in: Frova A., (ed.), Scavi di Luni II, Relazione delle campagne di scavo 1972-1973-1974, Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider, 725-735. Barker G., 1982. The animal bones, in: Whitehouse D., Barker G., Reece R., Reese D., (eds.), The Schola Praeconum I, The Coins, Pottery, Lamps and Fauna, Papers of the British School at Rome 50, 81-99. Barker G., Clark G., 1995. The faunal data, in: Barker G., (ed.), The Biferno valley survey, The Archaeological and Geomorphological Record, London: Leicester University Press, 143-176. Barone R., 1980. Anatomia Comparata di Mammiferi Domestici, Vol. 1 Osteologia, Bologna: Edizioni Agricole (Italian edition [1966]). Bedini E., 1997. I resti faunistici, in: Bonghi Jovini M., Chiaramonte Treré C., (eds.), Tarquinia, Testimonianze archeologiche e ricostruzione storica, Scavi sistematici nell’abitato (campagne 19821988), Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 103-144. Bierbrauer V., 1988. Situazione della Ricerca sugli Insediamenti nell’Italia Settentrionale in Epoca TardoAntica e nell’Alto Medioevo (V-VII sec.), Fonti, Metodo, Prospettive, Archeologia Medievale 15, 501-515. Bini M., Chelli A., Durante A.M., Gervasini L., Pappalardo M., 2009. Geoarchaeological sea-level proxies from a silted up harbour, A case study of the Roman colony of Luni (northern Tyrrhenian Sea, Italy), Quaternary International 206, 147-157. Bistolfi F., De Grossi Mazzorin J., 2005. I resti equini rinvenuti nello scavo condotto sul Celio a Piazza Celimontana (Roma), in: Fiore I., Malerba G., Chilardi S., (eds.), Atti del 3° Convegno Nazionale di Archeozoologia (Siracusa, 3-5 novembre 2000), Roma: Istituto poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 449458. 100 Blanc G.A., 1960. Elenco completo delle faune trovate negli strati della Sacra Via, in: Gjerstad E., (ed.), Early Rome III, Fortifications, Domestic Architecture, Santuaries, Stratigraphic Excavations, Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Rome, Series in 4°, 17/3, Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 470-473. Bogdani J., Giorgi E., 2010. La Conclusione degli Scavi nel Giardino della Domus, le Strutture Repubblicane, il Quartiere Termale, la Necropoli Tarda, in: Giorgi E., Lepore G., (eds.), Archaeologia nella Valle del Cesano da Suasa a Santa Maria in Portuno, Atti del Convegno per i venti anni di ricerche dell’Università di Bologna (Castelleone di Suasa, Corinaldo, San Lorenzo in Camp 18-19 dicembre 2008), Bologna: Ante Quem, 335-352. Bökönyi S., 1986. Animal remains from the Roman villa of San Potito-Pvindoli (L’Aquila) 1983-1984, Acta Archaeological Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 38, 89-91. Bowden W., Hodges R., 2012. An ‘Ice Age settling on the Roman Empire’, Post-Roman Butrint between Strategy and Serendipity, in: Christie N., Augenti A., (eds.), Urbes Extinctae, Archaeologies of Abandoned Classical Towns, Farnham: Ashgate, 207-241. Bowersock G.W., Brown P., Grabar O., 2000. Late Antiquity, A Guide to the Postclassical World, Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press (second printing [1999]). Brogiolo G.P., 1993. Brescia Altomedievale, Urbanistica ed Edilizia dal IV al IX secolo, Documenti di Archeologia 2, Mantova: Editrice Società Archeologica Padana. Brogiolo G.P., 2000. Towns, Forts and the Countryside, Archaeological Models for Northern Italy in the Early Lombard Period (AD 568-650), in: Brogiolo G.P., Gauthier N., Christie N., (eds.), Towns and their Territories between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, The Transformation of the Roman World Volume 9, Leiden: Brill, 299-323. Brown P., 1971. The World of Late Antiquity, From Marcus Aurelius to Muhammad, London: Thames and Hudson. Cameron A., 1993. The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity, AD 395-600, London: Routledge. Cameron A., 2001. The uses and abuses of the concept of ‘decline’ in later Roman history, A response, in: Lavan L., (ed.), Recent Research in Late-Antique Urbanism, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 42, Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 238-239. Carannante A., Chilardi S., Rebbecchi D., Vedovelli R., 2012. Ostriche, fagiani e cacciagione, Consumi d’élite e decadenza ad Alife (CE) tra il II ed l’XI secolo, in: De Grossi Mazzorin J., Saccà D., Tozzi C., (eds.), Atti del 6° Convegno Nazionale di Archeozoologia, Centro visitatori del Parco dell’Orecchiella, 21-24 maggio 2009, San Romano in Garfagnana – Lucca, Lecce: Associazione Italiana di Archeozoologia, 307-314. 101 Cerilli E., 2005. Consumi alimentary in una mansio romana, il caso del Mansio ad Vacanas (Valle di Baccano, Campagnano di Roma, Lazio, in: Fiore I., Malerba G., Chilardi S., (eds.), Atti del 3° Convegno Nazionale di Archeozoologia, Roma: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 433-441. Chavarría Arnau A., 2004. Interpreting the Transformation of Late Roman Villas, The Case of Hispania, in: Christie N., (ed.), Landscapes of Change, Rural Evolutions in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Aldershot: Ashgate, 67-102. Christie N., 2004. Landscapes of Change in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Themes, Directions and Problems, in: Christie N., (ed.), Landscapes of Change, Rural Evolutions in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Aldershot: Ashgate, 1-37. Christie N., 2006. From Constantine to Charlemagne, An archaeology of Italy, AD 300-800, Aldershot: Ashgate. Christie N., 2012. Urbes Extinctae, Archaeologies of and Approaches to Abandoned Classical Cities, in: Christie N., Augenti A., (eds.), Urbes Extinctae, Archaeologies of Abandoned Classical Towns, Farnham: Ashgate, 1-44. Cirelli E., 2013. La città dell’Italia del nord nell’epoca dei re (888-962 AD), in: Valenti M., Wickham C., (eds.), Italia, 888-962, una svolta, IV Seminario Internazionale Cassero di Poggio Imperiale a Poggibonsi (SI), 4-6 dicembre 2009, Turnhout: Brepols Publishers n.v., 131-168. Cirelli E., 2014. La Ridefinizione degli Spazi Urbani nelle Città dell’Adriatico Centrale tra la Tarda Antichità e l'Alto Medioevo, Hortus Artium Medievalium 20/1, 39-47. Clark G., 1999. The animal bones, in: Fulford M., Wallace-Hadrill A., (ed.), Towards a history of pre-Roman Pompeii, excavations beneath the House of Amarantus (I.9.11-12), 1995-8, Papers of the British School at Rome 67, 85-95, 128-138. Costantini L., Giorgi J., 2009. The Faunal Remians form Rooms 49, 50 and 51, in: Scott R.T., (ed.), Excavations in the Area Sacra of Vesta (1987-1996), Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome Supplementary Volumes 8, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 143-144. Curta F., 2001. Peasants as Makeshift Soldier for the Occasion, Sixth-Century Settlement Patterns in the Balkans, in: Bums S.T., Eadie J.W. (eds.), Urban Centers and Rural Contexts in Late Antiquity, East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 199-218. De Cupere B., 2001. Animals at Ancient Sagalassos, Evidence of the Faunal Remains, Studies in Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology 4, Turnhout: Brepols Publishers. De Grossi Mazzorin J., 1985. Reperti faunistici dall’acropoli di Populonia, testimonianze di allevamento e caccia nel III secolo a.C., Rassegna d’Archeologia 5, 131-171. De Grossi Mazzorin J., 1987. La Fauna, in: Ghini G., (ed.), La villa dei Quintili a Monteporzio, Archeologia Laziale 8, 234-235. 102 De Grossi Mazzorin J., 1989. Nota preliminare sulla fauna, in: Morselli C., Tortorici E., (eds.), Curia, Forum Iulium, Forum Transitorium, Lavori e studi di archeologia pubblicati dalla Soprintendenza archeologica di Roma 14/2, Roma: De Luca Edizioni d’Arte, 340-347. De Grossi Mazzorin J., 1995a. La fauna rinvenuta nell’area della Meta Sudans nel quadro evolutivo degli animali domestici in Italia, in: Peretto R., (ed.), Atti del 1° Convegno nazionale di archeozoologia (Rovigo, 5-7 marzo 1993), Padusa Quaderni 1, Pisa/Roma: Istituti editoriali e poligrafici, 309-318. De Grossi Mazzorin J., 1995b. Appendice, Indizi di pratiche cultuali nel santuario di Pescorocchiano attraverso l’analisi dei resti faunistici, in: Alvino G, (ed.), Santuari, culti e paesaggio in un’area italica, il Cicolano, Quaderni di Archeologia Etrusco-Italica 24, 484-486. De Grossi Mazzorin J., 1996. Resti faunistici, in: Volpe R., (ed.), Aqua Marcia, lo scavo di un tratto urbano, Firenze: Edizioni All’Insegna del Giglio, 203-214. De Grossi Mazzorin J., 1997. La fauna della stipe del santuario di Schiavi d’Abruzzo e le testimonianze di pratiche cultuali connesse ai suini nell’antichità, in: Campanelli A., Faustoferri A., (eds.), I luoghi degli dei, Sacro e natura nell’Abruzzo italico, Sambuceto: Poligrafica Mancini, 126-127. De Grossi Mazzorin J., 2001. L’uso dei cani nei riti funerari, Il caso della necropoli di età imperiale a Fidene, via Radicofani, in: Heinzelmann M., Ortalli J., Fasold P., Witteyer M., (eds.), Römischer Bestattungsbrauch und Beigabensitten, in Rom, Norditalien und den Nordwestprovinzen von der späten Republik bis in die Kaiserzeit, Culto die morti e costumi funerari romani, Roma, Italia settentrionale e province nord-occidentali dalla tarda Repubblica all’età imperiale, Internationales Kolloquium, Rom 1.-3. April 1998, Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 77-82. De Grossi Mazzorin J., 2004a. I resti animali del mitreo della Crypta Babli, testimonianze di pratiche cultuali, in: Martens M., De Boe G., (eds.), Roman Mithraism, the evidence of small finds, Brussel: Vlaams Instituut voor het Onroerend Erfgoed, 179-181. De Grossi Mazzorin J., 2004b. I resti animali della struttura ipogea di Centocelle, una testimonianza di pratiche cultuali, in: Gioia P., Volpe R., Centocelle I, Roma S.D.O. le indagini archeologiche, Roma: Rubbettino Editore, 323-329. De Grossi Mazzorin J., 2005. Introduzione e diffusione del pollame in Italia ed evoluzione delle sue forme di allevamento fino al Medioevo, in: Fiore I., Malerba G., Chilardi S., (eds.), Atti del 3° Convegno Nazionale di Archeozoologia, Roma: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 351-361. De Grossi Mazzorin J., 2014a. Gli Astragali della tomba 101 della necropoli di Varranone (Poggio Picenze – AQ), Elementi apotropaici per i vivi o per i morti, in: Bourdin S., D’Ercole D., (eds.), I Vestini e il loro territorio dalla Preistoria al Medioevo, Roma: École Française de Rome, 81-89. De Grossi Mazzorin J., 2014b. Analisi faunistica dei resti osteologici provenienti dal pozzo B, in: Delfino A., (ed.), Forum Iulium, L’area del Foro di Cesare alla luce delle campagne di scavo 2005-2008, Le 103 fasi arcaica, repubblicana e cesariano-augustea, British Archaeological Reports International Series 2607, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 83-87. De Grossi Mazzorin J., Coppola F., 2008. L’analisi dei resti faunistici nel quadro delle strategie di allevamento e alimentazione nella Roma imperiale, in: Filippi F., (ed.), Horti et Sordes, Uno scavo alle falde del Gianicolo, Roma: Edizioni Quasar, 410-419. De Grossi Mazzorin J., Mascione C., 2010. Populonia, Acropoli, Un deposito rituale dalla cisterna pubblica, in: Di Giuseppe H., Serlorenzi M., (eds.), I riti del costruire nelle acque violate, Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Roma, Palazzo Massimo, 12-14 giugno 2008, Roma: Scienze e Lettere, 325-334. De Grossi Mazzorin J., Minniti C., 2000. Le sepolture di cani della necropoli di età imperiale di Fidene, via Radicofani (Roma), Alcune considerazioni sul loro seppellimento nell’antichità, in: Malerba G., Cilli C., Giacobini G., (eds.), Atti del 2° Convegno nazionale di archeozoologia (Asti, 14-16 novembre 1997), Forli: Abaco Edizioni, 387-398. De Grossi Mazzorin J., Minniti C., 2001a. Caratterizzazione archeozoologica, le sepoltre di cani, in: Di Manzano P., (ed.), Ad Deverticulum, Scavi archeologici lungo la bretella Nomentana-GRA, Roma: Generalvie S.P.A., 81-93. De Grossi Mazzorin J., Minniti C., 2001b. L’allevamento e l’approvvigionamento alimentare di una comunità urbana, L’utilizzazione degli animali a Roma tra il VII e il X secolo, in: Arena M.S., Delogu P., Paroli L., Ricci M., Saguì L., Vendittelli L., (eds.), Roma dall’antichità al medioevo, Archeologia e Storia nel Museo Nazionale Romano, Crypta Balbi, Roma: Electa, 72-78. De Grossi Mazzorin J., Minniti C., 2008. Resti faunistici dal saggio IX, in: Acconcia V., Rizzitelli C., (eds.), Materiali per Populonia 7, Pisa: ETS edizioni, 197-214. De Grossi Mazzorin J., Minniti C., 2009. Esame dei resti faunistici, in: Romualdi A., Settesoldi R., (eds.), Populonia, La necropoli delle grotte, Lo scavo nell’area della cava, 1997-98, Pisa: ETS edizioni, 320-334. De Grossi Mazzorin J., Minniti C., 2010a. L’utilizzazione degli animali nella documentazione archeozoologica a Roma e nel Lazio dalla preistoria recente all’età classica, in: Drago Troccoli L., (ed.), Il Lazio dai Colli Albani ai Monti Lepini tra preistoria ed età moderna, Roma: Edizioni Quasar, 39-67. De Grossi Mazzorin J., Minniti C., 2010b. Populonia, analisi dei resti faunistici di un’abitazione di età romana, in: Tagliacozzo A., Fiore I., Marconi S., Tecchiati U., (eds.), Atti del 5° Convegno Nazionale di Archeozoologia, Rovereto, 10-12 novembre 2006, Rovereto: Edizioni Osiride, 243-246. De Grossi Mazzorin J., Minniti C., 2015. Le Hostiae Animales dalla fossa rituale del saggio IV, in: Di Cola V., Pitzalis F., (eds.), Materiali per Populonia 11, Pisa: ETS edizioni, 139-158. 104 De Grossi Mazzorin J., Riedel A., Tagliacozzo A., 1998. Horse Remains in Italy from the Eneolithic to the Roman Period, in: Alhaique F., (ed.), Proceedings of the XIII Congress of the International Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Volume 6, Tome 1, Forli, Italia, 1996, 8-14 September, Forli: A.B.A.C.O. Edizioni, 87-92. Degryse P., Muchez P., De Cupere B., Van Neer W., Waelkens M., 2004. Special Treatment of Trace Element Data from Modern and Ancient Animal Bone, Evaluation of Roman and Byzantine Environmental Pollution, Analytical Letters 37/13, 2819-1834. Delano Smith C., Gadd D., Mills N., Ward-Perkins B., 1986. Luni and the Ager Lunensis, the Rise and Fall of a Roman Town and Its Territory, Papers of the British School at Rome 54, 81-146. Delogu P., 2010. Le Origini del Medioevo, Studi sul settimo secolo, Roma: Jouvence. Destro M., 2004. L’abbandono delle città interne delle Marche settentrionali tra età romana e altomedioevo, in: Menestò E., (ed.), Ascoli e le Marche tra Tardoantico e Altomedioevo, Atti del Convegno di studio svoltosi in occasione della sedicesima edizione del “Premio internazionale Ascoli Piceno”, Ascoli Piceno, 5-7 dicembre 2002, Spoleto: Fondazione Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 101122. Dey H.W., 2015. The Afterlife of the Roman City, Architecture and Ceremony in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, New York: Cambridge University Press. Díaz P.C., 2000. City and Territory in Hispania in Late Antiquity, in: Brogiolo G.P., Gauthier N., Christie N., (eds.), Towns and their Territories between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, The Transformation of the Roman World Volume 9, Leiden: Brill, 3-35. Esmonde Cleary S., 2013. The Roman West, AD 200-500, An Archaeological Study, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Faulkner N., 2000. Change and decline in late Romano-British towns, in: Slater T.R., (ed.), Towns in Decline, AD 100-1600, Aldershot: Ashgate, 25-50. Fazzini P., Maffei M., 2000. The disappearance of the city of Luni, Journal of Cultural Heritage 1, 247-260. Fiore M.G., Appetecchia A., Fusco I., Salari L., Passacantando D., 2012a. Subiaco, Rinvenimento di materiali ceramici e osteologici nella grotta in località Le Camere (Subiaco-Roma), in: Ghini G., Mari Z., (eds.), Lazio e Sabina 8, Atti dell’Ottavo Incontro di Studi sul Lazio e la Sabina, Roma: Edizione Quasar, 91-102. Fortunato M.T., 2013. Analisi archeozoologiche ed interpretazioni cultuali dei resti faunistici, legami tra il mondo animale e le divinità, in: Braconi P., Coarelli F., Diosono F., Ghini G., (eds.), Il Santuario di Diana a Nemi, Le terrazze e il ninfeo, Scavi 1989-2009, Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 597-608. Frova A., 1973. Scavi di Luni, Relazione preliminare delle champagne di scavo 1970-1971, Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider. 105 Frova A., 1977. Scavi di Luni II, Relazione delle campagne di scavo 1972-1973-1974, Roma: Giorgio Bretschneider. Fulford M., 2012. Calleva Atrebatum (Silchester, Hampshire, UK), An Early Medieval Extinction, in: Christie N., Augenti A., (eds.), Urbes Extinctae, Archaeologies of Abandoned Classical Towns, Farnham: Ashgate, 331-351. Gautier A., 1987. Taphonomic groups, How and Why, Archaeozoologia ½, 47-52. Gibbon E., 1906. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 1-12, New York: Fred de Fau and Co., (reissued [1776]). Giorgetti A., Campodoni G., 1985. La documentazione archeozoologica, in: Vannini G., (ed.), L’antico palazzo de Vescovi a Pistoia 2/1, Indagini archeologiche, Arte e Archeologia, Studi e Documenti 22, 545-558. Giorgi E., 2004. L’urbanistica di Ascoli Piceno dall’età romana all’altomedioevo, in: Menestò E., (ed.), Ascoli e le Marche tra Tardoantico e Altomedioevo, Atti del Convegno di studio svoltosi in occasione della sedicesima edizione del “Premio internazionale Ascoli Piceno”, Ascoli Piceno, 5-7 dicembre 2002, Spoleto: Fondazione Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 315-340. Giorgi E., Lepore G., 2010. Archeologia nella Valle del Cesano da Suasa a Santa Maria in Portuno, Atti del Convegno per i venti anni di ricerche dell’Università di Bologna (Castelleone di Suasa, Corinaldo, San Lorenzo in Camp 18-19 dicembre 2008), Bologna: Ante Quem. Giovinazzo R., 1998. I reperti faunistici, in: Giannichedda (ed.), Filattiera-Sorano, L’insediamento di età romana e tardo antica scavi 1986-1995, Firenze: All’Insegna del Giglio, 196-197. Grant A., 1982. The use of tooth wear as a guide to the age of domestic ungulates, in: Wilson B., Grigson C., Payne S., (eds.), Ageing and Sexing Animal bones from Archaeological Sites, British Archaeological Reports British Series 109, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 91-108. Greenfield H.J., Arnold E.R., 2008. Absolute age and tooth eruption and wear sequences in sheep and goat, determining age-at-death in zooarchaeology using a modern control sample, Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 836-849. Groot M., 2010. Handboek Zoöarcheologie, Materiaal en Methoden 1, Amsterdam: Archeologisch Centrum van de Vrije Universiteit – Hendrik Brunsting Stichting. Halsall G., 2007. Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376-568, New York: Cambridge University Press. Hambleton E., 1999. Animal husbandry regimes in Iron Age Britain, a comparative study of faunal assemblages from British Iron Age sites, British Archaeological Reports British Series 282, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 106 Harries J., 1992. Christianity and the city in Late Roman Gaul, in: Rich J., (ed.), The City in Late Antiquity, Leicester-Nottingham Studies in Ancient Society Volume 3, London: Routledge, 77-98. Hesse B., Wapnish P., 1987. Faunal remains., in: McCann A.M. (ed.), The Roman Port and Fishery of Cosa, A Center of Ancient Trade, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 315-317. Higham C.F.W., 1967. Stock Rearing as a Cultural Factor in Prehistoric Europe, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 33, 84-106. Holum K.G., Raban A., Lehmann C.M., le Burrier D., Ziek R., Sachs S.F., 1992. Preliminary report on the 1989-1990 seasons, in: Vann R.L., (ed.), Caesarea Papers, Straton’s Tower, Herod’s Harbour, and Roman and Byzantine Caesarea, Including the papers given at a Symposium held at the University of Maryland, The Smithsonian Institution, and the Jewish Community Center of Greater Washington on 25-28 March, 1988, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series Number 5, Ann Arbor: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 79-111. Hubert É., 1990. Espace urbain et habitat à Rome du Xe siécle à la fin du XIIIe siécle, Collection de l’École française de Rome 135, Rome: École Française de Rome, 3-396. Ioppolo G., 1972. I reperti ossei animali nell’area archeologica di S. Omobono (1962-1964), Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia 44, 3-46. Istituto di Paleontologia Umano, 1968. Reperti osteologici e malacologici, in: Carandini A., (ed.), Ostia I, Studi Miscellanei 13, Rome: De Luca Editore, 122-124. Istituto di Paleontologia Umano, 1973. Reperti osteologici e malacologici, in: Carandini A., Panella C., (ed.), Ostia III, Studi Miscellanei 21, Rome: De Luca Editore, 649-650. Istituto di Paleontologia Umano, 1977. Reperti osteologici e malacologici, in: Carandini A., Panella C., (eds.), Ostia IV, Studi Miscellanei 23, Rome: De Luca Editore, 273-275. Jashemski W.F., 1973a. Large vineyard discovered in ancient Pompeii, Science 180, 821-830. Jashemski W.F., 1973b. The Discovery of a Large Vineyard at Pompeii: University of Maryland Excavations, 1970, American Journal of Archaeology 77/1, 27-41. Jashemski W.F., 1979. The Gardens of Pompeii, Herculaneum and the Villas Destroyed by Vesuvius, New Rochelle/New York: Caratzas Brothers. Jashemski W.F., 1993. The Gardens of Pompeii II, Appendices, New Rochelle/New York: Caratzas Brothers. Jones A.H.M., 1964. The Later Roman Empire, 284-602, A social economic and administrative survey, Volume I-III, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Kindstedt P.S., 2012. Cheese and Culture, a History of Cheese and Its Place in Western Civilization, White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing. King A.C., 1985. I resti animali, in: Ricci A. (ed.), Settefinestre, una villa schiavistia nell’Etruria romana 2, 278-300. 107 King A.C., 1987. Le ossa, in Arthur P., (ed.), Scavo in proprietà Carillo, Santa Maria Capua Vetere, Contributo per una conoscenza di Capua tardo-antico, Archeologia Medievale 14, 532. King A.C., 1994. Mammiferi, in: Arthur P., (ed.), Il complesso archeologico di Carminiello ai Mannesi, Napoli (scavi 1983-1984), Galatina: Congedo Editore, 367-406. King A.C., 1997. Mammal, Reptile and Amphibian Bones, in: Potter T.W., King A.C., (eds.), Excavations at the Mola di Monte Gelato, British School at Rome Archaeological Monograph 11, London: British School at Rome, 383-403. King A.C., 1999. Diet in the Roman world, a regional inter-site comparison of the mammal bones, Journal of Roman Archaeology 12, 168-202. King A.C., Rielly K., Thomas K.D., 1985. I resti animali, in: Ricci A. (ed.), Settefinestre, una villa schiavistia nell’Etruria romana 3, La villa e i suoi reperti, Modena: Panini, 278-305. Kirilov C., 2007. The reduction of the fortified city area in late antiquity, some reflections on the end of the antique city in the hands of the Eastern Roman Empire, in: Henning J., (ed.), Post-Roman Towns, Trade and Settlement in Europe and Byzantium vol. 2, Byzantium, Pliska, and the Balkans, Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 3-24. Kokabi M., 1982. Tierknochenfunde, in: Eschebach H., Die Casa di Ganimede in Pompeij VII 13,4, Ausgrabungen und Baugeschichte, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts Roemische Abteilung 89, Bullettino dell’Instituto Archeologico Germanico Sezione Romana 89, 397425. Kulikowski M., 2004. Late Roman Spain and its Cities, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Kulikowski M., 2007. Plague in Spanish Late Antiquity, in: Little L.K., (ed.), Plague and the End of Antiquity, The Pandemic of 541-750, New York: Cambridge University Press, 150-170. La Rocca C., 1992. Public buildings and urban change in northern Italy in the early mediaeval period, in: Rich J., (ed.), The City in Late Antiquity, Leicester-Nottingham Studies in Ancient Society Volume 3, London: Routledge, 161-180. Lavan L., 2001a. The late-antique city, a bibliographic essay, in: Lavan L., (ed.), Recent Research in LateAntique Urbanism, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 42, Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 9-26. Lavan L., 2001b. The uses and abuses of the concept of ‘decline’ in later Roman history, A brief comment, in: Lavan L., (ed.), Recent Research in Late-Antique Urbanism, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 42, Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 243-245. Lavan L., 2012. Public Space in Late Antique Ostia, Excavation and Survey in 2008-2011, American Journal of Archaeology 116/4, 649-691. 108 Lepelley C., 1992. The survival and fall of the classical city in Late Roman Africa, in: Rich J., (ed.), The City in Late Antiquity, Leicester-Nottingham Studies in Ancient Society Volume 3, London: Routledge, 50-76. Lewit T., 2001. Changing concepts of Late Antiquity, The decline and fall of Gibbonism, Bulletin de l’Antiquité Tardive 10, 33-37. Liebeschuetz J.H.W.G., 1992. The end of the ancient city, in: Rich J., (ed.), The City in Late Antiquity, Leicester-Nottingham Studies in Ancient Society Volume 3, London: Routledge, 1-49. Liebeschuetz J.H.W.G., 2001a. Decline and Fall of the Roman City, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Liebeschuetz J.H.W.G., 2001b. The uses and abuses of the concept of ‘decline’ in later Roman history, or, Was Gibbon politically incorrect, in: Lavan L., (ed.), Recent Research in Late-Antique Urbanism, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 42, Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 233-238. Little L.K., 2007. Plague and the End of Antiquity, The Pandemic of 541-750, New York: Cambridge University Press. MacKinnon M., 1999. The faunal remains, in Soren D.S., Soren N., (eds.), A Roman villa and late Roman infant cemetery, Excavation at Poggio Gramignano (Lugnano in Teverina), Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 533-594. MacKinnon M., 2004. Production and Consumption of Animals in Roman Italy, Integrating the Zooarchaeological and Textual Evidence, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 54, Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology. Mackinnon M., 2007. Osteological Research in Classical Archaeology, American Journal of Archaeology 111/3, 473-504. MacKinnon M., 2011. Faunal Remains, in: Ghisleni M., Vaccaro E., Bowes K., Arnoldus A., MacKinnon M., Marani F., (eds.), Excavating the Roman Peasant I, Excavations at Pievina (GR), Papers of the British School at Rome 79, 120-128. Mannoni T., 1983. Insediamenti poveri nella Liguria di età romana e bizantina, Rivista di Studi Liguri 49/14, 254-264. Martínez Jiménez J., 2013. Crisis or Crises, The End of Roman Towns in Iberia, Between the Late Roman and Early Umayyad Periods, in: van der Wilt E.M., Martínez Jiménez J., (eds.), Tough Times, The Archaeology of Crisis and Recovery, Proceedings of the Graduate Archaeology at Oxford conferences in 2010 and 2011, British Archaeological Reports International Series 2478, Oxford: Archaeopress, 77-90. May E., 1985. Wideristhöhe und Langknochenmasse bei Pferden, Ein immer noch aktuelles Problem, Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 50, 368-382. 109 Meadow R.H., 1999. The use of size index scaling techniques for research on archaeozoological collections from the Middle East, in: Becker C., Manhart H., Peters J., Schibler J., (eds.), Historia Animalium Ex Ossibus, Beiträge zur Paläoanatomie, Archäologie, Ägyptologie, Ehtnologie und Geschichte der Tiermedizin, Festschrift für Angela von den Driesch, Rahden/Westf.: Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH, 285-300. Menchelli S., Sangriso P., Genovesi S., 2016. Luni, le campagne 2014-2015 nel settore sud-orientale della città, in: Lusuardi Siena S., Legrottaglie G. (eds.), Dall’Appennino a Luni tra Età Romana e Medioevo, Atti della giornata di studi, Berceto, 26 settembre 2016, Quaderni Centro Studi Lunensi 10, 101-124. Menchelli S., Sangriso P., Genovesi S., Maccari A., Marcheschi R., Marini S., forthcoming(a). Casa e bottega, un nuovo quartiere presso porta Marina, Quaderni Centro Studi Lunensi 2018. Menchelli S., Capelli C., Genovesi S., Maccari A., Cabella R., forthcoming(b). Luni, le domus presso Porta Marina, Ceramiche da fuoco, comuni ed anfore dalle stratigrafie tardoantiche, in: LRCW 6, Late Roman Coarse Wares. Milinković M., 2007. Stadt oder „Stadt“, Frühbyzantinische Siedlungsstrukturen im nördlichen Illyricum, in: Henning J., (ed.), Post-Roman towns, Trade and Settlement in Europe and Byzantium Volume 2, Byzantium, Pliska, and the Balkans, Millennium-Studien zu Kultur und Geschichte des ersten Jahrtausends n.Chr. 5/2, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 159-191. Minniti C., 2005. Analisi dei resti faunistici provenienti da tre pozzi (nn. 6, 7, 11) della Tenuta di Vallerano (Roman, I-II secolo d.C.), in: Fiore I., Malerba G., Chilardi S., (eds.), Atti del 3° Convegno Nazionale di Archeozoologia, Roma: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 419-432. Nicholas D., 1997. The Growth of the Medieval City, From Late Antiquity to the Early Fourteenth Century, New York: Addison Wesley Longman Inc. Nicholson O., 2018. The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, Volume 1-2, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Niewöhner P., 2017. Urbanism, in: Niewöhner P., (ed.), The Archaeology of Byzantine Anatolia, From the End of Late Antiquity until the Coming of the Turks, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 39-59. Ostrogorsky G., 1959. Byzantine cities in the Early Middle Ages, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 13, 45-66. Payne S., 1973. Kill-off patterns in sheep and goats, the mandibles from Aşvan Kale, Anatolian Studies 23, 281-303. Payne S., Bull G., 1988. Components of variation in measurements of pig bones and teeth, and the use of measurements to distinguish wild from domestic pig remains, Archaeozoologia 2/1,2, 27-66. Potter T.W., 1992. Roman Italy, London: British Museum Press [Second impression (1987)]. 110 Poulter A.G., 2007. The Transition to Late Antiquity, in: Poulter A.G., (ed.), The Transition to Late Antiquity, On the Danube and Beyond, Proceedings of the British Academy 141, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1-50. Prummel W., Bouma J.W., 1997. Animal Offerings at Borgo Le Ferriere (Latium, Italy), Anthropozoologica 25, 531-537. Raimondo C., 2006. Le città dei Bruttii tra tarda Antichità e Altomedioevo, nuove osservazioni sulla base delle fonti archeologiche, in: Augenti A., (ed.), Le città italiane tra la tarda Antichità e l’alto Medioevo, Atti del convegno (Ravenna, 26-28 febbraio 2004), Firenze: Edizioni All’Insegna del Giglio, 519-558. Reece R., 1992. The end of the city in Roman Britain, in: Rich J., (ed.), The City in Late Antiquity, LeicesterNottingham Studies in Ancient Society Volume 3, London: Routledge, 136-144. Reese D.S., 2002. Marine Invertebrates, Freshwater Shells, and Land Snails, Evidence from Specimens, Mosaics, Wall Paintings, Sculpture, Jewelry, and Roman Authors, in: Jashemski W.F., Meyer F.G., (eds.), The Natural History of Pompeii, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 292-314. Reitz E.J., Wing E.S., 2008. Zooarchaeology, Second Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rhodes P., 1994. Pesci, in: Arthur P., (ed.), Il complesso archeologico di Carminiello ai Mannesi, Napoli (scavi 1983-1984), Galatina: Congedo Editore, 421-422. Richardson J., 1995. Faunal remains, in: Bon S.E., Jones R., Kurchin B., Robinson D., (eds.), AngloAmerican research at Pompeii 1995, Preliminary report, Bradford: Bradford Archaeological Sciences Research, 27-29. Richardson J., Thompson G., Genovese A., 1997. New directions in economic and environmental research at Pompeii, in: Bon S.E., Jones R., (eds.), Sequence and space in Pompeii, Oxford, 88-101. Rielly K., 1994. Uccelli, in: Arthur P., (ed.), Il complesso archeologico di Carminiello ai Mannesi, Napoli (scavi 1983-1984), Galatina: Congedo Editore, 405-419. Rizzetto M., Crabtree P.J., Albarella U., 2017. Livestock Changes at the Beginning and End of the Roman Period in Britain, Issues of Acculturation, Adaptation and Improvement, European Journal of Archaeology 20/3, Animal Husbandry in the Western Roman Empire, A Zooarchaeological Perspective, 535-556. Rizzo F., Fortunato M.T., Pavolini C., 2013. Una deposizione rituale nell’area della domus ad atrio di Ferento, Journal of Fasti Online 293, 1-27, consulted on July 10 2018 on http://www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2013-293.pdf. Robertson W., 1769. The History of the Reign of the Emperor Charles V, With a View of the Progress of Society in Europe, from the Subversion of the Roman Empire, to the Beginning of the Sixteenth Century, London: W. and W. Strahan. 111 Rostovtzeff M., 1926. The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Salvadori F., forthcoming. The transition from late antiquity to early Middle Ages in Italy, A zooarchaeological perspective, Quaternary International 2018. Santini F., 2013. Il santuario di S. Angelo di Civitella (Pescorocchiano, Rieti), pratiche cultuali, in: Ghini G., Mari Z., (eds), Lazio e Sabina 9, Atti del Convegno, Nono Incontro di Studi sul Lazio e la Sabina, Roma, 27-29 marzo 2012, Roma: Edizioni Quasar, 155-160. Saradi H.G., 2006. The Byzantine City in the Sixth Century, Literary Images and Historical Reality, Athens: Socity of Messenian Archaeological Studies. Scali S., 1987. I resti animali, in: Barbieri G., (ed.), L’alimentazione nel mondo antico, Gli Etruschi, Rome: Istituto poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 87. Scali S., 1993a. Appendix 1, I Resti Faunistici Proveniente dalle Case Romane di Cosa (Ansedonia), in: Bruno V.J., Scott R.T., (eds.), Cosa IV, The houses, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 38, 193-200. Scali S., 1993b. Animal bones from Forum SW/SE cistern, in: Brown F.E., Richardson E.H., Richardson L., (eds.), Cosa III, The buildings of the forum, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 37, 296298. Silver I.A., 1963. The Ageing of Domestic Animals, in: Brothwell D., Higgs E., (eds.), Science in Archaeology, A Comprehensive Survey of Progress and Research, Bristol: Thames and Hudson, 250268. Skinner P., 1994. Urban Communities in Naples, 900-1050, Papers of the British School at Rome 62, 279299. Sorrentino C., 1981a. La fauna, in: Berggren E., Berggren K., (eds.), San Giovenale, Excavations in Area B 1957-1960, Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Rom, Series prima in 4°, 26, Volume 2/2, Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 58-64. Sorrentino C., 1981b. La fauna, in: Olinder B., Pohl I., (eds.), San Giovenale, The semisubterranean building in Area B, Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Rom, Series prima in 4o, 26, Volume 2/4, Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 85-89. Sorrentino C., 1989. Il Sus scrofa L. come offerta funebre, la sua distribuzione nelle tombe della necropoli romana del ‘Cantone’ a Collelongo (L’Aquila, Abruzzo, Italia), in: Meniel P., (ed.), Animal et pratiques religieuses, les manifestations matérielles, Anthropozoologica 3, Paris: CNRS, 119-126. Sorrentino C., Giuseppe Z., Manzi F., 2000. Materiale osteologico animale, in: Bruni S., (ed.), Le navi antiche di Pisa, Ad un anno dell’inizio delle ricerche, The Ancient ships of Pisa, after a year of work, Florence: Polistampa, 329-349. 112 Tagliacozzo A., 1989. L’analisi dei resti faunistici dell’area sacra di S. Omobono, in: Il viver quotidiano in Roma arcaica, Materiali degli scavi del Tempio Arcaico nell’area sacra di S. Omobono, Rome: Procom, 65-69. Tagliacozzo A., 1990. I resti ossei faunistici di Musarna, Mélanges de l’Ecole française de Rome, Antiquité 102, 479-480. Tagliacozzo A., 1993. I reperti faunistici, in: Pavolini C., (ed.), Caput Africae I, Rome: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 252-278. Tagliacozzo A., 1995. I resti ossei faunistici, in: Santrot M.-H., Santrot J., (eds.), Fouilles de l’École Française de Rome à Bolsena (Poggio Moscini) VII, La citerne 5 et son mobilier, Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire Supplement 6, Rome: École Françasie de Rome, 323-347. Toynbee J.M.C., 1973. Animals in Roman Life and Art, London: Thames and Hudson. Vaccaro E., MacKinnon M.., 2013. Changes in the economic locale, ceramic and faunal evidence, in: Vaccaro E., Ghisleni M., Arnoldus-Huyzendveld A., Grey C., Bowes K., (eds.), Excavating the Roman Peasant II, Excavations at Case Nuove, Cinigiano (GR), Papers of the British School at Rome 81, 145-154. Vanhaverbeke H., Martens F., Waelkens M., Poblome J., 2004. Late Antiquity in the Territory of Sagalassos (Pisidia, SW Turkey), in: Bowden W., Lavan L., Machado C., (eds.), Recent Research on the Late Antique Countryside, Late Antique Archaeology 2, Leiden/Boston: Brill, 247-279. Vanhaverbeke H., Martens F., Waelkens M., 2007. Another View on Late Antiquity, Sagalassos (SW Anatolia), its Suburbium and its Countryside in Late Antiquity, in: Poulter A.G., (ed.), The Transition to Late Antiquity, On the Danube and Beyond, Proceedings of the British Academy 141, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 611-648. Vermeulen F.M.R., 2012. Potentia, A Lost New Town, in: Christie N., Augenti A., (eds.), Urbes Extinctae, Archaeologies of Abandoned Classical Towns, Farnham: Ashgate, 77-95. Verslype L., Brulet R., 2004. Terres Noires, Dark Earth, Actes de la table-ronde international tenue à Louvain-la-Neuve, les 09 et 10 novembre 2001, Louvain-la-Neuve: Universitè Catholique de Louvain. Volpe G., 2006. Città apule fra destrutturazione e trasformazione, i casi di Canusium ed Herdonia, in: Augenti A., (ed.), Le città italiane tra la tarda Antichità e l’alto Medioevo, Atti del convegno (Ravenna, 2628 febbraio 2004), Firenze: Edizioni All’Insegna del Giglio, 587-559 Von den Driesch A., 1976. A guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites, Peabody Museum Bulletins 1, Cambridge: Harvard University. 113 Von den Driesch A., Boessneck J., 1974. Kritische Anmerkungen zur Widerristhöhenberechnung aus Längenmassen vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Tierknochen, Säugetierkundliche Mitteilungen 22, 325348. Wacher J., 1975. The Towns of Roman Britain, London: B.T. Batsford LTD. Walmsley A., 1996. Byzantine Palestine and Arabia, Urban Prosperity in Late Antiquity, in: Christie N., Loseby S.T., (eds.), Towns in Transition, Urban Evolution in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Aldershot: Scolar Press, 126-158. Ward-Perkins B., 1977. Lo scavo nella zona nord del Foro (CS), in: Frova A., (ed.), Scavi di Luni II, Relazione delle campagne di scavo 1972-1973-1974, Roma: Giorgio Bretschneider, 633-638. Ward-Perkins B., 1981a. Luni, The Prosperity of the town and its territory, in: Barker G., Hodges R., (eds.), Archaeology and Italian Society, Prehistoric, Roman and Medieval Studies, Papers in Italian Archaeology II, British Archaeological Reports International Series 102, Oxford: British Archaeological Series, 179-190. Ward-Perkins B., 1981b. Two Byzantine Houses at Luni, Papers of the British School at Rome 49, 91-98. Ward-Perkins B., 1996. Urban Continuity, in: Christie N., Loseby S.T., (eds.), Towns in Transition, Urban Evolution in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Aldershot: Scolar Press, 4-17. Ward-Perkins B., 1997. Continuitists, Catastrophists, and the Towns of Post-Roman Northern Italy, Papers of the British School at Rome 65, 157-176. Ward-Perkins B., 2001. The uses and abuses of the concept of ‘decline’ in later Roman history, A brief comment, in: Lavan L., (ed.), Recent Research in Late-Antique Urbanism, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 42, Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 239-241. Ward-Perkins B., 2005. The Fall of roman and the End of Civilization, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Whittow M., 1990. Ruling the Late Roman and Early Byzantine City, A Continuous History, Past and Present 129, 3-29. Whittow M., 1996. The Making of Orthodox Byzantium, 600-1025, London: MacMillan. Whittow M., 2001. The uses and abuses of the concept of ‘decline’ in later Roman history, Was Gibbon politically incorrect, or just wrong, in: Lavan L., (ed.), Recent Research in Late-Antique Urbanism, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 42, Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 241-243. Wickham C., 1981. Early Medieval Italy, Central Power and Local Society 400-100, London: Routledge. Wickham C., 1988. La Città Altomedievale, Una Nota sul Dibattito in Corso, Archeologia Medievale 15, 649-651. Wickham C., 2005. Framing the Early Middle Ages, Europe and the Mediterranean 400-800, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 114 Wilkens B., 1991. I resti faunistici, in: Ciampoltrini G., Rendini P., Wilkens B., (eds.), L’alimentazione nell’abitato etrusco di Montecatino in Val Freddana (Lucca), Studi Etruschi 56, 275-284. Zavagno L., 2009. Cities in Transition, Urbanism in Byzantium between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (AD 500-900), British Archaeological Reports International Series 2030, Oxford: Archaeopress. INTERNETSOURCES Baron H., Reuter A.E., Marković N., 2018. Rethinking ruralization in terms of resilience, Subsistence strategies in sixth-century Caričin Grad in the light of plant and animal bone finds, Quaternary International, 1-17, consulted on July 9 2018 on https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618217302707. Giudice A., 2013. Il tardoantico, decline o trasformazione, Frankfurter elektronische Rundschau zur Altertumskunde 21, 1-19, consulted on June 13 2018 op http://www.fera-journal.eu/index.php/ojsfera/article/view/150. Widrig W., 2002. The Via Gabina villas sites 10, 11 and 12, consulted on July 10 2018 on http://viagabina.rice.edu/index.html. MacKinnon M., 2010. Pievina, Preliminary Zooarchaeological Report, The Roman Peasant Project, Data and Preliminary Reports, 1-22, consulted on July 10 2018 on https://www.sas.upenn.edu/romanpeasants/reports.html. Clark G., 1990. The Via Gabina villas sites 10, 11 and 13, Faunal Remains, consulted on July 10 2018 http://viagabina.rice.edu/bones/index.html. ANTIQUE SOURCES Libanius, Orations: Norman A.F., (ed.), 1969. Selected Orations, Volume I, Julianic Orations, Loeb Classical Library 451, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Pliny the elder, Naturalis Historia 3-7: Rackham H., (ed.), 1942. Natural History, Volume II, Books 3-7, Loeb Classical Library 352, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Pliny the elder, Naturalis Historia 8-11: Rackham H., (ed.), 1940. Natural History, Volume III, Books 8-11, Loeb Classical Library 353, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Pliny the elder, Naturalis Historia 12-16: Rackham H., (ed.), 1945. Natural History, Volume IV, Books 1216, Loeb Classical Library 370, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Martial, Epigrammaton Libri 11-14: Shackleton Bailey D.R., (ed.), 1993. Epigrams, Volume III, Books 1114, Loeb Classical Library 480, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 115 Strabo, Geographika 3-5: Jones H.L., (ed.), 1923. Geography, Volume II, Books 3-5, Loeb Classical Library 50, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 116 APPENDIX 1. CATALOGUE OF STUDIED MATERIAL In the following table the specific information per identified specimen is presented. Per specimen, information is given about identified animal and identified skeletal elements. Under the category Bone element, information is given about the part of the bone that is preserved. Meaning of the abbreviations: com.=complete, frag.=fragment, pr.=proximal part of the bone, dis.=distal part, P.E.=proximal epiphysis, D.E.=distal epiphysis, I=incisor teeth, C=canine teeth, P=premolar teeth, M=molar teeth, s=superior/upper teeth, i=inferior/lower teeth. Furthermore is indicated if the bone was situated at the left or right side of the body, how much percentage of the bone was still conserved, the weight of the specimen, and taken measurements. These were taken according to criteria from Von den Driesch 1976 and use the abbreviations from this work. Epiphyseal fusion is indicated and dental age is represented based on Silver 1963, Higham 1967 and Grant 1982. In the notes additional information about marks or in some instances identified sex of the specimen is represented. US nr. 1135 1 1135 2 Taxon Animal Skeletal element Sus domesticus pig phalanx 1. Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus Bone element Body side conservation weight (%) (g) Measurement Epiphyseal s (mm) fusion Glpe=33 Bp=16 SD=12 fused Bd=14 Glpe=42 Bp=13 SD=1fused Bd=12 com. left 90 2 phalanx 1. com. right 95-100 3 right 10 49 - 1135 3 Bos taurus cattle metatarsus pr. frag. with P.E. 1135 4 Sus domesticus pig tibia body frag. right 25 10 - tibia body frag. right 40-45 11 - costa pr. frag. left - 4 - 1135 5 1135 6 Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus Bos taurus cattle costa pr. frag. - - 24 - 1135 8 Sus domesticus pig teeth C1i right - 2 - 1135 9 Gallus gallus domesticus chicken humerus frag. with P.E. right 30 <1 Bp=19 1135 10 Rodentia rodent (mouse) femur frag. with P.E.frag. without D.E. - 80 <1 Bp=6 SC=3 1135 11 Sus domesticus pig fibula body frag. - 40 1 - fused 1135 12 Sus domesticus pig teeth I1s left <10 <1 - unfused 1194 1 Sus domesticus pig costa pr. frag. right - 4 - 1194 2 Sus domesticus pig astragalus frag. right 90 7 GL1=35 GLm=32 1194 3 Sus domesticus pig teeth C frag. - - <1 - 1194 4 fish vertebra com. - 95-100 <1 GL=11 SD=8 1194 5 fish vertebra com. - 95-100 <1 GL=16 SD=11 1156 1 Sus domesticus pig astragalus com. right 95-100 12 GL1=44 GLm=40 1156 2 Bos taurus cattle tarsalia (scafocuboide) frag. left 30-40 21 - 1156 3 Sus domesticus pig metatarsus 2. com. left 95-100 1 GL=58 fused 1156 4 Sus domesticus pig metatarsus 5. com. left 95-100 2 GL=62 fused Bos taurus cattle metatarsus frag. with P.E. left 40 113 Bp=53 Dp=47 fused metatarsus frag. with P.E. left 60 12 Bp=19 Dp=19 fused metatarsus body frag. - 30 4 - 1156 6 1156 7 Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus Notes fused 1135 7 1156 5 Dental Age () 117 1156 8 Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus metatarsus body frag. - 40 7 - 1156 9 Bos taurus cattle femur dis. frag. right 10-15 39 - 1156 10 Bos taurus cattle femur dis. frag. right 20 76 - 1156 11 Bos taurus cattle femur P.E. frag. left 5 33 - 1156 12 Bos taurus cattle femur P.E. frag. - 5 22 - 1156 13 Sus domesticus pig pelvis frag. left 20 25 LAR=30 Fused 1156 14 Sus domesticus pig pelvis frag. left 20 32 LAR=31 Fused 1156 15 Sus domesticus pig pelvis frag. right 20 24 LAR=27 Fused pelvis frag. right 10 6 - 1156 16 Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus 1156 17 Sus domesticus pig pelvis frag. right 5 5 - 1156 18 Sus domesticus pig pelvis frag. left 5 6 - pelvis frag. right 2-5 2 - frag. - - 4 - frag. - 25-30 9 - costa frag. with P.E. right 5-10 <1 - costa frag. - 5-10 <1 - 1156 19 1156 20 1156 21 1156 22 1156 23 Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus medium mammal Sus domesticus pig Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus vertebra thoracales vertebra cervicales 1156 24 Bos taurus cattle costa frag. - 5-10 4 - 1156 25 Bos taurus cattle costa pr. frag. - 1 22 - 1156 26 Sus domesticus pig cranium frag. left 5-10 22 - cranium frag. - 5 5 1156 27 1156 28 1156 29 1156 30 1156 31 1156 32 Dama Dama fallow deer Bos taurus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus possible gnawing marks - cattle phalanx 1. com. right (front) 95-100 28 sheep/goat phalanx 1. com. left 95-100 2 GLpe=57 Bp=35 SD=28 Bd=32 GL=38 Bp=14 Bd=13 fused fused fused sheep/goat phalanx 1. com. left 95-100 4 GL=41 Bp=16 Bd=16 sheep/goat metacarpus frag. with P.E. right 30 8 Bp=24 Dp=17 fused sheep/goat metacarpus frag. with D.E. left 35 6 Bd=25 Db=17 fused 1156 33 Sus domesticus pig metacarpus frag. with D.E. - 30 4 Bd=17 Dd=18 fused 1156 34 Sus domesticus pig metacarpus 4. frag. with P.E. left 40 2 Bp=15 Dp=16 fused 1156 35 Sus domesticus pig metacarpus 4. frag. with P.E. right 40 2 Bp=15 Dp=16 fused 1156 36 Sus domesticus pig radius frag. with P.E. right 30 8 Bp=29 fused 1156 37 Sus domesticus pig radius frag. right 20 9 - radius body frag. left 70 11 - radius frag. with ulna frag. left 45 12 - fused fused 1156 38 1156 39 Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus 1156 40 Equus caballus horse radius frag. with D.E. right 15-20 82 Bd=72 BFd=64 Dd=42 1156 41 Bos taurus cattle radius frag. with D.E. with ulna frag. left 25 122 Bd=69 Dd=49 1156 42 Sus domesticus pig ulna pr. frag. right 40 12 BPC=21 1156 43 Sus domesticus pig ulna pr. frag. right 40 10 1156 44 Sus domesticus pig ulna pr. frag. right 30 17 1156 45 Sus domesticus pig ulna pr. frag. right 30 10 DPA=28 BPC=19 DPA=35 BPC=19 DPA=34 BPC=20 ulna pr. frag. right 20 2 BPC=15 1156 46 Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus cut marks 118 US nr. 1156 47 1156 48 1156 49 1156 50 1156 51 Taxon Animal Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus Skeletal element Bone element Body side conservation (%) weight (g) Measurement Epiphyseal s (mm) fusion ulna pr. frag. right 50 3 BPC=17 Sus domesticus pig metatarsus 4. frag. with P.E. right 30 3 BP=15 Dp=22 Bos taurus cattle pelvis frag. left 10 76 - humerus frag. with D.E. left 20 12 Bd=31 Dd=26 fused humerus frag. with D.E. left 35-40 29 Bd=35 Dd=29 fused Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus Sus domesticus pig humerus dis. frag. left 35 10 - fused 1156 53 Sus domesticus pig humerus dis. frag. right 30 30 - fused 1156 54 Sus domesticus pig humerus frag. with D.E. right 20 21 Bd=47 Dd=35 fused fused fused 1156 55 Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus scapula frag. with D.E. left 30 8 1156 56 Sus domesticus pig scapula frag. with D.E. left 30 14 LG=29 BG=27 1156 57 Sus domesticus pig scapula dis. frag. right 20 6 - 1156 58 Sus domesticus pig scapula dis. frag. left 10 20 - Notes fused 1156 52 SLC=19 GLP=30 LG=23 BG=20 Dental Age 1156 59 Sus domesticus pig scapula frag. with D.E. right 30-40 17 SLC=23 GLP=33 LG=27 BG=23 1156 60 Sus domesticus pig mandibula, teeth frag. with M2i, M3i right 10 39 M3- L=27 B=15 1156 61 Sus domesticus pig cranium, teeth frag. with Pm3s, Pm4s left 10 18 - 1156 62 Sus domesticus pig teeth C1s frag. - - 4 - male 1156 63 Sus domesticus pig teeth C1i frag. left - 4 - male 1156 64 Sus domesticus pig teeth C1i frag. left - 7 - 1156 65 Bos taurus cattle mandibula, teeth 1156 66 Bos taurus cattle mandibula, teeth 1156 67 Bos taurus cattle 1156 68 Bos taurus cattle 1156 69 Bos taurus cattle frag. with P2i, P3i frag. with P2i, mandibula, teeth P3i teeth Bos taurus cattle mandibula, teeth 1156 71 Bos taurus cattle cranium, teeth Bos taurus cattle 1156 73 Bos taurus cattle Bos taurus cattle 1156 74 1156 75 1156 76 1156 77 1156 78 1156 79 1156 80 1156 81 1156 82 Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus Sus domesticus Gallus gallus domesticus Gallus gallus domesticus Gallus gallus domesticus pig - frag. with Pm4i frag. with Pm4s, M1s mandibula, teeth frag. with M2i teeth M3i cranium, teeth frag. with M1s right 10 11 - left 15 30 - left 15 38 - - 100 2 - left - 90 M3- L=37 B=15 - - 12 - left - 38 7-14 m, subadult (e+a) male 30-33 m, eruption P2s, P3s 5-6 y M2L(crown)=36 B=26 M3L(crown)=39 B=28 - - 34 - - 37 - - 18 - 5-6 y 5-6 y teeth M3s - - 6 metapode frag. without D.E. - 20 2 - unfused fused chicken femur com. left 95-100 2 GL=80 LM=76 Bp=16 Dp=12 Sc=7 Bd=16 Dd=14 chicken tarsometatarsus frag. with P.E. with D.E.frag. right 80-90 1 Bp=13 SC=7 fused chicken femur body frag. left 80-90 2 SC=8 fused femur frag. with D.E. right 70-80 <1 - fused tibiatarsus frag. with D.E. right 30 <1 Bd=10 Dd=11 fused <1 Bd=5 Dd=5 SC=2 fused Galliformes sp. galliforms Gallus gallus domesticus I mandibula, teeth frag. with M3i 1156 70 1156 72 frag. with P2i, P3i fused chicken bird tibiatarsus frag. with D.E. left 60-80 smaller than chicken 119 1156 83 1156 84 Galliformes sp. galliforms Gallus gallus domesticus chicken ulna frag. with D.E. left 30 <1 Did=9 fused fused coracoid com. right 95-100 <1 GL=50 Lm=48 Bb=13 BF=10 tibia frag. with P.E. right 10-20 <1 Dip=18 fused Fused 1156 85 Galliformes sp. galliforms 1124 1 Equus caballus horse pelvis frag. right 20-25 154 LAR=59 1124 2 Equus caballus horse tibia pr. frag. left 15-20 91 - 1124 3 Equus caballus horse femur dis. frag. right 5-10 40 - calcaneum frag. without P.E. left 80-90 63 - 1124 4 Equus caballus horse Unfused 1124 5 Equus caballus horse metacarpus com. right 95-100 220 1124 6 Equus caballus horse metacarpus com. right 95-100 151 1124 7 Equus caballus horse metacarpus body frag. - 70-75 102 1124 8 Equus caballus horse metapode frag. with D.E. - 20-25 34 GL=230 GL1=227 L1=222 Bp=54 Dp=35 SD=35,5 CD=104 DD=24 Bd=52 Dd=38 GL=213 GL1=209 L1=205 Bp=48 Dp=32 SD=34 CD=191 DD=193 Bp=47 Dd=33,5 SD=30 DD=21,5 BD=48 Dd=36,5 1124 9 Equus caballus horse metapode frag. with D.E. - 40 63 Bd=46 Dd=36 Fused 1124 10 Equus caballus horse metatarsus frag. with P.E. right 40-50 88 Bp=47 Dp=44 Fused 1124 11 Equus caballus horse 1124 12 Equus caballus horse 1124 13 Equus caballus horse 1124 14 Equus caballus horse 1124 15 Equus caballus horse 1124 16 Equus caballus horse metatarsus metacarpale lateral metacarpale medial metacarpale medial metatarsale medial metatarsale lateral frag. with P.E. with D.E. frag. left 90 239 GL=272 GL1=270 L1=265 Bp=53 Dp=45 SD=32 CD=119 DD=28 Dd=40 pr. frag. right 40-50 9 - pr. frag. right 50-60 10 - pr. frag. right 50 6 - pr. frag. right 90 17 - pr. frag. left 90 14 1124 17 Equus caballus horse phalanx 1. com. left 95-100 67 1124 18 Equus caballus horse phalanx 1. com. right 95-100 58 1124 19 Equus caballus horse phalanx 1. com. left 95-100 52 1124 20 Equus caballus horse astragalus com. left 95-100 80 1124 21 Equus caballus horse tarsalia (scafoide) com. left 90-95 10 GB=22 1124 22 Equus caballus horse astragalus com. right 95-100 68 GH=58 GB=60 BFd=50 LmT=58 1124 23 Equus caballus horse metacarpus pr. frag. - 15 25 - horse tarsalia (scafoide, b. cuneiforme, s. cuneiforme) com. left 90 47 GB=57 1124 24 Equus caballus Fused Fused Fused * * GL=82 Bp=56 BFp=49 Dp=36 SD=34 Bd=46 BFd=42 GL=86 Bp=52 BFp=47 Dp=38 SD=32 Bd=43,5 BFd=41 GL=83 Bp=56 BFp=49 Dp=39 SD=34 Bd=46 BFd=44 GH=62 GB=60 BFd=52 LmT=61 Same individual as * Fused Fused Fused * * Fused *. 3 tarsalia fused together 120 1124 25 US nr. Equus caballus horse femur P.E. frag. right 5 conservation Body side (%) 47 weight (g) Taxon Animal Skeletal element Bone element 1124 26 Bos taurus cattle phalanx 3. com. left 85-90 3 1124 27 Bos taurus cattle phalanx 2. com. right (front) 95-100 10 1124 28 Bos taurus cattle phalanx 2. com. left (hind) 95-100 23 1124 29 Bos taurus cattle phalanx 1. frag. left 80 15 95-100 26 1124 30 Bos taurus cattle phalanx 1. com. right (hind) 1124 31 Bos taurus cattle phalanx 1. com. right (hind) 95-100 27 1124 32 Bos taurus cattle phalanx 1. frag. left (front) 95 23 1124 33 Sus domesticus pig phalanx 3. com. left 100 3 1124 34 Sus domesticus pig phalanx 3. com. left 95-100 2 1124 35 Sus domesticus pig phalanx 2. com. right (front) 95 2 1124 36 Sus domesticus pig phalanx 1. com. right 100 5 1124 37 Sus domesticus pig phalanx 1. com. left 95-100 6 1124 38 Sus domesticus pig phalanx 1. com. right 95-100 5 1124 39 Sus domesticus pig phalanx 1. com. left 90 3 1124 40 Sus domesticus pig phalanx 1. com. right 100 4 1124 41 Sus domesticus pig phalanx 1. frag. with P.E. with D.E. frag. right 70-75 4 1124 42 Sus domesticus pig phalanx 1. com. right 95-100 2 phalanx 3. frag. left 90 2 1124 43 Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus DC=54 Measurement Epiphyseal s (mm) fusion DLS=93 Ld=64 MBS=24 Glpe=35 Bp=24 SD=20 Fused BD=19,5 Glpe=46 Bp=25 Fused SD=27,5 Bd=29 SD=22 Bd=23 phalanx 1. com. left 100 2 1124 45 Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus phalanx 1. com. right 95 4 1124 46 Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus phalanx 1. com. right 90-95 3 1124 47 Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus phalanx 1. com. left 90-95 3 metacarpus frag. with P.E. right 70-80 12 metacarpus frag. with P.E.frag. right 15-20 6 - metacarpus D.E.frag. - 30 64 Bd=68 Dd=34,5 Fused right 40 11 - Fused [GL]no E.D.=36 Bp=12 B=8,5 Unfused (dis.) [GL]=60 Bp=20 B=14 GL=72 Bp=21,5 B=15 Bd=17 [GL]=62 Bp=21 B=15 Unfused (dis.) 1124 49 1124 50 1124 51 Bos taurus cattle Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus metacarpus frag. with. P.E.frag. frag. with. P.E.frag. without D.E. frag. with P.E. without D.E. 1124 52 Sus domesticus pig metacarpus 3. 1124 53 Sus domesticus pig metacarpus 3. 1124 54 Sus domesticus pig metacarpus 3. com. metacarpus 3. frag. without D.E. 1124 55 Sus domesticus pig left 80 2 left 80 7 right 95-100 13 right 80 9 cutmarks (pr.) cutmark Ld=6 Glpe=33 Bp=13 SD=10 Fused Bd=11 Glpe=38 Bp=12,5 Fused SD=11 BD=12 Glpe=32 Bp=11 SD=9 In fusion Bd=10 Glpe=34 Bp=11 SD=8,5 Fused BD=10,5 Bp=20,5 Fused Dp=14 Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus 1124 48 Notes Fused Glpe=59 Bp=32 SD=28 Fused Bd=30 Glpe=60 Bp=29 Fused SD=26,5 Bd=28 Glpe=58 Fused Bp=28 SD=25 DLS=33 Ld=33 MBS=12 DLS=30 Ld=28,5 MBS=16 GL=22 Bp=14 Fused SD=12 Bd=12 Glpe=34 Bp=16 SD=14 Fused Bd=15 Glpe=39 Bp=17,5 Fused SD=14 Bd=17 Glpe=35 Bp=17 SD=14 Fused Bd=17 Glpe=32,5 Bp=13 SD=10 Fused Bd=11 Glpe=37 Bp=17 SD=13 Fused Bd=16 Glpe=39 Bp=17,5 Fused SD=14 Bd=17 Glpe=23 In fusion Bp=11 SD=7,5 (pr.) Bd=8,5 1124 44 Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus Dental Age cutmark/chopmar k Fused Unfused (dis.) 121 GL=76 In fusion LeP=73 BP=15 B=12,5 (dis.) Bd=17 [GL]=61 Unfused [LeP]=58 (dis.) Bp=15 B=12 1124 56 Sus domesticus pig metacarpus 4. com. right 95-100 11 1124 57 Sus domesticus pig metacarpus 4. frag. without D.E. left 80 7 1124 58 Sus domesticus pig metatarsus 3. frag. with P.E. left 20 3 Bp=15,5 1124 59 Sus domesticus pig metatarsus 3. frag. with P.E. right 30-40 6 Bp=14,5 Fused Fused Fused 1124 60 Sus domesticus pig metatarsus 3. com. right 95 11 GL=77 LeP=76 Bp=17 B=14 Bd=16 1124 61 Sus domesticus pig metatarsus 3. frag. with P.E. left 30-40 6 Bp=16 1124 62 Sus domesticus pig metatarsus 4. frag. with P.E. right 40-50 5 Bp=12,5 1124 63 Sus domesticus pig metatarsus 4. com. left 95 10 GL=85 LeP=82 Bp=14 B=11 Bd=15 Fused 1124 64 Sus domesticus pig metapode D.E. - 15-20 3 Bd=17 Unfused 1124 65 Sus domesticus pig metacarpus frag. with D.E. right 60-70 10 Bd=17 Fused 1124 66 Sus domesticus pig metatarsus 5. 1124 67 Sus domesticus pig metatarsus 5. 1124 68 Sus domesticus pig metatarsus 2. 1124 69 Sus domesticus pig metatarsus 2. frag. without D.E. frag. without D.E. left 80 3 [GL]no E.D.=55 left 80 3 [GL]no E.D.=53 Unfused (dis.) Unfused (dis.) com. left 95-100 4 GL=63 Fused frag. with P.E. left 45-50 2 - Fused left 5-10 32 - left 45-50 111 - right 15-20 51 - left 30-40 13 - frag. with P.E.frag. frag. with ulna frag. frag. with P.E.frag. 1124 70 Bos taurus cattle radius 1124 71 Bos taurus cattle radius Bos taurus cattle radius sheep/goat radius body frag. sheep/goat radius frag. with P.E. frag. left 30-40 10 Bp=31 BFp=28 sheep/goat radius dis. Body frag. right 50 15 - sheep/goat radius dis. Body frag. left 30-35 8 - 1124 72 1124 73 1124 74 1124 75 1124 76 Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Fused cutmark Fused 1124 77 Sus domesticus pig radius frag. with P.E. left 50-60 19 Bp=29 Fused 1124 78 Sus domesticus pig radius frag. with P.E. right 50 21 Bp=31 Fused 1124 79 Sus domesticus pig radius frag. with P.E. right 40 15 Bp=30 Fused 1124 80 Sus domesticus pig radius body frag. left 25-30 10 - 1124 81 Sus domesticus pig radius body frag. right 30 6 - metapode frag. without D.E. 1124 82 Sus domesticus pig - 30-40 2 - 1124 83 Bos taurus cattle ulna pr. Body frag. left 70-80 45 DPA=57 BPC=41 1124 84 Sus domesticus pig ulna body frag. left 40-50 22 BPC=22 1124 85 Sus domesticus pig ulna body frag. right 20-30 14 - ulna pr. frag. without P.E. right 20-30 13 DPA=37 1124 86 Sus domesticus pig 1124 87 Sus domesticus pig ulna body frag. left 50-60 19 DPA=37 BPC=20 1124 88 Sus domesticus pig ulna body frag. right 20-30 10 - 1124 90 Sus domesticus pig ulna pr. Body frag. right 15-20 9 - 1124 91 1124 92 Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus ulna pr. Body frag. left 40-50 5 DPA=23 BPC=16 ulna body frag. left 20 3 BPC=18 left 20 139 right 20-30 124 1124 93 Bos taurus cattle humerus frag. with D.E.frag. 1124 94 Bos taurus cattle humerus D.E.frag. cutmark chopmark Black colour Unfused (dis.) cutmarks Unfused (pr.) cutmarks gnawing marks Fused Bd=74 Fused 122 1124 95 1124 96 US nr. Bos taurus Bos taurus cattle cattle humerus dis. frag. left 5-10 humerus dis. frag. with D.E.frag. left 10 conservation Body side (%) 30 44 weight (g) - Taxon Animal Skeletal element Bone element 1124 97 Bos taurus cattle humerus D.E.frag. left 10 36 - 1124 98 Bos taurus cattle humerus D.E.frag. left 10 30 - 1124 99 Sus domesticus pig humerus dis. frag. left 40-50 39 - 1124 100 Sus domesticus pig humerus dis. frag. right 30-40 27 - 1124 101 Sus domesticus pig humerus dis. frag. left 40 28 - left 30-35 25 - 1124 102 Sus domesticus pig humerus frag. with D.E.frag. 1124 103 Sus domesticus pig humerus dis. frag. right 30-40 27 - 1124 104 Sus domesticus pig humerus dis. frag. left 20-30 17 - right 60 54 Bd=41 1124 105 Sus domesticus pig humerus frag. with D.E.frag. 1124 106 Sus domesticus pig humerus dis. frag. left 40-50 24 - 1124 107 Sus domesticus pig humerus dis. frag. left 15-20 8 - 1124 108 Sus domesticus pig humerus dis. frag. right 20 11 - left 15-20 22 Bd=37 right 40-50 10 - 1124 109 Sus domesticus pig humerus 1124 110 Sus domesticus pig humerus 1124 111 1124 112 1124 113 Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus dis. frag. with D.E. pr. frag. without P.E. In fusion Measurement Epiphyseal s (mm) fusion Fused chopmark Fused Unfused (dis.) Unfused (pr.) frag. with D.E. right 20-25 13 Bd=29 BT=29 Fused humerus frag. with D.E. left 40-50 28 Bd=32 BT=32 Fused humerus pr. frag. without P.E. left 20-30 10 - Unfused (pr.) Sus domesticus pig humerus dis. Body frag. right 70-80 2 - 1124 115 Bos taurus cattle humerus D.E.frag. left 5-10 26 - 1124 116 Bos taurus cattle femur D.E.frag. left 5-10 33 - 1124 117 Bos taurus cattle femur P.E. frag. - 5-10 19 DC=40,5 1124 118 Bos taurus cattle femur P.E. frag. - 5-10 18 - left 20-30 17 - left 20-30 21 - pr. frag. without P.E. frag. with P.E.frag. Fused Unfused (pr.) Unfused (pr.) Unfused (pr.) In fusion (pr.) Unfused (dis.) Sus domesticus pig femur 1124 120 Sus domesticus pig femur 1124 121 Sus domesticus pig femur D.E.frag. left 10 26 - 1124 122 Sus domesticus pig femur pr. Body frag. left 10-20 19 - 1124 123 Sus domesticus pig femur pr. Body frag. left 10-20 15 - 1124 124 Sus domesticus pig femur body frag. right 20 21 - 1124 125 Sus domesticus pig femur dis. frag. right 10-15 6 - 1124 126 Sus domesticus pig femur body frag. left 30-40 41 - 1124 127 Sus domesticus pig humerus frag. with D.E. right 20 27 - sheep/goat humerus dis. frag. right 30-40 13 - sheep/goat humerus frag. with D.E. right 30-40 20 - Fused sheep/goat femur frag. with D.E. right 40 26 Bd=33 Fused sheep/goat femur pr. frag. without P.E. left 15-20 9 - Unfused (pr.) sheep/goat femur body frag. - 15 6 - sheep/goat femur P.E. - 5-10 2 DC=20 1124 129 1124 130 1124 131 1124 132 1124 133 Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus cutmark/chopmar k young animal 1124 119 1124 128 Notes chopmark humerus 1124 114 Dental Age Fused chopped through (E.D.) chopped through (E.D.) cutmark; chopped through (E.D.) Unfused (pr.) 123 1124 134 1124 135 1124 136 Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus Felis catus cat femur frag. with P.E. left 30-40 21 BP=45 DC=20 In fusion femur frag. with P.E. left 25 21 BP=41 DC=18 In fusion (pr.) femur frag. with P.E. right 40 4 BP=20 DC=9 In fusion In fusion 1124 137 Felis catus cat tibia com. right 100 8 GL=116 Bp=20 SD=7 Bd=15 1124 138 Bos taurus cattle tibia frag. with D.E. right 45-50 146 Bd=60 Fused 1124 139 Bos taurus cattle tibia frag. with D.E. left 15-20 51 Bd=65 Fused 1124 140 Sus domesticus pig tibia pr. Body frag. left 25-30 24 - 1124 141 Sus domesticus pig tibia frag. with D.E. left 45-50 27 Bd=27 1124 142 Sus domesticus pig tibia pr. Body frag. left 20-25 13 - 1124 143 Sus domesticus pig tibia body frag. right 15-20 6 - sheep/goat tibia pr. Body frag. right 20-25 14 - sheep/goat tibia frag. with D.E. right 40 13 Bd=25 sheep/goat tibia body frag. right 50 12 - sheep/goat tibia frag. with D.E.frag. left 30-40 14 Bd=26 Fused sheep/goat tibia D.E.frag. right 20-25 13 Bd=26 Fused sheep/goat tibia dis. Body frag. - 25-30 11 - sheep/goat tibia body frag. right 50 19 - sheep/goat tibia frag. with D.E. left 55-60 30 Bd=24 Sd=15 sheep/goat tibia pr. frag. left 20 17 - sheep/goat tibia body frag. - 25-30 6 - sheep/goat tibia D.E. left 5-10 5 Bd=28 pig fibula frag. left 20-25 1 - right 45-50 7 DPA=25 Fused 8 - Unfused (pr.) [GL]no E.P.=71 GB=23 Unfused (pr.) 1124 144 1124 145 1124 146 1124 147 1124 148 1124 149 1124 150 1124 151 1124 152 1124 153 1124 154 1124 155 1124 156 1124 157 Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Sus domesticus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus Sus domesticus pig ulna calcaneum Pr. frag. with P.E. pr. frag. without P.E. left 60-70 Fused Fused Fused Unfused (dis.) 1124 158 Sus domesticus pig calcaneum frag. without P.E. left 80 13 1124 159 Sus domesticus pig calcaneum dis. frag. right 70-75 11 - Unfused (pr.) Unfused (pr.) 1124 160 Sus domesticus pig calcaneum frag. without P.E. right 80 10 [GL]no E.P.=65 GB=22 1124 161 Sus domesticus pig calcaneum frag. without P.E. right 75-80 4 - 1124 162 Bos taurus cattle patella frag. left 80-90 33 GL=67 Bos taurus cattle patella frag. right 80-90 27 GL=61 sheep/goat metatarsus frag. with P.E.frag. left 10-15 6 - Fused sheep/goat metatarsus frag. with P.E. left 75-80 12 Bp=19,5 Dp=19,5 Fused sheep/goat metatarsus frag. with P.E.frag. right 10-15 4 - Fused sheep/goat metatarsus frag. with P.E. right 20 7 Bp=20 Dp=19 sheep/goat metacarpus frag. - 15-20 5 - sheep/goat metacarpus frag. with P.E.frag. right 60 12 - 1124 163 1124 164 1124 165 1124 166 1124 167 1124 168 1124 169 Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus 1124 170 Bos taurus cattle metacarpus P.E.frag. right 5-10 31 - 1124 171 Bos taurus cattle metatarsus frag. with D.E. - 25-35 66 Bd=60 Dd=32 chopmark burnmarks (black stains) Fused 124 1124 172 1124 173 US nr. 1124 174 1124 175 Bos taurus Bos taurus Taxon Bos taurus Bos taurus cattle cattle Animal cattle metatarsus frag. with P.E. left 30-35 metacarpus frag. with P.E.frag. left 20-25 Skeletal element Bone element metacarpus frag. with P.E.frag. left 20-25 43 weight (g) Bp=44 Dp=38,5 Fused - Fused Measurement Epiphyseal s (mm) fusion 51 - cattle astragalus frag. left 75 34 GLm=57 Bd=39 com. - 95-100 17 - com. - 95-100 3 - com. - 95 10 - com. - 95-100 4 - com. - 95-100 2 - 1124 176 Bos taurus cattle carpalia (semilunare) 1124 177 Bos taurus cattle sesamoidea 1124 178 Bos taurus cattle 1124 179 Sus domesticus pig 1124 180 conservation Body side (%) 60 Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus carpalia (semilunare) tarsalia (scafoide) carpalia (piramidale) Dental Age Notes Fused 1124 181 Bos taurus cattle pelvis frag. left 15-20 153 LA=70 LAR=55 1124 182 Bos taurus cattle pelvis frag. left <5 22 - 1124 183 Bos taurus cattle pelvis frag. right <5 12 - 1124 184 Bos taurus cattle pelvis frag. right 5 39 - 1124 185 Bos taurus cattle pelvis frag. left - 25 - 1124 186 Sus domesticus pig pelvis frag. right 30-35 44 SH=25 SB=14 Fused Fused Fused Fused Chopmark 1124 187 Sus domesticus pig pelvis frag. left 5-10 20 LAR=31 LA=35 1124 188 Sus domesticus pig pelvis frag. left 20 35 SH=28 SB=13 1124 189 Sus domesticus pig pelvis frag. right 10 16 - Cutmarks 1124 190 Sus domesticus pig pelvis frag. left 5-10 10 - Cut/chopmark 1124 191 Sus domesticus pig pelvis frag. right 10 9 - 1124 192 Sus domesticus pig pelvis frag. right 10 12 - sheep/goat pelvis frag. left 10 10 - sheep/goat pelvis frag. left 5-10 6 - sheep/goat pelvis frag. left <5 3 - sheep/goat pelvis frag. left 5-10 7 - sheep/goat pelvis frag. left 5-10 6 - sheep/goat pelvis frag. right 10-15 12 - pig pelvis frag. - - 2 1124 193 1124 194 1124 195 1124 196 1124 197 1124 198 1124 199 Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Sus domesticus Bos taurus cattle scapula frag. with D.E. left 20 72 1124 201 Bos taurus cattle scapula frag. with D.E. right 20 70 1124 202 Bos taurus cattle scapula frag. with D.E.frag. left 10-15 46 - 1124 203 Bos taurus cattle scapula D.E.frag. right 5-10 27 - 1124 204 Bos taurus cattle scapula dis. Body frag. right 10 34 Sus domesticus pig scapula frag. with D.E. right 10 12 1124 206 Sus domesticus pig scapula frag. with D.E. right 10 13 1124 207 Sus domesticus pig scapula frag. with D.E. left 10 12 1124 208 Sus domesticus pig scapula frag. with D.E. left 10 11 cutmark/chopmar k cutmark; young animal SLC=45 GLP=60 LG=53 BG=44 SLC=53 GLP=66 LG=56 BG=45 1124 200 1124 205 Chopped through Fused Fused Chopped through (both sides) SLC=22 GLP=33 LG=27 BG=23 SLC=23 GLP=32 LG=25 SLC=23 GLP=33 LG= 25 BG=24 SLC=22 GLP=32 BG=24 Fused Fused Fused Chopmark; Chopped through Fused Chopped through 125 left 10 19 SLC=25 GLP=40 LG=30 BG=27 right 20 20 SLC=21 left 20 20 SLC=21 dis. frag. left 15 9 - scapula dis. Body frag. right 5-10 8 - pig scapula dis. frag. left 10-15 8 - Sus domesticus pig scapula dis. frag. right 10-15 8 - Sus domesticus pig scapula body frag. right 10 7 - 1124 217 Sus domesticus pig scapula body frag. right 10 10 - 1124 218 Sus domesticus pig scapula body frag. right 10-15 13 - 1124 219 Sus domesticus pig scapula dis. Body frag. right 10-15 10 - scapula dis. Body frag. right 10 5 - scapula dis. frag. left 10 2 - scapula frag. with D.E.frag. right 10 6 1124 209 Sus domesticus pig scapula 1124 210 Sus domesticus pig scapula 1124 211 Sus domesticus pig scapula 1124 212 Sus domesticus pig scapula 1124 213 Sus domesticus pig 1124 214 Sus domesticus 1124 215 1124 216 1124 220 1124 221 1124 222 Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus frag. with D.E. frag. with D.E.frag. frag. with D.E.frag. 1124 223 Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus scapula frag. with D.E. left 10 6 1124 224 Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus scapula frag. with D.E. left 10 8 Bos taurus cattle mandibula frag. right <5 23 - 1124 226 Bos taurus cattle cranium frag. left <5 11 - 1124 227 Bos taurus cattle cranium frag. - <5 33 - 1124 228 Bos taurus cattle mandibula frag. - <5 9 - 1124 229 Bos taurus cattle cranium frag. right <5 30 - 1124 230 Bos taurus cattle cranium frag. left <5 14 - Bos taurus cattle cranium frag. right <5 26 - sheep/goat cranium frag. - <5 13 - sheep/goat cranium frag. right <5 24 - sheep/goat cranium frag. - - 4 - sheep/goat cranium frag. left <5 2 - sheep/goat mandibula frag. right - 4 - dog mandibula frag. right - 20 - pig tibia body frag. left 35-40 19 - sheep/goat mandibula frag. left 5-10 5 - sheep/goat mandibula frag. left 10 12 - sheep/goat mandibula frag. left 5 4 - sheep/goat mandibula frag. right 10-15 9 - sheep/goat mandibula frag. - <5 2 - sheep/goat mandibula frag. - 5 4 - 1124 232 1124 233 1124 234 1124 235 1124 236 1124 237 1124 238 1124 239 1124 240 1124 241 1124 242 1124 243 1124 244 Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Canis familiaris Sus domesticus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus gnawing marks SLC=17 GLP=29 LG=21 BG=19 SLC=17 GLP=29 LG=13 BG=19 1124 225 1124 231 Fused 1124 245 Bos taurus cattle cranium frag. - 5-10 24 - 1124 246 Sus domesticus pig cranium frag. left 5-10 11 - 1124 247 Sus domesticus pig cranium frag. right 5-10 10 - Fused Fused chopmark 126 1124 248 Sus domesticus pig cranium frag. left 5-10 conservation Body side (%) 5 weight (g) Measurement Epiphyseal s (mm) fusion US nr. Taxon Animal Skeletal element Bone element 1124 249 Sus domesticus pig mandibula frag. left 5-10 6 - Bos taurus cattle cranium frag. - - 42 - mandibula frag. - 5-10 9 - mandibula frag. right 10 8 - mandibula frag. right 5-10 22 - cranium frag. - - 20 - axis frag. - 60 11 - frag. - 30-40 6 - frag. - 30 2 - frag. - 30-40 7 - frag. - 20 4 - frag. - 25-30 7 - frag. - 45-50 10 - frag. - - 6 - frag. - 95-100 15 - frag. - 30-40 4 - frag. - 50 8 - frag. - - 2 - chopped through frag. - 10-15 3 - chopped through frag. - 10-15 3 - chopped through frag. - 20-25 6 - frag. - 40 4 - chopped through frag. - - 4 - chopped through frag. - 50 10 - chopped through frag. - 45-50 7 - frag. - 40-45 7 - frag. - 25-30 3 - 1124 250 1124 251 1124 252 1124 253 1124 254 1124 256 Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus Bos taurus cattle Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus Sus domesticus pig 1124 257 Sus domesticus pig 1124 258 Sus domesticus pig 1124 259 Sus domesticus pig 1124 260 Sus domesticus pig 1124 261 Sus domesticus pig 1124 262 Sus domesticus pig 1124 263 Sus domesticus pig 1124 264 Sus domesticus pig 1124 265 Sus domesticus pig 1124 266 Sus domesticus pig 1124 267 Sus domesticus pig 1124 268 Sus domesticus pig 1124 269 Sus domesticus pig 1124 270 Sus domesticus pig 1124 271 Sus domesticus pig 1124 272 1124 273 1124 274 1124 275 1124 276 1124 277 1124 278 1124 279 1124 280 1124 281 Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus sheep/goat sheep/goat sheep/goat sheep/goat sheep/goat vertebra thoracales vertebra lumbales vertebra thoracales vertebra lumbales vertebra lumbales vertebra lumbales vertebra thoracales vertebra lumbales vertebra lumbales vertebra thoracales vertebra vertebra thoracales vertebra lumbales vertebra cervicales vertebra lumbales vertebra vertebra cervicales vertebra cervicales vertebra lumbales vertebra lumbales sheep/goat axis frag. - 25-30 8 - sheep/goat axis frag. - 25-30 7 - sheep/goat atlas frag. - 80-90 17 - sheep/goat axis frag. - 75-80 12 - sheep/goat axis frag. - 70-75 15 - frag. - 70-80 32 - frag. - 30 17 - frag. - 30 28 - frag. - 40-50 27 - frag. - 20-30 21 - 1124 282 Bos taurus cattle 1124 283 Bos taurus cattle 1124 284 Bos taurus cattle 1124 285 Bos taurus cattle 1124 286 Bos taurus cattle vertebra thoracales vertebra lumbales vertebra vertebra thoracales vertebra lumbales Dental Age Notes cutmark chopped through chopped through chopmark 127 1124 287 Bos taurus cattle vertebra cervicales frag. - 20-30 23 - 1124 288 Bos taurus cattle vertebra frag. - 10-20 12 - frag. - 10-20 10 - frag. - 30-40 16 - 1124 289 1124 290 1124 291 Bos taurus cattle Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat Capra hircus vertebra lumbales vertebra lumbales axis frag. - 30-40 14 - frag. - 80 36 - 1124 292 Bos taurus cattle vertebra thoracales 1124 293 Bos taurus cattle vertebra frag. - - 17 - 1124 294 Bos taurus cattle axis frag. - 10-15 19 - Bos taurus cattle mandibula frag. - - 12 - sheep/goat costa frag. with P.E. left - 3 - sheep/goat costa frag. with P.E. left - 5 - sheep/goat costa frag. with P.E. left - 4 - sheep/goat costa frag. with P.E. left - 2 - sheep/goat costa frag. with P.E. right - 3 - sheep/goat costa pr. frag. right - 1 - 1124 295 1124 296 1124 297 1124 298 1124 299 1124 300 1124 301 Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus Ovis aries/ Capra hircus chopped through 1124 302 Sus domesticus pig costa pr. frag. left - 2 - 1124 303 Sus domesticus pig costa frag. with P.E. left - 4 - 1124 304 Sus domesticus pig costa frag. with P.E. left - 5 - 1124 305 Sus domesticus pig costa frag. with P.E. right - 1 - 1124 306 Bos taurus cattle costa frag. with P.E. left - 9 - 1124 307 Bos taurus cattle costa P.E.frag. right - 5 - 1124 308 Bos taurus cattle costa P.E.frag. right - 7 - 1124 309 Bos taurus cattle costa frag. - - 6 - 1124 310 Capra hircus goat horn frag. right - 80 - 1124 311 Ovis aries sheep horn frag. left - 50 - 1124 312 Ovis aries sheep horn frag. left - 29 - left - 8 - right - 48 - left - 124 - 30 m, subadult (f,g) 1124 313 Ovis aries sheep horn frag. with cranium frag. 1124 314 Capra hircus goat horn frag. frag. with M2i, mandibula, teeth M1i 1124 315 Bos taurus cattle 1124 316 Bos taurus cattle teeth M1i frag. - 80-90 12 - (k) 1124 317 Bos taurus cattle teeth Pm3i frag. - 90 9 - (g) 1124 318 Bos taurus cattle teeth Pm3i frag. - 70 7 - (h) 1124 319 Bos taurus cattle teeth M3i frag. left 70-80 19 - (k) 1124 320 Bos taurus cattle teeth M3s frag. right 80-90 40 - (j-k) 1124 321 Bos taurus cattle teeth M3s frag. right 70-80 28 - (k-l) 1124 322 Bos taurus cattle teeth M3s frag. right 80-90 26 - (k-l) 1124 323 Bos taurus cattle teeth M1s frag. right 80-90 41 - (k-l) 1124 324 Bos taurus cattle teeth M1s frag. right 50-60 11 - (j-k) Bos taurus cattle teeth M3s frag. left 60 29 - (g) - 4-6 y (g,k,j,wear) 1124 325 1124 326 Ovis aries/ frag. with M3i, sheep/goat mandibula, teeth Capra hircus Pm4i, Pm3i right 45-50 38 128 US nr. 1124 327 1124 328 1124 329 1124 330 1124 331 1124 332 1124 333 1124 334 1124 335 1124 336 1124 337 1124 338 1124 339 1124 340 1124 341 1124 342 1124 343 1124 344 1124 345 1124 346 1124 347 1124 348 1124 349 1124 350 1124 351 1124 352 1124 353 1124 354 1124 355 Taxon Animal Skeletal element Bone element Ovis aries/ sheep/goat mandibula, teeth frag. with M3i Capra hircus Ovis aries/ frag. with sheep/goat mandibula, teeth Capra hircus dPm4i, dPm3i Ovis aries/ frag. with sheep/goat mandibula, teeth Capra hircus Pm4i, dP3i frag. with M3i, Ovis aries/ sheep/goat mandibula, teeth M1i, Pm4i, Capra hircus Pm3i, Pm2i Ovis aries/ frag. with M3i, sheep/goat mandibula, teeth Capra hircus M2i, M1i Ovis aries/ sheep/goat mandibula, teeth Capra hircus frag. with dPm2i Ovis aries/ sheep/goat mandibula, teeth frag. with M3i Capra hircus frag. with M2s, Ovis aries/ sheep/goat cranium, teeth M1s, Pm4s, Capra hircus Pm3s frag. with M2s, Ovis aries/ sheep/goat cranium, teeth M1s, Pm4s, Capra hircus Pm3s, Pm2s Ovis aries/ sheep/goat teeth M2i frag. Capra hircus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat teeth M3i frag. Capra hircus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat teeth M1i frag. Capra hircus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat teeth M1i frag. Capra hircus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat teeth M2i frag. Capra hircus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat teeth M1i frag. Capra hircus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat teeth M1i frag. Capra hircus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat teeth M2i frag. Capra hircus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat teeth M3i frag. Capra hircus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat teeth Pm4i frag. Capra hircus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat teeth dPm3i frag. Capra hircus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat teeth dP4 frag. Capra hircus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat teeth I.i frag. Capra hircus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat teeth M1s frag. Capra hircus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat teeth M2s frag. Capra hircus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat teeth M2s frag. Capra hircus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat teeth M2s frag. Capra hircus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat teeth M1s frag. Capra hircus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat teeth Pm4s frag. Capra hircus Ovis aries/ sheep/goat teeth Pm4s frag. Capra hircus Body side conservation (%) weight (g) left 10-15 18 - 24 m (b-c) left 25 7 - 3-12 m (g, wear) right <10 7 - 18 m 36 - 36-48 m right Measurement Epiphyseal s (mm) fusion Dental Age 24-36 m (d-e, g, g) 3-12 m, milkteeth, eruption Pm2 left 15-20 33 - left - 2 - left 10 8 - right - 19 - 24-36 m (h, h, wear, wear) right - 32 - 24-36 m (h, g, wear) left 90 7 - (g-h) left 80-90 8 - (b) right 90 4 - (g-h) left 90 3 - (g) left 80-90 5 - (f) right 90 3 - (g-h) right 90 2 - (g) right 80 5 - (g) left 60 2 - right 90 2 - left 80-90 <1 - left 70-80 2 - left 90 1 - left 80-90 4 - (g-h) right 80-90 6 - (d-e) right 80 5 - (g-h) left 70-80 5 - (g-h) left 80-90 4 - (g-h) left 80 2 - (g-h) left 80 1 - (g) (g) 1124 356 Equus caballus horse teeth frag. S. left 80-90 55 - 1124 357 Equus asinus donkey teeth M3i frag. left 90 17 - 1124 358 Equus asinus donkey teeth M2i frag. left 90 17 - 1124 359 Equus caballus horse teeth I.i frag. left - 14 - right 45-50 5 - adult right - 32 - 7-14 m (V, a, e, a) 1124 360 Felis catus cat 1124 361 Sus domesticus pig frag. with M1i, mandibula, teeth Pm4i, Pm3i, Ci frag. with mandibula, teeth (M3i), M2i, M1i, Pm4i Notes 129 subadult/adul t (a) 16-24 m, subadult (1/2 U, a) 14-21 m (a-b, d-e, f) 1124 362 Sus domesticus pig mandibula, teeth frag. with M3i right - 16 - 1124 363 Sus domesticus pig mandibula, teeth frag. with M3i, M2i left - 34 - 1124 364 Sus domesticus pig mandibula, teeth frag. with M3i, M2i, M1i right - 36 - 1124 365 Sus domesticus pig mandibula, teeth frag. with M3i left - 23 - 1124 366 Sus domesticus pig mandibula, teeth frag. with M3i right 70-80 29 - adult (c) 1124 367 Sus domesticus pig 1124 368 Sus domesticus pig 1124 369 Sus domesticus pig frag. with M2i, mandibula, teeth M1i frag. with M2i, mandibula, teeth M1i mandibula, teeth frag. with C1i frag. with I1i(right), mandibula, teeth I1i(left), I2i(left) frag. with I1i, mandibula, teeth I2i old (j-k) right - 5 - 12-16 m (a-b, e) left - 19 - 12-16 m (a,e) right - 41 - - - 24 - right - 17 - female 1124 370 Sus domesticus pig 1124 371 Sus domesticus pig 1124 372 Sus domesticus pig cranium, teeth right - 9 - right - 30 - >24 m left - 18 - adult (b-c) left - 31 - >5 y (h-j, k-l, wear) right - - >5 y (g-h, l) right - 16 - 24 m (d-e, j,) frag. with M3s right 80 10 - (a) frag. with M2s, cranium, teeth M1s, Pm4s, Pm3s right - 21 - 24 m (b-c, k,) belongs with 1124.380 belongs with 1124.379 frag. with I1s 1124 373 Sus domesticus pig frag. with M2s, cranium, teeth M1s, Pm4s, Pm3s 1124 374 Sus domesticus pig cranium, teeth frag. with M3s 1124 375 Sus domesticus pig 1124 376 Sus domesticus pig 1124 377 Sus domesticus pig 1124 378 Sus domesticus pig frag. with M2s, cranium, teeth M1s, Pm4s, Pm3s frag. with M3s, cranium, teeth M2s frag. with M2s, cranium, teeth M1s, Pm4s teeth 14-18 m 1124 379 Sus domesticus pig 1124 380 Sus domesticus pig teeth M3s frag. right 70-80 8 - (a) 1124 381 Sus domesticus pig cranium, teeth frag. with M3s, M2s left - 29 - 21-27 m (c-d, e) 1124 382 Sus domesticus pig cranium, teeth frag. with M3s right - 10 - >5 Y (h-j) 1124 383 Sus domesticus pig teeth M1i frag. left 80 4 - (f) 1124 384 Sus domesticus pig teeth Pm4i frag. right 95 2 - (a) 1124 385 Sus domesticus pig teeth frag. - 10-20 <1 - 1124 386 Sus domesticus pig teeth I2i frag. left 90 4 - 1124 387 Sus domesticus pig teeth I frag. - 40-50 2 - 1124 388 Sus domesticus pig teeth I2i frag. right 80 3 - 1124 389 Sus domesticus pig teeth I2i frag. right - 4 - 1124 390 Sus domesticus pig teeth I frag. - 50 2 - 1124 391 Sus domesticus pig teeth I3i frag. right 80-90 2 - 1124 392 Sus domesticus pig teeth I1i frag. left 90 2 - 1124 393 Sus domesticus pig teeth I1i frag. right 70 2 - 1124 394 Sus domesticus pig teeth I2i frag. right - 1 - 1124 395 Sus domesticus pig teeth I1s. frag. right 60 1 - 1124 396 Sus domesticus pig teeth I1s. frag. left 90-100 2 - 1124 397 Equus caballus horse teeth I.i frag. - - 4 - 1124 398 Sus domesticus pig teeth C1s frag. left - 6 - not yet erupted male 130 US nr. Taxon Animal Skeletal element Bone element Body side conservation (%) weight (g) 1124 399 Sus domesticus pig teeth C1s frag. right - 6 - male 1124 400 Sus domesticus pig teeth C1i frag. right - 12 - male 1124 401 Sus domesticus pig teeth C1i frag. right - 12 - male 1124 402 Sus domesticus pig teeth C1i frag. right - 4 - male 1124 403 Sus domesticus pig teeth C1i frag. right - 3 - male 1124 404 Sus domesticus pig teeth C1i frag. right - 4 - male 1124 405 Sus domesticus pig teeth C1i frag. right - 6 - male 1124 406 Sus domesticus pig teeth C1i frag. right - 8 - male 1124 407 Sus domesticus pig teeth C1i frag. left - 2 - male 1124 408 Sus domesticus pig teeth C1i frag. left - 13 - male 1124 409 Sus domesticus pig teeth C1i frag. left - 6 - male 1124 410 Sus domesticus pig teeth Ci frag. - - 2 - female 1124 411 Gallus gallus domesticus 1124 412 1124 413 1124 414 1124 415 1124 416 1124 417 1124 418 1124 419 Gallus gallus domesticus Gallus gallus domesticus Gallus gallus domesticus Gallus gallus domesticus Gallus gallus domesticus Gallus gallus domesticus Gallus gallus domesticus Measurement Epiphyseal s (mm) fusion chicken humerus com. right 100 2 chicken humerus com. right 95-100 3 GL=62,5 Bp=17 SC=6 Bd=13 GL=72 BP=18 SC=6 Bd=15 chicken humerus frag. with D.E. left 30-35 <1 Bd=14 chicken ulna frag. with P.E. left 50-55 1 Dip=10 Bp=7 chicken ulna frag. with P.E. left 60-70 1 Dip=11 Bp=7 chicken ulna com. left 100 2 GL=70 Dip=12 Bp=9 SC=5 Did=8,5 chicken ulna frag. with P.E. right 60-70 1 Dip=11 Bp=7 chicken ulna frag. with D.E. left 60 2 Did=7 radius frag. with D.E. - 25 <1 Bd=4 frag. - 40-45 1 - left 80-90 3 SC=6 right 70-75 4 - Galliformes sp. galliforms 1124 420 Gallus gallus domesticus chicken vertebra (lumbales, sacrum) 1124 421 Gallus gallus domesticus chicken femur chicken femur chicken femur frag. with D.E. left 50-55 2 Bd=13 Dd=10,5 chicken tibiotarsus frag. with P.E.frag. right 50-60 2 - chicken tibiotarsus frag. with D.E. right 30-35 1 Bd=12 Dd=11 left 70-80 3 - right 60-70 4 - 1124 422 1124 423 1124 424 1124 425 1124 426 1124 427 Gallus gallus domesticus Gallus gallus domesticus Gallus gallus domesticus Gallus gallus domesticus Gallus gallus domesticus Gallus gallus domesticus Gallus gallus domesticus Gallus gallus domesticus Gallus gallus domesticus chicken tibiotarsus chicken tibiotarsus frag. with P.E.frag. with D.E.frag. frag. with P.E.frag. frag. with D.E.frag. frag. with D.E.frag. left 95-100 2 GL=65 Bp=11 SC=6 Bd=12 tarsometatarsus frag. with P.E. right 70-80 1 Bp=11 chicken carpometacarpu s com. right 95-100 1 GL=34 Bp=9 Did=7 1124 431 bird costa frag. - - 2 - 1124 432 bird costa frag. - - <1 - 1124 433 bird phalanx frag. - - <1 - 1124 434 bird metacarpus frag. - - 1 - humerus frag. with D.E.frag. left 70-80 283 Bd=85 1124 428 1124 429 1124 430 1006 1 Bos taurus chicken tarsometatarsus chicken cattle com. Dental Age Notes Fused 131 1006 2 1006 3 1006 4 Sus domesticus pig/boar Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus humerus D.E.frag. left 20 28 - Fused sheep/goat humerus D.E.frag. right 20-25 12 - Fused sheep/goat humerus D.E.frag. right 25 17 - cutmark 1006 5 Sus domesticus pig humerus D.E.frag. left 15-20 20 - 1006 6 Sus domesticus pig humerus D.E.frag. left 15-20 12 Bd=35 1006 7 Sus domesticus pig humerus D.E.frag. left 30-40 38 - 1006 8 Sus domesticus pig humerus D.E.frag. left 40 26 - 1006 9 Sus domesticus pig humerus D.E.frag. left 30 22 - 1006 10 Sus domesticus pig humerus D.E.frag. left 15-20 11 - 1006 11 Sus domesticus pig humerus D.E.frag. left 10-15 8 - right 15-20 26 - Fused Fused 1006 12 Bos taurus cattle metatarsus frag. with P.E.frag. 1006 13 Sus domesticus pig radius frag. with P.E. left 25 12 Bp=28 Dp=22 Fused sheep/goat radius frag. with P.E. left 10-15 5 Bp=28 Dp=15 Fused sheep/goat radius P.E.frag. right 5-10 3 - Fused sheep/goat radius P.E.frag. left 10 5 - Fused sheep/goat radius dis. body frag. with ulna frag. right 20 8 - Fused sheep/goat radius dis. frag. right 15-20 10 Bd=29,5 Unfused sheep/goat radius frag. with D.E. with ulna frag. left 40 15 - Fused sheep/goat radius body frag. left 50-55 18 - sheep/goat radius frag. with P.E.frag. right 5-10 4 - 1006 14 1006 15 1006 16 1006 17 1006 18 1006 19 1006 20 1006 21 Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus 1006 22 Sus domesticus pig radius frag. with D.E. left 30 16 Bd=35 Fused 1006 23 Ovis aries/Capra hircus sheep/goat radius D.E. left 10 2 Bd=25 Unfused 1006 24 Bos taurus cattle radius frag. with P.E.frag. right 5-10 63 - Fused 1006 25 Sus domesticus pig radius frag. with P.E. left 45-50 27 Bp=32 Fused left 0-5 16 - fused Unfused 1006 26 Bos taurus cattle radius D.E.frag. with ulna frag. 1006 27 Sus domesticus pig humerus pr. frag. left 20-25 42 - 1006 28 Sus domesticus pig ulna pr. frag. left 10-15 8 - 1006 29 Sus domesticus pig ulna pr. frag. right 30 22 BPC=22 1006 30 Sus domesticus pig ulna body frag. left 30 20 - 1006 31 Bos taurus cattle metacarpus dis. frag. left 20 26 - sheep/goat metacarpus frag. with P.E. left 50-60 13 Bp=24 Dp=17 Fused sheep/goat metacarpus frag. with P.E.frag. right 25 6 - Fused sheep/goat metacarpus frag. with D.E. left 25 8 Bd=29 Dd=16 Fused 1006 32 1006 33 1006 34 Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus cutmark gnawing marks 132 US nr. 1006 35 1006 36 Taxon Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Animal Skeletal element Bone element Body side conservation (%) weight (g) Measurement Epiphyseal s (mm) fusion sheep/goat metacarpus body frag. - 15-20 4 - sheep/goat metacarpus body frag. - 20-25 5 - 1006 37 Bos taurus cattle metapode D.E.frag. - 5 14 - 1006 38 Bos taurus cattle metapode D.E.frag. - 5 12 - 1006 39 Sus domesticus pig metapode D.E.frag. - 15-20 4 Bd=19 Fused 1006 40 Sus domesticus pig metacarpus 3. frag. with P.E. right 30 5 Bp=16,5 Fused Bp=15,5 B=14 [GL]no E.D.=78 Gl = 68,5 Bp=14 B=11,5 Bd=14 [GL]no E.D.=57 Bp=13 B=11 [GL]no E.D.=59 Unfused (dis.) In fusion (dis.) 1006 41 Sus domesticus pig metatarsus 4. frag. with P.E. without D.E. right 90 10 1006 42 Sus domesticus pig metacarpus 1. com. right 95-100 8 1006 43 Sus domesticus pig metatarsus 3. frag. with P.E. without D.E. right 85-90 8 1006 44 Sus domesticus pig metatarsus 4. frag. with P.E.frag. right 70 10 Bp=15 Fused 1006 45 Sus domesticus pig metacarpus 4. frag. with P.E. left 50 7 Bp=16,5 Fused right 10-15 2 - Fused left 50 7 Bp=17 Fused Fused 1006 46 Sus domesticus pig metatarsus 4. frag. with P.E.frag. 1006 47 Sus domesticus pig metacarpus 4. frag. with P.E. 1006 48 Sus domesticus pig metatarsus 2. 1006 49 Sus domesticus pig metatarsus 2. 1006 50 Sus domesticus pig metatarsus 5. 1006 51 Canis familiaris dog metatarsus 5. com. frag. without D.E. frag. without D.E. frag. with P.E.frag. frag. without D.E. frag. with P.E.frag. frag. with P.E. without D.E. Unfused (dis.) left 95-100 5 GL=68 [GL]no E.D.=57 left 80-90 2 [GL]no E.D.=48 - 80-90 3 [GL]no E.D.=50 right 75-80 2 Bd=80 Fused Unfused (dis.) left 80-90 2 right 50 2 - Fused - 80-90 3 Unfused (dis.) com. right (front) 95-100 24 phalanx 1. com. right (hind) 95-100 24 [GL]no E.D.=80 Glpe=56 Bp=27 SD=23 Bd=26 Glpe=61 Bp=31 SD=26 Bd=27 cattle phalanx 1. frag. with D.E. left 5 4 cattle phalanx 1. frag. with D.E. left 10 8 Sus domesticus pig metacarpus 2. 1006 53 Sus domesticus pig metacarpus 2. 1006 54 Sus domesticus pig metapode 1006 55 Bos taurus cattle phalanx 1. 1006 56 Bos taurus cattle 1006 57 Bos taurus 1006 58 Bos taurus 1006 59 Sus domesticus pig phalanx 1. com. left 95-100 7 1006 60 Sus domesticus pig phalanx 1. com. left 95 7 1006 61 Sus domesticus pig phalanx 1. frag. without P.E. right 80-90 3 1006 62 Sus domesticus pig phalanx 1. com. right 95-100 4 1006 63 Sus domesticus pig phalanx 1. com. right 100 5 1006 64 Sus domesticus pig phalanx 1. com. right 100 4 Notes burning marks cutmark/chopmar k Unfused (dis.) Unfused (dis.) [GL]no E.D.=47 1006 52 Dental Age Fused chopmarks Fused burning marks Glpe=35 Bp=18 SD=16 Bd=18 [Glpe]no E.P.=27 Glpe=40 Bp=19 SD=15 Bd=16 [Glpe]=31 [Glpe]no E.P.=27 SD=11 Bd=13 Glpe=36 [Glpe]no E.P.=29 Bp=15 SD=11 Bd=14 Glpe=36 [Glpe]no E.P.=29 Bp=15 SD=12 Bd=14 Glpe=36 [Glpe]=28 Bp=15 SD=12 Bd=15 Fused In fusion (pr.) Unfused (pr.) Fused burning mark Fused Fused 133 1006 65 1006 66 Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Capreolus capreolus sheep/goat phalanx 1. dis. frag. left 60 2 Bd=10 Fused sheep/goat phalanx 2. com. left 100 2 Glpe=23 Bp=11 SD=8 Bd=9 Fused Roe deer phalanx 2. com. right 100 2 1006 68 Bos taurus cattle phalanx 2. com. right 95-100 12 1006 69 Bos taurus cattle phalanx 2. com. left 95-100 15 1006 70 Bos taurus cattle astragalus com. right 90 48 1006 71 Sus domesticus pig astragalus com. left 90-95 12 GL=26 Bp=11 SD=7 Bd=8 GLpe=48 Bp=27 SD=22 Bd=23 Glpe=38 Bp=28 SD=22 Bd=23,5 GL1=65 GLm=57 D1=33 Dm=33 Bd=40 GL1=43 GLm=40 com. right 95-100 10 GB=38,5 com. right 95-100 8 GB=38 1006 67 1006 72 Bos taurus cattle 1006 73 Bos taurus cattle 1006 74 1006 75 1006 76 1006 77 Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Sus domesticus carpalia (semilunare) carpalia (scafoide) sheep/goat metatarsus body frag. - 15-20 5 - sheep/goat metatarsus body frag. - 20-25 5 - sheep/goat metatarsus frag. with P.E.frag. right 40-50 14 - pig femur dis. frag. right 20-25 22 Fused Fused Fused Fused Cutmarks [GL]no E.P.=64 GB=22 [GL]no E.P.=71 GB=23 1006 78 Sus domesticus pig calcaneum frag. without P.E. right 90 12 1006 79 Sus domesticus pig calcaneum frag. without P.E. left 90 10 sheep/goat calcaneum com. left 95-100 8 GL=55 GB=20 In fusion (pr.) sheep/goat calcaneum com. right 95-100 10 GL=62 GB=19 Fused 1006 80 1006 81 Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Unfused (pr.) Unfused (pr.) 1006 82 Sus domesticus pig tibia D.E. right 5 3 Bd=25 Dd=22 Unfused (dis.) 1006 83 Sus domesticus pig tibia frag. with D.E. right 5-10 12 Bd=30 Dd=26 In fusion right 10-20 12 - Fused right 40 32 Bd=30 Dd=25 Fused Fused 1006 84 Sus domesticus pig tibia frag. with D.E.frag. 1006 85 Sus domesticus pig tibia frag. with D.E. 1006 86 Sus domesticus pig tibia frag. with D.E. left 25-30 18 Bd=27 Dd=24,5 1006 87 Bos taurus cattle tibia frag. with D.E. left 5 25 - 1006 88 Ovis aries/Capra hircus sheep/goat tibia frag. with D.E. right 45-50 28 Bd=27 Dd=21 1006 89 Sus domesticus pig tibia body frag. left 40 26 - 1006 90 Sus domesticus pig fibula frag. with D.E. right 20 3 - Fused pig fibula pr. frag. without P.E. left 20-30 2 - Unfused sheep/goat femur frag. Con P.E.frag. right 20-25 12 - Fused sheep/goat femur frag. Con P.E.frag. right 25 12 DC=18 Fused 1006 91 1006 92 1006 93 Sus domesticus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus chopmarks Fused 1006 94 Sus domesticus pig femur frag. Con P.E.frag. right 20-25 22 - Fused 1006 95 Bos taurus cattle humerus P.E.frag. left 10-20 62 - Fused 1006 96 Ovis aries/Capra hircus sheep/goat tibia pr. frag. right 10 5 - cutmark/chopmar k 134 Taxon Animal Skeletal element Bone element Body side conservation (%) weight (g) 1006 97 Ovis aries/Capra hircus sheep/goat tibia pr. frag. left 25 13 - 1006 98 Sus domesticus pig metacarpus 4. frag. with P.E.frag. without D.E. right 80-90 2 [GL]no E.D.=33 1006 99 Sus domesticus pig scapula dis. frag. left 25-30 22 SLC=23 1006 100 Sus domesticus pig scapula dis. frag. left 20 23 - US nr. 1006 101 1006 102 1006 103 Sus domesticus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Measurement Epiphyseal s (mm) fusion Dental Age Notes Unfused burning marks dark colour (burnt) pig scapula D.E.frag. left 5-10 8 GLP=34 LG=26 BG=26 sheep/goat scapula D.E.frag. left 10 6 GLP=34 LG=24 BG=23,5 Fused sheep/goat scapula frag. with D.E.frag. right 10-20 8 SLC=19 LG=24 BG=22 Fused Fused 1006 104 Sus domesticus pig scapula frag. with D.E.frag. right 20 18 SLC=22 BG=22 1006 105 Sus domesticus pig scapula dis. frag. left 15-20 14 - 1006 106 Bos taurus cattle scapula body frag. - 10 20 - 1006 107 Bos taurus cattle scapula body frag. - 15 26 - sheep/goat pelvis frag. right 5-10 6 SH=8 SB=14 sheep/goat pelvis frag. right 10 4 - gnawing marks pig pelvis frag. left 15-20 20 - cutmark/chopmar k sheep/goat pelvis frag. right 10-20 8 - sheep/goat pelvis frag. right 5-10 7 - sheep/goat pelvis frag. right 5-10 8 - dog pelvis frag. left 20 12 LAR=22 - 80 2 1006 108 1006 109 1006 110 1006 111 1006 112 1006 113 1006 114 Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Sus domesticus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Canis familiaris 1006 115 Sus domesticus pig radius frag. without D.E. without P.E. 1006 116 Bos taurus cattle mandibula frag. right 20 140 - 1006 117 Sus domesticus pig fibula dis. frag. left 45-50 4 - 1006 118 Sus domesticus pig mandibula frag. - 5-10 14 - 1006 119 Sus domesticus pig cranium frag. right 5-10 8 - 1006 120 Bos taurus cattle pelvis frag. right 5-10 30 - 1006 121 Sus domesticus pig ulna body frag. left 30 18 - 1006 122 Sus domesticus pig scapula frag. right 15-20 8 - 1006 123 Ovis aries/Capra hircus sheep/goat cranium frag. right <5 5 - 1006 124 Bos taurus cattle cranium frag. right <5 10 - 1006 125 Bos taurus cattle humerus D.E.frag. left 5-10 37 - 1006 126 Sus domesticus pig mandibula frag. right 5 8 - 1006 127 Sus domesticus pig mandibula frag. right 2-5 7 - 1006 128 Bos taurus cattle costa frag. - - 20 - 1006 129 Bos taurus cattle costa pr. frag. - - 18 - cutmarks Fused [GL]no E.D. e Unfused E.P=38 SD=7 1-2 m chopmarks 135 1006 130 Bos taurus cattle costa frag. - - 14 - 1006 131 Bos taurus cattle costa dis. frag. - - 6 - 1006 132 Bos taurus cattle costa frag. - - 8 - 1006 133 Bos taurus cattle costa pr. frag. right - 19 - 1006 134 Bos taurus cattle costa frag. with P.E. left - 12 - 1006 135 Sus domesticus pig costa pr. frag. left - 4 - 1006 136 Sus domesticus pig costa pr. frag. left - 5 - right - 2 - right - 3 - right - 5 - left - 8 - right - 4 - left - 3 - right - 6 - right - 2 - left - 2 - left - 6 - left - 6 - Unfused right - 7 - Unfused pr. frag. with P.E.frag. frag. with P.E.frag. frag. with P.E.frag. frag. with P.E.frag. frag. with P.E.frag. frag. with P.E.frag. frag. with P.E.frag. frag. with P.E.frag. frag. with P.E.frag. frag. with P.E.frag. frag. without P.E. frag. without P.E. 1006 137 Sus domesticus pig costa 1006 138 Sus domesticus pig costa 1006 139 Sus domesticus pig costa 1006 140 Sus domesticus pig costa 1006 141 Sus domesticus pig costa 1006 142 Sus domesticus pig costa 1006 143 Sus domesticus pig costa 1006 144 Sus domesticus pig costa 1006 145 Sus domesticus pig costa 1006 146 Sus domesticus pig costa 1006 147 Sus domesticus pig costa 1006 148 Sus domesticus pig costa 1006 149 Sus domesticus pig costa pr. frag. left - 3 - sheep/goat costa pr. frag. right - 2 - sheep/goat costa frag. with P.E.frag. right - 4 - pig sacrum frag. - 40 13 LCDe=37 LAPa=41 BFcr=45 Bpacd=37 BFcd=28,5 1006 150 1006 151 1006 152 Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Sus domesticus 1006 153 Sus domesticus pig axis frag. - 80-90 16 1006 154 Sus domesticus pig vertebra thoracales frag. - 40-50 13 BFcd=27 1006 155 Sus domesticus pig axis frag. - 70-80 14 LCDe=31 BFcr=47 Bpacd=34 BFcd=29 1006 156 Sus domesticus pig vertebra thoracales frag. - 30 8 PL=32 sheep/goat vertebra cervicales frag. - 20-30 12 - sheep/goat vertebra thoracales frag. - 25-30 4 - sheep/goat vertebra thoracales frag. - 25-30 1 - frag. - 10 2 - frag. - 15-20 2 - frag. - 20 4 - frag. - 20 2 - 1006 157 1006 158 1006 159 Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus 1006 160 Sus domesticus pig 1006 161 Sus domesticus pig 1006 162 Sus domesticus pig 1006 163 Ovis aries/Capra hircus sheep/goat vertebra thoracales vertebra thoracales vertebra thoracales vertebra thoracales cutmark/chopmar k In fusion cutmarks cutmark/chopmar k chopmark 136 US nr. Taxon Animal Skeletal element vertebra lumbales vertebra lumbales Bone element Body side conservation (%) weight (g) Measurement Epiphyseal s (mm) fusion frag. - 25-30 3 - frag. - 30 4 - frag. - 5-10 3 - frag. - 10-20 4 - frag. - 20-25 5 - frag. - 15-20 4 PL=24 frag. - 20-30 5 - frag. - 10-15 2 - frag. - 20-25 6 - frag. - 50-55 26 BFcr=39 HFcr=30 1006 164 Sus domesticus pig 1006 165 Sus domesticus pig 1006 166 Ovis aries/Capra hircus sheep/goat 1006 167 Sus domesticus pig 1006 168 Sus domesticus pig 1006 169 Sus domesticus pig 1006 170 Sus domesticus pig 1006 171 Sus domesticus pig 1006 172 Sus domesticus pig 1006 173 Bos taurus cattle 1006 174 Bos taurus cattle vertebra frag. - 30-40 47 PL=67 1006 175 Bos taurus cattle vertebra frag. - - 19 - 1006 176 Ovis aries/Capra hircus sheep/goat atlas frag. - 20 7 - 1006 177 Bos taurus cattle vertebra cervicales frag. - 30-40 19 - 1006 178 Bos taurus cattle atlas frag. - 25-30 55 - 1006 179 Sus domesticus pig atlas frag. - 20 5 - 1006 180 Sus domesticus pig fibula body frag. right 25-30 3 - frag. without D.E. right - 2 [GL]no E.D.=41 Unfused sacrum vertebra lumbales vertebra cervicales vertebra thoracales vertebra lumbales vertebra lumbales vertebra lumbales vertebra thoracales Sus domesticus pig metatarsus 2. 1006 182 Sus domesticus pig radius body frag. - 70-80 2 SD=8 fetus - 80 2 [GL]no E.D.=27 SD=7 fetus Fused 1006 183 Sus domesticus pig metacarpus 1006 184 Felis catus cat humerus frag. with D.E. right - 3 Bd=16,5 1006 185 Sus domesticus pig fibula body frag. left - 2 - 1006 186 Felis catus cat radius frag. with P.E. right 30-40 1 BP=11 1006 187 Sus domesticus pig costa frag. - - 5 - vertebra frag. - - 7 - vertebra frag. - - 3 - medium mammal medium mammal 1006 188 1006 189 1006 190 Bos taurus cattle cranium frag. left <5 12 - 1006 191 Sus domesticus pig pelvis frag. - - 1 - sheep/goat metatarsus frag. with P.E.frag. left 15-20 15 - sheep/goat metatarsus body frag. - 30-40 3 - 1006 192 1006 193 Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus 1006 194 Sus domesticus pig tarsalia (cuboide) frag. - 60-70 8 - 1006 195 Sus domesticus pig mandibula frag. left 5-10 10 - sheep/goat tibia body frag. - 25 8 - sheep/goat tibia body frag. - 30-40 9 - sheep/goat femur body frag. - 20-25 5 - 1006 196 1006 197 1006 198 Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Notes burnmark 1006 181 frag. without D.E. Dental Age Fused chopmark Fused cutmark 137 1006 199 Bos taurus cattle metapode dis. frag. - <5 <1 - 1006 200 Sus domesticus pig radius body frag. - 80 <1 SD=5,5 Fetus Young Young 1006 201 Sus domesticus pig 1006 202 Sus domesticus pig 1006 203 Sus domesticus pig 1006 204 1006 205 1006 206 1006 207 1006 208 1006 209 1006 210 1006 211 1006 212 1006 213 1006 214 1006 215 1006 216 Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Dama Dama Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus frag. without metapode 2 or 5 D.E. dis. frag. metapode without D.E. dis. frag. metapode without D.E. - 80 <1 [GL]no E.D.=29 left 40 <1 - left 40 <1 - 2 - burnmarks sheep/goat humerus dis. frag. left 25 sheep/goat metacarpus dis. frag. right 40 - sheep/goat scapula dis. frag. left 20-25 - sheep/goat tibia body frag. - 20-25 - sheep/goat tibia body frag. - 20 - Fallow Deer tibia P.E.frag. left 5-10 21 - sheep/goat horn frag. - - 38 - sheep/goat horn frag. - - 47 - sheep/goat horn frag. - - 48 - sheep/goat horn frag. - - 5 - sheep/goat horn frag. - - 9 - sheep/goat horn frag. - - 3 - sheep/goat horn frag. - - 10 - frag. with M2s, M1s right - 19 - (c, e) - - 6 - (k) (a) 1006 217 Sus domesticus pig cranium, teeth 1006 218 Sus domesticus pig cranium, teeth frag. with M2s 1006 219 Sus domesticus pig teeth M3s frag. right 40 6 - 1006 220 Sus domesticus pig teeth M2 frag. - 60 5 - (a) 1006 221 Sus domesticus pig - - 7 - (d) 1006 222 Sus domesticus pig teeth M3 frag. - 50 8 - (c,) 1006 223 Sus domesticus pig teeth frag. - - 3 - 1006 224 Sus domesticus pig/boar teeth C1i frag. right - 12 - male 1006 225 Sus domesticus pig/boar teeth C1i frag. right - 10 - male 1006 226 Sus domesticus pig/boar teeth C1s frag. - - 11 - male 1006 227 Sus domesticus pig/boar teeth C1i frag. s - 18 - male 1006 228 Sus domesticus right - 17 - 1006 229 Sus domesticus pig/boar teeth C1i frag. left - 8 - male 1006 230 Sus domesticus pig/boar teeth C1i frag. left - 4 - male 1006 231 Sus domesticus pig/boar teeth C frag. - - 3 - male pig cranium, teeth frag. with M2s mandibula, teeth frag. with M1i (f/g) 138 1006 232 Canis familiaris dog teeth C frag. - - 3 US nr. Taxon Animal Skeletal element Bone element Body side conservation (%) weight (g) - 80-90 29 - left 70 22 - - - 40 - - 80-90 17 - - 80-90 24 - (h) right - 44 - 8-10 y, (g, m, m/n, l) left - 38 M3: L=27 B=13 14-21 m (u, b, h, a) left 80-90 6 - (f-g) left 80-90 8 - (h-j) right 80 8 - (h-j) 1006 233 Bos taurus cattle teeth M1s or M2s frag. 1006 234 Bos taurus cattle teeth M3i frag. 1006 235 Bos taurus cattle 1006 236 Bos taurus cattle 1006 237 Bos taurus cattle 1006 238 1006 239 1006 240 1006 241 1006 242 1006 243 1006 244 1006 245 1006 246 1006 247 1006 248 1006 249 1006 250 1006 251 1006 252 frag. with M1i, mandibula, teeth Pm4i M1i or M2i teeth frag. teeth M1s frag. frag. with M3i, Ovis M2i, M1i, aries/Capra sheep/goat mandibula, teeth Pm4i, Pm3i, hircus Pm2i frag. with M3i, Sus domesticus pig mandibula, teeth M2i, M1i, Pm4i Ovis M1s or M2s aries/Capra sheep/goat teeth frag. hircus Ovis aries/Capra sheep/goat teeth M2s frag. hircus Ovis aries/Capra sheep/goat teeth M3s frag. hircus Bos taurus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Sus domesticus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus Measurement Epiphyseal s (mm) fusion Dental Age (b) (f-g) cattle teeth Pmi frag. - 40-50 5 - sheep/goat teeth M3s frag. right 70-80 6 M3:L=17 B=10,5 (a) sheep/goat teeth M3s frag. left 80-90 8 M3: L=16 B=11 (c,) sheep/goat teeth M2s or M1s frag. left 80 6 - (b) sheep/goat teeth M2s or M1s frag. - 80-90 5 - (f) sheep/goat teeth Mi frag. - 40 5 - sheep/goat teeth M3i frag. left 60-70 8 - (f-g) pig cranium, teeth frag. with M3s, M2s, M1s right - 30 M3: L=24 B=15 24 m; (1/2-u, c, d-e) sheep/goat teeth M1i frag. right 80-90 4 - (f-g) sheep/goat teeth M1i frag. left 60 3 - (h) (h) 1006 253 Bos taurus cattle teeth Pm4i frag. left - 8 - 1006 254 Bos taurus cattle teeth I frag. right - 4 - 1006 255 Ovis aries/Capra hircus frag. with Pm4i left - 26 - 1006 256 Sus domesticus pig mandibula, teeth frag. with I1i, I2i left - 14 - 1006 257 Sus domesticus pig teeth I frag. left 80-90 3 - 1006 258 Sus domesticus pig teeth I frag. right 80-90 2 - 1006 259 Sus domesticus pig teeth I frag. left 80-90 3 - 1006 260 Sus domesticus pig teeth I frag. left 80-90 3 - left - 31 - left 90 2 - sheep/goat mandibula, teeth 1006 261 Sus domesticus pig 1006 262 Sus domesticus pig frag. with M3s, cranium, teeth M2s, M1s teeth I frag. Notes (g) 16-24 (1/2-u, a, c) 139 1006 263 Sus domesticus pig teeth I frag. right 90 3 - 1006 264 Sus domesticus pig teeth I frag. right 90 2 - 1006 265 Sus domesticus pig teeth I frag. left 90 4 - 1006 266 Sus domesticus pig teeth I frag. - 90 3 - 1006 267 Sus domesticus pig teeth I frag. left 90 3 - 1006 268 Sus domesticus pig teeth I frag. right 40 2 - 1006 269 Sus domesticus pig teeth I frag. - 30-40 2 - frag. with Pm4i, Pm3i right - 2 - - - 8 - right - 12 - left - 8 - frag. with Pm2i left - 3 - 1006 270 Sus domesticus pig cranium, teeth 1006 271 Sus domesticus pig cranium, teeth frag. with M2s frag. with M1s, cranium, teeth Pm4s, Pm3s frag. with M1i, mandibula, teeth dPm4i 1006 272 Sus domesticus pig 1006 273 Sus domesticus pig 1006 274 Ovis aries/Capra hircus 1006 275 Sus domesticus pig teeth frag. - - 2 - 1006 276 Sus domesticus pig teeth Pm4i frag. - 70-80 3 - sheep/goat teeth Pm3i frag. - 80-90 2 - sheep/goat teeth Pm4i frag. left 80-90 3 - 1006 277 1006 278 Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus sheep/goat mandibula, teeth 1006 279 Sus domesticus pig teeth C frag. - - 3 - 1006 280 Sus domesticus pig teeth C frag. right - 2 - sheep/goat teeth I frag. right 80-90 1 - sheep/goat teeth I frag. right 90 2 - 1006 281 1006 282 Ovis aries/Capra hircus Ovis aries/Capra hircus 1006 283 Sus domesticus pig cranium, teeth frag with M3s, M2s left - 19 M3: L=26 B=17 1006 284 Sus domesticus pig teeth I frag. - 10-20 1 - 1006 285 Bos taurus cattle teeth M frag. - 10-20 4 - 1006 286 Bos taurus cattle teeth M frag. - 10 3 - 1006 287 Bos taurus cattle teeth M frag. - 10 3 - 1006 288 Bos taurus cattle teeth M frag. - 10 4 - 1006 289 Sus domesticus pig teeth I frag. left 70-80 1 - 1006 290 Sus domesticus pig teeth Pm4i frag. - - <1 - 1006 291 Sus domesticus pig teeth frag. - - <1 - 1006 292 Sus domesticus pig teeth I.i frag. - - <1 - 1006 293 Sus domesticus pig teeth frag. - - <1 - left - 16 - frag. with M1i, mandibula, teeth dPm4i 1006 294 Sus domesticus pig 1006 295 Sus domesticus pig teeth frag. - - <1 - 1006 296 Sus domesticus pig teeth C frag. - - <1 - 1006 297 Sus domesticus pig teeth C frag. - - 4 - 1006 298 Sus domesticus pig teeth I1s frag. right - 2 - left - 25 P4-P2=36 1006 299 Sus domesticus pig frag. with M1i, mandibula, teeth Pm4i, Pm3i, Pm2i 12-16 m (a, V) >24 m (k, de) 6-10 m (a, ef) (g) female 24 m (a,c) fetus 6-10 m (a,j) female 24 m (k,b) 140 US nr. Taxon 1006 300 1006 301 1006 302 1006 303 1006 304 1006 305 1006 306 1006 307 1006 308 1006 309 1006 310 Animal Skeletal element Bone element Body side conservation (%) weight (g) fish vertebra com. - - 1 GL=9 SC=14 fish mandibula frag. - - 2 - left 80 3 Bp=14 right 70 1 - left 80-90 4 left 35-40 left right Gallus gallus domesticus frag. with P.E. chicken tarsometatarsus with spur frag. with Galliformes sp. galliforms tarsometatarsus D.E.frag. frag. with Gallus gallus P.E.frag. with chicken tarsometatarsus domesticus D.E.frag. with spur Gallus gallus chicken tibiatarsus frag. with P.E. domesticus Gallus gallus chicken tibiatarsus frag. with D.E. domesticus Gallus gallus frag. with chicken tibiatarsus domesticus D.E.frag. Gallus gallus chicken tibiatarsus frag. with D.E. domesticus Gallus gallus chicken tibiatarsus frag. with D.E. domesticus Gallus gallus chicken tibiatarsus frag. with D.E. domesticus Measurement Epiphyseal s (mm) fusion male SC=7 fused male 3 Dip=17 fused 50 2 Bd=10 Dd=10 fused 15-20 2 - fused fused left 15 1 Bd=10,5 Dd=9,5 right 20-30 2 Bd=12 Dd=12 fused fused left 30-40 2 Bd=11 Dd=10,5 Galliformes sp. galliforms tibiatarsus dis. frag. - 20-30 1 - 1006 312 Galliformes sp. galliforms tibiatarsus dis. frag. - 20-30 2 - left 90 2 Bp=11 Fused - 60-70 <1 SC=2 Unfused fused 1006 313 1006 314 1006 315 1006 316 1006 317 1006 318 1006 319 1006 320 1006 321 1006 322 1006 323 1006 324 1006 325 1006 326 1006 327 1006 328 1006 329 Gallus gallus domesticus Gallus gallus domesticus Gallus gallus domesticus Gallus gallus domesticus com. right 95-100 4 GL=80 Lm=76 Bp=15 Dp=10,5 SC=10,5 Bd=15 Dd=13 femur dis. frag. left 40-50 2 Bd=14 Dd=11 fused chicken femur frag. with P.E.frag. left 20 2 - fused chicken femur frag. with P.E. left 15-20 2 Bp=15 Dp=10 coracoid frag. with P.E. left 80 <1 - coracoid com. right 95-100 2 Gl=54 Lm=50 BF=11 coracoid frag. with P.E.frag. right 30 <1 - coracoid body frag. left 70-80 1 - coracoid frag. with P.E. with D.E.frag. right 90 1 - fused Fused chicken femur chicken Galliformes sp. galliforms Gallus gallus domesticus chicken Galliformes sp. galliforms Gallus gallus domesticus Gallus gallus domesticus chicken chicken Galliformes sp. galliforms tarsometatarsus Gallus gallus domesticus Gallus gallus domesticus Gallus gallus domesticus Gallus gallus domesticus Gallus gallus domesticus frag. with P.E. with D.E. right 95-100 2 Bp=10,5 GL=66 SC=6 Bd=12 coracoid dis. frag. - 50 2 - chicken coracoid frag. with P.E.frag. right 80 1 - chicken coracoid frag. left 95 2 Lm=54 BF=9 fused chicken scapula pr. frag. left 50 1 Dic=11 fused chicken fibula frag. with P.E. - 50-60 <1 GL=57 Dip=11 Bp=7 SC=3,5 Did=8 GL=52 SC=2,5 Bd=5,5 GL=62 Bp=16,5 SC=6 Bd=13 Galliformes sp. galliforms ulna frag. with P.E. with D.E. right 95-100 2 1006 331 Galliformes sp. galliforms radius com. - 95-100 <1 chicken humerus com. left 95-100 3 chicken humerus frag. with D.E. r 60-70 2 Bd=12,5 SC=6 chicken sternum frag. - 5-10 1 - 1006 333 1006 334 Gallus gallus domesticus Gallus gallus domesticus Gallus gallus domesticus fused chicken 1006 330 1006 332 Notes Fused 1006 311 frag. with P.E. Galliformes sp. galliforms tarsometatarsus with D.E.frag. dis. frag. bird tibiatarsus without D.E. Dental Age fused fused 141 chicken tarsometatarsus frag. with D.E. and spur left - 2 Bd=14 1006 336 bird phalanx frag. - 95-100 <1 GL=42 SC=3 BP=9 Bd=4 1006 337 bird costa frag. - - 1 - 1006 338 bird costa frag. - - <1 - 1006 339 Galliformes sp. galliforms tarsometatarsus body frag. right 70-80 2 - 1006 335 1006 340 1006 341 1006 342 1006 343 Gallus gallus domesticus Gallus gallus domesticus Gallus gallus domesticus Gallus gallus domesticus Gallus gallus domesticus Fused chicken tarsometatarsus frag. with P.E. right 50-55 2 Bp=12 fused chicken tarsometatarsus frag. with P.E. left 40 2 Bp=12,5 fused chicken frag. with P.E. tarsometatarsus with spur right 80 4 Bp=14 fused chicken tarsometatarsus frag. with P.E. right 70-80 3 Bp=14 fused male male 142 APPENDIX 2. SKELETAL ELEMENT DISTRIBUTION The identified remains per species are grouped according to skeletal elements. Grouped under teeth are the loose, separate teeth, teeth which were still attached to (a fragment of) the mandible or cranium were included under mandibula or cranium. When no elements of a species were present in a context, then the corresponding context is not included in the table. Additionally, the elements of sheep/goat, cattle and pig are grouped according to the major parts of the body 1 US 1124 7 US 1006 1 Total 8 5 12 2 1 2 2 2 6 5 5 4 3 5 17 20 7 3 15 6 2 3 3 9 12 20 36 18 11 9 10 15 metatarsus tarsalia tibia femur pelvis phalanx 3 phalanx 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 5 4 6 1 1 1 13 8 3 1 6 6 5 3 7 2 5 1 1 13 9 19 2 12 patella US 1156 phalanx 1 metacarpus carpalia ulna radius humerus scapula 1 phalanx 3 US 1135 costae vertebrae teeth mandibula horn cranium (head, torso, front legs, hind legs, leg extremities). 11 4 Skeletal element distribution of sheep/goat remains Head 76 Torso 51 Front legs 31 Hind Legs 30 2 11 7 2 3 2 Total 11 13 23 16 14 7 10 6 5 3 1 5 metatarsus 2 4 tarsalia US 1006 1 tibia 3 femur 7 pelvis 5 phalanx 2 4 phalanx 1 10 11 metapode 5 metacarpus 7 carpalia US 1124 radius 2 humerus 2 Scapula teeth 6 costae mandibula 2 vertebrae cranium US 1156 US 1135 ulna Body part distribution of sheep/goat remains Leg extremities 35 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 2 1 4 5 4 2 3 4 2 3 9 4 1 2 1 1 7 7 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 4 5 Skeletal element distribution of cattle remains Head 47 Torso 44 Front legs 21 Hind Legs 16 Leg extremities 27 Body part distribution of cattle remains 143 US 1156 1 3 1 US 1124 12 12 29 16 US 1006 10 10 37 23 72 23 metatarsus 1 Tarsalia femur pelvis phalanx 3 phalanx 2 phalanx 1 metapode metacarpus ulna radius humerus scapula 1 1 1 Total costae 1 fibula 1 tibia 2 US 1194 Vertebrae teeth mandibula cranium US 1135 1 4 3 2 4 3 1 4 15 14 5 6 7 2 17 16 6 6 4 8 5 6 34 21 25 26 13 14 18 8 14 9 5 7 1 3 6 10 1 2 8 8 5 1 2 2 6 5 4 8 1 2 15 10 12 7 12 21 Skeletal element distribution of pig remains Head 47 Torso 44 Front legs 21 Hind Legs 16 metacarp us Metapode phalanx 1 pelvis femur Tibia tarsalia metatarsu s teeth US 1156 radius Body part distribution of pig remains Leg extremities 27 7 2 3 1 2 1 5 4 7 2 3 1 2 1 5 4 1 US 1124 3 Total 3 1 Total 1 1 1 1 1 Tibia 1 US 1006 femur US 1124 radius mandibul a humerus Skeletal element distribution of horse remains 1 1 1 1 metatarsu s 1 1 1 1 1 1 mandibul a teeth pelvis Skeletal element distribution of cat remains US 1124 1 US 1006 Total 1 Skeletal element distribution of dog remains 144 tibiotarsus Tarsometatarsus caropmetacarpu s femur 1 3 2 1 3 4 2 fibula ulna radius humerus coracoid scapula vertebrae US 1135 1 US 1156 1 US 1124 1 US 1006 1 1 Total 2 1 3 1 5 1 8 2 1 1 4 8 1 11 9 6 2 7 1 10 14 1 14 US 1135 tarsometa tarsus tibiotarsu s fibula caropmet acarpus femur ulna radius Humerus coracoid scapula vertebrae Skeletal element distribution of bird remains (including chicken) 1 US 1194 US 1156 1 US 1124 1 3 US 1006 1 1 6 2 Total 2 1 7 6 0 5 1 5 1 2 1 1 3 4 2 4 6 9 11 1 7 1 10 Skeletal element distribution of (only) chicken remains 145 APPENDIX 3. BUTCHERY MARKS Butchery marks identified on sheep/goat remains (n=14) 146 Butchery marks identified on cattle remains (n=10) 147 Butchery marks identified on pig remains (n=29) 148 APPENDIX 4. MEASUREMENTS OF PIG REMAINS Measurements of pig elements are compared to a standard value derived from a modern wild boar population (Payne, Bull 1988) using the logarithmic size index method. Measurement Value Standard value (Payne, Bull 1988) Ratio Log ratio 0.72 -0.14 Astragalus GL1 35 48.70 48.70 0.90 -0.04 Astragalus GL1 44 Humerus Bd 47 50.00 0.94 -0.03 Pelvis LAR 27 36.30 0.74 -0.13 Pelvis LAR 30 36.30 0.83 -0.08 Pelvis LAR 31 36.30 0.85 -0.07 Radius Bp 29 34.20 0.85 -0.07 Scapula SLC 23 29.80 0.77 -0.11 Scapula GLP 33 42.60 0.77 -0.11 Ulna DPA 28 47.30 0.59 -0.23 Ulna DPA 34 47.30 0.72 -0.14 Ulna DPA 35 47.30 0.74 -0.13 Humerus Bd 37 50.00 0.74 -0.13 Humerus Bd 41 50.00 0.82 -0.09 Pelvis LAR 31 36.30 0.85 -0.07 Radius Bp 29 34.20 0.85 -0.07 Radius Bp 30 34.20 0.88 -0.06 Radius Bp 31 34.20 0.91 -0.04 Scapula SLC 21 29.80 0.70 -0.15 Scapula SLC 21 29.80 0.70 -0.15 Scapula SLC 22 29.80 0.74 -0.13 Scapula GLP 32 42.60 0.75 -0.12 Scapula SLC 22 29.80 0.74 -0.13 Scapula GLP 33 42.60 0.77 -0.11 Scapula SLC 23 29.80 0.77 -0.11 Scapula GLP 32 42.60 0.75 -0.12 Scapula SLC 23 29.80 0.77 -0.11 Scapula GLP 33 42.60 0.77 -0.11 Scapula SLC 25 29.80 0.84 -0.08 Scapula GLP 40 42.60 0.94 -0.03 Tibia Bd 27 34.60 0.78 -0.11 Ulna DPA 37 47.30 0.78 -0.11 Ulna DPA 37 47.30 0.78 -0.11 Astragalus GL1 43 48.70 0.88 -0.05 Humerus Bd 50.00 0.70 -0.15 35 149 Radius Bd 35 41.30 0.85 -0.07 Radius Bp 28 34.20 0.82 -0.09 Radius Bp 32 34.20 0.94 -0.03 Scapula GLP 34 42.60 0.80 -0.10 Scapula SLC 22 29.80 0.74 -0.13 Scapula SLC 23 29.80 0.77 -0.11 Tibia Bd 25 34.60 0.72 -0.14 Tibia Bd 27 34.60 0.78 -0.11 Tibia Bd 30 34.60 0.87 -0.06 Tibia Bd 30 34.60 0.87 -0.06 Additionally, withers height of pig was calculated using the multiplication factor of Teichert (Von den Driesch, Boessneck 1974, 341). Skeletal Element Measurement GL1 Astragalus, left 43 Multiplication factor (Teichert)* 17.90 Astragalus, right 44 17.90 78.76 Astragalus, right 35 17.90 62.65 Withers height 76.97 *The multiplication factors from Teichert are derived from Von den Driesch, Boessneck 1974. 150 APPENDIX 5. ARCHAEOZOOLOGICAL SITES IN CENTRAL ROMAN ITALY For a clarification of the types of sites and the period divisions, see Chapter 4.1. The M in the last column indicates that the site is derived from the list of Italian archaeozoological sites composed by Michael MacKinnon (MacKinnon 2004). Site Type Period, date Location Bibliography 1 A26 urb2: Samnite settlement 1: Samnite Molise, inland Barker and Clark 1995 2 Alife, criptoportico urb1: urban settlement 2: 1st-3rd century CE Carannante et al. 2012 Alife, criptoportico urb1: urban settlement 3: 3rd-7th century CE 3 Blera urb2: Etruscan settlement Scali 1987 M 4 Bolsena urb1: urban settlement Lazio, inland Tagliacozzo 1995 M 5 Borgo Le Ferriere sp: votive deposit Lazio, coast Prummel, Bouma 1997 6 C36 sp: Samnite sanctuary 1: 4th-3rd century BCE 1: 2nd century BCE mid 1st century CE 1: 8th-3rd century BCE 1: Samnite Campania, inland Campania, inland Lazio, inland Molise, inland Barker and Clark 1995 M 7 Campochiaro sp: Samnite sanctuary 1: Samnite Molise, inland Barker and Clark 1995 M Campochiaro sp: sanctuary 3: 4th-5th century CE Molise, inland Barker and Clark 1995 8 Cantone sp: necropolis M Capua, Carillo urb1: urban settlement King 1987 M Capua, Carillo urb1: urban settlement Case Nuove r: rural site 1: 1st century BCE Case Nuove r: rural site Case Nuove r: rural site 11 Cosa, cisterne sp: dog burials 2: 1st - mid 3rd century CE 3: late 4th - mid 5th century CE 3: 4th century CE Abruzzo, inland Campania, inland Campania, inland Toscana, inland Toscana, inland Toscana, inland Toscana, coast Sorrentino 1989 9 2: 1st century BCE 1st century CE 2: 2nd-3rd century CE 3: 5th-6th century CE Scali 1993b M 12 Cosa, houses urb1: Roman city Toscana, coast Scali 1993a M 13 Cosa, lagoon urb1: port settlement Toscana, coast Hesse and Wapnish 1987 M 14 Ferento, fossa 1918 urb1: urban settlement 1: early 2nd century BCE 2: 1st-2nd century CE 3: 4th-5th century CE Lazio, inland 15 Ferento, fossa 3258 sp: ritual deposit 2: 1ste century CE Lazio, inland 16 Ferento, pozzo 593 urb1: urban settlement Lazio, inland 17 Ferento, Saggio III urb1: urban settlement 1: 2nd century BCE mid 1st century CE 2: 1st century CE 18 Ferento, SU 038 sp: dog burial 3: 4th century CE Lazio, inland Alhaïque, De Bernardis, Fortunato 2011 Rizzo, Fortunato, Pavolini 2013 Alhaïque, De Bernardis, Fortunato 2011 Alhaïque, De Bernardis, Fortunato 2011 Alhaique, Fortunato 2015 19 Fidene sp: dog burials 2: 2nd century CE Lazio, inland 20 Filattiera urb2: settlement 2: 1st-3rd century CE Filattiera urb2: settlement 3: 4th-6th century CE Gabii, Tincu House urb1: settlement 1: 5th-6th century CE Toscana, inland Toscana, inland Lazio, inland Gabii, Tincu House urb1: settlement 2: 1st century CE Lazio, inland 10 21 Lazio, inland M Vaccaro, MacKinnon 2013 De Grossi Mazzorin, Minniti 2000; De Grossi Mazzorin 2001 Giovinazzo 1998 Alhaique 2018 Alhaique 2018 151 22 Le Colonne r: rural villa 2: 1st century BCE – 2nd century CE Toscana, coast 23 Lugnano r: rural villa 2: 1st-3rd century CE Lugnano r: rural villa 3: 5th century CE 24 Lugnano, cemetery sp: infant cemetery 3: 5th century CE 25 Luni, Domus presso Porta Marina urb1: urban settlement 3: 5th-8th century CE Umbria, inland Umbria, inland Umbria, inland Liguria, coast 26 Luni, Forum urb1: urban settlement 2: 3th century CE Liguria, coast Luni, Forum urb1: urban settlement 3: 4th-8th century CE Liguria, coast 27 Mansio ad Vacanas r: mansio 2: 1st-4th century CE Lazio, inland Cerilli 2005 28 Matrice r: rural settlement 1: Samnite Molise, inland M Matrice r: rural villa 2: 1st-3rd century CE Molise, inland Barker and Clark 1995; Mackinnon 2004 (Clark unpublished) Matrice r: rural villa 3: 4th-5th century CE Molise, inland Monte Gelato 2: 1st-2nd century CE 3: 4th-5th century CE Lazio, inland King 1997 M Monte Gelato r: rural complex (vicus, villa?) r: rural villa 30 Monte Vairano urb2: samnite oppidum Molise, inland Barker and Clark 1995 M 31 Montecatino urb2: Etruscan settlement M Musarna r/urb2: settlement Toscana, inland Lazio, inland Wilkens 1991 32 Tagliacozzo 1990 M 33 Naples, Carminiello urb1: urban settlement M urb1: urban settlement Naples, Carminiello urb1: urban settlement 34 Naples, Girolamini urb1: urban settlement Campania, coast Campania, coast Campania, coast Campania, coast King 1994; Rielly 1994; Rhodes 1994 Naples, Carminiello 1: late 4th-2nd century BCE 1: 6th-4th century BCE 1: 3rd century BCE 1st century CE 2: 2nd-4th century CE 3: mid 5th-6th century CE 1: 1st century BCE 1st century CE 3: late 4th century CE M 35 Naples, Santa Maria la Nova urb1: urban settlement 3: 6th century CE 36 Naples, Santa Patrizia urb1: urban settlement 3: 4th century CE Campania, coast Campania, coast 37 Naples, Santa Sofia urb1: urban settlement 38 Naples, Via San Paolo urb1: urban settlement 2: early first century CE 3: 5th-6th century CE Campania, coast Campania, coast 39 Narce r: rural complex Lazio, inland 40 Nemi, santuario di Diana sp: sanctuary Lazio, inland Fortunato 2013 41 Nomentana sp: dog burials Lazio, inland 42 Ossaia r: rural villa 1: 4st-2nd century BCE 1: 4th-1st century BCE 2: mid 2nd century early 3rd century CE 2: 1st-4th century CE MacKinnon 2004 (Albarella and Frezza 1988a, unpublished report) MacKinnon 2004 (King n.d. 2, unpublished report) MacKinnon 2004 (Albarella and Frezza 1988b, unpublished report) MacKinnon 2004 (King n.d. 5, unpublished report) MacKinnon 2004 (Albarella and Frezza 1988b) Barker 1976 43 Ostia, bath urb1: urban settlement Lazio, coast Ostia, bath urb1: urban settlement 2: 1st - mid 3rd century CE 3: late 3rd – 5th century CE De Grossi Mazzorin, Minniti 2001a MacKinnon 2010 (Bökönyi n.d., unpublished report) Instituto di Paleontologia Umano 1968; Instituto di Paleontologia Umano 1973; Instituto di 29 King 1985; MacKinnon 2004 (King n.d. 1, unpublished report) MacKinnon 1999 M MacKinnon 1999 M Menchelli, Sangriso, Genovesi 2016; Menchelli et al. Forthcoming(a); Chapter 3 Barker 1977 M M Lazio, inland Toscana, inland Lazio, coast M M M M M M 152 44 Ostia, castrum urb1: urban settlement 1: 3rd-1st century BCE 2: 1st-5th century CE Lazio, coast Ostia, castrum urb1: urban settlement 45 Pescorocchiano sp: votive deposit Lazio, inland sp: Samnite sanctuary 1: late 4th - mid 2nd century BCE 1: Samnite 46 Pietrabbondante 47 Pievina r: rural settlement 2: Imperial period Pievina r: rural settlement 48 Pisa, navi antiche sp: ship wrecks 48 Pistoia urb1: urban settlement Pistoia urb1: urban settlement 50 Poggio Picenze, Varranone sp: tomb 3: Late Antique period 2: 1st century BCE 5th century CE 2: 1st-3rd century AD 3: 4th-7th century AD 1: 3rd century BCE Toscana, inland Toscana, inland Toscana, coast 51 Pompeii 94 urb1: urban settlement 1: Republican 52 Pompeii 95 urb1: urban settlement 1: Republican Campania, coast 53 Pompeii, Casa di Ganimede urb1: urban settlement 1: 6th century BCE 54 Pompeii, Forum urb1: urban settlement 2: 1st century CE Pompeii, Forum urb1: urban settlement 55 Pompeii, Gardens urb1: urban settlement 1: late 6th century BCE - early 1st century CE 2: late 1st century CE Campania, coast Campania, coast Campania, coast 56 urb1: urban settlement 57 Pompeii, House of Amaranthus Pompeii, House of Amaranthus Populonia 58 Lazio, coast Molise, inland Toscana, inland Toscana, inland Abruzzo , inland Campania, coast Campania, coast urb1: urban settlement 1: 4th-1st century BCE 1: 4th-1st century BCE 1: 3th century BCE Campania, coast Campania, coast Toscana, coast Populonia, cisterne sp: ritual deposit 1: 2nd century BCE Toscana, coast 59 Populonia, fossa 12618 sp: ritual deposit Toscana, coast 60 Populonia, necropoli delle Grotte Populonia, saggio IX sp: necropolis Populonia, saggio IX urb1: urban settlement 62 Quintili r: suburban rural 63 Roma, Anphitheatro Flavio urb1: urban settlement 1: late 3rd - mid 2nd century BCE 1: 4th-1st century BCE 1: mid 2nd - early 1st century BCE 2: mid 1st century BCE - mid 1st century CE 2: 1st-2nd century CE 2: 1st-3rd century CE Roma, Anphitheatro Flavio urb1: urban settlement 3: 4th-5th century CE Lazio, inland 61 sp: ritual deposit urb1: urban settlement Paleontologia Umano 1977 King 1985; MacKinnon 2004 (King n.d. 4, unpublished report) De Grossi Mazzorin 1995b Barker and Clark 1995 Sorrentino, Giuseppe, Manzi, 2000 Giorgetti and Campodoni 1985 De Grossi Mazzorin 2014a Richardson 1995; Richardson, Thompson, Genovese 1997; MacKinnon 2004 (Richardson 1994, unpublished report) Richardson 1995; Richardson, Thompson, Genovese 1997; MacKinnon 2004 (Richardson 1994, unpublished report) Kokabi 1982 M M M M M King, Rielly, Thomas 1985; King 1994; MacKinnon 2004 (King n.d. 3, unpublished report) M Jashemski 1973a; Jashemski 1973b; Jashemski 1979; Jashemski 1993 Clark 1999 M De Grossi Mazzorin 1985 M Toscana, coast Lazio, inland De Grossi Mazzorin 1987 Lazio, inland De Grossi Mazzorin, Minniti 2010a Toscana, coast M MacKinnon 2010; MacKinnon 2011 De Grossi Mazzorin, Mascione 2010 De Grossi Mazzorin, Minniti 2015 De Grossi Mazzorin, Minniti 2009 De Grossi Mazzorin, Minniti 2008; De Grossi Mazzorin, Minniti 2010b Toscana, coast M M M 153 64 Roma, Aqua Marcia urb1: city 1: 2nd century BCE Lazio, inland Roma, Aqua Marcia 2: 1st century BCE 3rd century CE 2: 1st-2nd century CE 2: 1st-3rd century CE Lazio, inland Lazio, inland De Grossi Mazzorin 1996 M De Grossi Mazzorin, Minniti 2010a Tagliacozzo 1993 M De Grossi Mazzorin 2004b De Grossi Mazzorin, Minniti 2001b De Grossi Mazzorin 2004a De Grossi Mazzorin 2004a De Grossi Mazzorin 2014b De Grossi Mazzorin 1989 M 65 Roma, Arco di Costantino urb1/ sp: city and ritual deposit urb1: urban settlement 66 Roma, Caput Africae urb1: city 67 Roma, Centocello sp: ritual deposit 68 Roma, Crypta Balbi esedra urb1: urban settlement 1: 4th-3rd century BCE 3: 7th-8th century CE 69 Roma, Crypta Balbi Mitreo sp: mithreum 3: 4th century CE Lazio, inland Roma, Crypta Balbi Mitreo urb1: urban settlement 3: 5th century CE Lazio, inland 70 Roma, Forum Ilium urb1: urban settlement Lazio, inland 71 Roma, Forum Transitorium 72 Roma, Meta Sudans urb1/ sp: urban deposit, ritual? urb1: urban settlement 1: late 6th century BCE 2: 1st century CE 3: 5th-6th century CE Lazio, inland 73 Roma, Meta Sudans US 3399 urb1: city 2: 1st century BCE 1st century CE Lazio, inland 74 Roma, Palatino area temenos urb1: city Lazio, inland 75 Roma, Palatino capanna Puglisi Roma, Passaggio di Commodo urb1: city urb1: urban settlement 1: 6th-3th century BCE 1: 5th-3th century BCE 2: 3rd century CE Roma, Passaggio di Commodo urb1: urban settlement 3: 4th century CE Lazio, inland 77 Roma, Piazza Celimontana sp: horse burial 3: 5th century CE Lazio, inland 78 Roma, San Omobono Roma, Schola Praeconum 1: 6th-5th century BCE 3: 5th century CE Lazio, inland 79 urb1/ sp: urban temple, ritual deposit urb1: urban settlement 80 Roma, Terme di Traiano urb1: urban settlement 2: 2nd century CE Lazio, inland Roma, Terme di Traiano urb1: urban settlement 3: 6th-7th century CE Lazio, inland 81 Rome, Vesta Area Sacra sp: ritual deposit 1: Republican Lazio, inland Costantini, Giorgi 2009 82 Roma, Via Gaetano Sacchi urb1: urban settlement Lazio, inland De Grossi Mazzorin, Coppola 2008 83 Roma, Via Sacchi urb1: urban settlement 2: mid 1st century BCE - 2nd century CE 2: 2nd century CE Lazio, inland 84 Roma, Via Sacra urb1: city 1: Early Roman Lazio, inland De Grossi Mazzorin, Minniti 2010a Blanc 1960 85 S. Angelo di Civitella sp: votive warehouse Lazio, inland Santini 2013 86 Saepinum urb1: urban settlement Molise, inland Barker and Clark 1995 M 87 San Costanzo sp: sanctuary, church 1: 4th-2nd century BCE 2: 2nd-3rd century CE 2: 3rd-4th century CE Albarella 1992 M 88 San Giacomo r: rural villa Campania, Capri, Bay of Naples Molise, inland Albarella 1993 M 89 San Giovenale urb2: settlement Lazio, inland M 90 San Giovenale, cult sp: sanctuary 91 San Potito r: rural villa Sorrentino 1981a; Sorrentino 1981b Sorrentino 1981a; Sorrentino 1981b Bökönyi 1986 92 Schiavi d'Abruzzo sp: sanctuary De Grossi Mazzorin 1997 M 76 3: early 5th century CE 1: 3rd-1st century BCE 1: 3rd-1st century BCE 2: Imperial period 1: 4th-1st century BCE Lazio, inland Lazio, inland Lazio, inland Lazio, inland Lazio, inland Lazio, inland Lazio, inland Lazio, inland Abruzzo, inland Abruzzo, inland De Grossi Mazzorin 1995a De Grossi Mazzorin, Minniti 1995; De Grossi Mazzorin, Minniti 2010 De Grossi Mazzorin, Minniti 2010a De Grossi Mazzorin, Minniti 2010a De Grossi Mazzorin, Minniti 2010a Bistolfi, De Grossi Mazzorin 2005 Ioppolo 1972; Tagliacozzo 1989 Barker 1982 M M M De Grossi Mazzorin, Minniti 2010a M M M 154 93 Settefinestre r: rural villa Toscana, coast r: rural villa 1: late 1st century BCE - early 1st century CE 2: late 1st-3rd century CE 3: 4th century CE Settefinestre r: rural villa Settefinestre 94 King 1985 M Sperlonga sp: cave deposit 2: 1st century CE Lazio, coast Azzaroli 1979 M 95 Subiaco, Le Camere sp: cave deposit 96 Tarquinia 97 Tenuta di Vallerano urb1: Etruscan urban settlement r: rural settlement 98 Via Gabina, site 10 r: suburban villa 99 Via Gabina, site 11 r: suburban villa 1: mid 3rd century BCE 1: 3th-2nd century BCE 2: 1st-2nd century CE 1,2: 3rd century BCE - 3rd century CE 1,2: 3rd century BCE - 3rd century CE Lazio, inland Fiore et al. 2012 Lazio, inland Bedini 1997 Lazio, inland Minniti 2005 Lazio, inland Clark 1990; Widrig 2002 Lazio, inland Clark 1990; Widrig 2002 Toscana, coast Toscana, coast M 155 APPENDIX 6. NISP DATA FOR ANALYSED CONTEXTS Site Period Type Total Sample 51 NISP sample 24 A26 1 urb2 Alife, criptoportico2 2 urb1 na 384 Alife, criptoportico3 3 urb1 na Blera 1 urb2 Bolsena 1 Borgo Le Ferriere NISP mammal 24 NISP bird 0 NISP fish 0 NISP reptile 0 NISP amphibian 0 335 49 na 0 0 742 642 100 na 0 0 31 18 15 3 0 0 0 urb1 2615 1172 1110 48 14 0 0 1 sp 4323 1547 1546 1 0 0 0 C36 1 sp 850 234 233 1 0 0 0 Campochiaro1 1 sp 2203 671 671 0 0 0 0 Campochiaro3 3 sp 3155 676 652 24 na 2 na Cantone 2 sp 1607 1607 824 507 276 0 0 Capua, Carillo2 2 urb1 132 57 46 0 11 0 0 Capua, Carillo3 3 urb1 58 41 41 0 0 0 0 Case Nuove1 1 r na 15 15 0 0 0 0 Case Nuove2 2 r na 199 113 54 0 3 29 Case Nuove3 3 r na 220 197 20 0 3 0 Cosa, cistern 3 sp 100 100 100 na na na na Cosa, houses 1 urb1 142 112 112 na na na na Cosa, lagoon 2 urb1 45 38 28 1 0 10 0 Ferento, fossa 1918 3 urb1 304 187 187 0 0 0 0 Ferento, fossa 3258 2 sp 142 73 69 3 0 0 0 Ferento, pozzo 593 1 urb1 293 109 94 14 1 0 0 Ferento, Saggio III 2 urb1 519 206 198 8 0 0 0 Ferento, SU 038 3 sp 131 112 112 0 0 0 0 Fidene 2 sp na na na na na na na Filattiera2 2 urb2 65 65 0 0 0 0 0 Filattiera3 3 urb2 96 96 0 0 0 0 0 Gabii, Tincu House1 1 urb1 1600 548 507 37 3 0 1 Gabii, Tincu House2 2 urb1 2225 664 594 66 0 0 4 Le Colonne 2 r 966 547 547 0 0 0 0 Lugnano, cemetery 3 sp 2467 1026 822 177 1 0 26 Lugnano2 2 r 134 45 41 4 0 0 0 Lugnano3 3 r 144 56 39 17 0 0 0 Luni, Domus presso Porta Marina Luni, Forum2 3 urb1 1674 877 796 76 4 0 0 2 urb1 180 114 107 7 0 0 0 Luni, Forum3 3 urb1 3425 1742 1543 195 0 4 0 Mansio ad Vacanas 2 r na 232 136 0 0 0 0 Matrice1 1 r na na 70 na na na na Matrice2 2 r 1466 689 689 na na na na 156 Matrice3 3 r 2019 894 894 na na na na Monte Gelato2 2 r 1029 612 532 56 17 0 7 Monte Gelato3 3 r 899 532 496 33 1 1 1 Monte Vairano 1 urb2 344 322 321 1 0 0 0 Montecantino 1 urb2 708 290 290 na na na na Musarna 1 r 2500 na na na na na na Naples, Carminiello1 1 urb1 474 241 236 5 0 0 0 Naples, Carminiello2 2 urb1 282 142 110 32 0 0 0 Naples, Carminiello3 3 urb1 5858 3390 2378 990 22 0 0 Naples, Girolamini 3 urb1 1638 743 741 1 0 1 0 Naples, Santa Maria la Nova Naples, Santa Patrizia 3 urb1 179 98 74 15 7 2 0 3 urb1 1416 607 560 30 16 0 1 Naples, Santa Sofia 2 urb1 46 46 46 na na na na Naples, Via San Paolo 3 urb1 173 173 164 8 0 0 0 Narce 1 r 138 87 87 0 0 0 0 Nemi, santuario di Diana 1 sp 391 142 132 10 0 0 0 Nomentana 2 sp na na na na na na na Ossaia 2 r na 2080 1950 130 na na na Ostia, bath2 2 urb1 2599 2599 2566 29 3 1 0 Ostia, bath3 3 urb1 171 171 151 20 0 0 0 Ostia, castrum1 1 urb1 107 107 107 na na na na Ostia, castrum2 2 urb1 125 125 125 na na na na Pescorocchiano 1 sp 423 423 100 na na na na Pietrabbondante 1 sp 400 139 102 29 8 0 0 Pievina2 2 r 76 27 26 1 0 0 0 Pievina3 3 r 940 292 285 2 0 5 0 Pisa, navi antiche 2 sp 5111 3042 2916 78 34 12 0 Pistoia2 2 urb1 250 30 26 4 0 0 0 Pistoia3 3 urb1 1812 258 244 14 0 0 0 Poggio Picenze, Varranone Pompeii 94 1 sp 111 111 111 0 0 0 0 1 urb1 1420 na na na na na na Pompeii 95 1 urb1 1853 253 148 12 93 0 0 Pompeii, Casa di Ganimede Pompeii, Forum1 1 urb1 1038 936 909 16 11 0 0 1 urb1 2686 2686 2686 na na na na Pompeii, Forum2 2 urb1 504 504 504 na na na na Pompeii, Gardens 2 urb1 297 207 205 2 na na na Pompeii, House of Amaranthus Pompeii, House of Amaranthus sp Populonia 1 urb1 784 319 248 12 50 7 2 1 sp 186 98 85 2 0 9 2 1 urb1 8080 2054 2014 23 13 4 0 Populonia, cisterne 1 sp 383 383 383 0 0 0 0 157 Populonia, fossa 12618 1 sp 2185 1706 1668 1 0 0 0 Populonia, necropoli delle Grotte Populonia, saggio IX 1 1 sp na 185 138 30 17 0 0 1 urb1 555 260 250 5 5 0 0 Populonia, saggio IX 2 2 urb1 692 339 335 4 0 0 0 Quintili 2 r 493 225 157 61 7 0 0 Roma, Anphitheatro Flavio 2 Roma, Anphitheatro Flavio 3 Roma, Aqua Marcia1 2 urb1 na 1574 na na na na na 3 urb1 na 2564 na na na na na 1 urb1 17 5 5 0 0 0 0 Roma, Aqua Marcia2 2 urb1 1062 397 391 5 2 0 0 Roma, Arco di Costantino Roma, Caput Africae 2 urb1 na 342 na na na na na 2 urb1 458 222 209 12 3 0 0 Roma, Centocello 1 sp na 547 175 371 1 0 0 Roma, Crypta Balbi esedra Roma, Crypta Balbi Mitreo Roma, Crypta Balbi Mitreo sp Roma, Forum Ilium 3 urb1 10159 7487 7056 377 46 8 0 3 urb1 na 374 288 85 1 0 0 3 sp na 55 16 36 3 0 0 1 urb1 518 107 104 3 0 0 0 Roma, Forum Transitorium Roma, Meta Sudans 2 urb1 129 73 72 1 0 0 0 3 urb1 2826 2826 2451 320 47 8 0 Roma, Meta Sudans US 3399 Roma, Palatino area temenos Roma, Palatino capanna Puglisi Roma, Passaggio di Commodo2 Roma, Passaggio di Commodo3 Roma, Piazza Celimontana Roma, San Omobono 2 urb1 na 541 421 72 48 0 0 1 urb1 na 709 na na na na na 1 urb1 na 73 na na na na na 2 urb1 na 282 na na na na na 3 urb1 na 71 na na na na na 3 sp 64 64 64 0 0 0 0 1 sp 2096 2096 2080 9 5 1 1 Roma, Schola Praecononum Roma, Terme di Traiano2 Roma, Terme di Traiano3 Roma, Vesta Area Sacra 3 urb1 4000 1741 1604 132 5 0 0 2 urb1 na 19 na na na na na 3 urb1 na 1114 na na na na na 1 sp 45 45 29 16 0 0 0 Roma, Via Gaetano Sacchi Roma, Via Sacchi 2 urb1 1755 1061 1043 16 2 0 0 2 urb1 na 981 na na na na na Roma, Via Sacra 1 urb1 132 106 106 0 0 0 0 S. Angelo di Civitella 1 sp 3240 na na na na na na Saepinum 2 urb1 87 39 39 na 0 na na San Costanzo 2 sp 109 83 47 8 27 0 1 San Giacomo 3 r 563 460 434 24 0 0 2 San Giovenale 1 urb2 166 61 52 9 0 0 0 158 San Giovenale, cult 1 sp 135 39 39 0 0 0 0 San Potito Schiavi d'Abruzzo 2 r 500 315 311 4 0 0 0 1 sp 15 15 15 0 0 0 0 Settefinestre1 1 r 544 241 230 8 0 3 0 Settefinestre2 2 r 6742 3033 2630 335 37 29 2 Settefinestre3 3 r 2023 1015 910 20 1 83 1 Sperlonga 2 sp 31 31 31 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Subiaco, Le Camere 1 sp 1620 698 696 0 0 0 2 Tarquinia 1 urb1 108 88 88 0 0 0 0 Tenuta di Vallerano 2 r 929 471 463 7 1 0 0 Via Gabina, site 10 1,2 r 4495 1984 1757 213 9 5 0 Via Gabina, site 11 1,2 r 262 125 106 14 1 4 0 APPENDIX 7. PERCENTAGES OF MAMMALS BASED ON NISP site Period Type A26 1 urb2 NISP mammal 24 % cattle 0.0 % sheep/goat 20.8 % pig 75.0 % equid 0.0 % dog 0.0 % cat 0.0 % wild 4.2 % rodent 0.0 Alife, criptoportico2 2 urb1 335 5.1 12.2 80.6 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.8 0.0 Alife, criptoportico3 3 urb1 642 6.4 8.1 81.8 0.2 1.2 0.0 2.3 0.0 Blera 1 urb2 12 50.0 8.3 41.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 some Bolsena 1 urb1 1110 12.1 49.2 37.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.4 0.0 Borgo Le Ferriere 1 sp 1546 12.7 79.8 7.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 C36 1 sp 233 6.0 45.5 43.8 0.0 1.7 0.0 1.7 1.3 Campochiaro1 1 sp 671 0.2 27.2 72.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Campochiaro3 3 sp 652 17.3 33.4 40.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 5.2 3.7 Cantone 2 sp 824 0.6 32.5 66.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Capua, Carillo2 2 urb1 46 6.5 28.3 60.9 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Capua, Carillo3 3 urb1 41 12.2 17.1 68.3 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Case Nuove1 1 r 15 46.7 20.0 26.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 Case Nuove2 2 r 113 0.0 23.0 46.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 30.1 Case Nuove3 3 r 197 16.2 40.6 31.5 0.0 4.1 0.0 7.6 0.0 Cosa, cistern 3 sp na 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cosa, houses 1 urb1 112 5.3 55.4 38.4 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cosa, lagoon 2 urb1 28 32.1 7.1 10.7 10.7 39.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ferento, fossa 1918 3 urb1 187 27.8 54.5 17.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ferento, fossa 3258 2 sp 69 30.4 34.8 33.3 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ferento, pozzo 593 1 urb1 94 7.4 40.4 52.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ferento, Saggio III 2 urb1 198 19.7 31.8 46.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 Ferento, SU 038 3 sp 112 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 89.3 0.0 0.9 0.0 Fidene 2 sp na 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Filattiera2 2 urb2 65 12.3 33.8 53.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 159 Filattiera3 3 urb2 96 4.2 46.9 46.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gabii, Tincu House1 1 urb1 507 23.3 32.1 38.7 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.2 4.3 Gabii, Tincu House2 2 urb1 594 8.4 32.3 44.8 1.0 6.1 0.0 0.5 6.9 Le Colonne 2 r 547 21.0 26.7 45.2 2.4 0.2 0.0 4.6 0.0 Lugnano, cemetery 3 sp 822 5.7 9.7 33.8 2.4 42.2 0.0 1.8 4.3 Lugnano2 2 r 41 7.3 12.2 31.7 2.4 0.0 0.0 46.3 0.0 Lugnano3 3 r 39 7.7 15.4 46.2 7.7 17.8 0.0 2.6 2.6 Luni, Domus presso Porta Marina Luni, Forum2 3 urb1 796 19.5 28.0 46.7 3.9 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.1 2 urb1 107 37.4 23.3 38.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Luni, Forum3 3 urb1 1543 13.7 43.0 42.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 Mansio ad Vacanas 2 r 136 37.5 14.7 47.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Matrice1 1 r 70 5.7 55.7 37.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 Matrice2 2 r 689 14.7 30.3 50.5 0.3 0.5 0.1 3.8 0.0 Matrice3 3 r 894 10.3 35.1 46.1 2.7 0.3 3.9 1.5 0.0 Monte Gelato2 2 r 532 3.8 12.0 39.5 0.2 43.4 0.0 1.1 0.0 Monte Gelato3 3 r 496 5.4 35.5 56.5 0.2 1.0 0.0 0.6 0.8 Monte Vairano 1 urb2 321 44.5 24.6 29.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Montecantino 1 urb2 290 29.3 33.4 27.6 0.0 2.8 0.0 6.9 0.0 Musarna 1 r na na na na na na na na na Naples, Carminiello1 1 urb1 236 5.1 27.5 66.5 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Naples, Carminiello2 2 urb1 110 1.8 31.8 60.0 0.9 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Naples, Carminiello3 3 urb1 2378 7.6 47.9 32.3 0.2 3.7 5.9 0.4 2.0 Naples, Girolamini 3 urb1 741 6.6 35.2 57.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 Naples, Santa Maria la nova Naples, Santa Patrizia 3 urb1 74 9.5 25.7 59.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 2.7 3 urb1 560 1.6 19.0 77.0 0.0 1.3 0.9 0.2 0.0 Naples, Santa Sofia 2 urb1 46 21.7 26.1 52.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Naples, Via San Paolo 3 urb1 176 17.0 30.7 45.5 1.1 5.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 Narce 1 r 86 19.8 51.2 18.6 2.3 3.4 0.0 0.0 4.7 Nemi, santuario di Diana 1 sp 132 14.4 18.9 62.1 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.8 0.0 Nomentana 2 sp na 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ossaia 2 r 1950 14.3 18.6 55.4 0.8 0.5 0.1 10.4 0.0 Ostia, bath2 2 urb1 2566 10.0 32.5 55.6 0.3 1.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 Ostia, bath3 3 urb1 151 11.9 19.9 65.5 0.7 1.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 Ostia, castrum1 1 urb1 107 11.2 1.9 84.1 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ostia, castrum2 2 urb1 125 0.8 26.4 68.8 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pescorocchiano 1 sp 423 1.9 84.9 12.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pietrabbondante 1 sp 102 33.4 17.6 49.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pievina2 2 r 26 11.5 23.1 53.8 0.0 3.8 0.0 7.7 0.0 Pievina3 3 r 285 21.1 40.4 33.0 1.4 0.4 0.0 3.9 0.0 Pisa, navi antiche 2 sp 2916 25.3 20.5 48.6 1.5 3.3 0.03 0.7 0.0 Pistoia2 2 urb1 26 40.0 12.0 48.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 160 Pistoia3 3 urb1 244 31.1 20.1 44.3 2.9 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 Poggio Picenze, Varranone Pompeii 94 1 sp 111 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 urb1 na na na na na na na na na Pompeii 95 1 urb1 148 3.4 44.6 51.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pompeii, Casa di Ganimede Pompeii, forum1 1 urb1 909 31.5 45.0 22.9 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 1 urb1 2686 19.0 22.3 54.4 0.4 1.9 0.2 0.7 1.1 Pompeii, forum2 2 urb1 504 10.5 26.9 62.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 Pompeii, Gardens 2 urb1 205 30.7 17.1 39.0 3.9 7.3 1.4 0.5 0.0 Pompeii, House of Amaranthus Pompeii, House of Amaranthussp Populonia 1 urb1 248 2.7 18.1 62.5 2.3 0.8 0.0 0.2 13.5 1 sp 85 0.0 1.2 65.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.9 1 urb1 2014 10.2 42.4 46.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 Populonia, cisterne 1 sp 383 1.0 0.0 99.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Populonia, fossa 12618 1 sp 1668 0.4 22.7 76.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Populonia, necropoli delle Grotte Populonia, saggio IX 1 1 sp 138 0.0 49.3 44.9 0.0 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 urb1 250 10.4 39.2 43.6 0.0 1.6 0.0 5.2 0.0 Populonia, saggio IX 2 2 urb1 335 22.7 36.4 35.5 0.0 1.2 0.0 4.2 0.0 Quintili 2 r 157 0.0 11.5 72.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.9 Roma, Anphitheatro Flavio2 Roma, Anphitheatro Flavio3 Roma, Aqua Marcia1 2 urb1 na na na na na na na na Na 3 urb1 na na na na na na na na Na 1 urb1 5 60.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Roma, Aqua Marcia2 2 urb1 391 13.8 12.3 68.5 1.3 3.6 0.0 0.5 0.0 Roma, Arco di Costantino Roma, Caput Africae 2 urb1 na na na na na na na na Na 2 urb1 209 2.7 17.3 76.5 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.3 1.8 Roma, Centocello 1 sp 175 5.7 22.3 58.3 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 10.9 Roma, Crypta Balbi esedra Roma, Crypta Balbi Mitreo Roma, Crypta Balbi Mitreo sp Roma, Forum Ilium 3 urb1 7056 8.3 32.0 52.2 1.9 1.3 0.7 2.6 1.0 3 urb1 288 5.6 15.6 76.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 3 sp 16 0.0 25.0 75.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 urb1 104 1.0 38.5 59.6 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Roma, Forum Transitorium Roma, Meta Sudans 2 urb1 72 12.5 9.7 77.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 urb1 2451 14.7 20.3 42.3 13.7 6.1 1.5 1.5 0.0 Roma, Meta Sudans US 3399 Roma, Palatino area temenos Roma, Palatino capanna Puglisi Roma, Passaggio di Commodo2 Roma, Passaggio di Commodo3 Roma, Piazza Celimontana Roma, San Omobono 2 urb1 421 5.9 17.1 67.7 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.5 8.3 1 urb1 na na na na na na na na Na 1 urb1 na na na na na na na na Na 2 urb1 na na na na na na na na Na 3 urb1 na na na na na na na na Na 3 sp 64 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 sp 2080 6.0 62.2 30.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 161 Roma, Schola Praeconum Roma, Terme di Traiano2 Roma, Terme di Traiano3 Roma, Vesta Area Sacra 3 urb1 1604 9.4 35.9 52.5 0.6 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 2 urb1 na na na na na na na na Na 3 urb1 na na na na na na na na Na 1 sp 29 0.0 37.9 55.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 Roma, Via Gaetano Sacchi Roma, Via Sacchi 2 urb1 1043 20.9 38.1 39.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.3 0.0 2 urb1 na na na na na na na na Na Roma, Via Sacra 1 urb1 106 48.1 19.8 32.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 S. Angelo di Civitella 1 sp na na na Na na na na na Na Saepinum 2 urb1 39 15.4 46.1 38.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 San Costanzo 2 sp 47 0.0 12.8 46.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.4 San Giacomo 3 r 434 7.1 25.5 14.5 14.3 34.0 1.6 2.1 0.9 San Giovenale 1 urb2 52 9.6 21.1 59.6 1.9 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 San Giovenale, cult 1 sp 39 15.3 51.3 25.6 2.6 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 San Potito 2 r 311 19.3 18.6 38.9 3.5 0.3 0.0 19.0 0.3 Schiavi d'Abruzzo 1 sp 15 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.7 0.0 Settefinestre1 1 r 230 8.3 32.4 35.8 0.0 3.9 0.0 14.4 5.2 Settefinestre2 2 r 2630 9.2 14.2 61.7 0.4 0.9 0.3 11.3 2.0 Settefinestre3 3 r 910 13.8 25.6 43.7 1.8 3.8 0.0 10.3 0.9 Sperlonga 2 sp 31 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subiaco, Le Camere 1 sp 696 29.5 48.3 14.9 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tarquinia 1 urb1 88 26.1 30.7 39.8 0.0 2.3 0.0 1.1 0.0 Tenuta di Vallerano 2 r 463 25.1 17.9 6.9 37.6 10.6 0.0 1.9 0.0 Via Gabina, site 10 1,2 r 1757 10.3 21.6 40.2 2.7 13.5 0.1 3.1 8.5 Via Gabina, site 11 1,2 r 106 7.5 17.0 47.2 16.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 11.3 APPENDIX 8. PERCENTAGES OF MAMMALS BASED ON MNI Site Period Type MNI mammal 46 % cattle 6.5 % sheep/goat 21.7 % pig 65.2 % equid 0.0 % dog 2.2 % cat 0.0 % wild 4.3 % rodent 0.0 Alife, criptoportico 2 urb1 Alife, criptoportico 3 urb1 46 8.7 15.2 65.2 2.2 2.2 0.0 6.5 0.0 Bolsena 1 urb1 57 15.8 42.1 35.1 1.8 1.8 0.0 3.5 0.0 C36 1 sp 13 15.4 15.4 38.5 0.0 7.7 0.0 15.4 7.7 Campochiaro 3 sp 28 3.6 32.1 64.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cantone 2 sp 65 1.5 21.5 76.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Capua, Carillo 3 urb1 6 16.7 33.3 33.3 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Capua, Carillo 2 urb1 8 12.5 37.5 37.5 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Case Nuove 1 r 4 25.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 Case Nuove 2 r 10 0.0 40.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 Case Nuove 3 r 19 15.8 31.6 26.3 0.0 10.5 0.0 15.8 0.0 Ferento, pozzo 593 1 urb1 13 30.8 23.1 38.5 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 162 Ferento, SU 038 3 sp 4 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 Fidene 2 sp 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gabii, Tincu House 1 urb1 72 18.1 30.6 44.4 4.2 100. 0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gabii, Tincu House 2 urb1 140 14.3 30.0 45.0 2.9 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Le Colonne 2 r 33 12.1 18.2 48.5 3.0 3.0 0.0 15.2 0.0 Lugnano 3 r 11 9.1 27.3 27.3 9.1 0.0 0.0 27.3 0.0 Lugnano 2 r 12 8.3 16.7 41.7 8.3 8.3 0.0 8.3 8.3 Lugnano, cemetery 3 sp 70 2.9 10.0 38.6 4.3 18.6 0.0 10.0 15.7 Luni, Domus presso Porta Marina Matrice 3 61 14.8 26.2 37.7 6.6 3.3 3.3 4.9 1.6 1 r 6 16.7 33.3 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 Matrice 3 r 41 12.2 29.2 31.7 4.9 4.9 4.9 12.2 0.0 Matrice 2 r 42 12.9 23.6 32.7 5.6 5.6 1.8 18.1 0.0 Monte Gelato 2 r 16 6.3 18.8 31.2 6.2 18.8 0.0 18.8 0.0 Monte Gelato 3 r 23 4.3 47.8 21.7 4.3 4.3 0.0 8.7 8.7 Monte Vairano 1 urb2 38 28.9 28.9 39.5 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Montecantino 1 urb2 26 15.4 26.9 26.9 0.0 7.7 0.0 23.1 0.0 Naples, Carminiello 2 urb1 8 12.5 25.0 37.5 12.5 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Naples, Carminiello 1 urb1 18 11.1 33.3 44.4 5.6 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Naples, Carminiello 3 urb1 120 7.4 25.7 20.7 1.6 10.7 18.2 2.5 13.2 Naples, Girolamini 3 urb1 23 8.7 30.4 47.9 4.3 4.3 0.0 4.3 0.0 Naples, Santa Maria la Nova Naples, Santa Patrizia 3 urb1 7 14.3 28.6 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.6 14.3 3 urb1 19 10.5 26.3 36.8 0.0 15.8 5.3 5.3 0.0 Naples, Via San Paolo 3 urb1 35 22.9 25.7 34.3 2.9 11.4 2.9 0.0 0.0 Nemi, santuario di Diana 1 sp 16 18.8 31.3 37.5 0.0 6.3 0.0 6.3 0.0 Nomentana 2 sp 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pescorocchiano 1 sp 35 8.6 71.4 20.0 0.0 100. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pievina 2 r 7 14.3 14.3 28.6 0.0 14.3 0.0 28.6 0.0 Pievina 3 r 22 13.6 22.7 36.4 4.5 4.5 0.0 18.2 0.0 Pistoia 2 urb1 17 35.3 17.6 47.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pistoia 3 urb1 89 25.8 25.8 41.6 3.4 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 Pompeii, Casa di Ganimede Populonia 1 urb1 41 17.1 46.3 24.4 4.9 2.4 0.0 4.9 0.0 1 urb1 93 10.8 33.3 46.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 Populonia, cisterne 1 sp 7 14.3 0.0 85.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Populonia, fossa 12618 1 sp 52 7.7 38.5 53.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Quintili 2 r 21 0.0 23.8 47.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.6 Roma, Aqua Marcia 1 urb1 3 33.3 33.3 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Roma, Aqua Marcia 2 urb1 42 11.9 23.8 45.2 7.1 7.1 0.0 4.8 0.0 Roma, Caput Africae 2 urb1 41 9.0 20.2 61.7 0.0 5.4 0.0 1.9 1.9 Roma, Centocello 1 sp 41 9.8 29.3 53.7 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Roma, Crypta Balbi Mitreo 3 sp 4 0.0 25.0 75.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 urb1 163 Roma, Crypta Balbi Mitreo Roma, Forum Ilium 3 urb1 29 17.2 17.2 51.7 6.9 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 1 urb1 21 4.8 23.8 66.7 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Roma, Forum Transitorium Roma, Meta Sudans 2 urb1 10 10.0 20.0 70.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 urb1 132 18.2 16.7 26.5 15.1 10.6 5.3 7.6 0.0 Roma, Meta Sudans US 3399 Roma, Piazza Celimontana Roma, San Omobono 2 urb1 27 14.8 33.3 37.0 3.7 3.7 0.0 7.4 0.0 3 sp 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 sp 177 5.1 62.1 27.7 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Roma, Schola Praecononum Roma, Via Gaetano Sacchi San Giacomo 3 urb1 53 11.3 32.1 45.3 1.9 5.7 1.9 1.9 0.0 2 urb1 102 13.7 52.0 25.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.9 0.0 3 r 29 10.3 24.1 24.1 13.8 6.9 3.5 13.8 3.5 San Giovenale 1 urb2 14 21.5 21.5 35.7 7.1 0.0 0.0 14.2 0.0 San Giovenale, cult 1 sp 7 14.3 28.6 28.6 14.3 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 Schiavi d'Abruzzo 1 sp 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.0 0.0 Settefinestre 1 r 34 14.7 23.5 17.6 0.0 8.8 0.0 23.5 11.8 Settefinestre 3 r 37 10.8 27.0 32.4 2.7 2.7 0.0 18.9 5.4 Settefinestre 2 r 102 12.7 15.7 25.5 2.9 2.9 1.0 27.5 11.7 Sperlonga 2 sp 4 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Subiaco, Le Camere 1 sp 34 17.6 55.9 14.7 0.0 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tarquinia 1 urb1 33 24.2 36.4 30.3 0.0 6.1 0.0 3.0 0.0 Tenuta di Vallerano 2 r 45 20.0 22.2 17.8 17.8 15.6 0.0 6.7 0.0 Via Gabina, site 10 1,2 r 49 14.3 24.5 26.5 6.1 14.3 2.0 12.2 0.0 Via Gabina, site 11 1,2 r 10 10.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 APPENDIX 9. PERCENTAGES OF SHEEP/GOAT, CATTLE AND PIG BASED ON NISP Site Period Type Region inland/co ast A26 Total Sample NISP total NISP mammal 1 urb2 Molise Inland 51 24 24 % cattl e 0.0 Alife, criptoportico 2 urb1 inland Na 384 335 Alife, criptoportico 3 urb1 inland Na 742 Blera 1 urb2 Campa nia Campa nia Lazio inland 31 Bolsena 1 urb1 Lazio inland Borgo Le Ferriere 1 sp Lazio C36 1 sp Campochiaro 1 Campochiaro Cantone % sheep/goat % pig 21.7 78.3 5.2 12.5 82.3 642 6.6 8.4 85.0 18 15 50.0 8.3 41.7 2615 1172 1110 12.3 49.9 37.8 coast 4323 1547 1546 12.7 80.0 7.3 Molise inland 850 234 233 6.3 47.7 46.0 sp Molise inland 2203 671 671 0.2 27.3 72.5 3 sp Molise inland 3155 676 652 19.0 36.7 44.2 2 sp Abruzz o inland 1607 1607 824 0.6 32.5 66.9 164 Capua, Carillo 2 urb1 inland 132 57 46 6.8 29.6 63.6 inland 58 41 41 12.5 17.5 70.0 inland Na 15 15 50.0 21.4 28.6 inland Na 199 113 0.0 33.3 66.7 inland Na 220 197 18.4 46.0 35.6 coast 100 100 100 na na na coast 142 112 112 5.3 55.9 38.7 coast 45 38 28 64.3 14.2 21.4 urb1 Campa nia Campa nia Toscan a Toscan a Toscan a Toscan a Toscan a Toscan a Lazio Capua, Carillo 3 urb1 Case Nuove 1 r Case Nuove 2 r Case Nuove 3 r Cosa, cistern 3 sp Cosa, houses 1 urb1 Cosa, lagoon 2 urb1 Ferento, fossa 1918 3 inland 304 187 187 27.8 54.5 17.6 Ferento, fossa 3258 2 sp Lazio inland 142 73 69 30.9 35.3 33.8 Ferento, pozzo 593 1 urb1 Lazio inland 293 109 94 7.4 40.4 52.1 Ferento, Saggio III 2 urb1 Lazio inland 519 206 198 20.2 32.6 47.2 Ferento, SU 038 3 sp Lazio inland 131 112 112 0.0 100.0 0.0 Filattiera 2 urb2 inland 65 65 na 12.3 33.8 53.8 Filattiera 3 urb2 inland 96 96 na 4.2 47.4 47.4 Gabii, Tincu House 1 urb1 Toscan a Toscan a Lazio inland 1600 548 507 24.7 34.2 41.1 Gabii, Tincu House 2 urb1 Lazio inland 2225 664 594 9.8 37.8 52.4 Le Colonne 2 r coast 966 547 547 22.6 28.7 48.7 Lugnano, cemetery 3 sp Toscan a Umbria inland 2467 1026 822 11.6 19.7 68.7 Lugnano 2 r Umbria inland 134 45 41 14.3 23.8 61.9 Lugnano 3 r Umbria inland 144 56 39 11.1 22.2 66.7 Luni, Domus presso Porta Marina Luni, Forum 3 urb1 Liguria coast 1674 877 796 20.7 29.7 49.6 2 urb1 Liguria coast 180 114 107 37.8 23.5 38.7 Luni, Forum 3 urb1 Liguria coast 3425 1742 1543 13.8 43.5 42.7 Mansio ad Vacanas 2 r Lazio inland Na 232 136 37.5 14.7 47.8 Matrice 1 r Molise inland Na na 70 5.8 56.5 37.7 Matrice 2 r Molise inland 1466 689 689 15.4 31.7 52.9 Matrice 3 r Molise inland 2019 894 894 11.3 38.4 50.4 Monte Gelato 2 r Lazio inland 1029 612 532 6.9 21.7 71.4 Monte Gelato 3 r Lazio inland 899 532 496 5.5 36.4 58.0 Monte Vairano 1 urb2 Molise inland 344 322 321 45.4 25.1 29.6 Montecantino 1 urb2 inland 708 290 290 32.4 37.0 30.6 Naples, Carminiello 1 urb1 coast 474 241 236 5.1 27.7 67.1 Naples, Carminiello 2 urb1 coast 282 142 110 1.9 34.0 64.1 Naples, Carminiello 3 urb1 coast 5858 3390 2378 8.7 54.6 36.8 Naples, Girolamini 3 urb1 coast 1638 743 741 6.7 35.6 57.8 Naples, Santa Maria la Nova 3 urb1 Toscan a Campa nia Campa nia Campa nia Campa nia Campa nia coast 179 98 74 10.0 27.1 62.8 165 Naples, Santa Patrizia 3 urb1 coast 1416 607 560 1.6 19.5 78.9 coast 46 46 46 21.7 26.1 52.2 coast 173 173 164 18.2 32.9 48.8 r Campa nia Campa nia Campa nia Lazio Naples, Santa Sofia 2 urb1 Naples, Via San Paolo 3 urb1 Narce 1 inland 138 87 87 22.1 57.1 20.8 Nemi, santuario di Diana 1 sp Lazio inland 391 142 132 15.1 19.8 65.1 Ossaia 2 r inland Na 2080 1950 16.2 21.0 62.8 Ostia, bath 2 urb1 Toscan a Lazio coast 2599 2599 2566 10.2 33.1 56.7 Ostia, bath 3 urb1 Lazio coast 171 171 151 12.2 20.5 67.3 Ostia, castrum 1 urb1 Lazio coast 107 107 107 11.5 2.0 86.5 Ostia, castrum 2 urb1 Lazio coast 125 125 125 0.8 27.5 71.7 Pescorocchiano 1 sp Lazio inland 423 423 100 1.9 85.2 12.9 Pietrabbondante 1 sp Molise inland 400 139 102 33.4 17.6 49.0 Pievina 2 r inland 76 27 26 13.0 26.1 60.9 Pievina 3 r inland 940 292 285 22.3 42.8 34.9 Pisa, navi antiche 2 sp coast 5111 3042 2916 26.8 21.7 51.5 Pistoia 2 urb1 inland 250 30 26 32.6 21.0 46.4 Pistoia 3 urb1 inland 1812 258 244 40.0 12.0 48.0 Poggio Picenze, Varranone Pompeii 95 1 sp inland 111 111 111 0.0 100.0 0.0 1 urb1 coast 1853 253 148 3.4 44.9 51.7 Pompeii, Casa di Ganimede Pompeii, Forum 1 urb1 coast 1038 936 909 31.7 45.3 23.0 1 urb1 coast 2686 2686 2686 19.9 23.3 56.8 Pompeii, Forum 2 urb1 coast 504 504 504 10.6 27.0 62.4 Pompeii, Gardens 2 urb1 coast 297 207 205 35.4 19.7 44.9 Pompeii, House of Amaranthus Pompeii, House of Amaranthus Populonia 1 urb1 coast 784 319 248 3.2 21.7 75.0 1 sp coast 186 98 85 0.0 1.8 98.2 1 urb1 coast 8080 2054 2014 10.3 43.0 46.7 Populonia, cisterne 1 sp coast 383 383 383 1.0 0.0 99.0 Populonia, fossa 12618 1 sp coast 2185 1706 1668 0.4 22.7 76.9 Populonia, necropoli delle Grotte Populonia, saggio IX 1 sp coast Na 185 138 0.0 52.3 47.7 1 urb1 coast 555 260 250 11.2 42.1 46.8 Populonia, saggio IX 2 urb1 coast 692 339 335 24.0 38.5 37.5 Quintili 2 r Toscan a Toscan a Toscan a Toscan a Toscan a Abruzz o Campa nia Campa nia Campa nia Campa nia Campa nia Campa nia Campa nia Toscan a Toscan a Toscan a Toscan a Toscan a Toscan a Lazio inland 493 225 157 0.0 13.7 86.3 Roma, Anphitheatro Flavio Roma, Anphitheatro Flavio Roma, Aqua Marcia 2 urb1 Lazio inland Na 1574 na 2.7 11.6 85.7 3 urb1 Lazio inland Na 2564 na 5.4 19.7 74.9 1 urb1 Lazio inland 17 5 5 60.0 20.0 20.0 166 Roma, Aqua Marcia 2 urb1 Lazio inland 1062 397 391 14.6 13.0 72.4 Roma, Arco di Costantino Roma, Caput Africae 2 urb1 Lazio inland Na 342 na 9.2 15.2 75.6 2 urb1 Lazio inland 458 222 209 2.8 17.9 79.3 Roma, Centocello 1 sp Lazio inland Na 547 175 6.6 25.8 67.5 Roma, Crypta Balbi esedra Roma, Crypta Balbi Mitreo Roma, Crypta Balbi Mitreo Roma, Forum Ilium 3 urb1 Lazio inland 10159 7487 7056 9.0 34.6 56.5 3 urb1 Lazio inland Na 374 288 5.7 16.1 78.2 3 sp Lazio inland Na 55 16 0.0 25.0 75.0 1 urb1 Lazio inland 518 107 104 1.0 38.8 60.2 Roma, Forum Transitorium Roma, Meta Sudans 2 urb1 Lazio inland 129 73 72 12.5 9.7 77.8 3 urb1 Lazio inland 2826 2826 2451 19.0 26.3 54.7 Roma, Meta Sudans US 3399 Roma, Palatino area temenos Roma, Palatino capanna Puglisi Roma, Passaggio di Commodo Roma, Passaggio di Commodo Roma, Piazza Celimontana Roma, San Omobono 2 urb1 Lazio inland Na 541 421 6.5 18.8 74.6 1 urb1 Lazio inland Na 709 na 5.3 32.1 62.7 1 urb1 Lazio inland Na 73 na 28.6 26.1 45.4 2 urb1 Lazio inland Na 282 na 2.6 14.9 82.5 3 urb1 Lazio inland Na 71 na 3.0 9.1 87.9 3 sp Lazio inland 64 64 64 0.0 40.7 59.3 1 sp Lazio inland 2096 2096 2080 6.1 63.3 30.5 Roma, Schola Praecononum Roma, Terme di Traiano 3 urb1 Lazio inland 4000 1741 1604 9.6 36.7 53.7 2 urb1 Lazio inland Na 19 na 25.0 8.3 66.7 Roma, Terme di Traiano 3 urb1 Lazio inland Na 1114 na 16.9 22.0 61.0 Roma, Vesta Area Sacra 1 sp Lazio inland 45 45 29 0.0 40.7 59.3 Roma, Via Gaetano Sacchi Roma, Via Sacchi 2 urb1 Lazio inland 1755 1061 1043 21.3 38.7 40.0 2 urb1 Lazio inland Na 981 na 13.5 44.6 41.9 Roma, Via Sacra 1 urb1 Lazio inland 132 106 106 48.1 19.8 32.1 Saepinum 2 urb1 Molise inland 87 39 39 15.4 46.1 38.5 San Costanzo 2 sp coast 109 83 47 0.0 21.5 78.5 San Giacomo 3 r Campa nia Molise inland 563 460 434 15.1 54.1 30.8 San Giovenale 1 urb2 Lazio inland 166 61 52 10.6 23.4 66.0 San Giovenale, cult 1 sp Lazio inland 135 39 39 16.6 55.6 27.8 San Potito 2 r inland 500 315 311 25.1 24.2 50.7 Schiavi d'Abruzzo 1 sp inland 15 15 15 0.0 0.0 Settefinestre 1 r coast 544 241 230 10.8 42.4 100. 0 46.8 Settefinestre 2 r coast 6742 3033 2630 10.8 16.7 72.5 Settefinestre 3 r coast 2023 1015 910 16.6 30.8 52.6 Sperlonga 2 sp Abruzz o Abruzz o Toscan a Toscan a Toscan a Lazio coast 31 31 31 na na na Subiaco, Le Camere 1 sp Lazio inland 1620 698 696 31.8 52.1 16.1 Tarquinia 1 urb1 Lazio inland 108 88 88 27.0 31.8 41.2 167 Tenuta di Vallerano 2 r Lazio inland 929 471 463 50.2 35.9 13.9 Via Gabina, site 10 2 r Lazio inland 4495 1984 1757 14.3 29.9 55.8 Via Gabina, site 11 2 r Lazio inland 262 125 106 10.5 23.7 65.8 APPENDIX 10. PERCENTAGES OF SHEEP/GOAT, CATTLE, PIG AND CHICKEN BASED ON NISP Site NISP chicken %cattle %sheep/goat Alife, criptoportico Period 2 Type urb1 NISP total 384 14 5.0 12.0 %pig 78.9 %chicken 4.1 Alife, criptoportico 3 urb1 742 41 6.2 7.9 79.7 6.2 Cantone 2 sp 1607 507 0.4 20.1 41.4 38.1 Case Nuove 2 r 220 20 0.0 20.5 40.9 38.6 Case Nuove 3 r 199 49 16.5 41.2 32.0 10.3 Ferento, fossa 3258 2 sp 73 2 30.0 34.3 32.9 2.9 Gabii, Tincu House 1 urb1 548 13 24.1 33.3 40.0 2.7 Gabii, Tincu House 2 urb1 664 25 9.4 36.0 49.9 4.7 Luni, Domus presso Porta Marina 3 urb1 877 53 19.3 27.8 46.3 6.6 Luni, Forum 2 urb1 114 7 35.4 22.1 36.3 6.2 Luni, Forum 3 urb1 1742 195 12.3 38.6 37.8 11.3 Nemi, santuario di Diana 1 sp 142 10 14.0 18.4 60.3 7.4 Ossaia 2 r 2080 112 15.2 19.7 58.9 6.1 Pievina 2 r 292 2 12.5 25.0 58.3 4.2 Pievina 3 r 27 1 22.1 42.4 34.7 0.7 Pisa, navi antiche 2 sp 3042 49 26.4 21.3 50.5 1.7 Pompeii, Casa di Ganimede 1 urb1 936 6 31.5 45.0 22.9 0.7 Populonia 1 urb1 2054 7 10.3 42.8 46.6 0.4 Populonia, necropoli delle Grotte 1 sp 185 30 0.0 42.5 38.8 18.8 Populonia, saggio IX 1 urb1 339 2 10.9 41.2 45.8 2.1 Populonia, saggio IX 2 urb1 260 5 23.8 38.2 37.3 0.6 Quintili 2 r 225 47 0.0 10.1 63.7 26.3 Roma, Anphitheatro Flavio 2 urb1 1574 Na 2.5 10.7 79.1 7.7 Roma, Anphitheatro Flavio 3 urb1 2564 Na 4.5 16.2 61.9 17.4 Roma, Aqua Marcia 2 urb1 5 15 14.0 12.5 69.6 3.9 Roma, Arco di Costantino 2 urb1 342 Na 9.1 15.1 74.7 1.3 Roma, Centocello 1 sp 547 357 2.0 7.7 20.1 70.3 Roma, Crypta Balbi esedra 3 urb1 7487 339 8.5 32.9 53.7 4.9 Roma, Crypta Balbi Mitreo 3 sp 374 68 0.0 7.8 23.5 68.6 Roma, Crypta Balbi Mitreo 3 urb1 55 35 4.6 12.9 62.9 19.5 Roma, Forum Transitorium 2 urb1 73 1 12.3 9.6 76.7 1.4 168 Roma, Meta Sudans 3 urb1 2826 253 20.4 6.8 58.6 14.3 Roma, Meta Sudans US 3399 2 urb1 Roma, Palatino area temenos 1 urb1 541 32 6.0 17.4 68.8 7.7 709 Na 5.1 31.0 60.6 3.2 Roma, Passaggio di Commodo 2 urb1 71 Na 2.4 13.9 77.0 6.7 Roma, Passaggio di Commodo 3 urb1 282 Na 2.9 8.7 84.1 4.3 Roma, Piazza Celimontana 3 sp 64 15 0.0 26.2 38.1 35.7 Roma, Schola Praecononum 3 urb1 1741 132 8.8 33.9 49.5 7.8 Roma, Terme di Traiano 3 urb1 1114 Na 16.6 21.7 60.0 1.8 Roma, Via Gaetano Sacchi 2 urb1 1061 11 21.0 38.3 39.6 1.1 Roma, Via Sacchi 2 urb1 106 Na 13.3 44.0 41.4 1.2 Tenuta di Vallerano 2 r 471 7 48.7 34.9 13.4 2.9 169