Animal Husbandry across the Western Roman Empire: Changes and Continuities

Abstract

This special issue of the European Journal of Archaeology discusses aspects of animal husbandry in a number of provinces of the Western Roman Empire. In this introduction, we describe the general characteristics of animal husbandry in pre-Roman and Roman times to assess any changes that may have occurred after the Roman conquest. The results suggest that the territoriality typifying the first millennium BC had a significant impact on production, resulting in a decrease in cattle size and frequencies across Europe. Nevertheless, not all the regions reacted in the same way, and regional communities that focused their animal production on pigs implemented more sustainable husbandry practices over time. By bringing together studies carried out across Europe, this journal issue highlights the existence of cases of both change and continuity across the Empire, and the (uneven) impact of the market economy on animal husbandry and dietary practices in climatically different regions.

Global distribution and evolution ofMycobacterium bovislineages

“…Archeological findings related to changes in cattle body size between Neolithic times and the Roman period (Meadow, 1988, 1989; Meadow and Zeder, 2004; Trentacoste et al, 2018) suggest the occurrence of modifications in cattle herding management in the Roman period, including improved feeding practices, probably aimed at increasing production capacity for draft, meat and/or milk (Kron, 2002). Reasons for breeding cattle varied considerably throughout the Roman territory and beyond due to culture traditions, diet preferences and climate conditions (Itan et al, 2009; Valenzuela-Lamas and Albarella, 2017). Nevertheless, by intensifying production systems and animal trade, which was most likely not centered solely in Roman territory, bovine TB may have dispersed significantly.…”

“…These findings imply changes in cattle herding management, including improved feeding practices, probably aimed at increasing production capacity for draft, meat and/or milk (Kron 2002). Reasons for breeding cattle varied considerably throughout the Roman territory and beyond due to culture traditions, diet preferences and climate conditions (Valenzuela-Lamas and Albarella 2017). For instance, it is believed that Romans preferred goat and sheep milk for cheese production, and cattle as a draft animal.…”

Equus asinus remains (Mammalia, Perissodactyla) from the protohistoric site of Pech Maho (Sigean, South of France) and variation in donkey size during the Iron Age

“…Finally, compared with the donkey from the Second Iron Age from Pech Maho, the Roman donkeys from Marseille are slightly but significantly larger. It seems as though donkeys follow the same model as for horse (and other species), that is, an increase in size in the conquered territories (Audoin‐Rouzeau, ; Forest, ; Lepetz & Hanot, ; Méniel, ; Valenzuela‐Lamas & Albarella, ). In contrast with previous period, enhanced genetic flow and better nourishment (that positively affects the body size) became possible in Roman times through changes in economy and expansion of mobility (Valenzuela‐Lamas & Albarella, ).…”

“…As a consequence of the territorialisation that characterises the Iron Age, there was a significant reduction in the genetic diversity at a local level that affects body size (Valenzuela‐Lamas & Albarella, ). Furthermore, donkeys are considered essential transport animals but are usually kept in small numbers (Shackelford et al, ) and are more subject to demographic and genetic stochastic events.…”

A Roman Structure from Hurbanovo, SW Slovakia: Multiproxy Investigation of Unique Waterlogged Deposit

“…177-179;Bielichová, 2017) as indicators of an influence from the Romanized world (e.g. Bielichová, 2017;Valenzuela-Lamas, Albarella, 2017;Rizzeto, Crabtree, Albarella, 2017), are in Hurbanovo insufficient. However, the horn anatomy suggests the presence of a short-horned (brychyceros) cattle type, typical for Celtic and Germanic settlements in the Middle Danube area (see Bökönyi, 1974, p. 127).…”