Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Trentacoste, A. 2020. Fodder for Change: Animals, Urbanisation, and
Socio-Economic Transformation in Protohistoric Italy.
Theoretical
Roman Archaeology Journal,
3(1): 1, pp. 1–17. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.16995/traj.414
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Fodder for Change: Animals, Urbanisation, and
Socio-Economic Transformation in Protohistoric Italy
Angela Trentacoste
University of Oxford, GB
angela.trentacoste@arch.ox.ac.uk
In central and northern Italy, the rst millennium BC was characterised by the rise of urbanism
and an expansion of nearly every area of production. Agriculture was no exception, and an
increase in the scale and intensity of agricultural production sustained, and was sustained by,
economic and population growth. Within this context, animal management also evolved to meet
the needs of the changing protohistoric landscape. Pigs grew in importance as meat producers,
and a greater emphasis was placed on animal-derived products like wool. These changes can be
linked to the subsistence requirements of urban populations and the value of raw materials;
however, beyond these functional explanations, the wider socio-economic context of animal
husbandry is rarely explored.
This paper aims to bridge the gap between the zooarchaeological evidence for livestock
production and the socio-economic transformations that drove animal management. Three
aspects of protohistoric husbandry are explored through discussion of pig, cattle, sheep, and
chicken exploitation: greater dierentiation in livestock production between dierent site
types, specialisation of animals through selective breeding, and the adoption of new forms of
livestock. These lines of evidence demonstrate the role of animals in socio-economic networks
of distribution and dependence, and they highlight the importance of agricultural produce in the
articulation of social hierarchies. As in the transformation of other forms for material culture
during this of this period, livestock husbandry regimes were not simply the deterministic result
of wider socio-economic change, but a medium actively adapted for its expression.
Keywords: zooarchaeology; agriculture; urbanisation; connectivity; economy; Republican Rome;
Etruscan
Introduction
During the Neolithic, the diet of ancient Italian communities became based on four key species: domestic
cattle, sheep, goat, and pig. The remains of these animals are one of the most common materials recovered
from archaeological sites, and the food systems evidenced by them are of central importance to under-
standing socio-economic change in antiquity. Such change is particularly relevant to protohistoric and early
Roman Italy, a period of urbanisation and dynamic social transformation (Smith 1996; Riva 2010; Terrenato
2019), alongside an expansion of production and exchange (Nijboer 1998; Morel 2007; Becker 2017; Roselaar
2017). Agriculture was not excluded from this re-organisation of the natural and social landscape. From the
late seventh century BC, increasing numbers of small settlements and construction of hydraulic works in the
hinterland of urban centres demonstrate an intensification of agricultural production and natural resource
exploitation (Cifani 2002; de Haas 2017; Zifferero 2017), and archaeological remains attest to increasing
investment in, and the commercialisation of, agricultural products (Barker 1988; Bergamini 1991; Perkins
2012). Within this context, animal management also evolved.
Despite the interconnected nature of agricultural production, resource control, and wealth accumulation,
the relationship between animal husbandry and socio-economic change in protohistoric Italy is not often
discussed with the same zeal as other material types. Architecture, grave goods, and amphorae have received
much more attention than organic remains in charting cultural transformations. The dialogue between form,
function, social ambitions, and practical constraints is broadly accepted as a force that shapes architecture
Trentacoste: Fodder for ChangeArt. 1, page 2 of 17
and material culture; these material types have been central to the investigation of economic development,
social stratification, and cultural transformations during this period (e.g. Izzet 2007; Riva 2010; Potts 2015).
In contrast, animals are typically held to be passive receipts of human action, more useful in reconstructions
of subsistence strategies than social change. Perhaps this is because the cast of characters is rather staid,
with the familiar refrain of ‘cattle, sheep, goat, and pig’, occasionally punctuated by a few red deer, perhaps
a wild boar, or — more rarely — a cameo appearance from an exotic animal. However, livestock management
provides evidence of human as well as animal lives. Environmental tolerance or resource availability can
promote or preclude certain farming and consumption practices (e.g. Redding 2015), but social forces were
of central importance to decisions on livestock husbandry (Crabtree 1990; deFrance 2009). Agriculture was
the driving economic force in ancient Italy, and most of the population was dedicated to farming. Every com-
munity was highly skilled in animal management, since failure in agriculture meant not just lost man-hours,
but potential starvation. The skills employed in raising animals were also highly local, tailored not only to
the surrounding environment, but also cultural traditions, social structure, and economic scale.
This paper focuses on the central and northern parts of Italy (Etruria, Etruria Padana, and Latium:
Figure 1), an area inhabited by several protohistoric cultures. Amongst these, the Etruscans are perhaps
Figure 1: Map of central and northern Italy during the mid-first millennium BC with major sites and those
sites mentioned in the text (Adapted from Ancient World Mapping Center map of ‘Northern Italy’).
Trentacoste: Fodder for Change Art. 1, page 3 of 17
most renowned, on account of their monumental tombs and written language, alongside Roman and
Latial culture south of the Tiber River, and other linguistically distinct peoples to the north and east.
Decades of excavation have produced a corpus of animal bone assemblages that allows us to reconstruct
not only ancient diet, but also changing aims of animal management. The zooarchaeology of protohis-
toric Italy was first considered in the 1970s and 1980s by Barker (1976; 1989), De Grossi Mazzorin (1985,
1989), and Riedel (1978; 1988). Since then, scholars have been able to refine regional variation and the
chronological scale of trends in northern (e.g. Riedel 1994; Trentacoste 2016; Trentacoste et al. 2018 and
references therein), central (De Grossi Mazzorin and Minniti 2009; Minniti 2012a), and southern areas of
the peninsula (de Grossi Mazzorin and Minniti 2019b), including the city of Rome itself (De Grossi Mazzorin
and Minniti 2017). Amongst identified trends, three key patterns emerge over the first millennium BC:
pigs became more abundant; cattle, sheep, and goats (but not pigs) increased in size; and the produc-
tion of sheep/goat (which are difficult to distinguish in the archaeological record) shifted to emphasize
secondary products (wool, and possibly milk) and young lamb. Other important adaptations include the
introduction of chicken as a form of livestock, and the development of new ‘breeds’ or animal types
with desirable characteristics. This paper aims to tap into the more elusive facets of animal use, and to
demonstrate how those ever-present ‘cattle, sheep/goat, and pig’ participated in the broader transforma-
tions which characterise protohistoric and early Roman Italy. Viewed as a part of broader socio-economic
developments over the course of the first millennium BC, animals become active players in sustaining
new commercial and social ambitions, shaped alongside other forms of culture by communities into new
forms and products that fed not only physical hunger, but social ambition as well.
Pigs for the People
The expansion of pig husbandry over the first millennium BC is one of the most widely recognised zooar-
chaeological trends in Italian antiquity, on account of its longevity and continued association with Roman
culture. Over this period, we find a dramatic increase in the percentage of pig remains recovered from
archaeological sites (MacKinnon 2004; De Grossi and Minniti 2009; 2017; Minniti 2012a; Trentacoste 2016).
This trend is apparent in both north and central Italy (Figure 2), and it appears to emerge in Rome and
Bologna (Farello 1995; Minniti 2012a) around the eighth century BC. The abundance of pig bones contin-
ued to climb into the Roman Imperial period, when pigs represent over 60–70% of remains on many sites
in central Italy (MacKinnon 2004; De Grossi and Minniti 2009; 2017). The link between pigs and central
Italy is so pronounced that increased pork consumption in the Roman provinces is frequently viewed as
the ‘Romanisation’ of local foodways (e.g. King 1999; MacKinnon 2010b; Valenzuela-Lamas and Albarella
2017a). The central role of pork in Rome’s diet was even institutionalized in the third century AD, with its
addition to the annona food distributions alongside bread, salt, and wine (Mattingly and Aldrete 2000).
The increase in pig consumption in protohistoric Italy is typically viewed as a response to population
growth and the increased demand for meat, particularly amongst urban populations (see De Grossi Mazzorin
and Minniti 2017 and references therein). The marked abundance of pigs remains found in Etruscan towns
and cities, compared to rural sites, supports this hypothesis (Farello 1995). However, significant percent-
ages of pig bones are not limited to urban settlements, and many sanctuaries and cultic deposits contain
Figure 2: Proportion of pigs amongst the number of identified specimens (NISP) of the three main domes-
ticates (cattle, sheep/goat, pig) from sites in northern and central Italy. Only includes assemblages with
livestock NISP > 100. (See Supplementary Table 1 for data. Source: Author).
10%
0%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
% pig
Bronze Age 1st milleniun BC
Northern Italy: Etruria Padana Central Tyrrhenian Italy
Trentacoste: Fodder for ChangeArt. 1, page 4 of 17
a pronounced abundance of one taxon. The ternary plot in Figure 3 depicts the relative percentages of
the three main livestock taxa in different assemblages. Ritual assemblages plot towards the corners of the
graph, illustrating that one taxon was significantly more abundant than the other two. In central Italy, the
preferred taxon is generally pig. However, in these ritual assemblages, high frequencies of pigs allude to the
location’s social and economic roles, rather than reflecting population size (Trentacoste 2016). Although
very different in form and dimensions, cities and sanctuaries had a shared function, as central nodes in
trade/exchange networks, as well as fora for the display of wealth and social status (Frayn 1993; Nijboer
2004; Becker 2009; Potts 2015; Biella 2019). In many parts of Italy, pigs were the easiest form of livestock
to produce in abundance with minimal effort, and thus a moveable form of surplus agricultural wealth that
could be distributed as needed.
This productive strategy would require animal mobility, and movement of livestock from off-site loca-
tions to centres of consumption. Looking at ancient Samnite sites, Barker (1989) noted differences in spe-
cies representation and livestock exploitation patterns at sanctuaries compared to settlements, which he
attributed to the movement of animals from the hinterland to ritual sites. Animal bone assemblages from
sanctuaries, particularly those at Campochiaro and Pietrabbondante, contained a notable abundance of
pig remains — markedly higher proportions than on the farms and villages considered. Furthermore, the
sanctuary at Pietrabbondante also produced evidence of young, prime beef cattle. Considering that pigs are
the animal most mentioned in references to Samnite sacrifice, Barker (1989) hypothesised that sancuatries
functioned as central places that received animals from the hinterland for rituals conducted by leading
families (Figure 4). Barker was unable to find similar zooarchaeological evidence for it in Etruria at the
time, but updating this investigation with recent data suggests that similar patterns of livestock mobility
existed across proto-historic Italy. While modern pigs are not very mobile, most Roman pigs were probably
reared off-site, in order to take advantage of pannage in local woodlands (MacKinnon 2001). Extensive
pig management is attested in historical sources (Dionysius Halicarnassensis, Antiquitates Romanae 3.70;
Polybius 2.15; Strabo 5.1.12), and it was common in the Mediterranean until recently (Albarella et al. 2011;
Halstead and Isaakidou 2011; Wealleans 2013). Recent analysis of suid bones from the Archaic town of
Forcello in the Po Plain has demonstrated that the pigs consumed acorns and were herbivorous, strongly
suggesting off-site management in the local woodland (see Alldritt et al. 2019; McCullagh, Hedges, et al. in
prep.). Similarly, stable isotopes from Roman pig bones indicate that pigs in Imperial Italy were also gener-
ally herbivorous, similar to sheep and cattle, rather than omnivorous like dogs or humans (see Trentacoste
et al. 2020). These results suggest that many pigs were not stall-fed on table scraps or human food waste,
but instead grazed in out-of-town environments. Extensively raised pigs could then be driven to a central
Figure 3: Relative abundance of main domesticates on ritual and non-ritual sites in central Italy. Only
includes assemblages with livestock NISP > 100. (See Supplementary Table 2 for data. Source: Author).
20
40
60
80
100
20
40
60
100
20
40
60
80
100
Period
Iron Age
8th–4th c. BC
4th–2nd c. BC
2nd–1st c. BC
Type
Habitation
Ritual
80
% pig
% cattle
% sheep/goat
Trentacoste: Fodder for Change Art. 1, page 5 of 17
place for slaughter. Such models have already been proposed for Iron Age France (Frémondeau et al. 2017);
similar scenarios are possible for Italy.
Surplus pig production brought several benefits. Surplus animals could be used to provision traders, create
cured products for market, pay debts or tribute, and incur divine favour (or social standing) through sacrifice
(Trentacoste 2016). Pigs are often abundant in the same places as early economic centralisation (see Nijboer
2004; 2017b; Morel 2007; Biella 2019): sanctuaries, cities, and long-distance trade hubs. A shipment of over
500 pig scapulae from a second-century BC shipwreck at Pisa illustrates the bulk transport of pork shoulders,
presumably pickled or cured (Sorrentino et al. 2000); trade or bulk processing may also explain the notable
abundance of this bone in the Etruscan port-town of Forcello (Trentacoste 2014). The very high percentage of
pigs at Republican Ostia (87%: the highest point in Figure 2 and outlying habitation assemblage in Figure
3) would also be linked to special types of provisioning at a major exchange node. High proportions of pig
bones in central places suggest these animals were mobilised from the surrounding hinterland, as has been
documented for sheep in Etruscan Orvieto (Trentacoste et al. 2020) and pigs in France at Iron Age Leroux
(Frémondeau et al. 2017). Etruscan inscriptions document the involvement of particular families in certain
religious rites and sacrifices (Jannot 2005: 81–82). Such families may also have supplied the animal victims:
a service which would serve to highlight not only the piety of the providers, but their wealth as well (Rives
2019). By the Roman period, such euergetism was common, and it served to curry divine favour and cement
the social and political roles of local elites (Petropoulou 2008; Rives 2019). In this context, protohistoric pigs
not only provided meat for the urban masses, but they also sustained trade, facilitated the creation and redis-
tribution of agricultural wealth, and provided a means for costly display. Population size and density were not
the sole drivers of pig consumption, but marketisation, connectivity, and a site’s relative role in transforming
agricultural surplus into other forms of wealth and social capital were aspects that shaped animal use.
Cattle: Evidence for Improvement
Across Western Europe, cattle increased significantly in size after Roman conquest (Valenzuela-Lamas and
Albarella 2017b and papers therein). This increase in the size of livestock broke from millennia of progres-
sive size diminution which began in the Neolithic. It represents a significant change in how animals were
managed, at least until Late Antiquity, when cattle stature again decreased (e.g. Frémondeau et al. 2017;
Rizzetto et al. 2017). Although there is evidence from France indicating an increase in cattle size from the
second century BC (Frémondeau et al. 2017; Duval 2018), in Italy this increase is visible centuries earlier
(Riedel 1994; De Grossi Mazzorin 1995; Trentacoste et al. 2018; De Grossi Mazzorin and Minniti 2019b).
These trends were fully developed by the Archaic period in the mid-first millennium BC, although earlier
incremental changes suggest development from as early as the Bronze to Iron Age transition (Trentacoste et
al. 2018; De Grossi Mazzorin and Minniti 2017; 2019b).
Figure 4: Simplified model of the movement of surplus animals in protohistoric Italy. (After Barker 1989:
Figure 3).
Trentacoste: Fodder for ChangeArt. 1, page 6 of 17
In both northern and central Italy, cattle increased in size despite a wider trend toward diminution in other
parts of Europe during the early Iron Age. Rather than a universal, external catalyst (like climate change),
livestock improvement in Italy must have been driven by new changes to animal management strategies.
Although statistically significant increases in cattle size are visible across urban and non-urban communities
(Trentacoste et al. 2018), the distribution of the data suggests that urban centres had a key role in mediating
access to larger, desirable animals. Using the Log Standard Index (LSI) technique (Meadow 1999) to compare
cattle post-cranial measurements, differences emerge between northern Italian site types (Figure 5). LSI
values scale measurements to a standard, in this case a cow from Catalonia (Nieto-Espinet 2018), and the
resultant values indicate the degree to which the considered measurement is larger (positive LSI value) or
smaller (negative LS value) than the standard. This technique allows measurements to be pooled, rather than
relying on total lengths from unbroken limb bones, which are typically rare in archaeological assemblages.
Major Etruscan sites (towns and cities, e.g. Bologna, Marzabotto, Spina, Forcello) contain larger cattle than
minor Etruscan settlements (farms, villages). Cattle on major sites are, on average, both taller and more
robust than cattle on rural sites, and the largest animals overall are also found on major sites. Non-Etruscan
settlements from the region north of the River Po have cattle smaller on average than either Etruscan group,
although a few large individuals are present. This distribution of cattle reinforces site hierarchies, and sug-
gests greater selection for large animals in urban sites, the transport of the largest animals from the hinter-
land to major centres, or greater preference for male cattle. Further research into site-specific age and sex
profiles is needed to understand whether urban/rural differences represent bulls, oxen, or phenotypically
larger livestock of either sex, but regardless of their origin, urban Etruscan sites had greater success creating
or attracting large cattle.
One reason that could prioritise a size increase in cattle was the need for muscle power. In Etruscan Italy,
cattle were predominantly slaughtered in late adulthood, and lower limb pathologies evidence their use for
traction (Trentacoste 2016). Stronger animals could work harder and exploit heavier soils, increasing the pro-
duction of cereals required to feed urban centres. Later Roman agronomists explicitly state the importance
of size and working capacity, as well as colour, as a marker of different cattle types (e.g. Columella, De re
rustica 6.1.1–3; Varro, De re rustica 2.5.6–11; see MacKinnon 2010a). However, if big cattle were developed
for agricultural labour, why are the largest animals in towns and cities? One explanation is that they were
sent there for slaughter after working lives further afield, or that cities were able to maintain the largest
stock to work their own environs. Alternatively, a cultural preference for large animals, especially those of a
specific sex, conformation, or colour, could also drive these patterns. In protohistoric Italy, practically every
aspect of material culture could be used to articulate identity, and inter-elite competition played out every-
where from temples to tombs (Izzet 2007; Riva 2010; Potts 2015). Cities were centres for this type of display,
Figure 5: Histograms of Log Standard Index (LSI) values from cattle post-cranial bones recovered from
sites in Northern Italy. (See Supplementary Table 3 for site list. Data from Trentacoste et al. 2018. Source:
Author).
í
LSI length values
LSI width values
Major Minor
Etruscan sites
Non-Etruscan
sites
Count
Trentacoste: Fodder for Change Art. 1, page 7 of 17
and the animal pulling an ornate chariot or presented at a public sacrifice would have been as important
as the more archaeologically durable elements of these scenarios. Roman rituals called for male or female
cattle of with specific colours (Dumézil 1987: 550–551; Scheid 2007), and Varro notes that certain breeds of
Italian cattle were preferred as sacrifices, on account of their size and white colour (Rust. 2.5.10–11). Virgil
also refers to the use of white Italian cattle in triumphs and sacrifices, which might be marked from birth
for such purposes (Georgics 2.145–148; 3.156–165). The ability to furnish one of the most costly and least
common forms of livestock (bulls) in the rarest of colours (white), and then kill it, demonstrates an immense
quantity of disposable wealth. In this context, cattle not only offered power to pull ploughs, but a means of
expressing wealth, resource access, and influence: political and social as well as physical power.
Sheep: Specialisation of Animals and Materials
Specialised livestock husbandry during the later prehistory had a significant impact on the formation of
sheep ‘breeds’ as noted by Roman authors. Sheep in northern Italy and Puglia were renowned for their
fleeces, and sheep varied in colour across the peninsula (e.g. Columella, Rust. 7.2.3–7.3.2; Pliny, Naturalis
historia 8.190–191; Strabo, 5.1.12). Sheep ‘landraces’ also differed in size and shape, with taller animals in
the lowlands and shorter varieties in the mountains (Columella, Rust. 7.2.3). Regional diversity and various
‘landraces’ also existed in prehistory, but the change from household to workshop and more industrial
scales of production supported formation of specialized herds and even types of sheep. Textiles were major
sources of wealth and prestige in protohistoric Italy, and wool was one of the most important raw materials
in their production (Gleba 2008). Written, iconographic, and archaeological sources document the sumptu-
ous garments worn by the elite, who distinguished themselves and displayed their wealth through the use of
rare dyes, gold thread and appliques, elaborate woven designs, and even three-dimensional pleating (Gleba
2017a). Considering the amount of wealth and craftsmanship dedicated to these prestige textiles, it is not
surprising to find that their production also had an important social role. Textile tools have been recovered
in large numbers from tombs, domestic contexts, and even sanctuaries, where they provide an important
testament to the ubiquity and social importance of this activity (Meyers 2013).
The final quality of a finished textile depends on that of the raw material, and recent analysis of preserved
textile fragments shows that several fleece qualities coexisted in Italy by the end of first millennium BC
(Gleba 2012). The appearance of homogenous, fine fleeces in the later part of this period suggests that
breeders were actively improving sheep for wool quality. The method of collection also appears to have
changed over later prehistory. Shears came into use during the Iron Age, signalling a transformation in the
collection of wool (Ryder 1992; Rast-Eicher and Bender Jørgensen 2013). This shift from plucking to cutting
demonstrates the development of non-shedding fleece, allowing for removal at a chosen time and place.
Sheep were also selected based on colour. Primitive European breeds are typically brown, while white wool
would be needed to create bright white or vibrantly coloured garments. White fleeces were preferred in
the Roman period precisely because they could be dyed (Columella, Rust. 7.2.3). However, even during the
Imperial period pure white animals could not be produced without continued effort. As Columella notes, a
‘dark lamb is often the offspring of a white ram’ (7.2.5). Careful inspection and selection of breeding animals
were therefore required in order to continue to produce white sheep (Columella, Rust. 7.2.5; Varro, Rust.
2.2.4), suggesting that white animals were not ubiquitous, even when Varro was writing in the first century
AD. These improvements in the raw material needed for textile production mirrors developments in the
production process. Textile tools became smaller and more standardized during the first millennium BC,
suggesting the creation of finer products and greater expertise (Gleba 2008).
On account of their distinct textile tradition, Greek colonisation of southern Italy would have introduced
further selective pressures. The textile fragments that survive from Iron Age and Etruscan contexts show that
central Italian communities wore highly decorated fabrics that shared many characteristics with Hallstatt
examples from central Europe (Gleba 2017b). In contrast, the Greek textiles were ‘technically, aesthetically
and conceptually different’ (Gleba 2017b: 1219). Although both cultures used wool, Greek textiles were
produced using distinct methods that resulted in considerably finer cloth with higher thread counts per
centimetre. Sheep with fleeces of the colour and fineness needed to produce Greek-style fabrics were not
necessarily present in southern Italy. Based on a size increase in southern Italian sheep, Gaastra (2014) has
suggested that Greek communities were indeed importing sheep or improving local animals. If Greek colo-
nisation contributed to southern Italian ‘breeds’, it would explain why some southern Italian varieties are
described in Roman sources as ‘Greek’ or ‘Tarantine’ (Frayn 1984: 34). According to Pliny (HN 8.73), the wool
of these sheep was valued above all others, and it held significant commercial value as a result. However,
more recent work has demonstrated that a size change in sheep was not unique to Magna Grecia, and
Trentacoste: Fodder for ChangeArt. 1, page 8 of 17
an incremental increase in the body of sheep pre-dating Greek contact has been documented throughout
central and northern areas of the peninsula (Trentacoste et al. 2018; De Grossi and Minniti 2019b). Greek
colonisation may have contributed to this process by facilitating access to new types of sheep, but it did not
catalyse the broader re-organisation of animal management suggested by the increase in sheep body size.
Although a motive for shipping sheep existed in southern Italy, archaeologically identification of the prac-
tice will require bioarchaeological investigation through isotopes or aDNA.
For the industries dependent on sheep and their raw materials to expand beyond household produc-
tion, livestock husbandry also must have shifted to a larger, surplus-oriented economy supported by sig-
nificant investment. Over the first millennium BC, sheep production intensified and became increasingly
concerned with valuable, marketable products like fine white wool. New varieties of sheep emerged, as
the animals themselves were shaped to specific tasks, contributing to the types of animal documented
by Roman authors. These changes demonstrate an increase in investment and selective breeding, the lat-
ter made possible by an expansion of herd size and/or economic integration. Further evidence of these
practices is provided by biometric data, which demonstrates an increase in sheep size across Italy over the
first millennium BC, perhaps beginning as early as the late Bronze Age (De Grossi Mazzorin and Minniti
2017, 2019b; Trentacoste et al. 2018). As in cattle, this size increase constituted a break from a long-estab-
lished trajectory of size diminution. Whether the result of a better management or foddering practices,
more selective breeding, or the introduction of larger varieties of sheep, or a combination of these factors,
this increase in body size illustrates the application of new management strategies and a greater input of
resources and/or labour compared to previous periods. These changes shaped new types of sheep that are
archaeologically visible in the development of wool and animal biometry.
Chicken: Exotic Animal, Adopted and Adapted
The final domesticate considered here is the chicken, a bird introduced to Italy during the Iron Age
(Figure 6). The earliest chicken bones in Italy derive from funerary contexts. The oldest dates to a tenth
century BC tomb at Castel Gandolfo Albarella and Corbino in prep. (following the high chronology for the
Latial IIA, see Guidi 2018), followed by several Villanovan tombs in Bologna’s Benacci-Caprara necropolis
(see De Grossi Mazzorin 2004; 2005). By the Archaic period, the birds had become more common, and
several settlements in northern Italy dated to between the sixth and fourth centuries BC have produced
chicken bones (e.g. Forcello, Casale di Rivalta, San Claudio) (see Trentacoste 2014). Their numbers also
increased in central Italy, but here they only derive from areas with a funerary, ritual, or symbolic char-
acter, rather than domestic rubbish. Examples include bones from the Pian di Civita of Tarquinia (Bedini
1997), the sanctuary at Ortaglia (Bruni 2005), and a semi-subterranean shrine at Caere (Colivicchi et al.
2016). The continued association between domestic fowl and the funerary sphere is demonstrated by
painted depictions of chickens in tombs at Tarquinia, like the Tomb of the Triclinium (c. 470 BC), the
Tomb of the Little Flowers ( second quarter of the fifth century BC), and the Tomb of the Warrior (first
half of the fourth century BC) ( Steingräber 2006). Only after the fifth century BC did chickens appear in
non-ritual habitation contexts in central Italy, and their diffusion into the everyday, quotidian sphere
accelerated from this point. Hundreds of chicken bones recovered from the fill of a cunicolo at Centocelle
(Rome) provide the earliest testament to chicken husbandry on a significant scale (De Grossi Mazzorin
2004). While this deposit was interpreted as having a cultic origin, the presence of over 70 individuals
ranging in age from hatchlings to adults suggests the presence of a breeding population in the vicinity
between the late fourth and early third century BC. By the Roman period chickens had become common
part of urban and rural life throughout the peninsula (De Grossi Mazzorin 2005; De Grossi Mazzorin and
Minniti 2009; 2019a; Corbino et al. 2017; in prep.). Domestic fowl typically represent between 5–8%
of animal bones recovered from sites around the Bay of Naples and are commonly found in assem-
blages from Ostia (MacKinnon 2014) and Rome (De Grossi Mazzorin 2005), as well as in Northern Italy
(e.g. Wilkens 1997).
The timing of the appearance of chickens in different contexts offers clues on the nature of their adop-
tion. The birds first appear in the funerary record, and in central Italy they are restricted to this sphere and
areas with a ritual character for a few hundred years after their initial appearance. As an exotic bird with
fantastic plumage (at least on males), chickens were probably first introduced as luxury goods in the form
of rare pets, or as fighting birds, as evidenced by scenes of cock fighting in tomb art. Their appearance
under sumptuous banqueting couches in Etruscan funerary art reinforces their status as exclusive animals,
as well as their exotic roots. The Etruscan banqueting scenes that depict these birds share iconographic
and formal similarities with contemporary, if not slightly earlier, paintings from the eastern Mediterranean
Trentacoste: Fodder for Change Art. 1, page 9 of 17
(Figure 7) (Steingräber 2010): Karaburun tomb II in Lycia on the southern coast of Turkey (c. 475 BC)
(Mellink 1974; Miller 2010), and a Klazomenian sarcophagus from Akanthos (c. 500–470 BC) (Kaltsas 1996–
1997). In both the eastern examples, cockerels are depicted beneath the klinai couches of reclining diners,
alongside a dog and a partridge, exactly as depicted at Tarquinia in the Tomb of the Triclinium (Figure 7b).
Another similar example is found on a funerary stele recovered from near Arezzo (Florence, Museo
Archeologico Nazionale, inv. 89539) (Figure 7c). Although four wild Galliformes are endemic to peninsular
Italy outside of the Alps (three species of partridge — Alectoris graeca, Alectoris rufa, Perdix perdix — and the
common quail — Coturnix coturnix), their remains are unknown on central Italian sites of the period. The
three wild Galliforme bones from the Po Plain warrant re-identification: a pheasant at San Claudio (Farello
1990), a bird not indigenous to Italy; a small Galliforme from Fiorano Modenese (Farello 1989a), described
as ‘maybe a quail’; and a Perdix perdix specimen from Rubiera (Farello 1989b). Based on the zooarchaeologi-
cal evidence, partridges appear to have been extremely rare, if not absent, on Italian sites in these areas.
Thus the banquet scenes attended by a dog, partridge, and cock within an Etruscan tomb suggest that this
depiction of a chicken should be read more in relation to the trappings of pan-Mediterranean aristocratic
culture, rather than a bucolic rural scene.
Figure 6: Map of first millennium BC sites with chicken remains. (See Supplementary Table 4 for details.
Source: Author).
Trentacoste: Fodder for ChangeArt. 1, page 10 of 17
Before chickens became a common motif in tomb art, there were eggs. Eggs are frequently found in early
Iron Age tombs, often placed in ceramic tablewares deposited with the deceased (Bertani 1995; de Grossi
Mazzorin and Minniti 2009; Minniti 2012b). This symbolism is picked up in later Etruscan tomb paintings,
where eggs are held in the outstretched hands of diners in depictions of funerary banquets (Pieraccini 2014).
Although some of these eggs may be from other birds, ducks (the most likely alternative) are not thought to
have been domesticated until the Roman period (Albarella 2005), and domestic chickens would have pro-
duced more eggs than wild fowl. If eggs were already a potent symbol, as well as a valuable food source, did
an interest in eggs encourage the adoption of chicken husbandry? Or offer an existing symbolic framework
into which chickens neatly fit? These questions may remain open, but judging by the timing of chickens and
eggs in Etruscan tombs, we can answer the age-old question: at least in this content, the symbolic chicken
came after the symbolic egg.
Artistic representations of domestic fowl and the restriction of chicken bones to funerary and ritual con-
texts (in central Italy) until the late first millennium BC suggest these exotic birds arrived in central Italy as
part of a wider package of elite artistic and social practices adopted from the eastern Mediterranean during
the Orientalizing and Archaic periods. However, chickens in northern Italy seem to have lost their exclusivity
by the sixth century BC, when they are found mixed with common rubbish in towns and on farms. Could
Figure 7: Chickens in Mediterranean funerary art: a) Klazomenian sarcophagus, Akanthos, Greece
(c. 500–470 BC); b) Wall painting, Tomb of the Triclinium, Tarquinia, Italy (c. 470 BC); c) Stone stele,
Arezzo, Italy (late sixth century BC); d) Wall painting, Karaburun tomb II, Turkey (c. 475 BC). (See text
for references. Source: Author).
Trentacoste: Fodder for Change Art. 1, page 11 of 17
the different character of northern and central Italian chicken exploitation suggest more than one route of
introduction for these birds? A re-analysis of Galliforme bones from the Czech Republic placed the earliest
chickens there in the ninth century BC; here again the bones were recovered from a grave (Kyselý 2010).
There are a few finds of chicken bones from Greece and Crete dated to the late second millennium BC, but
these examples are probably intrusive; the earliest securely dated Iron Age chicken bone in Greene is from
fifth-century BC Athens (Dibble 2017). Based on find spots and iconography, Etruscan central Italy with its
trade orientation towards the eastern Mediterranean, seems to have adopted chicken from sea-links, but the
different character of finds in northern Italy may suggest a second route oriented towards the Balkans or
maritime trade in the Adriatic. Whatever the motivation behind their introduction and diffusion, by the last
centuries of the first millennium BC chicken had become a common domestic species throughout Italy, and
domestic fowl made a significant contribution to diet the Roman period, especially in urban areas. However,
chickens never entirely lost their ritual value. During the Imperial period, cocks were sacrificed to the house-
hold gods and depicted on domestic altars (Boyce 1937; Toynbee 1973: 273). Roman mithraea have yielded
huge deposits of chicken bones, consumed during cult meals (Lentacker et al. 2004).
Just as artistic motifs, architectural techniques, and urban forms were adopted and adapted (Izzet 2007),
so too were animals deliberately integrated into Italian communities. Domestic fowl offered functional
advantages to food production in the form of eggs and meat, particularly in urban contexts where space
was limited. However, their early adoption was driven more by social ambition than subsistence concerns,
just like the elegant banqueting equipment with which they are pictured. An existing interest in eggs as a
symbol and food source may have encouraged the introduction of chickens, but their ability to articulate
access to pan-Mediterranean trade networks was equally as important, at least in central Italy. As scales of
production increased, the birds eventually lost their exclusivity, just like roof tiles, metal objects, and other
items with restricted distributions during the sixth century BC, later came to abound on Roman sites.
Conclusion
Over the first millennium BC, communities in Italy adapted their use of cattle, sheep, pigs, and chickens
in the face of new economic, social, and political challenges. As a result, livestock were at the forefront of
changes to the productive landscape. Population growth drove the demand for animals and animal prod-
ucts, and livestock husbandry adapted in response. Animal production became increasingly concerned with
marketable products, which in turn became more widely available. The expansion and intensification of
trade networks throughout later prehistory introduced communities to new raw materials and animal types.
These networks encouraged the exchange of live animals, driven by desire for particular characteristics like
colour or size. New and more specialised livestock types emerged, as the animals themselves were shaped to
specific tasks. Chickens, both a curiosity and new productive technology, were adopted as exotic, symbolic
animals, before undergoing a transformation into quotidian poultry, as their use migrated from the religious
to the domestic sphere. Urban, rural, and religious communities had different roles in this transformation
of the productive landscape, suggesting a complex food system increasingly concerned with surplus produc-
tion. Like urban plans, architectural forms, and textile culture, domestic livestock were actively moved and
shaped to serve the ambitions of protohistoric societies. Considering the sophistication demonstrated by
comparatively marginal forms of animal production like bee-keeping (Castellano et al. 2017), alongside the
extensive knowledge demonstrated by Roman authors at the end of the first millennium BC (MacKinnon
2004), it is difficult to conceive protohistoric livestock management as anything other than a sophisticated
and organised activity — even if the local aims of production differed between regions and communities.
In light of the broader archaeological evidence for the intensification of industrial activities and the move
toward a market economy over the first millennium BC (Nijboer 2004; 2017a; 2017b; Morel 2007), it is
not surprising that agricultural production — a primary source of wealth — was brought to serve the same
interests as other material types. Livestock offered not only an inheritable investment, but a means of creat-
ing new wealth through surplus food production, creation of raw materials, and harnessing greater animal
power. Animals were used to demonstrate this wealth, as well as the control over resources and social con-
nections required to sustain it. Changes to livestock management were the cause as much as the conse-
quence of these socio-economic developments, and not simply the functional outcome of urbanisation.
Rather than resulting from major technological innovations, these transformations of the productive land-
scape reflect a change in the decision-making of communities, which participated in, or abstained from, new
markets and social structures. As in the transformation of other forms of material culture during this period,
livestock husbandry regimes were not simply the deterministic result of wider socio-economic change, but
a medium shaped for its expression.
Trentacoste: Fodder for ChangeArt. 1, page 12 of 17
Additional Files
The additional files for this article can be found as follows:
• Supplementary Table 1. Site list and taxonomic data used in Figure 1: Livestock representation
in assemblages from central and northern Italy with NISP > 100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16995/
traj.414.s1
• Supplementary Table 2. Site list and taxonomic data used in Figure 2: Livestock representation in
central Italian ritual and non-ritual assemblages with NISP > 100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16995/
traj.414.s2
• Supplementary Table 3. Site list used in Figure 3: Etruscan and non-Etruscan sites in northern
Italy with biometric data for cattle. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16995/traj.414.s3
• Supplementary Table 4. Site list used in Figure 4: Italian sites with chicken remains. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.16995/traj.414.s4
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a Mougins Museum Rome Award at the British School at Rome (2014),
Etruscan Foundation Research Fellowship (2014), and the ERC-Starting Grant ZooMWest — Zooarchaeology
and Mobility in the Western Mediterranean: Husbandry production from the Late Bronze Age to the Late
Antiquity (award number 716298), funded by the European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA). I
am grateful to L. Lodwick for helpful comments on a draft of this paper.
Competing Interests
The author has no competing interests to declare.
References
Ancient Sources
Columella (Translated by E.S. Forster and E.H. Heffner 1954). On Agriculture, Vol. II, Books 5–9. Loeb
Classical Library 407. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Translated by E. Cary 1939). Roman Antiquities, Vol. II, Books 3–4. Loeb Classical
Library 347. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Polybius (Translated by W.R. Paton, revised by F.W. Walbank and C. Habicht 2010). The Histories, Vol. I, Books
1–2. Loeb Classical Library 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/
DLCL.polybius-histories.2010
Strabo (Translated by H.L. Jones 1917). Geography, Vol. I, Books 1–2. Loeb Classical Library 49. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/DLCL.strabo-geography.1917
Varro (Translated by W.D. Hooper and H.B. Ash 1934). On Agriculture. Loeb Classical Library 283. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/DLCL.varro-agriculture.1934
Virgil (Translated by H. Rushton Fairclough, revised by G.P. Goold 1916). Eclogues. Georgics. Aeneid: Books
1–6. Loeb Classical Library 63. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/
DLCL.virgil-eclogues.1916
Modern Sources
Albarella, U. 2005. Alternate fortunes? The role of domestic ducks and geese from Roman to Medieval
times in Britain. In: G. Grupe and J. Peters (eds) Feathers, Grit and Symbolism: Birds and Humans in the
Old and New Worlds. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf: 249–258.
Albarella, U., Manconi, F., and Trentacoste, A. 2011. A week on the plateau: pig husbandry, mobility and
resource exploitation in Central Sardinia. In: U. Albarella and A. Trentacoste (eds) Ethnozooarchaeology:
The Present and Past of Human–Animal Relationships. Oxford: Oxbow Books: 143–159. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.2307/j.ctvh1dwvg.19
Alldritt, I., Whitham-Agut, B., Sipin, M., Studholme, J., Trentacoste, A., Tripp, J.A., Cappai, M.G., Ditchfield,
P., Devièse, T., Hedges, R.E.M., and McCullagh, J.S.O. 2019. Metabolomics reveals diet-derived plant
polyphenols accumulate in physiological bone. Scientic Reports 9(1): 8047. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41598-019-44390-1
Barker, G. 1976. Animal husbandry at Narce. In: T.W. Potter A Faliscan Town in South Etruria: Excavations
at Narce 1966–71. London: British School at Rome: 295–307.
Trentacoste: Fodder for Change Art. 1, page 13 of 17
Barker, G. 1988. Archaeology and the Etruscan countryside. Antiquity 62: 722–785. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0003598X00075220
Barker, G. 1989. Animals, ritual and power in ancient Samnium. In: P. Meniel (ed.) Animal et pratiques
religieuses: les manifestations matérielles. Anthropozoologica numéro spécial 3: 111–117.
Becker, H. 2009. The economic agency of the Etruscan temple: elites, dedications and display. In: M. Gleba
and H. Becker (eds) Votives, Places, Rituals in Etruscan Religion. Studies in Honour of Jean MacIntosh Turfa.
Leiden: Brill: 85–100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004170452.i-292.49
Becker, H. 2017. Economy, 580–450 BCE. In: A. Naso (ed.) Etruscology. Berlin–Boston: De Gruyter: 1013–
1030. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781934078495
Bedini, E. 1997. I rest faunistici. Tarquinia: Testimonianze archeologiche e ricostruzione storica. In: M.
Bonghi Jovino and C.C. Treré (eds) Scavi sistematici nell’abitato (Campagne 1982–1988). Rome: L’Erma
di Bretschneider: 103–144.
Bergamini, M. (ed.) 1991. Gli Etruschi maestri di idrualica. Perugia: Electa.
Bertani, M.G. 1995. Il “banchetto dei morti” in Etruria Padana (IX–IV sec. aC): risorse del territorio e
alimentazione nelle testimonianze funerarie. In: L. Quilici and S. Quilici Gigli (eds) Agricoltura e
commerci nell’Italia antica. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider: 41–64.
Biella, M.C. 2019. Gods of value: preliminary remarks on religion and economy in pre-Roman Italy.
Religion in the Roman Empire 5(1): 23–45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1628/rre-2019-0004
Boyce, G.K. 1937. Corpus of the Lararia of Pompeii. Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 14. Rome:
American Academy. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/4238593
Bruni, S. 2005. Il Santuario di Ortaglia nel territorio Volterrano: appunti sulle pratiche cultuali. In: M. Bonghi
Jovino and F. Chiesa (eds) Offerte dal regno vegetale e dal regno animale nelle manifestazione del sacro.
Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider: 15–28.
Castellano, L., Ravazzi, C., Furlanetto, G., Pini, R., Saliu, F., Lasagni, M., Orlandi, M., Perego, R., Degano, I.,
Valoti, F., de Marinis, R.C., Casini, S., Quirino, T., and Rapi, M. 2017. Charred honeycombs discovered
in Iron Age Northern Italy. A new light on boat beekeeping and bee pollination in pre-modern world.
Journal of Archaeological Science 83: 26–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2017.06.005
Cifani, G. 2002. Notes on the rural landscape of central Tyrrhenian Italy in the 6th–5th c. B.C. and its social sig-
nificance. Journal of Roman Archaeology 15: 247–260. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1047759400013933
Colivicchi, F., Gregori, G.L., Lanza, M., Lepone, A., Scalici, M., Trentacoste, A., and Zaccagnino, C. 2016. New
excavations in the urban area of Caere. Mouseion 13: 359–450.
Corbino, C., Minniti, C., De Grossi Mazzorin, J., and Albarella, U. 2017. The role of chicken in the medieval
food system: evidence from Central Italy. Tijdschrift voor Mediterrane Archeologie 56: 50–57.
Corbino, C., Minniti, C., De Grossi Mazzorin, J., and Albarella, U. In prep. Earliest evidence of chicken in Italy.
In: U. Albarella, P. Baker, E. Browaeys, C. Corbino, J. Mulville, G. Poland, and F. Worley (eds) The Archaeology
of Human-Bird Interactions: Essays in Honour of Dale Serjeantson, Vol. 2. Quaternary International.
Crabtree, P. 1990. Zooarchaeology and complex societies: some uses of faunal analysis for the study of trade,
social status, and ethnicity. In: M.B. Schiffer (ed.) Archaeological Method and Theory. Tucson: University of
Arizona Press: 155–205.
deFrance, S.D. 2009. Zooarchaeology in complex societies: political economy, status, and ideology. Journal
of Archaeological Research 17(2): 105–168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10814-008-9027-1
De Grossi Mazzorin, J. 1985. Reperti faunistici dall’acropoli di Populonia: testimonianze di allevamento e
caccia nel III secolo a.C. Rassengna di Archeologia 4: 131–171.
De Grossi Mazzorin, J. 1989. Testimonianze di allevamento e caccia nel Lazio antico tra l’VIII e il VII secolo
a.C. Dialoghi di Archeologia 7(1): 125–142.
De Grossi Mazzorin, J. 1995. Economie di allevamento in Italia Centrale dalla media età del bronzo alla
fine dell’età del ferro. In: N. Christie (ed.) Settlement and Economy in Italy 1500 BC to AD 1500. Oxford:
Oxbow Books: 167–177.
De Grossi Mazzorin, J. 2004. I resti animali della struttura ipogea di Centocelle: una testimonianza di
pratiche cultuali? In: P. Gioia and R. Volpe (eds) Centocelle I. Roma S.D.O., le indagini archeologiche.
Soveria Mannelli: 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: I. Fiore, G. Malerba, and S. Chilardi (eds) Atti del 3º Convengo
Nazionale di Archeozoologia. Rome: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato: 351–360.
Trentacoste: Fodder for ChangeArt. 1, page 14 of 17
De Grossi Mazzorin, J. and Minniti, C. 2009. L’Utilizzazione degli animal nella documentazione archeozoo-
logica a Roma e nel Lazio dalla preistoria recente all’età classica. In: L. Drago Troccoli (ed.) Il Lazio dai Colli
Albani ai Monti Lepini tra preistoria ed età moderna. Rome: Edizioni Quasar: 39–67.
De Grossi Mazzorin, J. and Minniti, C. 2017. Changes in lifestyle in ancient Rome (Italy) across the Iron
Age/Roman transition: the evidence from animal remains. In: U. Albarella, M. Rizzetto, H. Russ, K.
Vickers, and S. Viner-Daniels (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Zooarchaeology. Oxford: Oxford University
Press: 127–146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199686476.013.11
De Grossi Mazzorin, J. and Minniti, C. 2019a. The exploitation and mobility of exotic animals: zooarchaeo-
logical evidence from Rome. In: M.G. Allen (ed.) The Role of Zooarchaeology in the Study of the Western
Roman Empire. Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology: 85–99.
De Grossi Mazzorin, J. and Minniti, C. 2019b. Variabilità dimensionale e sviluppo dei caprovini in Italia
durante l’età del Ferro. In: J. De Grossi Mazzorin, I. Fiore, and C. Minniti (eds) Atti 8° Convegno Nazionale
di Archeozoologia (Lecce, 2015). Lecce: Università del Salento: 127–138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1285/
i9788883051487p127
de Haas, T. 2017. Managing the marshes: an integrated study of the centuriated landscape of the Pontine
plain. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 15: 470–481. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas-
rep.2016.07.012
Dibble, F. 2017. Politika Zoa: Animals and Social Change in Ancient Greece (1600–300 B.C.). Unpublished
thesis (PhD), University of Cincinnati. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/pg_10?::NO:10:P10_ETD_SUBID:157941.
Dumézil, G. 1987. La religion romaine archaïque avec un appendice sur la religion des Étrusques. Paris:
Payot.
Duval, C. 2018. Bœufs gaulois et bœufs français: morphologies animales et dynamiques économiques au
cours de La Tène et des périodes historiques. Gallia 75: 141–171. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/gal-
lia.3904
Farello, P. 1989a. Fiorano Modenese. Reperti faunistici. In: G. Ambrosetti, R. Macellari, and L. Malnati. (eds)
Rubiera, “principi” etruschi in Val di Secchia. Reggio Emilia: Comune di Reggio Emilia: 179–184.
Farello, P. 1989b. I pozzi etruschi di Rubiera. Reperti faunistici. In: G. Ambrosetti, R. Macellari, and L. Malnati
(eds) Rubiera, “principi” etruschi in Val di Secchia. Reggio Emilia: Comune di Reggio Emilia: 113–114.
Farello, P. 1990. S. Claudio. Reperti faunistici. In: G. Ambrosetti, R. Macellari, and L. Malnati (eds) Vestigia
Crustunei. Insediamenti etruschi lungo il corso del Crostolo. Reggio Emilia: Tecnostampa: 133–140.
Farello, P. 1995. L’Emilia dal VI e V secolo a.C.: caccia e allevamento. In: Atti del I° convegno nazionale di arche-
ozoologia, Rovigo 5–7 marzo 1993. Rovigo: Centro Polesano di Studi Storici, Archeologici ed Etnografici:
209–234.
Frayn, J. 1984. Sheep-Rearing and the Wool Trade in Italy during the Roman Period. Liverpool: Francis
Cairns.
Frayn, J. 1993. Markets and Fairs in Roman Italy: Their Social and Economic Importance from the Second
Century BC to the Third Century AD. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Frémondeau, D., Nuviala, P., and Duval, C. 2017. Pigs and cattle in Gaul: the role of Gallic societies in the
evolution of husbandry practices. European Journal of Archaeology 20(3): 494–509. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1017/eaa.2016.10
Gaastra, J.S. 2014. Shipping sheep or creating cattle: domesticate size changes with Greek colonisation
in Magna Graecia. Journal of Archaeological Science 52: 483–496. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jas.2014.08.030
Guidi, A. 2018. Twenty years after “Absolute Chronology: Archaeological Europe 2500–500 BC”: new
data on Italian protohistory. Acta Archaeologica 89: 63–75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-
0390.2018.12192.x
Gleba, M. 2008. Textile Production in Pre-Roman Italy. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Gleba, M. 2012. From textiles to sheep: investigating wool fibre development in pre-Roman Italy using
scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Journal of Archaeological Science 39(12): 3643–3661. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.06.021
Gleba, M. 2017a. Textiles and dress. In: A. Naso (ed.) Etruscology. Berlin–Boston: De Gruyter: 485–504.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781934078495
Gleba, M. 2017b. Tracing textile cultures of Italy and Greece in the early first millennium BC. Antiquity
91(359): 1205–1222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2017.144
Trentacoste: Fodder for Change Art. 1, page 15 of 17
Halstead, P. and Isaakidou, V. 2011. A pig fed by hand is worth two in the bush: ethnoarchaeology of
pig husbandry in Greece and its archaeological implications. In: U. Albarella and A. Trentacoste (eds)
Ethnozooarchaeology: The Present and Past of Human–Animal Relationships. Oxford: Oxbow Books:
161–174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvh1dwvg.20
Izzet, V. 2007. The Archaeology of Etruscan Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511735189
Jannot, J.-R. 2005. Religion in Ancient Etruria. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Kaltsas, N. 1996–1997. Κλαζομενιακές Σαρκοφάγοι από το Νεκροτaφείο της Ακάνθου [Klazomenian
sarcophagi from Akanthos]. Archaiologikon Deltion 51–52: 35–50.
King, A.C. 1999. Diet in the Roman world: a regional inter-site comparison of the mammal bones. Journal
of Roman Archaeology 12(1): 168–202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1047759400017979
Kyselý, R. 2010. Review of the oldest evidence of domestic fowl Gallus gallus f. domestica from the Czech
Republic in its European context. Acta Zoologica Cracoviensia – Series A Vertebrata 53(1–2): 9–34. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3409/azc.53a_1-2.09-34
Lentacker, A., Ervynck, A., and Van Neer, W. 2004. Gastronomy or religion? The animal remains from the
mithraeum at Tienen (Belgium). In: S.J. O’Day, W. Van Neer, and A. Ervynck (eds) Behaviour Behind Bones:
The Zooarchaeology of Ritual, Religion, Status and Identity. Oxford: Oxbow Books: 77–100.
MacKinnon, M. 2001. High on the hog: linking zooarchaeological, literary, and artistic data for pig breeds in
Roman Italy. American Journal of Archaeology 105(4): 649–673. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/507411
MacKinnon, M. 2004. Production and Consumption of Animals in Roman Italy: Integrating the Zooarchaeo-
logical and Textual Evidence. Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology.
MacKinnon, M. 2010a. Cattle ‘breed’ variation and improvement in Roman Italy: connecting the zoo-
archaeological and ancient textual evidence. World Archaeology 42(1): 55–73. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1080/00438240903429730
MacKinnon, M. 2010b. “Romanizing” ancient Carthage: evidence from zooarchaeological remains. In: D.V.
Campana, P. Crabtree, and S.D. deFrance (eds) Anthropological Approaches to Zooarchaeology: Colonial-
ism, Complexity and Animal Transformations. Oxford: Oxbow Books: 168–177.
MacKinnon, M. 2014. Animals in the urban fabric of Ostia: initiating a comparative zooarchaeo-
logical synthesis. Journal of Roman Archaeology 27: 175–201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/
S1047759414001202
Mattingly, D.J. and Aldrete, G.S. 2000. The feeding of Imperial Rome: the mechanics of the food supply
system. In: J. Coulston and H. Dodge (eds) Ancient Rome: the Archaeology of the Eternal City. Oxford:
Oxford University School of Archaeology: 142–165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvh1dk0c.11
Meadow, R. 1999. The use of size index scaling techniques for research on archaeozoological collections
from the Middle East. In: C. Becker, H. Manhart, J. Peters, and J. Schibler (eds) Historia Animalium ex
Ossibus. Festschrift für Angela von den Driesch. Rahden/Westf.: Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH: 285–300.
Mellink, M.J. 1974. Excavations at Karataş-Semayük and Elmali, Lycia, 1973. American Journal of Archaeology
78(4): 351–359. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/502750
Meyers, G.E. 2013. Women and the production of ceremonial textiles: a reevaluation of ceramic textile
tools in Etrusco-Italic sanctuaries. American Journal of Archaeology 117(2): 247–274. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.3764/aja.117.2.0247
Miller,S.2010.Twopaintedchamber tombsofNorthernLycia atKızıbelandKaraburun.In:L.Summerer
and A. von Kienlin (eds) Tatarlı: renklerin dönüşü.Istanbul,T.C.KültürveTurizmBakanlığı;YapıKredi
Yayınları:318–329.
Minniti, C. 2012a. Ambiente, sussistenza e l’articolazione sociale nell’Italia centrale tra Bronzo medio e
Primo Ferro. Oxford: Archaeopress. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407309873
Minniti, C. 2012b. Offerte rituali di cibo animale in contesti funerari dell’Etruria e del Lazio nella prima età
del Ferro. In: J.D.G. Mazzorin, D. Saccà, and C. Tozzi (eds) Attii del 6° Convegno Nazionale di Archeozoolo-
gia. Lecce: Associazione Italiana di ArcheoZoologia: 153–161.
Morel, J.-P. 2007. Early Rome and Italy. In: R. Morris, P. Saller, and W. Scheidel (eds) The Cambridge
Economic History of the Greco-Roman World. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 485–510.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521780537.019
Nieto-Espinet A. 2018. Element measure standard biometrical data from a cow dated to the Early Bronze
Age (Minferri, Catalonia) [digital resource]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.13512.78081
Trentacoste: Fodder for ChangeArt. 1, page 16 of 17
Nijboer, A. 1998. From Household Production to Workshops: Archaeological Evidence for Economic Trans-
formations, Pre-monetary Exchange and Urbanisation in Central Italy from 800 to 400 BC. Groningen:
Groningen Institute of Archaeology.
Nijboer, A. 2004. Characteristics of emerging towns in Central Italy, 900/800 to 400 BC. In: P. Attema
(ed.) Centralization, Early Urbanization and Colonization in First Millenium BC Italy and Greece. Part I:
Italy. Leuven: Peeters: 137–156.
Nijboer, A. 2017a. Economy, 10th cent.–730 BCE. In: A. Naso (ed.) Etruscology. Berlin–Boston: De Gruyter:
795–810. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781934078495-043
Nijboer, A. 2017b. Economy, 730–580 BCE. In: A. Naso (ed.) Etruscology. Berlin–Boston: De Gruyter: 901–
920. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781934078495-049
Perkins, P. 2012. Production and commercialization of wine in the Albegna Valley. In: A. Ciacci, P.
Rendini, and A. Zifferero (eds) Archeologia della vite e del vino in Toscana e nel Lazio: dalle tecniche
dell’indagine archeologia alle prospettive della biologia molecolare. Borgo San Lorenzo: All’Insegna
del Giglio: 413–426.
Petropoulou, M.-Z. 2008. Animal Sacrice in Ancient Greek Religion, Judaism, and Christianity, 100
BC to AD 200. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780
199218547.001.0001
Pieraccini, L.C. 2014. The ever elusive Etruscan egg. Etruscan Studies 17(2): 267–292. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1515/etst-2014-0015
Potts, C.R. 2015. Religious Architecture in Latium and Etruria, c. 900–500 BC. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Rast-Eicher, A. and Bender Jørgensen, L. 2013. Sheep wool in Bronze Age and Iron Age Europe. Journal of
Archaeological Science 40(2): 1224–1241. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.09.030
Redding, R.W. 2015. The pig and the chicken in the Middle East: modeling human subsistence behavior
in the archaeological record using historical and animal husbandry data. Journal of Archaeological
Research 23(4): 325–368. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10814-015-9083-2
Riedel, A. 1978. Notizie preliminari sullo studio della fauna di Spina. Atti dell’Accademia delle Scienze di
Ferrara 55: 27–33.
Riedel, A. 1988. Evolution of the animal populations of northeastern Italy from the Late Neolithic to the
Middle Ages. Archaeozoologia 2(1, 2): 319–328.
Riedel, A. 1994. Archeozoological investigations in north-eastern Italy: the exploitation of animals since
the Neolithic. Preistoria Alpina 30: 43–94.
Riva, C. 2010. The Urbanisation of Etruria, Funerary Pratices and Social Change, 700–600 BC. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316136515
Rives, J.B. 2019. Animal sacrifice and euergetism in the Hellenistic and Roman polis. Religion in the Roman
Empire 5(1): 83–102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1628/rre-2019-0006
Rizzetto, M., Crabtree, P.J., and 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 Archaeol-
ogy 20(3): 535–556. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.13
Roselaar, S. 2017. Economy and demography of Italy. In: G. Farney and G. Bradley (eds) The Peoples of
Ancient Italy. Berlin–Boston: De Gruyter: 173–190. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614513001-010
Ryder, M.L. 1992. The interaction between biological and technological change during the development of
different fleece types in sheep. Anthropozoologica 16: 131–140.
Scheid, J. 2007. Sacrifices for gods and ancestors. In: J. Rüpke (ed.) A Companion to Roman Religion. Oxford:
Wiley: 263–271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470690970.ch19
Smith, C. 1996. Early Rome and Latium: Economy and Society c. 1000 to 500 BC. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Sorrentino, C., di Giuseppe, Z., and Manzi, F. 2000. Materiale osteologico animale. In: S. Bruni (ed.) Le navi
antiche di Pisa. Ad un anno dall’inizio delle ricerche. Florence: Polistampa: 329–342.
Steingräber, S. 2006. Abundance of Life, Etruscan Wall Painting. (Translated by R. Stockman.) Los Angeles:
Getty Publications.
Steingräeber, S. 2010. Etruscan tomb painting of the Archaic period and its relationship to the painting in
Ionian Asia Minor. In: L. Summerer and A. von Kienlin (eds) Tatarlı: renklerin dönüşü. Istanbul: T.C. Kültür
veTurizmBakanlığı;YapıKrediYayınları:354–367.
Terrenato, N. 2019. The Early Roman Expansion into Italy: Elite Negotiation and Family Agendas. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108525190
Trentacoste: Fodder for Change Art. 1, page 17 of 17
Toynbee, J.M.C. 1973. Animals in Roman Life and Art. London: Thames and Hudson.
Trentacoste, A. 2014. The Etruscans and their Animals: the Zooarchaeology of Forcello di Bagnolo San Vito
(Mantova). Unpublished thesis (PhD), University of Sheffield. http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/6553/.
Trentacoste, A. 2016. Etruscan foodways and demographic demands: contextualizing protohistoric livestock
husbandry in Northern Italy. European Journal of Archaeology 19(2): 279–315. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1
179/1461957115Y.0000000015
Trentacoste, A., Nieto-Espinet, A., and Valenzuela-Lamas, S. 2018. Pre-Roman improvements to agricultural
production: evidence from livestock husbandry in late prehistoric Italy. PLOS ONE 13(12): e0208109.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208109
Trentacoste, A., Lightfoot, E., Le Roux, P., Buckley, M., Kansa, S.W., Esposito, C., and Gleba, M 2020. Heading
for the hills? A multi-isotope study of sheep management in first-millennium BC Italy. Journal of
Archaeological Science: Reports 29: 102036. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.102036
Valenzuela-Lamas, S. and Albarella, U. 2017a. Animal husbandry across the Western Roman Empire: changes
and continuities. European Journal of Archaeology 20(3): 402–415. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/
eaa.2017.22
Valenzuela-Lamas, S. and Albarella, U. (eds) 2017b. Animal Husbandry in the Western Roman Empire: A
Zooarchaeological Perspective. European Journal of Archaeology 20(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/
eaa.2017.22
Wealleans, A.L. 2013. Such as pigs eat: the rise and fall of the pannage pig in the UK. Journal of the Science
of Food and Agriculture 93(9): 2076–2083. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6145
Wilkens, B. 1997. La faune du site romaine de Calvatone, Cremona (Italie). Anthropozoologica 25–26:
611–616.
Zifferero, A. 2017. Settlement patterns and land use. In: A. Naso (ed.) Etruscology. Berlin–Boston: de Gruyter:
1339–1358. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781934078495
How to cite this article: Trentacoste, A. 2020. Fodder for Change: Animals, Urbanisation, and Socio-Economic
Transformation in Protohistoric Italy.
Theoretical Roman Archaeology Journal,
3(1): 1, pp. 1–17. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.16995/traj.414
Published: 26 June 2020
Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/.
Theoretical Roman Archaeology Journal
is a peer-reviewed open access journal
published by Open Library of Humanities. OPEN ACCESS
