Kron Animal Husbandry

4 downloads 0 Views 226KB Size Report
De Vries 1974; Davis 1997; Moriceau 1999: 47). ..... farmhouse sometime in the 4th century BC, near Lattes, preserved a significant ...... Robert Bakewell.
Animal Husbandry Geof Kron Forthcoming in G. Campbell (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Animals in Classical Thought and Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press) Introduction Once unfairly denigrated, even by some leading historians of ancient agriculture (White 1970: 272; 276-77; Frayn 1984), the technical sophistication and productivity of Greco-Roman animal husbandry has become increasingly clear, with archaeozoological studies showing a marked increase in the size of livestock compared to Bronze Age, Iron Age, as well as Medieval animals (Riedel 1994; Peters 1998; Kron 2002; 2008a; MacKinnon 2004), and a striking diversification of species, as a wide range of domestic animals, wild game, fowl, and gamebirds were farmed for a robust Mediterranean market of affluent and demanding urban consumers (Kron 2008a; forthcoming). Most livestock would not consistently match the improved Greek or Roman breeds until Holland's Golden Age, or the agricultural revolution of 19th century England (Kron 2002: 63; 2008b: 74-6; cf. De Vries 1974; Davis 1997; Moriceau 1999: 47). Moreover, the extant writings of the Roman agronomists reveal extremely detailed knowledge of the normal behaviour and needs of the principal domestic, and even many wild, species, a preference for intensive mixed farming, based on the principles of convertible husbandry, excellent management of pastures and rangelands, high standards of fodder and forage production, and really remarkable standards of veterinary care, with widespread access to highly trained professional veterinarians (Brill 2011), capable of carrying out most of the surgical procedures widely practiced as late as the mid-twentieth century (Moulé 1891: 147-66; Senet 1953: 43, 83-6; Bourdy 1995; Peters 1998: 209-10), as well as many knowledgeable laymen (Varro, Rust. 2.2.20, 5.18; Georgoudi 1990: 80-1; Adams 1995: 72-9). Greek Origins Although the extant agronomic literature, upon which we must rely very heavily for our account of ancient animal husbandry, are overwhelmingly Roman in date, as are

many of the most extensive zooarchaeological studies, the Classical or Hellenistic Greek (and often Carthaginian) origin of many of these innovations in animal husbandry is very likely. The Latin agronomists do not hide their reliance on Greek or Carthaginian writers (see Columella, Rust. 1.1. 7-12; 7.3.6; Varro, Rust. 1.1.8-10; Peters 1998: 37 note 40; Kron 2002: 14-7), or upon Greek technical terminology (Peters 1998: 197 citing Columella, Rust. 8.1.3-4; Varro, Rust. 3.3.6-7; 3.10.1), and on now lost Greek agronomic writers (Aristotle, Pol. 1258 B39 – 1259 A2; Oder 1890; Georgoudi 1990: 65-72; Martin 1971: 53-72; Lelli 2010: 1: xxvi-ix). It seems reasonably clear from the high reputation of many livestock breeds from Greece or Asia Minor, such as Epirote cattle (Varro, Rust. 2.5. 9-10; Columella, Rust. 6.1; Pliny, N.H. 8.167; Magerstedt 1859: 20-2), Arcadian donkeys (Varro, Rust. 2.1.14; 2.6.2; 2.8.3; Columella, Rust. 10.1.1 v. 344), the finewooled sheep of Miletus, Attica, Samos, Caria, and Laodicea (Columella, Rust. 7, 4, 1; 7, 4, 4; Magerstedt 1859: 94-8; 100-1; Ryder 1983: 147-50), or exotic Greek breeds of fowl (Columella, Rust. 8.2.4), or from the Greek colonies in Southern Italy, famed for their livestock (see Livy 24, 20, 16; Val. Max. 7, 6, 1; Varro, Rust. 2.pr.6; 2.7.1; 2.10.11; Columella, Rust. 7.2.3; Kron 2004a), particularly Tarentine sheep (Columella, Rust. 7, 2, 3; Magerstedt 1859: 100-1), and Sicilian cattle (Theocr. 9, 10; Diod. 4, 30; Ovid, Fasti 4 vv. 475-6), which were very widely exported (Graßl 1985; Haberman 1987). There is a great deal more literary and inscriptional evidence for highly developed livestock farming in Classical and Hellenistic Greece and Magna Grecia than is generally appreciated (Magerstedt 1859: passim; Rosivach 1994; Hodkinson 1988; Roy 1999: 329-34; Chandezon 2003; Chandezon 2004; Howe 2008: 58-65; Kron 2002: 14-7; Kron 2004a; Kron 2008a: 175-6), where Aristotle could describe animal husbandry as the most profitable branch of farming (Pol. 1258b12-21, cited by Howe 2008: 31), but the most definitive proof of the development of Greek animal husbandry arguably comes from the long-neglected bone evidence. Zooarchaeological research on Greek sites (Payne 1985; Reese 1994; Kotjabopoulou 2003; Chandezon 2004: 493-4) has generally lagged well behind work in Germany, France, and even Italy, but a slowly growing body of evidence can now document that large livestock began to be bred in Greece (as well as Carthage, Kition,

and Tuscanos in Spain) as early as the Archaic period (Nobis 1999: 579-81; Nobis 2000; Kron 2002: 14-17; Chandezon 2004: 491-3), with large cattle in 8th and 7th century BC Messenia (Nobis 1994: 300), and, in the Archaic or early Classical period at Amathus on Cyprus (Columeau 1996: 793), and at the Kabeireion at Thebes (Boessneck 1973: 11-14). A number of substantial finds suggest that many Greek livestock had already reached withers heights comparable to those attested at Roman imperial sites from Germany, by the Classical and Hellenistic periods. Most worthy of note, we have a large deposit of cattle from Kassope in Epirus (Friedl 1984), bones from some large cattle, unfortunately broken up for cooking, from the Artemision at Ephesus and the Heraion of Samos (Forstenpointer et al. 2008a: 223-9) and from Pergamon (Boessneck and von den Driesch 1985: 30; 34-6 diag. 1-3), from Tenos (Leguilloux 1999), impressively large cattle, with a mean withers height of 144.2 cm (n=8) (Aaris-Sørenson 1981: 100 table 6), from the tomb of the Carian satrap Maussollus, datable to 353/2 BC, (Jeppesen 1981: 82-3), and some extremely large cattle, ranging from 128 to 141 cm at the withers, from the sanctuary of Artemis Hemera at the Late Classical Northern Arcadian site of Lousoi (Forstenpointner 1990; Forstenpointner & Hofer 2001: 173). Large cattle are also attested at Didyma, with a mean withers height of 135 cm (n=51), although they date to the Roman period (Boessneck and von den Driesch 1983: 636; see also Forstenpointner et al. 2008; 2010a; 2010b for other large Roman era livestock in Turkey). For sheep and goats there is evidence of a substantial increase in withers heights from the Submycenaean through the Late Hellenistic period, from around 50 cm to 67 cm in the Cyclades, for example, (Leguilloux 2000a: 95 cited by Chandezon 2004: 491 n.72), with some impressive animals of 68 and 69 cm at Delos (Leguilloux 2003: 252), as well as more moderate-sized sheep (62-3 cm) at Ephesus, Pergamon, and Sagalassos (Forstenpointer et al. 2008: 223-30). Relatively few remains of Greek horses have been studied, but we do have some strikingly large horses from Metapontum, one with a withers height of 146-9 cm, and others averaging 139 cm (Bökönyi & Gál 2010: 25; 33), horses from Olbia, dating from the 6th through the 2nd century BC, 147 cm tall, as well as improved, if still relatively small, horses from Kassope of 140 cm (Benecke 1994: 304), from Lousoi in Arcadia, averaging 130-40 cm (Forstenpointner & Hofer 2001: 175), or 5th and 4th century BC

Sicily, ranging from 134 to 136 cm (Chiliardi 2000). To this point, large horses of 160 to 170 cm, have only been excavated at Roman sites, such as Butzbach (Peters 1998: 52 169 cm) and Noviomagus/Nijmegen (Lauwerier 1988: 173 - over 160 cm), and while it is clear that Greco-Roman horses were significantly larger than those of the La Tène Celts, for example (Méniel 1996; Peters 1998: 149-52; 152 table 19; cf. de Grossi Mazzorin et al. 1998), they seem generally to have been smaller than modern animals, averaging 140 cm (n=211) for Roman Germany, although, as Peters argues cogently (1998: 148-9), we have very few remains from the more prestigious 'noble' breed of racing horses (Columella, Rust. 6.27.1-2) or of cavalry horses. We can cite a number of detailed studies from Magna Grecia showing the early development of large livestock. A significant find from Poseidonia (Roman Paestum) dates to the 4th and 3rd centuries B.C. and yields a mean withers height of 131 cm (n=31), with some animals reaching a very impressive 147 cm (Peters 1998: 52; Leguilloux 2000b), and late Hellenistic-Roman (2nd and 1st century B.C.) remains from Croton and Metapontum also average 131 cm (n=17) (Carter 1991: 185-6; cf. Carter 2006: 246-7), likely to yield a live-weight of well over 500 kg (see de Cupere 2001: 146 fig. 103 citing Vigne 1991). The latest synthesis of the results from Metapontum are particularly interesting, showing large cattle already in the 6th century BC and continuing through the 5th and 4th centuries (Bökönyi & Gál 2010: 33). Larger samples are available from Roman era Metapontum, where even cows reach 137-8 cm, and the average of 131.16 cm is greater than Pannonia, long considered the Roman site with the consistently largest cattle (Bökönyi & Gál 2010: 19). Large animals are likewise attested at Pompeii (Kokabi 1982), and at Naples, where they reach withers heights of 129 cm (n=8) (King 1994: 386-7). It is important to note, however, that small cattle remained common among the Italic populations of Southern Italy, as at Roccagloriosa, where most had withers heights of little more than 109 cm (Bökönyi et al. 1993). Although improved livestock seem to arrive first in Magna Grecia, we do find some large cattle (with a withers height of 118.5 cm) quite early at the Etruscan site of Spina, notable for its heavy Greek trade influence, dated from the 6th through the 4th-c. B.C. (Peters 1998: 52 citing Riedel 1978), and Caesar's claim that large Greek cattle

were imported into Gaul via trade with the Massilians along the Rhône (Caes., BC 3, 47, 6), is credible, given the depth of trade contacts (Goudineau 1983; Bats et al. 1992; Bertucchi 1992; Hodge 1999) as well as the precocious and thorough transition to large cattle in Provence, well under way by the beginning of the second century BC (Leguilloux 1997) and continuing through the Roman Empire (Lepetz & Leguilloux 1996). An important recent synthesis of the development in the size of livestock in Italy (MacKinnon 2010) also helps to corroborate the importance of Greek influence, given the way one can trace the improvements in the size of cattle moving from Magna Grecia, through Roman central Italy, and then, only in the 1st century BC, into Northern Italy, and, eventually, into the Northern provinces. Improved Nutrition and Range Management Enhanced nutrition provided the foundation of most of the improvements in Greco-Roman animal husbandry. There is a significant increase in the range and quality of forages and fodder sources (Benecke 1994: 171-4; Kron 2004b), as well as improved methods of management. The most intensive and productive approach integrated livestock and arable farming using convertible husbandry (Kron 2000; 2004b: 312; 2008a: 181-2 and now see Ciaraldi 2007: 84-5; 158-9; pace Hodkinson 1988: 50-1; Pleket 1993: 324 n. 8), the key innovation of the English agricultural revolution (Kerridge 1967), and the principal method of organic mixed farming today. By laying down part of the arable as meadow or pasture for several years, and cropping the rest of the arable continuously with a rotation relying on nitrogen-fixing leguminous fodder crops, this system allows more domestic animals to be fed by the artificial leys and arable fodder crops, while simultaneously raising arable yields through heavier manuring rates and the advantages of long fallow and effective crop rotation. In addition to putting down some land as artificial pasture, suitable land was typically set aside as water meadow, carefully drained and irrigated, and planted with some of the best forage species, most notably alfalfa (Columella, Rust. 2.16-7; Plin. 18.258-63; Varro, Rust. 1.31.5; Pallad. 10.10; see Quilici-Gigli 1989 for archaeological evidence). This same technique was critical to the success of the legendary English livestock breeder, Thomas Bakewell (see Pawson 1957: 17-9; 79-80), who dedicated up to 80 acres of his 440 acre

farm to water meadow, and eventually irrigated nearly 200 acres, and remains one of the most effective ways of maximizing forage productivity (Heath et al. 1973: 627-93). Not all livestock were kept on mixed farms, of course, as transhumant pastoralism (Pasquinucci & Gabba 1979; Pasquinucci 2004), often complementing arable agriculture (Rosada 2000: 107-11), remained important for livestock owners exploiting mountainous or marginal terrain, but the ancient agronomists were well aware that many of the same principles could be exploited in order to improve and maintain the productivity and forage production of meadows, permanent pasture, or rangeland (see Kron 2004b). Rangelands were periodically ploughed up, sown with a rotation of cereal crops, and then reseeded as pasture (Columella, Rust. 2.17.3-7; Plin., H.N. 18.259), a practice now shown to boost forage yields from two to five times (Heath et al. 1973: 600-4), and strongly recommended today (Menke 1989: 187), in order to arrest the tendency for grasses to supplant more nutritious legumes as nitrogen level builds up in the soil. Pastures or meadows were sown with particularly palatable and nutritious leguminous forage crops, most notably beans, barley, lupines, vetches, clovers, and medics, in order to enhance their productivity (Kron 2004b: 297-300; cf. Bouby & Ruas 2005: 114-7). Burning pastures overgrown with macchia or brush, well attested in the ancient agronomists (Columella, Rust. 6.23.2; Sil. 7.365; Luc. 9.182-5; Corbier 1999; Frayn 1984: 118) is also widely approved for use by modern range managers (Heady & Childs 1994: 335-61), as it helps remove unpalatable old growth, particularly forbs and browse, and reduces the height of shrubs (Heady & Childs 1994: 333-4) thereby increasing the yield of forage, but it also improves the quality of the vegetation, making it more palatable (as is clear from the preference of most livestock for recently burned land), generally increasing the protein content, and making it more available to livestock (Heady & Childs 1994: 334-5). As I have discussed in greater detail elsewhere (Kron 2004b), Roman recommendations for fertilizing pasture (Columella, Rust. 2.17.1-2) also accord very well with modern methods (Heath et al. 1973: 403-15; Heady & Childs 1994: 396-410), as does the advice to use woodash, a liming agent, and source of potassium and phosphorus (Erich 1991), for rank or unproductive pasture, since it prevents the decline in nitrogenfixing bacteria in acidic soils, and the K and P help promote the growth of legumes, as compared to nitrogen-rich fertilizers, which favour the growth of competing grasses and

weeds (Heady & Childs 1994: 402-4). As Carlos Aguiar has pointed out to me (pers. comm.), the high praise given by the Roman agronomists to lupines as a fodder crop, and especially as green manure (Columella, Rust. 2.10.1; 2.13.1; 2.14.4; 2.15.5-6; Plin. H.N. 18.134-5; 185; Spurr 1986: 113-5), is also well-founded, as modern studies highlight their value as a source of green manure capable of fixing not just nitrogen, like other legumes, but also organic and inorganic phosphorus inaccessible to most plants (Gardner et al. 1982; 1983; Vance et al. 1991; Richardson et al. 2009: 130-1; 133-4; references courtesy of Carlos Aguiar). Some idea of the management of Greco-Roman rangeland can be inferred from archaeobotanical as well as literary evidence. A number of studies, most notably a fortuitous find of carbonized hay from Oplontis (see Kron 2004b), shows very clearly that even meadow hay of relatively low value was likely to include a wide range of excellent grasses and forage legumes, including, in this case, a wide range of medics, clovers, lupines, vetches and vetchlings, cultivated fenugreek, yellow serradella, and bird's foot trefoil. Although some of the plants were typical of the natural vegetation of the region, the quality and concentration of outstanding forage legumes suggests deliberate seeding or, at the very least, good management. Another recent study of archaeobotanical material from near Mont Joui, a small Celtic settlement, inhabited ca. 525-475 BC, near the Greek town of Agde in Languedoc (Bouby & Ruas 2005: 121-3 and figs. 6; 7) has yielded a large number of clover and medic species, especially bur medic (Medicago sp. polymorpha) along with other legumes and wild grasses, and has been plausibly interpreted as evidence of an artificial ley. Moreover, the burning of a farmhouse sometime in the 4th century BC, near Lattes, preserved a significant amount of carbonized plant material (Buxo et al. 1996), nearly 7% of which represented alfalfa (Medicago sativa). This would seem to show (as Bouby & Ruas 2005: 135 suggest), that a concerted effort was being made by certain Iron Age Celts to improve fodder quality, most likely, I would argue, as the result of Greek influence. Although the Greeks (see Hodkinson 1988: 44-5) and Romans (White 1970: 21319; Kron 2004b: 276-77) seem to have been aware of many of the best modern forage crops, it was the extensive use of alfalfa, first adapted by the Greeks from the Persians (Plin. H.N. 18.184; Georgoudi 1990: 171; Kron 2004b: 278-79), which arguably deserves

pride of place. Although long neglected by Medieval and Early Modern farmers in much of Europe (Ghisleni 1961: 130; Moriceau 1999: 128-33 - alfalfa was rare, and even clover covered barely 4.3% of French arable in 1780), and only gradually rediscovered, in large part in response to its prominence in the Latin agronomists (Ambrosoli 1997). Both ancient (Varro, Rust. 2, 1, 17; Columella, Rust. 2.7.1; 2.10.24-5; Plin. H.N. 18.1447) and contemporary (Frame et al. 1998: 107-79) agronomists agree in ranking alfalfa as arguably the most nutritious and productive of fodder crops. A 4th century BC Athenian writer, Amphilochus (see Plin., H. N. 18.144), devoted an entire book to alfalfa, and a closely related plant, shrub trefoil or medic (Medicago arborea L.), an excellent source of nutritious fodder for sheep and goats, well adapted to the arid conditions found in Attica and the Cyclades (Kron 2004b; Ciaraldi 2007: 75-85). As both Pliny and Columella describe in detail, the ancients knew very well how to maximize the yield of alfalfa, preparing the soil and irrigating fully, so as to produce large haymows several times a year, and used it extensively, most notably for horses and for ailing or breeding animals (Georgoudi 1990: 173 note 108; C.H.G. 1.2.17.18-19; 1.87.5; Strabo 9.525; Pallad. 5.1). Despite the relative indifference of many Classical archaeologists to such studies (see Megaloudi 2006), archaeobotanists have helped confirm the early and extensive use of alfalfa, with instances not only on the farm in Languedoc already alluded to above (Buxo, Chabal & Roux 1996), but in a deposit from 300 BC near Pantanello in the chora of Metapontum (Constantini & Biasini Constantini 2003: 5 fig. 4) as well as a number of other nearby finds (Carter 2006: 245 and figs. 1 & 1.13), at San Giovanni di Ruoti, near Potenza, (Monckton 2002) and, possibly, on the Hellenistic shipwreck at Serçe Limani in Turkey (Pulak & Townsend 1987). Finally, the nutritional value of rangelands and pastures would have been protected and enhanced by the agronomists' awareness of sound principles of grazing management (Kron 2004b: 311-17): controlling the number of livestock kept in order to avoid over-grazing, supervising grazing and rotating pastures (Varro, Rust. 2.1.24; cf. Heady and Childs 1994: 248-50), protecting the pasture from physical damage caused by grazing after heavy rain, or before it has been fully established (Columella, Rust. 2.17.7; Plin., H.N. 18.258-9), and mixed grazing by sheep and cattle, a very effective technique (Abaye et al. 1994) too rarely practiced by many contemporary ranchers (Fox 1984: 83).

Standards of care for domestic livestock Although superior nutrition was arguably the key innovation permitting the Greeks and Romans to improve the size, fecundity, milk yield, and general quality of their livestock, their knowledge of the basic principles of selective breeding (see Kron 2008a: 177-80 for an overview) played an important role, permitting them, for example, to create fine-wooled sheep breeds with fleeces comparable to the modern Merino (Ryder and Hedges 1973; Ryder 1983: 154-55), as did their careful attention to the physical and behavioural needs of their animals, as reflected in their housing, hygiene, grooming, and both routine prophylaxis and veterinary care (Columella, Rust. 6.23.1-3; 7.3.8, 9.14; Varro, Rust. 2.2.7; cf. Senet 1953: 26, 80-1). The agronomists offer the most detailed instructions when discussing animals whose care would be poorly known to many of their readers, such as game birds, and we will discuss these recommendations in greater depth below, in our discussion of game farming, but the care of the most common domestic species seems to have been just as highly developed. Veterinary care falls outside the scope of this chapter, but ancient knowledge of potential health threats and sources of stress and sickness played an important role in informing the routine care of domestic animals, and this is reflected in the sound advice given by the agronomists (Peters 1998: 36-8, 85-9, 365-68). As regards sheep (Ryder 1983: 708; 781; Peters 1998: 79; 85-9; MacKinnon 2004: 114), sensible precautions were taken against sunstroke, the barber pole worm, foot rot, water-borne parasites, and scab. In many cases, prevention was relatively simple, such as the advice that in winter and spring sheep should be kept in pens during morning, so that they do not feed on dewy grass, since it typically causes bowel problems, if their feed is wet or cold (Columella, Rust. 7.3.25; cf. Heady & Childs 1994: 251). The shearing of sheep was generally carefully managed with a view to both health and productivity, carried out on a mat, to keep the fleece clean and avoid contamination with straw, and done twice a year, in the belief, now backed up by modern studies, that it increases the wool yield (Ryder 1983: 165) - an approach made possible both by the warm climate, and, more significantly, the protection of buildings (Columella, Rust.

7.3.30; see Kron 2008a: 183-4 for the sheepfolds of the Crau plain), an important innovation in accord with modern practice (Ryder 1983: 682-5). After shearing, any cuts or abrasions were sealed with pitch, and, in order to protect against scab, their skin was smeared with a concoction of lupines, wine dregs, and olive lees, then washed with saltwater (Cato, Agr. 96; Columella, Rust. 7.4.7; Vergil, G. 3.546-60; Pallad. 14.34.1; Gp. 18.8.3; cf. Peters 1998: 86-7). The use of jackets to protect the fleeces of the best finewooled breeds (Strabo 4.4.3) is perhaps the most striking indication of the Greco-Roman labour-intensive approach and desire to maximize quality, although it was not unheard of in the 19th century (Ryder 1983: 683 fig. 12.21). The housing provided to livestock offers the most striking evidence for the seriousness with which the ancients took the health and comfort of their animals, and the capital they were willing, and able, to invest (Rossiter 1978; Morris 1979; Rinkewitz 1984: 27-9; Carandini 1984: 160-62; Flach 1990: 227-45; Badan et al. 1996; Massendari 2007). Modern research vindicates the value of this investment in terms of reproductive performance and growth (Fox 1984: 58-70, 86-7, 91-2, 106, 108), but also demonstrates the serious health and stress problems, which can follow from over-crowding in poorly designed shelters (Fox 1984: 58-60, 65-70, 75). The generally sound methods of ancient intensive pig farming offer an enlightening contrast, worth pursuing in some depth, with the cruelty and inefficiency of modern factory farming, which has been marked by an increase in mortality from 2.85% to 6.13% between 1960-2 and 1977-9 (Fox 1984: 75), notwithstanding heavy use of expensive antibiotics and drugs to mask the health and behavioural stress of poor management (Fox 1984: 76-7). Roman pig farming certainly succeeded in achieving high reproductive rates (Columella, Rust. 7.9.13; Peters 1998: 114), ensuring that sows farrowed twice a year (Columella, Rust. 7.9.4; Ervynck and Dobney 2002; MacKinnon 2004: 150-51), and achieving production of up to 330% of the breeding stock annually, according to one conservative estimate (Bökönyi 1988: 174). Yet they did so by respecting the habits of the pigs, avoiding overcrowding (Columella, Rust. 7.9.9); permitting the pigs out to forage and wallow in the mud occasionally as they like to do (Columella, Rust. 7.9.7); arranging separate pens for each sow, designed to allow the sow, but not her piglets, to come and go, (Columella, Rust. 7.9.9-10; 13), well-provided

with straw; and keeping the pigs' sleeping area clean (Columella, Rust. 7.9.14; as pigs themselves clearly prefer cf. Fox 1984: 72). Recent research shows that the modern method of confinement of sows delays puberty, reduces fertility, and leads to psychological stresses which reduce profligacy (Fox 1984: 58-60), and that pigs also do better when they are allowed to interact with humans and are treated well by them (cf. Columella, Rust. 7.9.10-1 for the active involvement of the Roman swineherd). Moveover, sows in large pens with straw bedding are much more productive and healthy (Fox 1984: 65-6), and pigs do much better, if they are not strictly confined, but are kept in straw pens with solid rather than slatted floors (Fox 1984: 66-8): they experience one half the level of disease, a shorter labor, lower incidence of complications during birth, a lower incidence of stillborn or mummified piglets (cf. Columella, Rust. 7.9.9); fewer traumatic injuries to sows (0.8% vs. 6.1%), and also lower mortality among the piglets. The stresses of insufficient protein in the diet or overcrowded conditions in modern factory farming is often so severe that many pigs react aggressively by biting the tails of others, leading modern farmers to cut off all the tails as a matter of course to prevent this behaviour, but this only does away with one manifestation of aggression, without preventing it or addressing the root cause (Fox 1984: 68-70). Zooarchaeological studies seem to show that this humane and efficient approach to pig farming paid dividends in generally good health (MacKinnon 2004: 148-9; 159; Peters 1998: 133-4). There is little evidence of skeletal or dental abnormalities, very little enamel hypoplasia indicative of nutritional deficits, and little evidence of disease. The most common phenomena were bite irregularities and reduced numbers of teeth, a common and harmless congenital defect of pigs. The other domestic animal species show the same general good health, reflecting the sound methods of animal husbandry (see Peters 1998 and MacKinnon 2004 for more detailed accounts of the care of the principal domestic species). There was very little evidence of trauma or ill-health among the domestic animals at Metapontum, for example (Bökönyi & Gál 2010: 29-31). Sheep and goats showed very few and minor abnormalities, mainly insignificant non-contagious and non life-threatening dental pathologies, and some evidence of osteoarthritis on phalanges consistent with normal decline through old age (MacKinnon 2004: 133).

Cattle, subject to significant stress from their work as plough or transport animals, are arguably more likely to show the effects of poor treatment, but most studies suggest very good health for majority of cattle and relatively little evidence of serious health problems. Work-related stress damage to bones, osteoarthritis, exotoses formation, and eburnation on the bones of the lower leg (the metapodials and phalanges) are reasonably frequent, but trauma is rare, and there are few examples of the sort of damage to ribs, vertebrae or scapulae, or of fractures, which would indicate harnessing accidents or a lack of care for the animals' safety and health (Peters 1998: 69-71; MacKinnon 2004: 96-7). Even the evidence of arthritis and other work-related stress, while attested on a number of sites, is rarely severe, universal or debilitating - a particularly thorough and detailed study from Feddersen Wiede showed that only 2 of 881 metapodials were in fact affected (Reichstein 1991: 82 after Peters 1998). Non-farm animals Although we tend to associate animal husbandry primarily with domestic farm animals, or perhaps some farmed game, we should not neglect the role of dogs, cats and other more exotic animals as pets or work animals. Dogs were the most versatile and diverse in terms of breed and function (Peters 1998: 167-87; further references in MacKinnon 2010: 291-2; de Grossi Mazzorin et al. 1997). There are fairly abundant literary references to the most famous breeds of hunting dogs (see Kron 2008a: 187 table 8.2), but several breeds were also renowned for their role as sheepdogs, particularly the Laconian and Molossian, imported from Greece and long used in Attica, Apulia and Calabria, and such Italian breeds as the Umbrian, Locrian, and Sallentine. As Ryder points out (1983: 658-9), the Roman preference for large aggressive sheepdogs, rather than smaller herding breeds like the modern Border Collie, suggests that predators were still a threat, and a good sheepdog, furnished with a protective collar (Varro, Rust. 2.9; Gp. 19.1.2), was expected to be able to ward off not only wolves, but also bears and wild cats (see Peters 1998: 169-70 citing Columella, Rust. 7.12.3). Zooarchaeological studies from France and Germany reveal a vast increase in the number and diversity of dog breeds in the Roman period, compared to the La Tène era, with great variations in skull and palate morphology and a wide range of withers heights, creating a number of toy

breeds of 22-35 cm to larger war, sheep or guard dogs, suggesting that the Greeks and Romans put a great deal of effort into dog breeding (Peters 1998: 180-7; Baxter 2006). In Northern Europe, at least, there is an interesting tendency for the larger breeds to predominate on rural sites, where many were likely kept as work or guard dogs. Dogs on villae rusticae ranged from 27.5 to 74 cm, with an average withers height of 55.9 cm, whereas in villages they averaged 49.5 cm and in cities 40.3 cm. The care of hunting dogs is very well-attested and sophisticated (Hull 1964: 3958), but there is also good zooarchaeological evidence for relatively good health and treatment for Roman dogs, including effective veterinary care for at least some sick pets (MacKinnon 2010), as in the case of a small (20-21 cm tall) toy breed, very similar to a modern Maltese, from the Yasmina necropolis of Carthage, which survived to extreme old age despite heavy ante-mortem tooth loss, one crippled leg and severe osteoarthritis (MacKinnon & Belanger 2006). Domestic cats are also well attested, far more so, for example, than in France or Germany during La Tène times (Lepetz & Yvinec 2002: 36-7), with their numbers increasing significantly over time and the closer one goes to Roman Italy, suggesting that they were relatively expensive or unfamiliar before Romanization (Peters 1998: 187-9). Cats seem to have been kept primarily as pets, although there is evidence of awareness of their practical and economic value as bird-catchers (Pliny, NH 10.202), or to kill mice and other vermin (Pall. 4.9.4). More exotic pets include monkeys, like the barbary macacque (Macaca sylvanus), native to North Africa, which begins to appear at a number of sites in Northern Europe in Roman times (Lepetz & Yvinec 2002: 39). The greatest range of exotic animals are known from the wild beast shows at Roman amphitheatres (see MacKinnon 2006 with references), but some unusual animals were imported not just to be displayed or slaughtered, but as work animals or for food. The camel, often a deliberate cross between the Bactrian camel and dromedary, noteworthy for its great size and hardiness, was not only used for military operations and transport in its native habitat, but imported to sites in France, Austria and Germany, in at least one case to be displayed in an amphitheatre (Lepetz & Yvinec 2002: 37-8; Peters 1998: 189-90; Peters & von den Driesch 1997: 662). Camels also reached the Greek towns of the Northern Black Sea, presumably as part of the caravans of Bactrian camels,

which began to be organized between China and the Black Sea under the Han (206 BCAD 24) (Peters & von den Driesch 1997: 662). Poultry farming A careful examination of Greco-Roman poultry and game farming offers the clearest illustration of their detailed knowledge of the needs of each species, and the great care taken to ensure their health and contentment. The Greeks and Romans refined the art of raising chickens, and most domestic and wild barnyard fowl, to a very high state, and this expertise was very widely disseminated, so much so, that by Late Antiquity, Palladius could remark (1.27): "Any woman whose nature is at all industrious knows how to raise chickens." The material available in the agronomists is particularly rich (Columella, Rust. 8.5; Varro, Rust. 3.9.8-16; Pall. 1.28; Gp. 14.7; Aristotle, H.A. 6.2-3; cf. Rinkewitz 1984: 48-52; Peters 1998: 202-8) and we can only briefly sketch some of the highlights here. Columella emphasizes the importance of rich nutritious feed for chickens, suggesting that half-cooked barley increases the size of eggs and makes the hens lay more often, and suggesting that one ought to also add shrubs and leaves of shrub-trefoil to their normal barley ration (Columella, Rust. 8.5.1-2), excellent advice, as an early 20th century agronomist notes: “The importance of green food is often overlooked. It means much in getting a good egg yield and in keeping the hens in condition. There is nothing better than alfalfa, and clover comes next" (Farrington 1913: 56; cf. Farrington 1913: 49; 51-2; 57; 76; 88). The ancient agronomists' timing of egg hatching to the lunar cycle (Columella, Rust. 8.5.9-10) has sometimes been questioned, but modern studies suggest that there may well be a scientific basis for the advice (Perrins & Crick 1996). The success of Roman poultry farming is striking. Roman chickens were as large as many modern breeds (Bökönyi 1984: 93-4; Peters 1998: 222-6; Kron 2008a: CHECK), and, as Columella often points out, very hardy, good layers, and excellent broody hens and nurses to their chicks (CHECK ADD). Chicken production was highly commercialized, and, while young were normally allowed to live in healthy free-range conditions, many were eventually fattened in the city by commercial poulterers, who used methods much like those of modern battery-farming (Columella, Rust. 8.7.1-5; Peters 1998: 201; cf. Fox 1984: 14-8; 21-4). They would keep the fowl in small enclosures and

in the dark (cf. Varro, Rust. 3.9.19; Columella, Rust. 8.7.1; Mart. 13.62), feed them frequently with barley meal mashed with honey-water or wheat bread soaked in diluted wine, and generally fatten them up for sale in 20-25 days (Columella, Rust. 8.7.4; Varro, Rust. 3.9.19-20; cf. Farrington 1913: 46-53). Males were frequently castrated to ensure quicker fattening (Rinkewitz 1984: 65 citing Varro, Rust. 2.7.15; 3.9.3; Columella, Rust. 8.2.3; Pliny, NH 10.50; Mart. 13. 63-4), although doubts have been expressed as to whether the method described is indeed effective (Peters 1998: 211-3). The advice of the Roman agronomists focused a great deal on maximizing the productivity of layers, keeping careful records of the number of eggs laid by each hen (Columella, Rust. 8.5.4; cf. Farrington 1913: 90-1), both breeding to achieve the best performance (cf. Farrington 1913: 4, noting that choosing the best strains can double the productivity of a given breed), and selling or culling poor layers or nurses, as well as hens three years old or more (Columella, Rust. 8.5.24; cf. Farrington 1913: 85; Fox 1984: 7). They also suggest distinguishing between layers and sitters, and choosing hens which would be most effective in each role (Columella, Rust. 8.5.5-9), as was widely recommended in 19th and 20th century egg farming (Peters 1998: 203). Carefully selected, large and older, more experienced, hens were preferred as sitters, and some hens were even chosen as nurse hens to protect the chicks (Columella, Rust. 8.5.6-7; cf. Farrington 1913: 61-2; 79), chosen for a well-established good disposition, immediately culling any hen, which might break or consume the eggs. The eggs were to be marked, allowing humans to check and regularly turn over any, which the hens may have missed (Columella, Rust. 8.5.14; Gp. 14.7.20; cf. Peters 1998: 203 for the same advice in manuals from 1902), as well as removing damaged eggs and checking for hatching chicks. The ancients were well aware of techniques of artificially incubating eggs (Peters 1998: 206-7 citing Aristotle, H.A. 6.2; Pliny, NH 10.154; Gp. 14.8), although they preferred the safer and more reliable method of using broody hens, taking the sensible precaution (cf. the modern advice cited by Peters 1998: 203) of placing food near incubating birds (Columella, Rust. 8.5.13) thereby discouraging them from moving and ensuring they maintain an even temperature for the eggs (Varro, Rust. 3.9.10; Columella, Rust. 8.5.14; Geop. 14.7.18). Columella even suggests varying the number of eggs to be incubated by each hen depending upon the season (Rust. 8.5.8). In order to avoid

needlessly wasting the time of broody hens, the Greeks and Romans developed reliable methods of testing eggs for fertility (Peters 1998: 205-6 citing Aristotle, H.A. 6.3; Varro, Rust. 3.9.11; Gp. 14.7.2), not just holding them up to the sun, but testing their specific gravity against that of salt water, and they were also aware that fertile eggs need not be incubated or hatched for up to 10 days after being laid. Great attention was paid to maintaining a clean, healthy environment. Chicken coops were to be kept scrupulously clean of manure, with the henhouse regularly cleansed and fumigated (Columella, Rust. 8.5.20). The chaff and litter in the nesting boxes were to be fully cleaned out and purified with sulfur and bitumen before the hens were allowed to nest in them (Columella, Rust. 8.5.11), just as modern farmers will do to protect nests from lice infestations (Peters 1998: 203; cf. Farrington 1913: 78-9; 89). For cooped up fattening hens, the farmer was advised to remove feathers from around head and hindquarters as an added precaution against lice (Columella, Rust. 8.7.2). Similar attention to hygiene was advised for dovecotes (Columella, Rust. 8.8.6); and for turtledoves special hemp mats were used to make it easier to remove any manure and collect it for use in the garden, where it was a prized fertilizer (Columella, Rust. 8.9.4). One can also see the careful attention to the health of the birds, and of their habits, in the advice to provide access to dust and ashes with which they can sprinkle themselves (Columella, Rust. 8.4.4), an important instinctive behaviour, effective in combating lice infestations (cf. Farrington 1913: 89), and likely to cause problems with stress and aggressiveness when it is curbed, as it often is in modern factory farming. Charcoal is also valuable as an absorbent, as are oyster shells or grit, for the birds' gizzards (cf. Farrington 1913: 53-4). The careful management involved in poultry farming is perhaps most evident from the accounts of the design and maintenance of chicken coops, which were particularly well-designed and elaborate (Columella, Rust. 8.3.1-9; Varro, Rust. 3.9.6-7; Rinkewitz 1984: 26-9; Benecke 1994: 169-70; Peters 1998: 200-1; Carandini 1985: 125; 162), very similar to the better built coops of the mid-19th century, although less elaborate than some of the large industrial facilities developed at the end of the 19th century (Peters 1998: 201). Large windows were designed to allow light to reach the entire coop, with latticework shutters to facilitate ventilation (Varro, Rust. 3.9.6) - sound

advice since air and light are critical to preventing condensation and dampness (Farrington 1913: 25 f.). Square-hewn perches a foot off the floor of the loft were placed above each nest, for the hens to sleep on, helping protect the hens feet from dung, and all were to be placed on the same level, to prevent any fighting for priority, as hens like to perch high (Varro, Rust. 3.9.7; cf. Farrington 1913: 41-2 and photo facing p. 96). Windows with ladders were also to be provided for each of the nests to allow easy access and light, as in a model coop produced for the New Jersey test station in the early 20th century (Farrington 1913: 34-5 and photo facing p. 36), and a poultry yard, strewn with straw, the best litter despite its expense, allowed the chickens lots of exercise (cf. Farrington 1913: 55-6). Chickens need lots of fresh drinking water (Farrington 1913: 54-5), but it is also a likely source of disease, if fouled, as often happens when chickens scratch litter into it. The Romans therefore arranged to have it provided in lead troughs with small holes on the side to prevent the chickens from fouling their water or food (Columella, Rust. 8.3.89; cf. Farrington 1913: 43; Peters 1998: 201). Finally, care was taken to protect the fowl from predators and pests, with latticework over the windows, and the surfaces carefully plastered smooth to keep out snakes and rodents, as well as burning women's hair, galbanum (Mentha pulegium) or hart's horn to drive away snakes (Columella, Rust. 8.5.18; cf. Peters 1998: 80 for their potential efficacy).

Game farming Game farming was extremely profitable (Rinkewitz 1984: 21-3; 111-30; Kron 2008: 192), and certainly considerably more glamorous than the husbandry of most common domestic species. Comparative evidence shows that the many claims of profitability given by Varro and our other sources are by no means unrealistic. A fairly modest North American game farm, providing limited supplementary feed to deer confined in their natural habitat, with 5 mature stags and 45 mature hinds, might produce 112 yearlings annually, in addition to meat from culled stock, for a considerable profit in excess of $297,000 US in the late 80s - (Renecker, Blyth & Gates 1989: table 13.6). While significantly cheaper to produce than beef (Renecker, Blyth & Gates 1989: 262),

the meat of the red deer typically sells for more than twice as much (Renecker, Blyth & Gates 1989: 264; cf. Krostitz 1979: table 4). Venison certainly sold at a premium in Roman times, but not a prohibitive one, judging from Diocletian's price edict, where it sells for 12 denarii per Roman pound, just 50% more expensive than beef or mutton, and comparable to pork or lamb. Roman game farming was obviously sufficiently highly developed to bring many game species within the budget of a broad segment of society. More intensive methods have been developed, however, which are potentially even more profitable and productive, with as many as 5-13 hinds per hectare, fed using rotational grazing on rye-grass pastures, with hay and silage used for supplementary feeding (Fletcher 1989: 326-8), and, given the Greco-Roman philosophy of intensive mixed farming, a similar approach was likely used for at least some ancient game farms. There was a great demand for new and ever more exotic animals, as fowl, fish and game, prestige meats long prized by the Greeks and Romans (Lehmann & Breuer 1997: 490-92; Olive & Deschler-Erb 1999; Bökönyi & Gál 2010: 4-16) were increasingly appreciated in the provinces as well (see Lepetz & Legouilloux 1996: 273-4 and fig. 9). A huge range of wild animals were consumed. I have offered references to the ancient literary sources, as well as modern discussion of their food value and attraction to hunters for most of the species identified in recent zooarchaeological studies elsewhere (Kron 2008a: Tables 8.3; 8.4). Their consumption varied significantly, however, and the following species seem to have been most popular, based on an incomplete, but broadly representative, survey of faunal studies from more than 380 archaeological sites from Italy, Germany, France, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and the Czech republic. I list them in order of popularity, with references, if any, to raising them on farms: red deer (Columella, Rust. 9.1.1; Varro, Rust. 3.13.3), duck, chicken, hare (Varro, Rust. 3.3.2; 3.12.1–6; Columella, Rust. 9.1.8), goose (Columella, Rust. 8.13-4; Pall. 1.30; Varro, Rust. 3.10.6; Gp. 14.22), roe deer (Columella, Rust. 9.1.1; Varro, Rust. 3.3.3; 3.13.3), wild boar (Columella, Rust. 9.1.1; Varro, Rust. 3.2.13-4; 3.3.3; 3.13.1-3; cf. Binder 1971: 32-3), pigeon (Varro, Rust. 3.7; Columella, Rust. 8.11.1-7; Pall. 1.24; Gp. 14.1-6; Kron 2008a: CHECK), thrushes (Columella, Rust. 8.10; Varro, Rust. 3.3.3; Pall. 1.26; Gp. 14.24), woodcock, crane (Varro, Rust. 3.2.14), partridge (Varro, Rust. 3.11.4; Gp. 14.19-21), grouse, swan, elk, rabbit (Varro, Rust. 3.12.6–7), quail (Varro, Rust. 3.5.1-6; Rinkewitz

1984: 32-4; 67-8), fallow deer (Columella, Rust. 7.12.8, 9.1.1), peacock (Varro, Rust. 3.6.1-6; Columella, Rust. 8.11.1-7; Pall. 1.28; Gp. 14.18), capercaillie, and pheasant (Pall. 1.29). Less common, perhaps, but still well-attested, farmed species included the wild goat (Varro, Rust. 2.3.3; 2.1.5; Columella, Rust. 9.pr.1), mouflon (Varro, Rust. 2.1.5), and guinea fowl (Columella, Rust. 8.2.2-3; Varro, Rust. 3.9.18; 8.12), and such exotic fare as the gazelle (Pliny, HN 8.214), the Arabian oryx (Columella, Rust. 9.1.1; 9.1.7) and the ostrich (Apic. 6.1.1-2; SHA, Heliogab. 22.1; 28.4; 30.2; SHA, Firmus 4.2). Although generally more expensive and characteristic of wealthy or at least affluent middle class consumers (Kron 2008a: 188), fowl and game often represented a significant proportion of meat consumed. While MacKinnon (2004: 228-9 and App. 13) notes that many sites derive as little as 1-3% of their meat from game, even this is certainly significantly more than the less than 0.5% of worldwide meat production which game represented as late as 1978 (Luxmoore 1989: 46; cf. Krostitz 1979: table 1 for 0.3% game for developed countries in 1973). Moreover, deposits with percentages of game ranging from 5-10% are not uncommon, and figures of 10-20% or more are by no means rare, and can be found from a very wide range of sites, including the French urban settlements of Saint-Quentin, Boulogne-sur-Mer, Orange, the sanctuary of Forêt d'Halattes, the vicus of La Blanche Voye, and the villa at Remy: Les Neufs (Lepetz 1996; Columeau 2000; 2002), and in Italy, at the urban sites of Paestum (Boessneck & von den Driesch 1969) and Naples (King n.d. apud MacKinnon 2004), at vici near Monte Gelato (King 1997), Metaponto (MacKinnon 2004), Montecatino (Wilkens 1991), and villas at Gravina (Watson 1992) and Lugnano (MacKinnon 1999), and the rustic villas at Matrice (Barker & Clark 1995), Monte Barro (Baker 1991;1994), San Giacomo (Albarella 1993), and S. Potito-Ovindoli (Bökönyi 1986). Only contemporary France and Italy, with annual levels of game consumption of 4 and 6 kilos, respectively, representing approximately 5 and 8% of meat consumption, seem to have built up even remotely comparable game farming industries. The Romans raised a number of large game animals, most notably the red, fallow and roe deer, oryx, antelope, hares, rabbits, and wild boar (Columella, Rust. 9.1.1; cf. Fletcher 1989: 323-4). Woodlands, with a good natural or artificial water source were attractive features for such game farms (Columella, Rust. 9.1.1-2), allowing the animals

to supplement the pasture and artificial feed with their natural diet of browse, forbs, and leaves (cf. Renecker, Blyth & Gates 1989: 259-60). The greatest expense (if we exclude breeding stock, of course, cf. Fletcher 1989: 327), was fencing, typically unhewn stone and lime, where such materials were cheap, unburnt brick and clay (Columella, Rust. 9.1.2-5), or, where timber was abundant, as in Gaul, fences of oak, cork-wood or a convenient rain-resistant local wood, with posts spaced 8 feet apart, joined by crossbars to prevent escape (Columella, Rust. 9.1.5). With adequate feed and good management farm-bred deer will rarely test the strength of walls or fences, even in their season of rut (Renecker, Blyth & Gates 1989: 259), so over time the cost of fencing could likely have been reduced somewhat. Game farming allows a very significant increase in productivity, and in the size of animals, compared to those caught in the wild. For example, wild Scottish red deer produce 40-46 calves/100 hinds, but only about 30 survive to a year of age. For farmed deer in English forest habitats, however, a hundred hinds will typically produce 65-70 calves, and 85% of these calves survive until they can be weaned, as many as 90% if the farm is well-managed (Fletcher 1989: 328). Moreover, the animals tend to grow significantly faster and are more likely to reach their full growth potential. It will take 79 years for wild Scottish red deer stags to reach their typical adult weight of 120 kg, and 6-8 years for hinds to reach 78 kg. On farms, however, with adequate food and shelter, stags can reach 185 kg and hinds 115 kg in as few as 26 months (Fletcher 1989: 328-9). The key is supplementary feeding, particularly during the winter, when forage is scarce (Columella, Rust. 9.1.6-9; cf. Renecker, Blyth & Gates 1989: 261-2), for pregnant or nursing hinds, or for bucks at the end of the season of rut (Fletcher 1989: 314). Studies of the bones of Greco-Roman red deer, which were almost certainly farm raised, reveal the same success in producing extremely large animals, as we can see from 4th century BC Kassope, as well as at the Arcadian site of Hellenistic Lousoi, much larger than (presumably) wild deer from the Bronze Age, and matched only in the Neolithic, when there was significantly less de-forestation, and much less competition with humans for forage (Forstenpointner & Hofer 2001: 178 abb. 4). Although it is difficult to distinguish farmed from wild game from bone remains, a number of game farms have been plausibly identified by zooarchaeologists. One of the

most recent and notable, an urban facility for the breeding rabbits at Lattes, consisting of several pits with nearly 4100 rabbit bones broken into three deposits of nearly complete skeletons, consisting of at least 48, 22 and 37 individuals respectively (Gardeisen & Valenzuela 2004; 2010). The consistent age of death for most of the rabbits, slaughtered as soon as they achieved physical maturity, as well as comparison of the mortality curve with estimates for rabbits in the wild effectively demonstrates that these animals were raised in captivity (Gardeisen & Valenzuela 2010: 130; 134 fig. 5; 136-7). The absence of butchery marks suggests that these particular animals were being raised for their fur, but that other leporaria raised rabbits for the table is clear enough, and rabbits and hares were clearly very popular game, as demonstrated by their high rank among game species and many discoveries of their bones in food deposits (Gardeisen & Valenzuela 2010: 132 table 4; see also Bortuzzo 1990). Game farming of deer can also be inferred using similar methods for Kassope in Epirus in the 4th century (Columeau 2000: 155). Another interesting article describes two operations (Olive & Deschler-Erb 1999), an urban smokehouse and a villa near Neftebach in Switzerland, which seem to have been used to prepare smoked meat, particularly deer and chicken respectively, for export. At the villa itself, 9% of the remains were deer, whereas 27% of the bones found outside the pars urbana, near room 25, identified as a smokehouse, were from deer. The authors argue that the deer from the villa were likely hunted rather than farm-raised, although their arguments are far from iron clad (Olive & Deschler-Erb 1999: 37), since farm-raised deer today are often slaughtered before adulthood (most stags at 15 or 27 months, when they typically yield 50 or 65 kilos of meat, respectively, see Fletcher 1989: 331), and do tend to be larger, rather than smaller, than wild deer, as at this villa, and at Kassope and Lousoi, as we noted above. In all likelihood, we are dealing with farmed venison smoked and packaged for export. Another very large 3rd century AD building on the Avenue de Genève in the town of Annecy (Boutae) was furnished with a smokehouse, where 82% of the remains were chicken, almost 94% adult, carefully disarticulated for smoking and transport, the males castrated and sold as soon as they reached adulthood, the females slaughtered much later, presumably after being used to lay eggs, and all prepared for export to the nearby town (Olive & Deschler-Erb. 1999: 36).

The elaborate habitats laid out by Columella for raising wild ducks are worth discussing at some length (Columella, Rust. 8.15.1-5), as they are clearly based on very careful observation of the duck's behaviour, corresponding nearly exactly to modern advice for creating flight ponds to attract ducks (Coles 1971: 238-43). They are, in fact, more carefully designed than was common as late as the 1970's, as one prominent expert complains: "people think that ducks need only a sheet of water to keep them happy. They forget the other habitat requirements – nesting and brooding cover, food supplies, safe resting areas and so on (Coles 1971: 237)." Columella recommends building a 15 foot high enclosure, covered with nets, the walls plastered against rodents and snakes, surrounding a pond, at least two feet deep, its centre planted with reeds and other plants favoured by ducks, including the Egyptian bean (Nelumbum speciosum), tamarisk and club-rushes (Columella, Rust. 8.15.4; cf. Coles 1971: 283-90). The circumference of the pond should be furnished with a sloped pebble surface to keep it free from vegetation and surrounded by 20 feet of grass, with one-foot square nest boxes of stone and plaster, protected by bushes. Because, as Columella explains: “Some of them take pleasure in lingering in … thickets of club-rushes. Nevertheless, the whole space … should be left free around the edges, so that, as they are cheered by a day of sunshine, the water fowl may vie with each other to see which swims the fastest. For just as they require … holes into which they can creep and lie in wait for fresh-water creatures which are in hiding, so they are displeased if there are no open spaces in which they can roam freely (Columella, Rust. 8.15.4-5, Loeb transl.).” The same careful observation is evident in his recommendations for feeding: “A continuous channel should be constructed, along which the food may be carried down every day mingling with the water, for this is how birds of this kind get their food. …The terrestrial foods they like best are panic grass and millet and also barley … If there is food available which originates in water, they are given shrimps or prawns or shad when it is in the river, and any river animals which grow only to a small size (Columella, Rust. 8.15.6, Loeb transl.)." The Roman authorities' other provisions for raising wild ducks in captivity (Columella, Rust. 8.15; Varro, Rust. 3.1; Gp. 14.23) likewise mirror modern advice very closely (cf. Coles 1971: 258-92). The eggs from wild ducks, gathered in marshlands, can be incubated relatively easily and effectively by hens, and the resulting chicks become

relatively tame and grow well in captivity, although wild ducks can eventually be induced to breed (Columella, Rust. 8.15.7; cf. Coles 1971: 262-3), and ducks reared in pens are very ready to use artificial nests to raise their young (Coles 1971: 260). Columella even suggests that appropriate twigs and vegetation be scattered about in March and April for the ducks to use to create nests in their pre-fabricated nest boxes (Columella, Rust. 8.15.7). Ducks were obviously raised in large numbers and very effectively, given their low price, in Diocletian's price edict, of around 4.4 denarii per Roman pound, more expensive than chicken, but half the price of beef. It was both more cost-effective and stimulated productivity to rely upon ordinary chickens, ideally the hardy native Italian breed, to hatch exotic wild game-birds. So, for example, a large hen could incubate 5 peahen eggs and 4 chicken eggs simultaneously (Columella, Rust. 8.11.10-4), or 3-5 goose eggs (Columella, Rust. 8.14.6; cf. Farrington 1913: 122). Likewise, ducklings were often both incubated and then raised by hens (Columella, Rust. 8.15.7; cf. Farrington 1913: 119). The same method is widely recommended by modern game-bird farmers, for ducks, peacocks, pheasants, and partridge, among other species (Coles 1971: 75-80). Geese, one of the first breeds of barnyard fowl to be domesticated, were significantly simpler to raise (see Columella, Rust. 8.13-4; Pall. 1.30; Varro, Rust. 3.10.6; Gp. 14.22; cf. Buckland & Guy 2002), although wild geese fetched higher market prices and were considered more prolific (Columella, Rust. 8.14.3). The primary considerations were to provide a simple complex of small pens fitted with doors, protected from predators by a 9-foot tall enclosure, with easy access to a pond or river, and a marshy field planted in vetch, trefoil and fenugreek (Columella, Rust. 8.14.1-2; Varro, Rust. 3.10.3-4; Pall. 1.30; Rinkewitz 1984: 34-5). One ought to keep no more than 20 goslings, of uniform age, in a single pen, to avoid crowding and potential predation or cannibalism, and to keep their coops clean and dry, with frequent changes of litter, chaff or straw (Columella, Rust. 8.14.9). Careful instructions were given to ensure that the geese lay each egg safely, and that it is protected from damage and the young goslings from injury (Columella, Rust. 8.14.4-8; Pall. 1.30). Very elaborate advice was given for feeding (Columella, Rust. 8.14.2; 8; 10-11; Varro, Rust. 3.6.3; Rinkewitz 1984: 59-60; 70-1). Vetch, clover, fenugreek, lettuce and endive (seris) were the staple greens for geese as

they grew to maturity. Goslings were to be fed chopped lettuce and endive, also wetted wheat or millet, or, according to others, soaked pearl-barley or meal with chopped cress along with water. Geese ready to be fattened for market, a process that began at a month and a half, and lasted around two months, were to be kept in dark cages and given pearlbarley and wheat three times a day, or boiled barley flour or farrago and chopped greens, with lots of water to drink after meals. Geese were profitable, not only for their meat, which was just slightly more expensive than beef, but also for its feathers, much prized for stuffing goose down pillows in the affluent society of imperial Rome, where, as Pliny complained (Pliny, NH 10.53-4): “luxury has advanced to such a pitch, that now not even the male neck can endure to be without goose-feather bedding.” The art of making foie gras was known in 4th century BC Greece, but Pliny claims that his "countrymen are wiser, who know the goose by the excellence of its liver. Stuffing the bird with food makes the liver grow to a great size” (Pliny, NH 10.52; cf. Buckland and Guy 2002: ch. 11). Native to India and introduced to Greece as early as the 5th century, the peacock became an increasingly popular game bird by the late Republic, particularly after Q. Hortensius introduced peafowl at a large scale public feast, until individual eggs could be sold for 5 denarii, grown birds for 50 denarii each, and a herd of 100 peacocks could easily yield 60,000 HS per year (Varro, Rust. 3.6.6). Soon breeders such as M. Aufidius Lurco (Varro, Rust. 3.6.1; Pliny, NH 10.45; Rinkewitz 1984: 75 no. 3) established very lucrative game farms specializing in peafowl, and detailed instructions for their care were published in many agronomic treatises (Varro, Rust. 3.6.1-6; Columella, Rust. 8.11.1-17; Pall. 1.28; Gp. 14.18). Peafowl remained enormously popular (Kron 2008: table 8.4 s.v. peacock), and it is clear from Diocletian's price edict, which sets peafowl at approximately 16.4 denarii per Roman pound, just marginally more expensive than wild boar, 50% more expensive than goose, and half as expensive as thrushes, turtle-doves or partridge, that these birds were being successfully farmed, although peafowl bones have been identified at fewer sites than many other gamebirds (Lepetz & Yvinec 2002: 35-6). Although appreciated by some French gourmets (Montagné 1961: 719), peafowl are rarely raised for the table today, and are neglected in most modern standard game farming manuals, but they are still widely kept as ornamental birds, and the advice given

by the Roman agronomists reveal, as always, very careful attention to the birds' habits, and are generally sound (cf. Gardiner 1996). They are well aware of the mating habits of the peacock, and potential problems caused by its aggressiveness towards other males, as well as to peahens' eggs and chicks (Columella, Rust. 8.11.7-8; Pall. 1.28.2), and offer advice on how to stimulate its amorous attentions by feeding roasted beans (Columella, Rust. 8.11.6; Pall. 1.28.2). The peahens are confined to the peacock house when about to lay, or their eggs gathered up by the keepers to be hatched in carefully constructed nests under broody hens, freeing up the peahens to lay more (as many as thirty according to some modern authorities), and allowing the eggs to be monitored and turned by hand, if necessary, until the eggs hatch and the chicks can be entrusted to a nurse-hen (Columella, Rust. 8.11.9-12; Pall. 1.28.3-4). The problem of the different periods taken by the eggs of the peafowl and common hen to hatch, which leads some modern breeders to counsel against using common hens, is cleverly obviated by Columella by substituting a new batch of chicken eggs just before they hatch (Columella, Rust. 8.11.12). Peafowl were kept on flat land with grass and trees, in an enclosure fenced on three sides. On the fourth side, two huts were built, one for the custodian and the other a peacock house (stabulum pavonum or cavea). The yard was fitted with reed enclosures arranged in rows forming coops, to keep the males apart, and the peacock-house must be free from damp, floored with wood and fitted with removable square-cut perches, so they could be removed frequently, when their house was cleaned. (Columella, Rust. 8.11.3-4; Varro, Rust. 3.6.4-5; Rinkewitz 1984: 25-6). Great care was taken to provide a proper diet for the peafowl (Columella, Rust. 8.11.6; 14-5; Varro, Rust. 3.6.3; Pliny, NH 10.45; Rinkewitz 1984: 64), but especially for the first six months, the chicks are given a special diet: "For the first days barley meal sprinkled with wine will be given to the chicks, or a mash of whatever grains, cooked and cooled. Later chopped-up leeks will be added, or fresh cheese (but pressed, since whey is harmful to chicks). Locusts too are provided, with feet removed" (Pall. 1.28.5, J. Fitch transl.; cf. Columella, Rust. 8.11.14-5.). The level of expertise in raising new game birds seems to have continued to improve well into late antiquity. The pheasant, for example, although clearly prized as a game bird from the 5th century BC (Ar., Nub. 108; Ath. 386e; 387b; Mart. 3.77; 3.58.16; 13.72) was neglected as a farm-raised species by Columella, and, not surprisingly, the

cost of pheasant in Diocletian's price edict, at approximately 43 denarii per Roman pound, is significantly higher than most other game birds, almost three times as expensive as the peacock, and about 50% more expensive than the thrush, turtle-dove, or partridge, suggesting that it had yet to be farmed on any scale. By the time Palladius was writing, however, typically dated to the 5th century AD, effective methods of raising pheasants in captivity were known and widely published (Pall. 1.29), differing only in detail from the modern method of open field rearing with coops and broodies (Coles 1971: 96-101), and it remained a popular species into the early Byzantine period (Gp. 14.19). Even some of the most modest and unlikely animals became the object of very sophisticated and profitable farming operations, including the dormouse, raised and fattened as they hibernated in small terracotta jars (Colonnelli et al. 2000), and many different types of snail, gathered from throughout the empire, as described by Pliny: “Ponds for keeping snails were first made by Fulvius Lippinus … indeed he kept the different kinds of snails separate, with different compartments for the white snails that grow in the Rieti territory and for the Illyrian variety distinguished for size, the African for fecundity and the Solitane for breed” (Pliny, NH 9.173). References: Aaris-Sørensen, Kim. 1981. "A Zoological Analysis of the Osteological Material," in The Maussolleion at Halikarnassos. Reports of the Danish archaeological expedition to Bodrum, 1. The sacrificial deposit, edited by K. Jeppesen, F. Højlund, K. Aaris-Sørensen, 91-110. Copenhagen: Jutland Archaeological Society. Abaye, A.O., V.G. Allen and J.P. Fontenot. 1994. “Influence of grazing cattle and sheep together and separately on animal performance and forage quality,” Journal of Animal Science 72: 1013-22. Adams, James N. 1995. Pelagonius and Latin Veterinary Terminology in the Roman Empire. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Albarella, Umberto. 1993. "S. Giacomo degli Schiavoni (Molise). An early fifth century A.D. deposit of pottery and animal bones from central Adriatic Italy," Papers of the British School at Rome 61: 157-230.

Ambrosoli, Mauro. 1997. The Wild and the Sown: Botany and Agriculture in Western Europe, 1350-1850. Cambridge. Badan, Otello, Jean-Pierre Brun, and Gaëtan Congès. 1996. “Les bergeries romaines de la Crau d’Arles.” Gallia 52: 263-310. Baker, Polydora. 1991. "La fauna," in Archeologia a Monte Barro 1, edited by G. P. Brogliolo, L. Castelletti, 153-67. Lecco: Stefanoni. Baker, Polydora. 1994. "Faunal remains, socio-economy and site function at Monte Barro," Arheoloski vestnik 45: 193-97. Barker, Graeme, Clark, G. 1995. "The faunal data," in The Biferno Valley survey: the archaeological and geomorphological record, edited by G. Barker, 143-76. London; New York: Leicester University Press. Bats, Michel, Bertucchi, Guy, Congès, Gaétan, Tréziny, Henri, eds. 1992. Marseille grecque et la Gaule. Actes du colloque international d'histoire et d'archéologie du Ve congrès archéologique de Gaule méridionale, Marseille 18-23 novembre 1990. Lattes: A.D.M. Baxter, Ian L. 2006. "A Dwarf Hound Skeleton from a Romano-British Grave at York Road, Leicester, England, U.K., with a discussion of other roman small dog types and speculation regarding their respective aetiologies," In Dogs and People in Social, Working, Economic or Symbolic Interaction, edited by L. M. Snyder and E. A. Moore, 12-23. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Benecke, Norbert. 1994. Der Mensch und seine Haustiere: die Geschichte einer jahrtausendealten Beziehung. Stuttgart: Theiss. Bertucchi, Guy. 1992. Les Amphores et le vin de Marseille: VIe s. avant J-C. ~ IIe s. après J.-C. Paris: CNRS. Binder, François. 1971. Organisation, Production et controle de l’élevage du gibier en France. Diss. École Nationale Vétérinaire d’Alfort. Paris: Copedith. Boessneck, J., Driesch, Angela von den. 1969. "Tierknochenfunde aus Paestum," RM 76: 374-381. Boessneck, Joachim. 1973. Die Tierknochenfunde aus die Kabirenheiligtum bei Theben (Böotien). Munich: Institut für Palaeoanatomie, Domestikationsforschung und Geschichte der Tiermedizin der Universität München.

Boessneck, J., Driesch, Angela von den. 1983. "Tierknochenfunde aus Didyma," Archäologischer Anzeiger: 611-651. Boessneck, Joachim, Driesch, Angela von den. 1985. Knochenfunde aus Zisternen in Pergamon. Munich: Institut für Paleoanatomie, Domestikationsforschung u. Geschichte der Tiermedizin der Universität München.
 Boessneck, Joachim, Schäffer, J. 1986. "Tierknochenfunde aus Didyma, 2," Archäologischer Anzeiger: 251-301. Bökönyi, Sandor. 1984. Animal Husbandry and Hunting in Tác-Gorsium - The Vertebrate Fauna of a Roman Town in Pannonia. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Bökönyi, Sandor. 1986. "Animal remains from the Roman villa of San Potito-Ovindoli (L’Aquila) 1983-1984," AAASHung 38: 89-91. Bökönyi, Sandor. 1988. “Animal breeding on the Danube.” In Pastoral Economies in Classical Antiquity, edited by C. Richard Whitakker, 171-6. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society. Bökönyi, Sandor, Constantini, Lorenzo, Fitt, Jane. 1993. "The Farming Economy," In Roccagloriosa: Fourth Century B.C. Magna Grecia A Case Study, edited by M. Gualtieri, 281-307. Jonsered: Paul Åströms. Bökönyi, Sandor, Gál, Erika. 2010. "Animal Husbandry from the Late Neolithic through the Roman Period," The Chora of Metaponto 2: Archaeozoology at Pantanello and Five other sites. Studies by Sandor Bökönyi and Erika Gál, edited by L. Bartosiewicz, 4-33. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press. Bortuzzo, Nicoletta. 1990. “Il leporarium. Un esempio di pastio villatica nella Gallia Cisalpina di tarda età repubblicana-prima età imperiale? Alcune ipotesi sulla Transpadana orientale.” Aquileia Nostra 66: 85-112. Bouby, Laurent, Ruas, Marie-Pierre. 2005. "Prairies et fourrages: réflexions autour de deux exemples carpologiques de l’Âge du Fer et des Temps Modernes en Languedoc," Anthropozoologica 40: 109-145. Bourdy, Franck. 1995. “L’ophthalmologie equine dans l’antiquité tardive d’après Végèce.” In Homme et Animal dans l’Antiquité romaine, edited by Raymond Chevallier and Franck Bourdy, 205-15. Tours: Centre de récherches André Piganiol.

Brill, Lindsey. 2011. Ubiquitous mulomedici: The social, economic and agronomic significance of the veterinarian in the Roman world. Victoria, B.C.: M.A. Thesis, University of Victoria. Buckland, Roger, Guy, Gérard. 2002. Goose Production. Rome: FAO. Buxo, R., Chabal, L., Roux, J.-C. 1996. "Toiture et restes carbonisés d’une maison incendiée dans l’habitat de Lattes au Ier siècle av. n. è.," Lattara 9: 373-398. Carandini, Andrea. 1984. Settefinestre. Una villa schiavistica nell’Etruria meridionale, 1. La villa nel suo insieme. Modena: Panini. Carter, Joseph C. 1991. "Risorse agricole della costa ionica (Metaponto e Crotone)," in Le ravitaillement en blé de Rome et des centres urbains des débuts de la République jusqu'au Haut Empire, 185-6. Naples and Rome: Centre Jean Bérard and Ecole française. Carter, Joseph C. 2006. Discovering the Greek Countryside at Metaponto. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Constantini, Lorenzo, Constantini, Loredana B. 2003. "Agriculture and Diet in the Chora of Metaponto: The Palaeobotanical Evidence from Pantanello," Living off the Chora: Diet and Nutrition at Metapontum, edited by Joseph C. Carter, 3-42. Austin, TX: Institute of Classical Archaeology, University of Texas at Austin. Chandezon, Christophe. 2003. L’élevage en Grèce, fin Ve – fin Ier siècle a.C. L’apport des sources épigraphiques. Bordeaux: Ausonius. Chandezon, Christophe. 2004. "Pratiques zootechniques dans l'antiquité grecque," RÉG 106: 477-97. Chiliardi, Salvatore. 2000. “I cavalli siracusani in Età ellenistica.” Atti del 2 Convegno Nazionale di Archeozoologia. Asti, 14-16 Novembre 1997, 285-92. Forli: Abaco. Ciaraldi, Marina. 2007. People and Plants from Ancient Pompeii. A new approach to urbanism from the microscope room. London: Accordia Research Institute. Coles, Charles L. (ed.) 1971. The Complete Book of Game Conservation. London: Barrie and Jenkins. Colonnelli, Giuseppina, Giuseppe M. Carpaneto and Mauro Cristaldi. 2000. “Uso alimentare e allevamento del ghiro (Myoxus glis) presso gli antichi romani:

materiale e documenti.” Atti del 2 Convegno Nazionale di Archeozoologia. Asti, 14-16 Novembre 1997, 315-25. Forli: Abaco. Columeau Philippe. 1996. "Les restes de faune du sanctuaire d'Aphrodite à Amathonte," BCH 120: 779-797. Columeau, Philippe. 2000. “Sacrifice et viande dans les sanctuaires grecs et chypriotes (VIIe siècle - Ier siècle av. J.C.) et l'apport de l'habitat de Kassopè. ” Pallas 52: 147-166. Corbier, Mireille. 1999. “La transhumance. Aperçus historiographiques et acquis récents.” In La question agraire à Rome: droit romain et société. Perceptions historiques et historiographiques, edited by Ella Hermon, 37-57. Como: Edizioni New Press. Davis, Simon J.M. 1997. “The Agricultural Revolution in England: Some Zooarchaeological evidence,” Anthropozoologica 25-26: 413-28. De Vries, Jan. 1974. The Dutch Rural Economy in the Golden Age, 1500-1700. New Haven: Yale University Press. De Grossi Mazzorin, Jacopo, and Antonio Tagliacozzo. 1997. “Dog remains in Italy from the Neolithic to the Roman Period.” Anthropozoologica 25-26: 429-40. De Grossi Mazzorin, Jacopo, Antonio Tagliacozzo, and Alfonso Riedel. 1998. “Horse remains in Italy from the Eneolithic to the Roman period.” Proceedings of the XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Forlì (Italia) 8-14 september 1996, 87-92. Forli: Abaco. Erich, M.S. 1991. “Agronomic effectiveness of wood ash as a source of phosphorus and potassium,” Journal of Environmental Quality 20: 576–581. Everynck, Anton and Keith Dobney. 2002. “A pig for all seasons? Approaches to the assessment of second farrowing in Archaeological pig populations.” Archaeofauna 11: 7-22. Farrington, Edward I. 1913. The Home Poultry Book. Toronto: McClelland and Goodchild. Flach, Dieter. 1990. Römische Agrargeschichte. Munich: C.H. Beck. Fletcher, T. John. 1989. “Deer farming in Europe.” In Wildlife Production Systems. Economic utilisation of wild ungulates, edited by Robert.J. Hudson et al., 323-33.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Forstenpointner, Gerhard. 1990. "Tierknochenfunde aus der arkadischen Ansiedlung Lousoi. Erste Ergebnisse," Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 60: 37-47. Forstenpointner, Gerhard, Hofer, Martin. 1997. "Kulturhistorische and landschaftsmorphologische Ergebnisse aus der Untersuchung der Tiernochenfunde von Lousoi in Arkadien," Anthropozoologica 25-26: 683-90. Forstenpointner, Gerhard, Hofer, Martin. 2001. "Geschöpfe des Pan. Archäozoologische Befunde zu Faunistik und Haustierhaltung im hellenistischen Arkadien," In Forschungen in der Peloponnes. Akten des Symposions anlässlich der Feier "100 Jahre Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut Athen", Athen 5.3.-7.3.1998, 169179. Athens: Österreichischen Archäologischen Institut. Forstenpointner, Gerhard, Galik, A. Weissengruber, G.E. et al. 2008. "Archäozoologie," In Das Vediusgymnasium in Ephesos. Archäologie und Baubefund (Ephesos XIV.1), 211-234. Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Forstenpointner, G., Galik, A., Weissengruber, G. 2010a. "Tierreste," in Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohnheiten 1 und 2, Austattung, Baubefund und Funde. A. Wohnheit 1, 357-72. Vienna. Forstenpointner, G., Galik, A., Weissengruber, G. 2010b. "Tierreste," in Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohnheiten 1 und 2, Austattung, Baubefund und Funde. B. Wohnheit 2, 684. Vienna. Fox, Michael W. 1984. Farm Animals. Husbandry, behaviour, and veterinary practice (Viewpoints of a critic). Baltimore: University Park Press. Frame, John, Charlton, J.F.L., Laidlaw, A. S. 1998. Temperate Forage Legumes. Oxford: CAB International. Frayn, Joan M. Sheep-rearing and the wool trade in Italy during the Roman period. Liverpool: Cairns. Gardeisen, Armelle, Valenzuela Lamas, S. 2004. "A propos de la présence de lapins en contexte gallo-romain à Lattara (Lattes, Hérault, France)," In Petits animaux et sociétés humaines. Du complément alimentaire aux ressources utilitaires, 235-254. Antibes: Éditions APDCA, 2004.

Gardeisen, Armelle, Valenzuela, Silvia. 2010. "Leporaria urbanos. Problemática y evidencias en el registro arqueológico de Lattara (Hérault, Francia)," Pyrenae 41: 119-140. Gardiner, Tom P. 1996. Peafowl: their conservation, breeding, and management. Surrey, B.C.: Hancock House Publishing. Gardner WK, Parbery DG, Barber DA. 1982. "The acquisition of phosphorus by Lupinus albus L. I. Some characteristics of the soil/root interface," Plant and Soil 68: 19– 32. Gardner WK, Barber DA, Parbery DG. 1983. "The acquisition of phosphorus by Lupinus albus L. III. The probable mechanism by which phosphorus movement in the soil/root interface is enhanced," Plant and Soil 70: 107–124. Georgoudi, Stella. 1990. Des chevaux et des boeufs dans le monde grec. Réalités et représentations animalières à partir des livres XVI et XVII des "Géoponiques." Paris-Athens: Daedalus. Goudineau, Christian. 1983. "Marseilles, Rome and Gaul from the Third to the First Century BC," in Trade in the Ancient Economy, edited by P. Garnsey, K. Hopkins, C.R. Whittaker, 76-86. London: University of California Press. Graßl, H. 1985. "Zur Geschichte des Viehhandels in klassischen Griechenland," Münstersche Beiträge zur antiken Handelsgeschichte 4: 77-87. Habermann, W. 1987. "IG I 386/387, sizilische Häute und die athenisch-sizilischen Handelsbeziehungen im 5. Jahrh. v. Chr.," Münstersche Beiträge zur antiken Handelsgeschichte 6: 89-113. Heady, Harold F. and R. Dennis Childs. 1994. Rangeland Ecology and Management. Boulder: Westview Press. Heath, Maurice, Darrell S. Metcalfe and Robert F. Barnes. 1973. Forages. The science of grassland agriculture. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press. Hodge, A. Trevor. 1999. Ancient Greek France, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Hodkinson, Stephen. 1988. “Animal Husbandry in the Greek Polis.” In Pastoral Economies in Classical Antiquity, edited by C. Richard Whitakker, 35-74. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society.

Howe, Tim. 2008. Pastoral Politics: Animals, Agriculture and Society in Ancient Greece. Claremont, CA.: Regina Books. Jeppesen, Kristian, Højlund, Flemming, Aaris-Sørensen, Kim. 1981. The Maussolleion at Halikarnassos. Reports of the Danish archaeological expedition to Bodrum, 1. The sacrificial deposit. Copenhagen: Jutland Archaeological Society. Kerridge, Eric. 1999. The Agricultural Revolution. London: Allen & Unwin. King, Anthony C. 1984. “Animal Bones and the Dietary Identity of Military and Civilian Groups in Roman Britain, Germany and Gaul.” In Military and Civilian in Roman Britain, edited by Thomas F.C. Blagg, Anthony C. King, 187-217. Oxford: BAR. King, Anthony C. 1997. "Animal bones," in Excavations at the Mola di Monte Gelato: a Roman and medieval settlement in South Etruria, edited by T.W. Potter, A.C. King, 383-404. London: British School at Rome. King, Anthony C. n.d. "The animal bones from Santa Maria la Nova," (unpublished report) Kokabi, Mustafa. 1988. “Viehhaltung und Jagd in römischen Rottweil.” In Arae Flaviae IV, 105-234. Stuttgart: Müller & Gräff. Kotjabopoulou, Eleni, Yannis Hamilakis, Paul Halstead, et al. 2003. Zooarchaeology in Greece; recent advances. (British School at Athens Studies, 9). Oxford: Oxbow. Kron, Geoffrey. 2002. “Archaeozoology and the Productivity of Roman Livestock Farming,” Münstersche Beiträge zur Antike Handelsgeschichte 21, 2: 53-73. Kron, Geoffrey. 2004a. “Roman Live-stock Farming in Southern Italy: The Case Against Environmental Determinism,” In Espaces intégrés et gestion des ressources naturelles dans l'Empire romain, edited by Monique Clavel-Léveque and Ella Hermon, 119-34. Franche-Comté: Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté. Kron, Geoffrey. 2004b. “A Deposit of Carbonized Hay from Oplontis and Roman Fodder Quality,” Mouseion Series III, Vol. 4: 275-331. Kron, Geoffrey. 2008a. "Animal husbandry, Hunting, Fishing and Pisciculture,” In The Oxford Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World. New York, edited by John Oleson, 176-222. New York: Oxford University Press. Kron, Geoffrey. 2008b. “The Much Maligned Peasant. Comparative Perspectives on the

Productivity of the Small Farmer in Classical Antiquity,” In People, Land, and Politics: Demographic Developments and the Transformation of Roman Italy 300 BC - AD 14, edited by J. Northwood and L. De Ligt, 71-119. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Kron, Geoffrey. forthcoming. “Food Production,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Economic History of the Roman World, edited by W. Scheidel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Krostitz, Wolfgang. 1979. The Growing International Market for Game Meat. Rome: FAO. Lauwerier, Roel C.G.M. 1988. Animals in Roman times in the Dutch eastern river area. Amersfoort: ROB. Leguilloux, Martine. 1997. "L'Acquisition des techniques d'élevage bovin en Narbonnaise orientale," in Techniques et économie antiques et médiévales: le temps de l'innovation. Colloque international (C.N.R.S.) Aix-en-Provence 21-3 Mai 1996, edited by D. Meeks, D. Garcia, 172-4. Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence. Leguilloux, Martine. 1999. “Sacrifices et repas publics dans le sanctuaire de Poséidon à Ténos. Les analyses archéozoologiques.” BCH 123: 423-455. Leguilloux, Martine. 2000a. “L'alimentation carnée au Ier millénaire avant J.C. en Grèce continentale et dans les Cyclades. Premiers résultats archéozoologiques,” Pallas 52: 69-95. Leguilloux, Martine 2000b. "L'hécatombe de l'ekklesiasterion de Poseidonia-Paestum. Le témoignage de la faune," In Rites et espaces en pays celte et méditerranéen. Etude comparée à partir du sanctuaire d'Acy-Romance (Ardennes, France), 341-351. Rome: École Française de Rome, 2000). Leguilloux, Martine. 2003. "The Delian chora in classical and hellenistic times. An island landscape planned for pastoralism," In Zooarchaeology in Greece. Recent advances, 251-256. London: British School at Athens. Lehman, P. and G. Breuer. 1997. “The Use-specific and social-topographical differences found in the composition of animal species found in the Roman city of Augusta Raurica (Switzerland),” Anthropozoologica 25-26: 487-94.

Lelli, Emanuele, ed. 2010. L'agricoltura antica: I Geoponica di Cassiano Basso, 2 vols. Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino. Lepetz, Sébastien. 1996. L’animal dans la société gallo-romaine de la France du Nord. Amiens: Révue Archéologique de Picardie. Lepetz, Sébastien, Leguilloux, Martine. 1996. "L'élevage en Narbonnaise et en Gaule du nord. Continuités ou ruptures? " In Le IIIe siècle en Gaule Narbonnaise. Données régionales sur la crise de l'empire. Sophia Antipolis, 257-275. Lepetz, Sébastien, Yvinec, Jean-Hervé. 2002. "Présence d'espèces animales d'origine méditerranéenne en France du Nord pendant aux périodes romaines et médiévales: actions anthopiques et mouvements naturales," In Mouvements ou déplacements des populations animales en Méditerranée au cours de l'Holocene, edited by Armelle Gardeisen, 33-42. Oxford: BAR. Luxmoore, Richard A. 1989. “International trade.” In Wildlife Production Systems. Economic utilisation of wild ungulates, edited by Robert J. Hudson et al., 28-50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MacKinnon, Michael R. 1999. “The faunal remains,” in A Roman villa and late Roman infant cemetery. Excavation at Poggio Gramignano (Lugnano in Teverina), edited by D.S. Soren, N. Soren, 533-94. Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider. MacKinnon, Michael R. 2004. Production and consumption of animals in Roman Italy. Integrating the zooarchaeological and textual evidence. Portsmouth, R.I.: Journal of Roman Archaeology. MacKinnon, Michael R., Bélanger, Kyle. 2006. "In Sickness and in Health: Care for an Arthritic Maltese Dog from the Roman Cemetery of Yasmina, Carthage, Tunisia," In Dogs and People in Social, Working, Economic or Symbolic Interaction, edited by L. M. Snyder and E. A. Moore, 38-43. Oxford: Oxbow Books. MacKinnon, Michael R. 2010. "‘Sick as a dog’: zooarchaeological evidence for pet dog health and welfare in the Roman world," World Archaeology 42: 290-309. Magerstedt, Adolf F. 1859. Die Viehzucht der Römer für Archäologen und wissenschaftliche gebildete Landwirthe. Walluf: Sändig. Martin, René. 1971. Recherches sur les agronomes latines et leurs conceptions économiques et sociales. Paris: Belles Lettres.

Massendari, J. 2007. "Les agronomes latins et l'archéologie agraire. Stabulation et parcage du bétail," Pallas 75: 59-76. Menke, John W. 1989. "Management Controls on Productivity," in Grassland Structure and Function: California Annual Grasslands, edited by L. F. Huenneke, H. A. Mooney, 173-99. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Monckton, Stephen G. 2002. "Plant Remains," in The Excavations of San Giovanni di Ruoti, Volume 3: the Faunal and Plant Remains, edited by M. MacKinnon. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Montagné, Prosper. 1961. Larousse Gastronomique. New York: Crown Publishers. Moriceau, Jean-Marc. 1999. L'élevage sous l'Ancien Régime: les fondements agraires de la France moderne, XVIe-XVIIIe siècles. Paris: SEDES. Morris, Pat. 1979. Agricultural Buildings in Roman Britain. Oxford: BAR. Moulé, Léon. 1891. Histoire de la médecine vétérinaire. Première periode. Histoire de la médecine vétérinaire dans l’antiquité. Paris: Bulletin de la Société Centrale de Médecine Vétérinaire. Nobis, Günter. 1994. "Die Tierreste aus dem antiken Messene - Grabung 1990-91," In Beiträge zur Archäologie und prähistorischen Anthropologie 8: 297-313. Nobis, Günter. 1999. "Die Tierreste von Karthago," In Karthago III. Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen in Karthago, edited by A. von den Driesch et al., 574-632. Mainz am Rhein: Zabern. Nobis, Günther. 2000. "Tierreste aus dem phönizischen Kition," In Periplus. Festschrift für Hans-Günter Buchholz zu seinem achtzigsten Geburtstag am 24. Dezember 1999, 121-134. Jonsered: Paul Åströms. Oder, Eugen. 1890. “Beiträge zur Geschichte der Landwirthschaft bei den Griechen,” Rheinische Museum 45: 58–99, 212–22. Olive, Claude and Sabine Deschler-Erb. 1999. “Poulets de grain et rôtis du cerf. Produits de luxe pour les villes Romaines.” Archäologie der Schweiz 22: 35-8. Olson, S. Douglas and Alexander Sens. 2000. Archestratos of Gela. Greek Culture and Cuisine in the Fourth Century BCE. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pasquinucci, Marinella and Emilio Gabba. 1979. Strutture agrarie e allevamento transumante nell’Italia romana, III-I sec. a.C. Pisa: Biblioteca di studi antichi.

Pasquinucci, Marinella. 2004. “Montagna e pianura: transumanza e allevamento,” In Espaces intégrés et gestion des ressources naturelles dans l'Empire romain, edited by Monique Clavel-Léveque and Ella Hermon, 165-78. Franche-Comté: Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté. Pawson, Henry C. 1957. Robert Bakewell. Pioneer Livestock Breeder. London: C. Lockwood. Payne, Sebastian. 1985. “Zoo-archaeology in Greece: a reader’s guide.” In Contributions to Aegean Archaeology. Studies in honor of William A. McDonald (Athens), edited by Nancy C. Wilkie and William D.E. Coulson, 211-44. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing. Perrins, C.M., Crick, H.Q.P. 1996. "Influence of Lunar Cycle on Laying Dates of European Nightjars (Caprimulgus europaeus)," The Auk 113: 705-708. Peters, Joris, von den Driesch, Angela. 1997. “The two-humped camel (Camelus bactrianus): New light on its distribution, management and medical treatment in the past.” Journal of Zoology 242 (1997): 651-679. Peters, Joris. 1998. Römische Tierhaltung und Tierzucht. Eine Synthese aus archäozoologischer Untersuchung und schriftlich-bildlicher Überlieferung. Rahden: Leidorf. Pleket, H. Willem. 1993. “Agriculture in the Roman empire in comparative perspective.” In De Agricultura. In Memoriam Pieter Willem de Neeve (1945-1990), edited by Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg, 214-37. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. Prummel, Wietske. 1987. “Poultry and fowling at the Roman era castellum,” Palaeohistoria 29: 183-201. Pulak, C. Townsend, R.F. 1987. "The hellenistic shipwreck at Serçe Limanı, Turkey. Preliminary report," AJA 91: 31-57. Quilici-Gigli, Stefania. 1989. "Paesaggi storici dell’agro falisco: I prata di Corchiano," Opuscula Romana 17: 123-35. Reese, David S. 1994. “Recent work in Greek zooarchaeology.” In Beyond the site. Regional studies in the Aegean area, edited by P. Nick Kardoulias, 191-221. Lanham, Md: University Presses of America.

Renecker, Lyle A., Blyth, C., Gates, C.C. 1989. "Game Production in Western Canada," In Wildlife Production Systems: Economic Utilisation of Wild Ungulates, edited by R.J. Hudson, K.R. Drew and L.M. Baskin, 248-267. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richardson, Alan E., Hocking, Peter J., Simpson, Richard J., George, Timothy J. 2009. "Plant mechanisms to optimize access to soil phosphorus," Crop and Pasture Science 60: 124-43. Riedel, Alfonso. 1994. “Archaeozoological investigations in North-eastern Italy: the exploitation of animals since the Neolithic.” Preistoria Alpina 30: 43-94. Rinkewitz, Wolfgang. 1984. Pastio Villatica : Untersuchungen zur intensiven Hoftierhaltung in der römischen Landwirtschaft. Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang. Rosivach, Vincent J. 1994. The system of public sacrifice in fourth-century Athens. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. Roy, James R. 1999. "The Economies of Arkadia," In J.R. Roy, T.H. Nielsen (eds.), Defining Ancient Arkadia. Symposium, April 1-4, 1998: 320-81. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Polis Center. Ryder, Michael L. and John W. Hedges. 1973. “Ancient Scythian wool from the Crimea,” Nature 242: 480. Ryder, Michael L. 1983. Sheep and Man. London: Duckworth. Senet, André. 1953. Histoire de la médecine vétérinaire. Paris: PUF. Spurr, Michael S. Arable cultivation in Roman Italy 200 BC – AD 200. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies. Vance, Carroll P., Uhde-Stone, Claudia, Allan, Deborah L. 2003. "Phosphorus acquisition and use: critical adaptations by plants for securing a nonrenewable resource," New Phytologist 157: 423–447. Watson, J.P.N. 1992. "The mammals," in An Iron Age and Roman Republican settlement on Botromagno: Gravina di Puglia. Excavations of 1965-1974. Volume I: The site, edited by A. Small, 93-120. London: British School at Rome. White, Kenneth D. 1970. Roman Farming. London and New York: Thames & Hudson.

Wilkens, Barbara. 1991. "I resti faunistici," in G. Ciampoltrini, P. Rendini, B. Wilkens, "L’alimentazione nell’abitato etrusco di Montecatino in Val Freddana (Lucca)," Studia Etrusca 56: 275-84.