In this project, I view migration as a patterned human process, but also one that can and should be investigated at the level of the individual. Similar to Stein’s (2002) encapsulation of the new wave of archaeological conceptualization of migration, my work combines processual approaches to data (namely, an understanding of the geopolitical structure in which migration occurred and use of the replicable methodologies of osteological and biochemical analyses) with postprocessual approaches to theory (that is, research foci on agency, gender, ethnicity, and identity). Because of the nature of my data set – human skeletal remains – my approach to migration is largely microtheoretical in character. Contemporary anthropological discussions of transnationalism and diaspora therefore inform the research streams of this study, with the recognition that some aspects of these modern phenomena are not applicable to the preindus- trial world.4
4For example, anthropologists are interested in contemporary transmigrants’ economic ties to their homeland, such as whether they send money to family back home or own property in different nations. Although the prein- dustrial world on which most archaeology is focused did not allow for such events, there is evidence from the Roman Empire that soldiers stationed elsewhere wrote letters home, as from Vindolanda (Bowman, 1998), and that people could send money (Andreau, 1999). Nevertheless, it was likely only the elite who had access to these forms of communication, and the majority of migrants at Rome were members of the lower class.
The traditional data sets used in investigating migrants at Rome are archaeological remains and epigraphical inscriptions on tombstones, in addition to the historical record (Dyson, 1988). These data sources, however, come up short in a variety of ways. First, the historical record is notoriously biased towards elite men, those with money, power, and literacy. As discussed in chapter 2, while written records can indicate an individual’s motivation to migrate, by and large they focus on the elite’s perception of foreigners and slaves at Rome, which is not useful for understanding either the context of migration or immigrants’ day-to-day experiences at Rome. Second, although there have been numerous archaeological surveys of the suburbium, no solid evidence of immigrants, either free or slave, has been found (Witcher, 2005). Slaves in particular were integrated into the household; although they had their own quarters, these were not separate from the main house in the way slave quarters were on Southern U.S. plan- tations and therefore not recoverable archaeologically.5 Further, no material culture has been
identified that is clearly slave in nature unlike in the Southern U.S., where certain types and assemblages of pottery (e.g., Colonoware) are thought to have been generally slave-created and therefore indicative of a slave household (Webster, 2008). Without clear items indicating restraint or ownership, the widespread belief is that slaves in Rome were archaeologically in- visible (Webster, 2005, 2008). One approach to using archaeological data to see immigrants is in investigating the ritual behavior surrounding marginal members of society. Burmeister (2000, p. 542) suggests that burial of infants and children, for example, can be sites of ritual enaction and therefore might not be outfitted based on social convention.
Third, the epigraphical record is useful in telling us specifically when an individual was commemorated as a foreigner. Noy’s (2000) exhaustive treatment of free foreigners at Rome lists numerous geographical origins, shows evidence of migrants of all ages and both sexes, and
5Carandini (1988), however, has suggested in his analysis of the Settefinestre villa in Tuscany that slave quar- ters are identifiable in this surprisingly utilitarian domestic structure. His identification references the structure of plantations in the Southern U.S. during slavery. I do not know of any specific analysis of structures or objects of slavery in Rome, however.
greatly contributes to the argument that migration was an integral part of Roman society. How- ever, we cannot see foreigners who were not mentioned as such on their tombstones. Every person is buried by those he left behind, but slaves in particular would have been commem- orated at the whims of their masters rather than by their own families or any ethnic or social group to which they belonged. The vast majority of immigrants to Rome would have come as slaves, and these are also the people least likely to appear in the epigraphical record of Rome.
The major barrier to a study of migration to Rome is therefore in finding concrete evidence of foreigners, and the absence of material culture and written records has caused research into migrants at Rome to stagnate. Contrary to the assumption that archaeological data cannot speak to the individual migrant (Burmeister, 2000), I start from the premise that osteological remains and bioarchaeological context provide a significant amount of information about migration to Rome. These data can be informed by primary source material and epigraphical inscriptions, provided authorial biases are appropriately acknowledged. More importantly, skeletal remains can lead to the identification of immigrants who were never commemorated epigraphically and who are archaeologically invisible.
Operationalizing migration to Imperial Rome thus necessitates osteological and biochemi- cal analysis of human skeletal remains. Bioarchaeological investigations of migration around the world have been ongoing for over a decade through the use of strontium and oxygen iso- tope analysis of dental enamel (Ezzo et al., 1997; Grupe et al., 1997; Knudson and Price, 2007; Montgomery et al., 2000, 2005; Price et al., 1994b,a, 2000, 2001, 2002; Schweissing and Grupe, 2003). The basic premise of these biochemical methods, which are fully discussed in chapter 7, is that consumption of food and water resources at a specific geographical location leaves a chemical signature in the dental enamel that forms during childhood. An individual whose enamel isotope results are significantly different from the local isotope range is consid- ered to have been born and raised in a different geographical area, and therefore an immigrant. Isotope analysis of human skeletal remains is thus the primary method by which I identify immigrants at Rome. Each individual is also studied using standard osteological methodology
(Buikstra and Ubelaker, 1994), which yields information on age at death, sex, and disease. In this way, the basic demographic structure of the immigrant population at Rome starts to unfold. After individuals are identified as nonlocal, it is possible to ask additional questions in an attempt to understand the quality of life at Rome. The disease load of the immigrant population can be compared with that of the local to investigate whether life was more difficult for the newcomers to Rome, as is suggested by both primary and secondary sources. Similarly, dietary analysis can indicate general trends in consumption of food. If immigrants, particularly slaves, were mistreated and underfed, the carbon and nitrogen isotope analysis of their bones could indicate a diet heavily reliant on inexpensive cereals, which might have led to protein-calorie malnutrition.
Pushing the data further within a theoretical framework of transnationalism and diaspora, it becomes possible to assess acculturation from a physical standpoint. As footnoted above, Ro- man archaeologists argue about the causes for material culture change in the provinces, many advocating the permanent retirement of the hoary concept of Romanization as a unidirectional acculturative force. It is unsurprising, then, against this background of assumed acculturation and a lack of “ethnic” and “slave” material culture at Rome, that topics such as identity, ethnic- ity, and resistance do not arise in studies of migrants at Rome. However, Noy (2000) does note that immigrants might have pursued a “strategy of integration” (ibid., 10) and therefore “it is possible to look for signs that foreigners at Rome tried to preserve their separate identity, but much harder to look for signs that they did not” (ibid., 160). Migrants to Rome could look the same archaeologically as locally-born Romans; however, absence of “foreign” culture does not necessarily imply acculturation (Stein, 2002). Given the fact that immigrants to Rome can be identified on the basis of their physical remains, analysis of another data set is necessary to in- vestigate identity, ethnicity, or resistance. Burmeister (2000, p. 542) notes that archaeological proof of migration can be found in the internal, private domain rather than the external, public domain. Because the internal domain is not directly connected to the external one, old habits can persist. Some private practices that immigrants might translate to material remains at their
destination include the interior architecture of houses, dietary practices given similar food re- sources at the sending and receiving areas, and burial ritual of marginal persons. In this study, therefore, following identification of immigrants using isotope analysis, I investigate patterns of burial between immigrants and locals and patterns in their foodways both in childhood and before death. Maintenance of traditional ways – and therefore preservation of foreign identity or lack thereof – can thus be investigated in Roman (bio)archaeology in a way that has never before been possible.
Biochemical analyses are far from perfect, particularly in regard to their application to the geologically complex area of the Roman suburbium. As further discussed in chapter 8, short- distance migration cannot be seen through the current model of the strontium isotope range at Rome. Additional studies of human skeletal remains will greatly help refine the results of this initial study, but it is possible that the combination of geological complexity and aqueduct- transported water will stymie a more microscopic view. Further, neither isotope nor osteologi- cal analysis can judge whether an individual came to Rome voluntarily or by force, or whether that individual was manumitted during life or at what age manumission occurred. Isotope anal- ysis is not a panacea to the limitations in the archaeological and epigraphical evidence, but its utility for answering questions about migration to Rome has never been investigated. As Phil Walker (2000, p. 14) has noted, “By using a series of data sources that, standing alone, would be open to many different interpretations, it is in this way possible to triangulate on what re- ally happened in the past.” Human skeletal remains, subject to different taphonomic processes and issues of interpretation than linguistic and material evidence, can aid Roman archaeology in establishing a base from which we can formulate hypotheses and answer questions about migration to Rome.
Methodologically, new techniques in bioarchaeology allow us to find the biological remains of individual immigrants, investigate changes at various times in their lives, and view individ- uals within the context of the community (Buikstra, 2006). There is a dialectical quality to this sort of research, as an individual skeleton is interesting for the unique set of information it can
yield, but only by placing that individual within a mosaic of individuals can we interpret the patterns, similarities, and differences seen. Bioarchaeology, then, allows us to ask and answer questions about migrants at different scales, from the individual to the group to the larger com- munity. Contemporary anthropological theories of transnationalism and diaspora are thus best suited to a bioarchaeological study of migration to Rome. The combination of all available data sources about migrants – historical, archaeological, and biological – within the frameworks of geopolitical and population interaction in the Empire sets this research apart from traditional approaches to migration to Rome.