I n t r o d u c t i o n
L
iving cities require both human and non-human occupants.Indeed, animals form an integral component of urban life.
Sometimes in their capacity as pack animals, pets or providers of various consumable and/or non-consumable resources they are pur-poseful additions to this context. At other times they are unwelcome pests.
Animals were certainly essential to ancient Roman life. They fac-tored in aspects such as transport, food supply, dress and adornment, agriculture and husbandry, hunting, war, religion, pets, pleasure and sci-entific interest and entertainment. Moreover, their contributions within these domains altered as Rome developed and changed, with resultant impact on city life in general. Nevertheless, while animals were clearly important and omnipresent in ancient Rome, their analysis has tradi-tionally received little attention by classical historians and archaeologists, who have focused more intently on the people and monuments of this impressive city. This imbalance highlights the need to assess, in greater detail, the role of non-human beings to the urban fabric of Rome. How many animals populated the city, and what were the consequences for the human inhabitants? What types of animals were around? Where did they live? How were they treated? These are key questions to investigate.
S o u r c e s o f d a t a
Archaeologists and historians generally consult three key lines of evi-dence to reconstruct the role of animals in ancient Rome. First, inscrip-tions and other ancient texts – whether agricultural treatises, com-modity price lists, pastoral poems, fictional or mythological tales, legal
P a c k a n i m a l s , p e t s , p e s t s , a n d o t h e r n o n - h u m a n b e i n g s
transactions or other forms of surviving script – reference animals or their products. Second, images of animals survive in ancient sculpture, mosaic, painting and other iconographical media. Finally, bones and other remains excavated from archaeological sites provide important data about the actual animals themselves, and their roles in antiquity.
Each source has its strengths and weaknesses, making their combina-tion integral for holistic reconstruccombina-tion. Considerable ancient textual and iconographical evidence for Roman animals exists, but effective use of these sources requires a thorough understanding of the temporal and social context surrounding the creation and purpose of each written reference or visual representation. Details about the author’s or artist’s intentions, his experiences, skills and knowledge, and the demands and expectations of his audience are essential to contextualize and assess the value, role and purpose of such works. Similarly, animal bones col-lected from archaeological sites yield data about many topics – species and elements represented; age, sex and size differences; pathological conditions; butchery and burial circumstances; among others – to facil-itate reconstructions of past animal use. However, samples analysed must be addressed in light of sometimes complex natural and cultural con-ditions shaping their deposition, preservation, recovery and ultimate interpretation.
Table 7.1 lists archaeological sites in Rome, dating from the sixth century bc to the seventh century ad, with available faunal samples. The collection is relatively small, considering the long history of archaeolog-ical activity in the city. It should be appreciated, however, that animal bones have only been retrieved systematically from classical sites roughly since the 1980s, and even today they are not always collected or exam-ined, with results published or otherwise disseminated. Temporally, the sites listed span from Rome’s beginnings to its decline in Late Antiq-uity; however, fewer zooarchaeological data exist for earlier phases than for imperial or late antique times. Spatially, most bones derive from excavations in or near the Roman Forum, although some collections from areas further removed are noted. In general four categories exist:
(1) rubbish from food processing and consumption; (2) disposal of ani-mals, such as pets, pack animals and other working or entertainment beasts, most of which generally were not consumed by humans; (3) pests and associated vermin living in the city; (4) animal remains from ritual and sacrificial offerings. By far, the biggest zooarchaeological samples derive from food animals, although representatives from the latter three categories exist. Nevertheless, the distinction among these groups is not always explicit from the archaeological context. Moreover, animals
Table 7.1 NISP frequencies for zooarchaeological samples from ancient sites in Rome
Niger Lapis 6–5 bc Ritual Na cattle
sacrifice
Via Sacra 6–5/4 bc misc. waste 93 52.7 17.2 30.1
Aqua Marcia 2 bc misc. waste 5 60.0 20.0 20.0
Aqua Marcia 1 bc–ad 1 misc. waste 178 24.2 4.5 56.7
Forum Transitorium Flavian misc. waste 73 12.3 9.6 76.7
Caput Africae ad 1 misc. waste 41 4.9 9.8 78.0
Quirinale ad 1 misc. waste 1279 3.8 14.5 75.6
Aqua Marcia ad 1–2 misc. waste 149 7.4 13.4 72.5
Aqua Marcia ad 2–3 misc. waste 86 23.3 68.6
Caput Africae ad 2–3 misc. waste 177 0.6 23.7 68.4
Crypta Balbi (Mithraeum)
ad 3–5 Ritual 429 3.7 11.4 53.8
Schola Praeconum ad 5 misc. waste 1736 8.6 33.2 48.5
Meta Sudans (US
∗ NISP (= Number of Identified Specimens) for all animal taxa (does not include shells).
See MacKinnon 2004 for references to individual sites, except: Crypta Balbi (De Grossi Mazzorin 2004; De Grossi Mazzorin and Minniti 2001).
often fulfilled numerous roles in ancient Rome, roles that may intersect categories listed above.
F o o d a n i m a l s
Figure 7.1 displays mean NISP1 frequencies for the three major mammalian meat taxa, or animal groupings, for ancient Rome over
1 NISP (=Number of Identified Specimens) is a count of the number of bones identi-fied per taxon from a zooarchaeological assemblage. It is a fairly common quantifier in zooarchaeological research.
P a c k a n i m a l s , p e t s , p e s t s , a n d o t h e r n o n - h u m a n b e i n g s
per cent NISP
equid dog cat wild
animals rodent chicken other
avian fish reptile amphibian other
0.6 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.1 1.1 shells (4)
1.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1
vulture
2.2 6.7 0.6 3.9 1.1 shells (7)
1.4 shells (9)
2.4 2.4 2.4
0.1 0.9 3.7 1.4 shells (179)
0.7 1.3 1.3 2.7 1.3 shells (16)
4.7 1.2 2.3 shells (17)
0.6 1.1 4.0 1.7
1.2 0.7 24.0 4.2 0.9
0.5 1.4 0.1 0.1 7.6 shells (405)
11.9 5.3 1.3 1.3 9.0 2.4 1.7 0.2
1.5 1.1 1.0 3.3 1.8 6.2 0.7 1.0 0.2 shells (376)
time. Statistics from individual sites are pooled and averaged according to broad temporal periods (i.e. Republic, imperial, Late Antiquity).
Sacrificial assemblages are excluded. The data indicate a progressive increase in pig consumption throughout antiquity, presumably a reflection of the value of pork to the Roman diet. Although meat did not dominate ancient diets (see Chapter 15), pork, when available and affordable, was a favoured food for the Romans. As prolific breeders and providers of no other significant resources beyond their meat, pigs could be kept at lower production costs than other domesticates, like cattle and sheep. Consequently, pork dishes dominate meat recipes, such as those of Apicius. The increase in pork consumption in Rome might reflect shifting market demands to capitalize on this commodity, perhaps a sign of increased wealth and urbanization. The rise may also
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Republic (n=98, 2 sites)
Imperial (n=2747, 11 sites)
Late Antiquity (n=6721, 3 sites)
% NISP
cattle sheep/goat pig
F i g u r e 7 . 1 Mean NISP frequency of cattle, sheep/goat and pig across time, for sites in Rome.
have been fuelled by the annona schemes implemented by imperial and late antique emperors. Under these systems, free rations of pork were distributed to Roman citizens, about 2 kgs per person per month for Late Antiquity. Archaeological and ancient historical evidence indicates that farms in central and southern Italy carried the bulk of the burden in supplying Rome with pigs. Moreover, Rome appears able to sustain traditional dietary patterns of high pork consumption throughout the fourth and early fifth centuries ad, at a time when rural Italy was shifting towards more sheep and goat pastoralism. Such a pattern attests to the city’s wealth and influence in terms of food supply networks and annona schemes.2
Cattle were important in antiquity, but principally as work ani-mals, pulling ploughs, hauling wagons and other duties. Although veal was marketed in ancient Rome, generally as a luxury considering its high price relative to beef, cattle were chiefly consumed as older indi-viduals, after serving as traction and/or brood stock. Higher NISP per-centages for cattle during the Republic arguably indicate a reliance on these animals as plough beasts, at a time of agricultural growth. Their
2 For further details about the annona schemes, and supplying Rome with pork, see Chapter 15, as well as Sirks 1991 and MacKinnon 2004.
P a c k a n i m a l s , p e t s , p e s t s , a n d o t h e r n o n - h u m a n b e i n g s
decline afterwards, however, marks a concomitant shift to pig hus-bandry among many herders, as market demands changed, and accessi-ble cattle pastures in Italy dwindled at the expense of other agricultural pursuits.
Sheep and goat NISP values for ancient Rome typically register their lowest figures in imperial contexts, coincident with pork increases. Economically, sheep factored more as wool producers, although, as with veal and beef, sufficient and consistent demands for lamb and mutton existed among Roman cities, with meat markets catering to suit. A trend, in Rome, towards increased sheep and goat percentages from imperial to late antique times appears, but the shift is not as noticeable in urban areas as among rural sites in Italy, which tend towards decentralized, small, pastoral operations at this time, as the empire experiences economic and social conflicts.3
Although domestic mammals contributed the bulk of Rome’s meat, domestic fowl, including chickens, ducks, and geese, also fac-tored. Zooarchaeological data confirm their presence, with rather small, but consistent, contributions of c. 2 per cent of total NISP values across time.4 Wild mammals also figure infrequently among zooarchaeolog-ical samples from Rome, but certainly enough to confirm marketing of game, a luxury foodstuff. Wild birds, including thrushes and other songbirds, were available, some of which could derive from specialized aviaries set up in wealthier suburban or rural villas, although similar aviaries also may have existed in gardens of elite urban homes. Pigeons and doves were similarly maintained in aviaries, perhaps in cotes or pens on rooftops in urban areas (Juvenal 3.201–2; Plautus, Miles Glo-riosus 162; Manilius, Astronomica 5.364–80). Dormice, another Roman culinary delicacy typically bred in suburban and rural locales during antiquity, also need not be restricted solely to these places. Specialized jars (improperly called gliraria, but now known as vivaria in doliis) used to fatten dormice were recovered from excavations just outside Rome, with further examples noted in Pompeii and other urban centres.5 Finally, fish also factored in urban diets, but probably in relatively smaller numbers compared to mammals and birds, given available zooarchaeo-logical data.6While Rome’s fish derived chiefly from marine and river sources, decorative urban fishponds were not unknown among elite residences in the city.
3 King 1999. 4 MacKinnon 2004; De Grossi Mazzorin 2005.
5 Colonnelli et al. 2000. 6 MacKinnon 2004.
P e t a n i m a l s
Modern concepts of ‘pet’ imply personal relationships of intimacy and mutual understanding between animals and humans. In contrast to food animals, pets are often permitted access to household rooms, are given names and are not consumed. While there are certainly cases of pet-keeping in classical antiquity, many of which seem to paral-lel contemporary notions of the idea, caution should be exercised in linking such relationships too closely with modern pet culture.7 More-over, the line between ‘pet’ and ‘work animal’ was certainly blurred in antiquity for some taxa. Sheep dogs, hunting dogs, guard dogs, even draught- and performing dogs are noted in ancient texts, iconography and faunal remains; many may have been named and cared for as pets as well. A similar situation applies to horses, which could have been considered ‘pets’ despite also serving more utilitarian roles as cavalry or riding mounts, racehorses, draught animals, brood stock or other ‘work’
responsibilities. Less common pet animals in ancient Rome included cats, birds, hares, weasels, fish, and even monkeys and similar exotics.
Domesticated cats were rare in Rome until the end of the fifth century ad. Until then they were presumably imported from Egypt, where they were traditionally venerated as sacred animals.
Ample evidence for pet dogs in ancient Rome exists. Inscriptions and other ancient texts preserve anecdotal tales, epigrams, colourful descriptions, cherished memories and even funerary epitaphs about them. A famous example is the grave stele for Helena, the pet so loved it was deemed a ‘foster child’ by its owner (Fig. 7.2). This sculpted image is only one instance of many such representations of dogs from Roman iconography, which include images in all manner of media.
Perhaps more importantly, pet dogs are often depicted accompanying images of the deceased on lids of sarcophagi or on funerary couches, perhaps a testament to canine faithfulness in life and the afterlife. Finally, zooarchaeological data from Rome and elsewhere attest to a vast range of dog breeds and sizes during antiquity; the Romans certainly bred and introduced new types. Toy breeds become more prevalent dur-ing imperial times, probably as a status symbol. At the same time, there is a dramatic diversification of dog varieties, ranging from 20 cm
7 Gilhus 2006, 29 suggests the label ‘personal animals’ be used instead of ‘pet’ in reference to ancient human–animal relationships, to avoid confusions with modern concepts of pet-keeping.
P a c k a n i m a l s , p e t s , p e s t s , a n d o t h e r n o n - h u m a n b e i n g s
F i g u r e 7 . 2 Marble gravestone of Helena, ad 150–200. Inscription reads: ‘To Helena, foster daughter, incomparable and praiseworthy soul’.
to over 70 cm at the withers, or shoulder height.8 Metric data for dog bones from sites in Rome are limited, but available data indicate three general groups: (1) smaller breeds, less than 35/40 cm in height;
(2) medium-sized breeds averaging between 50–60 cm; (3) larger vari-eties, above 60 cm. Medium-sized individuals predominate, which is typical across most ancient Roman sites, rural or urban. Dogs of all ages are recorded among faunal samples from Rome, attesting to local births of pups. Much as today, dogs of all varieties and ages were part of the urban fabric of ancient Rome: smaller toy breeds, such as the Maltese, were often selected as pets; larger breeds, like the Mastiff, performed well as guard dogs; while numerous types of mutts and other strays rummaged the streets.
8 De Grossi Mazzorin and Tagliacozzo 1997.
S a c r i f i c i a l a n i m a l s
Animal sacrifice was a common component in Roman pagan rit-ual. Specific rules dictated aspects such as which victims were sacri-ficed, which age categories, which colour, which parts of the carcass, among other characteristics, depending upon the occasion and deity commemorated.9Three general groups may be recognized. First, pub-lic festivals and ceremonies, as marked on the Roman calendar, typically required some type of animal sacrifice. Second, private offerings, such as those to various guardian and household spirits (e.g. lares) were another potential source of animal sacrifice. Third, augury (i.e. the reading and interpreting of signs) was practised as required. Auspices ranged from observations of behaviours of certain taxa, especially birds and chickens, to the reading of internal organs (i.e. divination) of sacrificed animals.
Domestic pigs, sheep, goats, cattle and chickens were the com-monest species sacrificed in ancient Rome, in both public and private contexts. Generally, these taxa could be supplied through the same rural and suburban networks that provided Rome with regular, dietary meat, although in some cases sacrificial animals may have been specially bred, raised or kept (in rural, suburban or even urban locations) to ensure compliance with ritual specifications. Many Roman sacrifices also included a component of feasting, which, for some of Rome’s poorest, may have been a chief source of dietary meat.
Animal sacrifice diminished throughout antiquity, as Christian-ity, which forbade the practice, grew in popularity. Still, some rit-uals involving animals continue into Late Antiquity. Excavations at the Crypta Balbi in Rome, for example, uncovered a mithraeum, dating to the third to fifth centuries ad, with evidence of sacrificed chickens.10
E x o t i c a n i m a l i m p o r t s f o r t h e a m p h i t h e a t r e g a m e s
Alongside a supply of food, work, pet and sacrificial animals, Rome also required exotic animals for entertainment purposes, most notably for wild beast hunts, or venationes, in the amphitheatre and circus. Such
9 Kadletz 1976 details these specifics for individual deities, as noted from the ancient sources.
10 De Grossi Mazzorin 2004.
P a c k a n i m a l s , p e t s , p e s t s , a n d o t h e r n o n - h u m a n b e i n g s
shows were probably introduced around the third century bc, but their earliest recorded reference in Rome is from 186 bc when Livy (39.5.7–
10; 39.22.1–2) tells of an event with lions and leopards. Henceforth, the spectacles continue, culminating in the exhibition of hundreds, even thousands, of exotic animals in venationes throughout the imperial period.11Although the last beast shows noted in some detail were those sponsored by the emperor Probus in ad 281 (Historia Augusta, Probus 19), we can be assured by the comments of Symmachus (Epistulae 2.76; 9.117), about complications in acquiring and transporting African beasts, that these hunts continued into the late fourth century ad, and presumably later as well. The last recorded venationes in Rome were apparently in ad 523 (Cassiodorus, Varia 5.42), but there are few details for these.
Archaeological faunal evidence for exotic beasts in Rome is slim.
Rumours of exotic animal bones retrieved from early excavations near the Colosseum cannot be verified in the absence of these bones, or of detailed reports discussing them. Only one site, that of the Meta Sudans, located about 50 m south-west of the Colosseum, provides unambiguous indication, in the presence of sixteen bear bones, two leopard bones, an ostrich fragment, and several red deer, roe deer, wild boar and fox remains from excavations of a fifth- to seventh-century adfill of a drain.12 In addition, many horse bones were also retrieved.
It seems logical to relate these materials to amphitheatre and circus games, and if so, their location suggests that at least some exotic beasts were buried nearby. Still, these are hardly the extensive numbers or species diversity one would expect to find, even factoring in retrieval and preservation biases that can severely reduce a zooarchaeological assemblage. Available animal bone data, therefore, attest to much less grandiose versions of venationes in Rome than those illustrated through ancient texts or iconography.
P e s t s
The numeric rise and spread of mice, rats and other commensal ani-mals, such as house sparrows, is often associated with urbanization.
As urbanization advances, through colonization and expansion, so do
11 For detailed listings and further commentary on these, and other references to exotic animals in Roman venationes, see Jennison 1937 and MacKinnon 2006.
12 De Grossi Mazzorin 1995.
commensals. There is evidence that during the last millennium bc, the Phoenicans and Greeks inadvertently brought the house mouse (Mus musculus) into the western Mediterranean, while the Romans them-selves appear responsible for importing and dispersing the black rat (Rattus rattus), among other pests, throughout their empire.13
Mice and sparrows figure occasionally in Roman texts and iconog-raphy. Charting their existence and spread, zooarchaeologically, is com-plicated, given that bones from small taxa are not systematically recov-ered from archaeological sites, and that taphonomic forces can easily displace tiny bones across stratigraphic levels, rendering chronological placement tricky. Nevertheless, although sparrow bones are noted spo-radically, mouse bones have been recovered from excavations through-out Italy, including Rome, among contexts across the entire Roman period, attesting to their early association with urban societies here, and their persistence over time. Still, house mice are not the only small
‘pest’ mammals recorded in Roman urban centres, including Rome.
Wood mice, voles and shrews are also noted. Although they are not true commensal pests, the presence of these small mammals may relate to the existence of gardens and orchards within Roman urban settings, habitats conducive for them. At present, however, there are insuffi-cient zooarchaeological, textual and iconographical data to quantify and assess the incidence and prevalence of mice, sparrows and similar pests in ancient Rome. No doubt, just as in many cities today, these taxa were an everyday nuisance to tolerate and control as necessary. Some assistance in this regard came from cats, whether domesticated or not, which, alongside the ferret, seem to have acted chiefly in destroying rodents during Roman antiquity.14
The situation involving the black rat in Rome and, further afield, across the empire is complicated. This species (Rattus rattus) is cru-cial in the spread of bubonic plague (microbes being transferred via
The situation involving the black rat in Rome and, further afield, across the empire is complicated. This species (Rattus rattus) is cru-cial in the spread of bubonic plague (microbes being transferred via