A Mid-Republican House from Gabii

Rachel Opitz,
Marcello Mogetta, and Nicola Terrenato, Editors

Written and crafted with Tyler Duane Johnson, Antonio F. Ferrandes, Laura Banducci, Francesca Alhaique, Laura Motta, Shannon Ness, Jason Farr, Samantha Lash, and Matthew Naglak

University of Michigan Press

Ann Arbor, MI

2018

http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/mpub.9231782

978-0-472-99900-2

This work is protected by copyright and may be linked to without seeking permission. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Please contact mpub-help@umich.edu for more information.

Electronic files

This electronic text file was first created via XML encoding through a series of automated and manual processes, approximating the recommendations for Level 4 of TEI Text Encoding in Libraries: Guidelines for Best Encoding Practices. It was later converted to EPUB 3.0.1 through a series of automated and manual processes.

Introduction

Dear Reader

Coming into the middle of the story

The town of Gabii, located on one of the many roads that run out east from Rome, has proved full of surprises. Since the beginning of the Gabii Project in 2007 and in particular since the start of excavations in 2009, the variety of evidence has challenged us (for an overview see Becker, Mogetta, and Terrenato 2009; Mogetta and Becker 2014). We find ourselves investigating a town like and unlike Rome, a place at once unique and part of a regional context. The picture remains and will remain partial, as we continue to uncover new areas. How can we begin to tell the story of the town, when we are not yet certain what that story is? We can start from the traditional historical narrative, the regional context, and assume that, while there are problems, the site fits broadly into the regional paradigm. Alternatively, we can start from the archaeology itself and build from the local, specific picture outward. If we follow the latter path, we almost inevitably drop into what feels like chapter 3 of the story. Even with geophysical survey and coring to guide the choice of the initial excavation area (Becker, Mogetta, and Terrenato 2009), what is uncovered rarely tidily forms the beginnings of a narrative of the town.

The Gabii Project volumes begin not properly, at the very beginning of an overarching narrative, but with the story of a single house within the town—located just north of the city’s trunk road and slightly east of its mid-point. This is the first of what will be many small windows into the archaeology and history of the town. The initial volume, A Mid-Republican House from Gabii, describes a house known as Area B or Tincu House that is transformed into the back-rooms annex of a large public complex and then abandoned and filled with debris from adjacent quarries. Our interpretation of the evidence found in this area is framed in terms of a sequence of activities.

Thinking in terms of activities

We discuss much of what happened at Gabii in terms of activities. We have defined a set of activity categories, with which we have associated key stratigraphic units. The use of activities as a framework is an attempt to span a number of cultural contexts and to think outside the paradigm of architectural styles and canonical typologies and outside of the framework of historical events. By using activities, we may conceptually group together the beaten earth floors of the occupation levels of Archaic huts in Area D with the tufo walls of the Area B house, on the basis of their shared importance for creating domestic spaces. We may likewise bring together the digging of a grave in the necropolis that comes after the abandonment of the Tincu House area with the construction of a new entrance to the Tincu House courtyard when it becomes an annex to the Area F public complex, as both represent transformations. The activities we have identified to stitch together the story of the site currently include construction, renovation, water management, inhabitation, transformation, dumping, and abandonment. Individual stratigraphic units may be associated with more than one activity; for example, a stratigraphic unit belonging to a wall might be associated with both construction and inhabitation. More activities will likely be added to the scheme as the project grows. We briefly describe the current activity categories here.

Construction: Construction activities are related to initial building episodes or to major building episodes generally associated with a transformation of the use of an area.

Renovation: We use the term renovation when changes to a physical structure or the organization of a space are made but the main activities within it stay the same.

Water Management: Water management activities include the construction of surface and sub-surface drains, cisterns, or wells and the blocking up of structures with these functions.

Inhabitation: The term inhabitation is used to describe activities in residential, domestic contexts.

Transformation: The term transformation denotes activities associated with a fundamental change in the use of an area and in the main types of tasks and actions taking place there. A change from a primarily domestic use to a primarily industrial one would constitute a transformation.

Dumping: The term dumping describes the “active” phase of the abandonment process, when people continue to frequent an area.

Abandonment: The term abandonment indicates the end of the active use of an area. We also use the term in situations where activity has lessened substantially but has not entirely ceased.

[picture]

Figure 1: Activities icons used in the Gabii publications: abandonment, construction, dumping, living, reconstruction, transformation, and water management.

The layered and linked text

The text of A Mid-Republican House from Gabii is structured in three layers. In the first layer, we begin by telling the story of the house, the narrative of our best understanding of what happened. The second layer contains a more detailed, analytical discussion of the archaeology. The third layer provides a detailed presentation of key elements of the supporting evidence—references to the specific stratigraphic sequences and material remains that support the argument and the story. The narratives link to one another and to the interactive 3D scene that contains a reconstruction of the houses and models of the stratigraphy. The 3D scene provides links into the project's database. As new areas of the excavation are published, the data for them will become available in this format.

Symbols for things and activities

To provide a quick visual reference to the kinds of activities with which specific stratigraphic elements are associated and the types of evidence provided, we have created a system of symbols. The symbols, shown in Figure 2, appear in the information panel associated with each stratigraphic unit in the 3D scene.

[picture]

Figure 2: Icons representing the types of evidence present at Gabii: fauna, ceramics, coins and other small objects, human remains, and flora.

Why Gabii? Why this town?

Cities—the physical incarnation of the phenomenon of urbanism—emerge repeatedly and in surprisingly diverse forms throughout history. Ever since Fustel de Coulanges, historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, and sociologists have struggled to define urbanism, advancing models that explain the ancient urban phenomenon by invoking issues that range from religion and mentality to politics and material infrastructure (Marcus and Sabloff 2008). Within the churn of societies experimenting with urban life, the Roman case stands out for its longevity and broad impact, widespread in its heyday and continuing to exert an influence a thousand years later, during the emergence of modern Western urbanism. How did this particularly successful model for urbanism develop? What new insights into Roman and Italic society can be gleaned from a fresh look at critical moments in which towns and cities in central Italy are just getting started, in which it is not yet clear how to build a city or live an urban life?

Roman urbanism has been excavated, written about, depicted, and reconstructed repeatedly, and yet we know surprisingly little about its early stages. The imposing character of the preserved later remains in the towns of Roman Italy tends to overshadow our considerable ignorance of the processes that led to their initial design. Most of what we have for the 5th, 4th, and 3rd c. BCE are massive city walls and temple podiums with their architectural terracottas (e.g., Boethius 1978). While there is no doubt that the known remains are impressive, they do not tell us how the public spaces, which later played such a big part in Roman urbanism, developed. Similarly, the early development of templated layouts for domestic space, prior to their diffusion in the Italian peninsula in the course of the 1st c. BCE (Jolivet 2011), and their role in signaling and creating social differences are poorly understood.

Behind the ubiquitous diffusion of building types such as fora, basilicas, and theaters, a quintessentially Roman ability has often been seen to devise ready-made modular designs and transfer them from home to the conquered areas, first in Italy and then in the provinces. However, what often goes unnoticed is that the key elements of this distinctive assemblage only materialized centuries after the city of Rome was formed. The recent wave of excavations in central Italy has concentrated on sites that were founded as colonies in the Mid-Republican period (Cosa, Alba Fucens, Fregellae, Norba, and Paestum being the most thoroughly investigated: Sewell 2010) or on secondary settlements like Pompeii. The results revealed that much of the architecture that seemed to characterize Roman urbanism in its formative period actually dates to the 2nd c. BCE or later (for Cosa see Fentress 2003). While the urban layouts might in some cases date to the 4th and 3rd c. BCE, we are left with the puzzling impression that the newly established urban entities were just empty boxes, featuring few habitation pockets (if they are at all present), sparsely distributed across areas surrounded by impressive fortifications, in which non-temple civic buildings consisted essentially of temporary wooden structures (Becker 2007).

In Rome, the record for this period is not so rich either. Even though Livy describes its original partition as the creation of houses and shops, the reality is that we are pretty much in the dark about what the Roman Forum (or anywhere else for that matter) looked like around 250 BCE. Only a handful of public buildings have been investigated extensively in the area, the so-called Regia of Frank Brown being one of these (Brown 1967, 1974–1975), but the old excavation archives are mostly unpublished. The sample of contemporary domestic architecture is similarly small. A notable spike in construction activities is documented on the slopes of the Palatine in the late 6th c. BCE, but this was followed by a hiatus of about four centuries, during which aristocratic compounds received only minor modifications (Carandini and Carafa [1995] 2000). To find clues about Mid-Republican urbanism, we must look elsewhere.

For the earlier periods, we know even less. Despite the growing interest in analyzing the actual relationship between urbanization processes (particularly settlement nucleation) and the emergence of socio-economic complexity, none of the major central Italian cities that are part of the “first wave” of urbanism has ever been extensively excavated down to the Archaic and Early Iron Age levels. This is in sharp contrast with the situation in Greece or in the Eastern Mediterranean, where the origins of urbanism are much better understood (Terrenato and Haggis 2011). Fieldwork at Veii (Acconcia and Bartoloni 2013–2014), Tarquinia (Bonghi Jovino 2010), and Satricum (Maaskant-Kleibrink 1992), while in many ways successful, has concentrated primarily on temples or citadels, providing only a limited glimpse of habitation areas surrounding the sacred sites. Settlement data on the formative period comes from infra-site surface surveys (Pacciarelli 2000), which present their own set of methodological biases and limitations. Therefore, the period between the 10th and the early 6th c. BCE, in which Etruscan, Latin, and Campanian cities slowly coalesced, remains primarily known through the funerary evidence (synthesized in Bietti Sestieri 2010). These contexts, while providing crucial insight into identity and social dynamics as expressed through funerary activities, do not elucidate the emergence of the urban fabric or the social dynamics of quotidian urban life (Riva 2010). The development of Latin and Etruscan cities and their precise relationship (if any) with Greek colonial models and their social correlates, for example, remain broadly unknown (Robinson 2014). For Rome, an incredibly rich corpus of ethnohistorical sources survives, but the archaeological picture will always be hopelessly fragmented, because of the damages made to the deeper layers by the Republican, Imperial, medieval, and modern structures (a recent survey of the evidence is in Fulminante 2014, 66–104).

The site of Gabii, located east of Rome (Figure 3), was chosen to shed new light on these open questions on Italic and Roman urbanism because it is a top-tier primary urban center that was never re-founded as a colony. For most of the 1st millennium BCE, it evolved in parallel with peers like Rome, Caere, or Capua. Gabii’s important role at the regional level owes much to the fact that the settlement occupied a strategic location, at the choke point between two volcanic features (Lake Castiglione to the north, the Pantano to the south), from which it controlled the most direct east-west route from Rome to the main interregional network linking Etruria and Campania. Thanks to this favorable location, Gabii developed into the seat of powerful aristocratic groups on a par with those of Rome. The excavation of hundreds of Iron Age burials from the necropolis at Osteria dell’Osa, which is situated just west of the Gabii area, allowed archaeologists from the Soprintendenza of Rome to trace the emergence of extended lineage groups and to demonstrate the existence of permanent social hierarchies by the middle of the 8thc. at the latest, an evolution that has been connected with the development of the Archaic city (Bietti Sestieri 1992a, 1992b). Finds from the necropolis, including an inscription in Greek letters on a vessel from the early 8th c. BCE, linking the Euboean presence in Southern Italy and native groups, and a 7th c. BCE Latin inscription on a local vessel made in imitation of a Greek form, suggest early contact with Greek society as well as neighboring Italic groups.

[picture]

Figure 3: Gabii, located east of Rome, seen here in the context of key regional Italic centers (after Becker, Mogetta, and Terrenato 2009, fig. 1).

A plurality of textual sources (collected in Almagro Basch 1958) suggests that these elites flourished in the Archaic and Republican periods and established special political and cultural relationships with Rome. For instance, Dionysius of Halicarnassus cites Gabii as the earliest town to enjoy an equal treaty (isopoliteia) with Rome (the so-called foedus Gabinum). In fact, members of Roman gentes (e.g., the Postumii) maintained contacts with Gabii through the Republican age, while elements from the Gabine elite were co-opted into the Roman political system in the 4th c. BCE. Varro notes the identity of status between the ager Romanus and the ager Gabinus as to augural discipline. The cinctus Gabinus, a ritual costume worn for important ceremonies of the Roman state religion, was evidently imported from Gabii. Late Republican antiquarians even floated the idea that Romulus and Remus received their education in Greek liberal arts at Gabii. This tradition provides a glimpse into the perception of Gabii by the inhabitants of Rome and reflects Gabii’s credentials as an important locus of high culture in the early Roman period, wielding significant influence on Rome (discussed in Becker, Mogetta, and Terrenato 2009, 630–632). The archaeology of Gabii, therefore, presented itself as an ideal term of comparison for contemporary social and cultural developments in Rome.

Gabii also offered unusually promising taphonomic conditions. The results of a topographic survey by a team from the University of Rome in the early 1980s (Guaitoli 1981) recorded that the density of occupation peaked in the Archaic period. Based on the spatial distribution of the finds, the settlement can be said to have shrunk considerably through the Late Republican period, while occupation in the Imperial period was seemingly limited to the central area, on either sides of the main thoroughfare that crossed the site (as also described by historical sources). Because of the contraction of the site from the 1st c. BCE onward, its Mid-Republican and Archaic phases are not masked by later constructions. After its final abandonment in the Late Antique period, the area of Gabii was turned into farmland and never reoccupied. Excavation prior to our project, seemingly limited looting, and the colluvial nature of its sloping volcanic site suggest the probability of a better-than-average degree of preservation of the archaeological strata, which could therefore be exposed extensively (Becker, Mogetta, and Terrenato 2009, 632–633, 636–638). Part of the urban area is on land owned by the Italian state, which makes it easier to request excavation permits and to set up permanent infrastructure for a large-scale excavation project.

The survey and excavations to date allow us to paint a broadly familiar picture for Gabii—designated public areas, private homes, and centrally planned infrastructure emerging in the Republican period on the site of a scatter of huts and compounds established in the Iron Age and redeveloped through the Archaic period. The interest is in the details, where we see evidence for specific choices about the design and use of urban space at Gabii, reflecting both local initiatives and the broader influence of the Italic and Mediterranean social milieu.

Project History

The history of the project in brief

Prior Excavations

Excavation at Gabii began long before the Gabii Project. Scottish antiquarian Gavin Hamilton conducted the first official dig at Gabii in the late 1700s, but his was essentially a treasure-hunting operation run on behalf of the Borghese family, who owned the land. Hamilton uncovered a monumental complex dating to the Imperial period, consisting of a large colonnaded square that opened onto a major east-west road, believed to be the Via Praenestina, and portions of adjacent buildings. The finds included several inscriptions and a collection of Imperial portraits, now mostly in the Louvre (Visconti 1797). In other areas of the site, only sporadic discoveries were made in the 19th and early 20th c. (listed in Guaitoli 1981b, 155 n. 29). It was not until the late 1800s that a comprehensive topographic survey of the urban area was carried out by the Italian authorities (Cozza and Pasqui 1885; Pinza 1903; see also Ashby 1902, map IV). The first systematic research started in the 1950s, when a Spanish team investigated the major temple generally attributed to Juno (Almagro Gorbea 1982). These excavations demonstrated the presence of a Late Republican temple-theater complex, which represented the monumentalization of an earlier sacred site dating to the 5th c. BCE. In the 1970s, as part of the broader surface survey program conducted by the University of Rome (which also involved a new mapping of the entire site: Piccarreta 1981), another sanctuary complex immediately outside the walls on the eastern side of the city, thus known as the “Santuario Orientale,” was investigated, together with a stretch of the fortifications (Guaitoli 1981a). This project was recently resumed and completed by University of Rome 2 (Mancini and Pilo 2006; Musco and Mancini 2006; Fabbri 2011; Fabbri, Osanna, and Musco 2012; Zuchtriegel 2012).

For its part, the Soprintendenza of Rome had long focused its fieldwork in the area primarily on the Iron Age necropolis of Osteria dell’Osa, threatened by urban development. The laying out of a modern aqueduct in the 1960s exposed a cross section of the stratigraphy within the urban area, which was documented in a hasty campaign of salvage archaeology (Quilici 1988). Renewed interest in the urban site came in the 1990s, when the Soprintendenza of Rome took decisive steps toward the creation of a state archaeological park. A long tract of a main, basalt-paved roadway ending in a T junction was brought to light (Majarini and Musco 2001). The thoroughfare was flanked on either side by private houses and shops, whose fronts were also exposed (the “Area Urbana”). A pillared structure was tentatively interpreted as the one originally unearthed by Hamilton (the “Foro”: Angelelli, Boscarini, and Lugari 2012). The subsequent development of the archaeological park provided the impetus for several new projects. In the last few years, various entities have launched activities in collaboration with the Soprintendenza of Rome. The University of Rome 2 has conducted as yet unpublished excavations, revealing an important and exceptionally preserved 6th c. BCE building (preliminary information is in Gobbi 2010; Fabbri, Musco, and Osanna 2012; Fabbri 2015). The University of Bonn is exploring the wall circuit with several soundings (Helas 2010, 2013, 2014). Recently, the Soprintendenza has been exposing a bath complex on the main thoroughfare, which dates to the Imperial period (D’Agostini and Musco 2016). The Louvre Museum launched a new project in 2014 centered on the theater associated with the great sanctuary, connected with a reassessment and "mise en valeur" of their Gabii holdings (Roger, Sauvin, and Taiuti 2012). These projects are generating important complementary evidence for the character of the urban fabric and life at Gabii. But how did the settlement develop, change over time, and finally decay?

Preliminary Testing (2007–2008)

The Gabii Project commenced in 2007 to answer this big research question. Our ambitious objective required large-scale survey and excavation. The first phase of the project began with a pilot magnetometry survey conducted in collaboration with the British School at Rome. This technique was chosen because it had already proved successful at other sites of central Italy, most notably at Falerii Novi and Portus (respectively, Keay et al. 2000; Keay and Millett 2006), even revealing the blueprint of individual buildings. Based on the preliminary results of the 2007 season, a second large-scale campaign was planned and carried out in 2008, covering about 40 hectares, more than half of the total urban area, which is estimated at 65+ hectares (Becker, Mogetta, and Terrenato 2009, 633–636; Terrenato et al. 2010; Kay 2013). The clearest archaeological feature revealed by the geophysical survey was a double-dipole anomaly that traverses the entire site in a northeast to southwest direction (Figure 4). The characteristics of this anomaly, as well as its estimated width and direction, suggested its interpretation as a road most probably paved with stone slabs. This hypothesis was confirmed by the observation that the basalt-paved road visible in the “Area Urbana” continued along the same alignment.

[picture]

Figure 4: Map of magnetometry results.

A main urban artery could thus be reconstructed, hugging the southern and eastern slopes of the Castiglione crater; this curving road leaves Gabii near the “Santuario Orientale” and heads north toward the sites of Corcolle and Tibur. The newly discovered trunk road appears associated with a series of roughly perpendicular anomalies branching off from it at regular intervals, both to the north and south. These linear features matched almost perfectly with a series of crop marks identified by Guaitoli on aerial photographs (Guaitoli 2003, 276) and were interpreted as side streets delimiting very elongated city blocks. The axial position of the thoroughfare suggests that the road was created ex novo at the time of the original town planning, to ensure that the streets on either side of it were of similar length. The new course, however, may have resulted from the repositioning of a pre-existing road running closer to the crater’s rim. The blocks widen out progressively from the edge of the crater, adapting to the gradient and morphology of the terrain, so that they tend to be slightly wedge-shaped rather than strictly rectangular. Thus, the magnetometer detected what seemed to be an unusually early orthogonal layout. Because of its ubiquity, the layout was thought to predate the Late Republican period, when surface finds suggest that the town suffered a major contraction. The internal organization of the supposed city blocks, however, remained unclear, because of a series of biases affecting the response of buried features to the magnetometer (e.g., the sloping topography and the uneven depth of the ground cover, the poor contrast between bedrock and structures made of the same material).

In parallel with the geophysical testing, a core-sampling survey was carried out in order to evaluate the actual state of preservation of the archaeological deposits associated with the magnetic anomalies. The results allowed us to produce a series of cross sections of the site, showing evidence of artificial cuts in the bedrock and thick deposits of stratigraphy across the area that was subsequently selected for excavation (Figure 5).

[picture]

Figure 5: New excavation areas are indicated by diamonds relative to key structures at Gabii (after Becker, Mogetta, and Terrenato 2009, fig. 2).

The Gabii Project Excavations (2009–2015)

Armed with this background information, the Gabii Project excavations were launched in 2009. The dig site was positioned in such a way as to include a chunk of five contiguous city blocks in a prime sector of the town, just north of the main intersection between the curving thoroughfare and another road that departed from it at an odd angle, toward Praeneste. Previous excavations by the Soprintendenza in this sector of the “Area Urbana” had already revealed structures dating to the Imperial period. The presence of ancient quarries along the crater’s rim, known since the 1970s fieldwork (Piccarreta 1981), determined the exclusion of the uppermost areas from the sample. The main goals of the excavation were to confirm the interpretation of the magnetometry data, to establish a more detailed periodization for the site than that provided by the 1970s surface survey, and to identify areas with deep stratigraphy reaching into the levels corresponding to the period of city formation (Mogetta and Becker 2014). Targeted test trenches were also dug in another sector of the town south of the thoroughfare, outside of the archaeological park (Gallone and Mogetta 2011).

The first significant result was the detection of an almost perfect correspondence between the magnetic anomalies and excavated road features (Mogetta 2014). In the earliest phase, the roads consisted of rock-cut surfaces (or “tagliate”). This means that the magnetometer picked up the sequence of fills within these trenches. These levels of compacted gravel were deposited to repair the damage the road surface suffered from continuous use. The bottom road levels date to the 4th c. BCE and thus provide a terminus ante quem for the creation of the street grid. This important discovery represents a fixed point in the sequence of occupation at the site. The ubiquity and uniformity of the city plan, in particular, suggests that trends toward centralized planning were achieved by the Early Republican period. Furthermore, the excavations confirmed that these roads delimited orthogonal city blocks, whose major development dated to the Mid-Republican period. It is worth pointing out that this is the first example of orthogonal urbanism in Italian cities that were not intentionally founded as colonies. We may have evidence here that the elongated city grids of Mid-Republican foundations endowed with the Latin right, such as Cosa or Alba Fucens, bore a connection with earlier urbanism in Latium proper. Gabii was, in fact, both culturally and geographically much closer to Rome, which was never regularly planned, than to Greek South Italy, where orthogonal layouts of that kind had been introduced since the 6th c. BCE or even earlier.

As of 2015, seven seasons of fieldwork have brought to light the largest portion of the center of the city, with over 10,000 m² exposed, providing a critical mass of contiguous Mid-Republican urban fabric, encompassing five city blocks located north of the thoroughfare. Six excavation areas have been opened thus far (identified as Areas A–F). These correspond to separate stratigraphic basins delimited by specific features of the urban plan.

Area A occupies the north sector of the excavation site, toward the edge of the crater. Natural erosion and plowing caused the decapitation of many of the archaeological deposits, so the bedrock crops out in most parts of the area. Under a thin layer of topsoil, a series of rock-cut features have been revealed. Most notable among these are two burials of the Orientalizing period (Becker and Nowlin 2011) and a large quarry of the Imperial period (Farr 2014). Structural remains, although badly preserved, have been found in the south part of the sector. Based on the main alignments of walls and drainages, they most likely relate to the occupation of the orthogonal plan phase. Other alignments of circular cuts may belong to earlier hut habitations.

Area B extends directly south of Area A, on a lower rock-cut terrace conforming to the orthogonal plan, west of the side street that leads to the “Area Urbana.” Although this sector of the town suffered great damage when the large quarry found in Area A was in use, both architecture and stratigraphy are overall slightly better preserved here than in Area A, especially in its western half, because the area was completely obliterated by a thick deposit of building and quarry debris in the Imperial period. In the late phase, part of Area B was used as a burial ground.

Area C is located in the east sector of the site and corresponds to a city block that is delimited by two of the side streets of the urban grid (Roads 1 and 2). The buildings documented in this city block show a multi-stratified sequence spanning from the Mid-Republican to the Early Imperial periods. Walls are poorly preserved (to a maximum height of 0.6 m), having been truncated by modern agricultural activities, but traces of an earlier occupation phase have begun to emerge in the south half of the area, underneath the Mid-Republican floors.

Area D is located west of Area C and east of Area B. It corresponds to the eastern part of a city block that, even though formally divided and included in the orthogonal layout, was never the object of urban development. The structures found in this sector of the excavation predate the establishment of the grid plan.

Area E is situated at the eastern end of the dig site. It includes the western portion of the city block east of Area C. Limited excavations were conducted there in 2011, removing the post-abandonment levels and revealing basalt-paved structures relating to the latest phase of occupation.

At the western end of the dig site is Area F, corresponding to the city block west of Areas A and B. The city block appears occupied by a single, large (approximately 35 x 60 m) terraced building, whose function was probably public. The civic complex is unique in its layout and proportions, and it is a very rare example of Mid-Republican non-religious public architecture. It was built in the 3rd c. BCE in a dominant position, overlooking the main road intersection of the city.

Significance and Impact

The evidence uncovered to date through the Gabii Project, the new problems posed, and the importance of both can best be articulated by considering four critical transitions occurring in the Iron Age (ca. 900–580 BCE), the Archaic period (580–400 BCE), the Mid-Republican period (400–150 BCE), and the Late Republican through Imperial periods (150 BCE–300 CE). The preliminary results are discussed in greater detail by Mogetta and Becker (2014).

Many of the future cities of central Italy were occupied continuously from the end of the Bronze Age, although formal elements of urban structures did not appear before the later 7th c. BCE. Surface survey has revealed the presence of discrete habitation nuclei scattered across the future city (Pacciarelli 2000) at several of these sites (most clearly at Tarquinia, Veii, Caere, and Vulci in South Etruria). In Areas C and D of the Gabii Project, we see an example of this situation: a habitation unit containing a long series of hut floors, hearths, and activity areas spanning the 8th through the early 6th c. BCE. This sequence of features represents a large and well-preserved multi-hut elite residential compound. The finds are exceptional, not only because they confirm the existence of a settlement in the area of the Archaic city, a conclusion that prior to our excavations was based only on surface evidence (Guaitoli 1981b), but because it also offers considerable potential to contextualize the funerary and the settlement data. Around the edges of the compound, multiple lavish infant burials dating between the 8th and 6th c. BCE, located in the classic suggrundaria position, have been discovered. In some cases, the grave goods attest to a family at the highest social level, with the richness of the objects outshining parallel examples from Rome or Caere. These burials attest to the presence of a pre-existing elite lineage within an emerging city in central Italy. This evident social stratification between contemporary infants of the same co-residential group is the most striking archaeological element so far uncovered throwing light on the socio-political process that leads from discrete elite clans coexisting on the same plateau to the emergence of a consolidated city (Terrenato and Motta 2006). The evidence for increasing social complexity closely connected to an emerging city is relevant to our broad conception of urbanization, beyond the specifics of the Italian and Roman case.

During the transition to the Archaic period, central Italian cities undergo a radical transformation marked by the introduction of formal arrangements of space that would have required collective decision making. Mainly thanks to the evidence from Rome (cf. Cristofani 1990; Cifani 2008), more information is available on this period than on the Iron Age or Mid-Republican periods. That said, the mechanisms and markers of community reorganization, beyond the creation of urban temples and city walls, remain an open question. Area D of the Gabii project, complemented by the unpublished findings of University of Rome 2, offers important insights. The elite compound of huts in Area D is later transformed into three-roomed houses in ashlar blocks. The introduction of more durable structures and the apparent standardization of the plans of private elite areas, known from minor Etruscan sites like San Giovenale, appear here in the context of an emerging major city. In the case of Gabii, peculiar traits such as the presence of Late Archaic adult chamber tombs within the city (Evans 2014) or the comprehensive orthogonal reorganization of the city in the 5th c. (Mogetta 2014)—elements that are not seen in other peer city sites—further enrich the picture of this transitional moment.

Gabii experiences another significant transitional phase in the Mid-Republican period. The architecture and urbanism of this period have recently become the center of a complex debate (Gros and Torelli 2014). Work at Pompeii, Cosa, and elsewhere demonstrates that aside from city walls and temples, very little is well represented in Mid-Republican central Italian cities (Becker 2007). Except for Pompeii and Rome, virtually all the large-scale urban archaeology projects in central Italy have focused on abandoned colonial sites such as Cosa, Alba Fucens, Fregellae, Norba, Paestum, and Carsulae (Sewell 2010). In cities that are part of the “first wave” of urbanism and date to the Archaic period (e.g., Veii, Caere, Tarquinia, Vulci, Satricum, and Lavinium), only limited areas have been studied.

At Gabii, private houses constructed in a manner that suggests development toward the canonical atrium-style residence are being excavated. These reveal a number of architectural solutions that throw light on the origins of some later Roman standbys, like the decorated opus signinum or cocciopesto floor (Gallone and Mogetta 2011) or the open-floor axial tablinum. Most of the architecture identified within Areas A and B can be dated to the 3rd and 2nd c. BCE, on the basis of the materials recovered in construction fills and in the road layers associated with this occupation. In their earliest phases, these buildings feature an elongated rectangular wing of rooms opening onto a courtyard to the west. In the case of the Area B house, an impluvium was later incorporated in the courtyard.

In Area C, the templated design of the canonical atrium house was inserted into a quite sizable (at least 660 m²) pre-existing structure, a fact that explains why the access was not on axis with the tablinum but from one side, thus creating asymmetrical alae. In Area F, a public complex laid out on three terraces has been uncovered (Gallone, Mogetta, and Johnston 2016). This represents the largest and the best-preserved civic space in central Italy for its period to date. The complex, provided with double atria on the middle terrace and featuring a large open space in the top terrace, does not conform to any known Late Republican building type. Indeed, it seems to combine apparent residential elements with hallmark signs of public construction, such as a massive pillared facade on the road. Two fragments of early public inscriptions from the same area confirm the high level of urban activity in this phase (Fortson and Potter 2011; Johnston 2015).

The excavation is producing tantalizing evidence on the re-adaptation of the town after its significant contraction during the Late Republican period. Signs of profound changes in the organization of the settlement have been identified in Areas A, B, and C, where domestic features were replaced by industrial installations. The elite house of Area C was repurposed into a laundry or tannery, whose new floor preparation shows the imprint of circular features (perhaps for dolia, or vats, which were clearly robbed at a later stage). The new complex features a pavement built with reworked basalt slabs, which incorporates a complex system of drainages connected to a well, suggesting that activities requiring substantial amounts of water were conducted there. The most dramatic transformation occurred in Areas A and B in the Imperial period, which is characterized by the rapid expansion of the quarry works exploiting the local tuff, a type of peperino that the ancients called “lapis Gabinus” (Farr 2014; Farr, Marra, and Terrenato 2015). The houses became untenable as the quarry works moved from the edge of the crater downslope. The structures were abandoned and razed to the ground to make room for the quarry infrastructure. The side street traversing this part of the city, however, remained in use, presumably to facilitate the removal of the quarried stone. Several quarry cuts deliberately avoid truncating the road itself, allowing a reasonably secure sense of the continuity of Gabii’s road network. Perhaps signaling the transformation of this zone (and of the city itself), a small necropolis began to grow in the area of the former structure in Area B by the mid- or late 1st c. CE at the latest. The cemetery is mostly comprised of “a cappucina” tombs (mostly dating to the 1st and 2nd c. CE) and of simple “a fossa” tombs (some of which belong to a later phase between the 3rd and 5th c. BCE), of both male and female adult individuals (though child burials are also attested). These were generally interred without grave goods. The preliminary skeletal pathology shows evidence for physical stresses and injuries that come from repetitive motion, as well as many healed, traumatic wounds, making it likely that most of the deceased in this necropolis worked as manual laborers either in an agricultural setting or in the adjacent tuff quarries. A notable exception is represented by three wealthy burials using lead sheeting. Overall, the necropolis is a clear indication of the decaying of the urban center and the abandonment, by stages, of portions of the city. The phenomenon, however, should be read in parallel with the re-tasking of formerly inhabited space, which was taken over for activities previously relegated at the outskirts of town, adding an interesting facet to the realities of contracting cities in imperial Latium (Patterson 2006).

In sum, since 2007, the Gabii Project has uncovered a sketch of a town that grew and changed and shrank. The streets and blocks form the outline, the evidence that there was a town. A couple of houses, a big public building, a series of huts that pre-date the streets, the quarries and cemetery that came after the houses, the industrial buildings and yards, and the drains and doors and kilns and dumps begin to fill in the picture, to give life to the place. The big questions—the development of urbanism in the specific context of central Italy, the ongoing relationships with peer cities in Latium (including Rome), the interactions with the farms and farmers working and living in the surrounding countryside, the creation of public space and adoption of fashions in domestic architecture—must be approached in the context of everything else we know about the era and region, while acknowledging the possibility of previously unknown expressions of urbanism.

Methods

Overview

The Gabii Project employs a single-context, open-area excavation and recording system based on the Barker-Harris methodology required by the Catalogue Office of the Ministero dei Beni Culturali. Each stratigraphic unit (SU), the basic unit of information in this system, is uniquely numbered, and its characteristics are recorded through a variety of methods. The record comprises written descriptions, photographs, and measurements. Stratigraphic units may have associated samples, which, in turn, have descriptions, photographs, and measurements. To manage the large volumes of data produced by excavation at this scale and to create a detailed record, the Gabii Project emphasizes field and lab methods that support rapid yet accurate recording and data integration. Our recording strategy aims to unite spatial and descriptive information produced across the site and to closely integrate data produced by various specialist teams.

Descriptive Data

The basic descriptive data recorded for the Gabii Project has remained by and large consistent over the lifetime of the project, while the means of recording and managing the data has evolved. In 2009, descriptive data was recorded on paper context forms. The context forms were modeled closely on those used by the Italian Catalogue Office of the Ministero dei Beni Culturali, to ensure the required information was collected. Information recorded on the context forms was subsequently entered into a Microsoft Access database. In 2013, the project migrated to a customized ARK database. The ARK database system, developed by LP Archaeology (http://ark.lparchaeology.com/), is used by a number of Mediterranean archaeology projects (e.g., Chersonesos, Villa Magna, Fasti Online). During this transition, paper record sheets continued in use, and data was subsequently entered into the ARK database. In 2014, the project moved to a direct-to-digital workflow, using Android- and Windows-based tablets for descriptive data input directly into the project’s database and filestore while in the field. Along with this descriptive data, photographs, artifact collections, interpretations, samples, and spatial data are linked to the unique context number of the SU. A Harris matrix updated in real time within the database helps in keeping track of the evolving stratigraphy across each area. Specialist labs (e.g., finds, palaeobotany) input relevant descriptive data and photographs into their relevant modules in the ARK. All qualitative and spatial data is uploaded daily to the project’s servers at the University of Michigan for backup and for off-site access by project staff.

Spatial Data

The basic process of recording spatial data at Gabii has remained consistent over the lifetime of the project, while the means of managing and distributing the data has developed over time. Basic spatial data is acquired using a pair of Leica total stations with Carlson dataloggers, supporting direct export to ArcGIS as shapefiles. This data, including stratigraphic unit outlines and interior elevation points, is immediately entered into the project’s ArcGIS database. The database is versioned daily. From 2009 to 2013, these data were managed entirely by the project’s topography and digital data team. Printed maps were provided immediately to excavators as the data was entered into the project’s GIS system, and these maps were characterized in the field, adding information on the SU limits, inclusions, and surface properties, as understood by the excavators. These maps were subsequently digitized, and the characterization was added to the project GIS. From 2014, the system was adapted to align with the new tablet-centric workflow. Shapefiles generated from the survey are now delivered to the excavators’ tablets over the network as they are recorded, and each SU is characterized directly in the GIS. This workflow, like its predecessor, is supported by the versioned database, which allows multiple users to edit the project’s GIS simultaneously and independently.

In concert with this method of spatial recording, 3D recording is an inherent part of our documentation strategy. For all architectural and most depositional stratigraphic contexts, photographs are processed into 3D georeferenced models using Agisoft PhotoScan, a software package designed to carry out image-based modeling. The software searches for points that correspond between images in a collection. Once corresponding points are identified, the software searches, starting from these points, for further matches. Accepted matches are used to construct the mesh surface of the 3D model. The color information from each pixel is used to assign color or texture-color values to each vertex or face of the mesh. Once the mesh has been constructed, the targets in the model are assigned coordinates that were surveyed in the field, fixing the model's location in the real world. Photomodels are processed in this way on site in the topography lab, normally within hours of the photographs being taken. The spatial information collected is then used to create a complete 3D model of the excavated stratigraphy. This procedure allows the creation of a variety of views of composite plans by phase and by type of context, as well as section and elevation drawings intersecting the stratigraphy along any section line desired.

The 3D models are exported in a variety of formats for immediate use in the field, as well as for future analysis. The export of georeferenced top-down orthophotos of individual and multiple SUs have had a great impact on the speed and accuracy of recording during excavation. Rather than the manual recording on paper of features rich in detail, such as walls, floors, collapses, graves, or occupation surfaces with stone-by-stone drawings, orthophotos can be transmitted wirelessly to mobile tablets in the trenches as soon as the processing is complete, and such characterization can be drawn directly into the GIS database from the imagery. This resulted in much faster and much more accurate mapping of complex features of all kinds, while still permitting immediate excavation to continue.

Each photomodel is exported as an extended 3D pdf capable of being opened by anyone with the standard version of Adobe Reader on their computer. This format provides a simple, rapid means to visualize each SU and perform basic measurements, and it supplies an archive-compliant version of the 3D model. The 3D pdfs are uploaded to the project’s archive and linked from the database. The photomodels are also exported as georeferenced textured meshes (.OBJ format). These meshes can be viewed and manipulated in a number of 3D data management packages, including MeshLab, CloudCompare, Blender, and ArcGIS. Individual models are then assembled into scenes using Unity3D, a software program primarily intended for the design of games and now widely used for “serious games,” the creation of immersive environments, and visualizations in a variety of academic contexts. The compiled Unity3D scenes support the project’s interactive web-based publications and provide a medium for sharing linked spatial and descriptive data. The direct link between model and database allows for access to detailed information as well as a visual overview of the stratigraphic record. In addition to including the stratigraphic contexts themselves, these scenes may include different reconstructions. It is hoped that such scenes will encourage future interpretation and analysis long after the initial publication of the site.

Archaeobotany and Zooarchaeology

The analysis of the animal and plant remains at Gabii aims to tease out changing patterns of food supply, processing activities, and consumption in an urban setting and to understand these patterns in the context of the economic relationship between the settlement and its hinterland. More generally, these studies offer an opportunity to improve our understanding of animal husbandry, agricultural practices, and fuel economy in central Italy from the Iron Age to the early Imperial period. The systematic recovery of ecofacts, together with a well-designed sampling strategy, are essential to address these research questions, enabling spatial intra-site comparisons and investigations of variability over time. The systematic recovery of ecofacts is accomplished through bulk screening and flotation of soil samples to retrieve faunal remains (including small animals and tiny bones) and all classes of charred botanical macroremains, thus making quantitative analysis possible (Reitz and Wing 2008; Pearsall 2015).

Large open-area urban excavations, with their complex pluri-stratified sequences, have a unique potential to provide data for spatial and chronological comparisons. But they also present specific issues that make a reliable interpretation of the results less than straightforward. While the richness and complexity of past human actions is reflected in the archaeological record, supporting the investigation of a multitude of social behaviors, formation processes and taphonomic problems in urban deposits are often difficult to disentangle. Comparison through time of multi-layered stratigraphic sequences and functionally heterogeneous contexts can prove problematic. Fill layers, middens, floors, and use surfaces are all good candidates to investigate horizontal spatial patterning and vertical diachronic temporal variation in the ecofact assemblages. However, this is only possible if there is enough density of remains and if their depositional issues have been adequately addressed. The vast majority of excavated contexts at Gabii are tertiary mixed deposits (sensu Hubbard and Clapham 1992). The charred botanical and faunal remains from these deposits are often considered to be the combined results of repetitive and frequent activities and, as such, well represent the quotidian actions carried out on site. In the long and intricate occupation history of urban settlements, though, formation processes of tertiary contexts can be very diverse, thus requiring a case-by-case consideration of the evidential value of each. At Gabii, for example, a fill layer dated to the Archaic period has a very different potential for the retrieval of significant environmental data than an Imperial one.

From this perspective, both total screening and a blanket sampling strategy with the collection of sediment for flotation from all excavated stratigraphic units can be unproductive. Moreover, in large excavation projects, it is important not only to obtain a representative sample of ecofacts but also to emphasize cost- and effort-effectiveness. For this reason, a sampling and recovery strategy has been adopted that varies on the basis of excavated deposit type and is designed to address our research questions. Over the years, it has been modified to account for the appearance of a variety of chronological phases, formation processes, and inclusion assemblages.

In considering the archaeobotanical samples, we observe that the density of construction debris present in the strata excavated to date greatly reduces the recovery rate for ecofacts. More importantly, many are residual, with materials from a broad chronological range appearing in a single stratigraphic unit, adversely affecting our ability to assess diachronic change. Therefore, in contexts or periods where total sampling is considered to be of little value, we sample selected deposits, where the likelihood of meaningful results is judged to be good. These assessments are made based on previous experience of urban stratigraphy in Archaic and Roman sites (Motta 2011). While sampling is selective, it is consistent across the site. For example, no sampling or screening is carried out for post-abandonment colluvial deposits or dumps of building material, such as tiles and stone blocks. Blanket sampling is, however, routinely applied to all Iron Age and Archaic levels.

The processing methods applied are likewise adjusted based on the character of each deposit. Ecofacts are collected by hand during the excavation of every SU. The hand collection of animal bones and plant remains (i.e., large pieces of charcoal) follows the same procedure used for artifacts, with material visually identified and sorted in the field. A preliminary experimental study on charcoal recovered during the excavation of the house of the Vestals at Pompeii suggests that collection of charcoal from routine dry sieving can provide robust results in a cost-effective manner in an urban setting (Veal 2013). Therefore, some deposits are processed using dry sieving alone, while others are subjected to both dry sieving and flotation. We emphasize that floated samples are not the only or even the most efficient option for the recovery of all classes of macrobotanical remains.

Paralleling the methods for archaeobotany, zooarchaeological remains are collected during excavation and, for some contexts, by sieving and floating soil samples. Samples for each context are sorted by taxon and element, and standard measurements are taken, including counts, weights, fragment or element size, and completeness. The presence and character of human modifications, animal modifications, signs of stress or disease, and burning are assessed for each element. At the SU level, MNI are calculated, and the approximate age and the gender of each individual identified is assessed where possible. At the phased assemblage level, the proportion of species is considered, as are the relative proportions of wild and domestic animals, different age-groups, and the parts of the skeleton typically present. These analyses provide further insight into the consumption of animal products and the role of animals in agricultural or domestic labor during each phase.

The history of Gabii artifact methods and guiding principles

Contents and goals

Reflecting the breadth of the contexts excavated at Gabii, the range of artifacts is vast in terms of both material and chronology. Ceramic vessels recovered thus far range from well-preserved Iron Age aryballoi, to amphorae from throughout the Mediterranean, to Imperial cooking wares from North Africa. An enormous variety of bone and metal implements, tokens, furnishings, and ceramic textile tools attest to the bustling daily activities at Gabii. Fragments of terracotta architectural decoration and sculpture hint at the richness of the buildings at the site.

This variety of objects presents a unique opportunity to pursue several different scales of artifact analysis. In terms of the project’s focus on the history of urbanism, Gabii is a superb site for the systematic investigation of archaeological formation processes. The long-term habitation and repurposing of the several city blocks that have been uncovered means that there are deposits related to construction, discard, abandonment, and accumulation. The way in which the individuals in a city managed their daily waste, the abandonment or continued use of various spaces in the city, and the places set aside for the acquisition of soil and construction materials all played important roles in the development of the urban landscape. This type of study requires both large-scale assessment and quantification of artifacts of several classes as well as detailed artifact-level study. Contemporary material culture scholarship emphasizes that artifacts are both products and tools as well as symbols and agents with complex life histories (Robb 2004; Knappett 2005, 2012). The ongoing analysis of individual objects at Gabii demonstrates that engaging with such models enriches our understanding of the inhabitants of the site (Banducci 2015).

Methods for collection and preliminary processing

Artifact retrieval is generally completed on site through hand collection and is enhanced in certain excavation areas by dry sieving. Metal detectors were also employed in the 2009 and 2010 seasons, on the already excavated soil, to augment our recovery of metal objects (Fernández Flores 1999; Banducci and Farr 2012).

Washing and preliminary processing of the artifacts is completed immediately on site by the excavation’s participants. During the 2009 through 2011 seasons, sorting and counting of ceramic vessels was completed by identifying the ceramic class and the diagnosticity of the fragments (rim, base, handle, or body sherd). This information was recorded on paper forms and then typed into our digital database.

The ceramic classes at Gabii are named in either English or Italian and have been defined using a combination of ware and ceramic type, since both can have significance for Roman pottery in this region. For example, we identify “impasto chiaro sabbioso” vessels, a recognizable common ware that has a diagnostic date and limited range of forms, but we also identify generically “common ware,” employing that generic term for ferrous orange/red coarse pottery used for food preparation, likely mostly cooking.

Beginning in 2012, several measures were added to our preliminary pottery processing. Firstly, we began weighing the total sherds in each ceramic class. This additional information is gathered because sherd count alone is not an accurate representation of the amount of pottery present in a given stratigraphic unit or site; two deposits with identical sherd counts but different sherd weights could represent radically different deposit amounts or densities, since different vessel types break with different frequency. Dividing the total weight of sherds by the number of sherds can also produce a “brokenness statistic” to give a quantitative sense of the degree of fragmentation of a given layer; this can alternatively be calculated using sherd count divided by estimated vessel equivalents (Orton 1985). Ceramic weight is a common metric for referring to amounts of pottery in a shorthand way in excavation reports and is thus useful for inter-site comparison (Evans 1973; Millett 1979; Orton 1993, 175; Peña 1998; De Sena 2002).

As of 2012, we also record the minimum and maximum sherd size for each class and describe the condition of the sherds in each stratigraphic unit: for example, how rounded or eroded their fractures are or whether their surface treatment is preserved. Observing the sherd size and condition aids in our understanding of the depositional processes of the layer. A high degree of residuality has been observed in many of the deposits at Gabii; Iron Age impasto pottery litters nearly every later deposit. Tracking both the quantity and the quality of this material allows for the understanding of the reasonable dating of these stratigraphic units.

Beginning in 2013, drawing of chronologically diagnostic and notable sherds was begun on a regular basis on site, in order to contribute to our off-site study of this material. These drawings are scanned and included in our online database.

Following the preliminary processing of the pottery, ceramic specialists work on site during the excavation season as well as in the off-season, to complete more detailed studies for integration into the project’s publications. These scholars include students from Italian and American universities, completing thesis projects, as well as professional archaeologists.

Dating

As previously stated, several methods of artifact analysis are employed to consider the likelihood of residuality in the archaeological deposits at Gabii. The condition of the artifacts is assessed (e.g., fragment size and the rounding of fractures), and their bulk quantification is undertaken using a number of methods. The project is thus in step with the best practices of archaeological finds recording and quantification (Guidobaldi et al. 1998; Giannichedda 2007). As of 2016, we have not employed any precise measures to calculate dating at the site or consider residuality in a quantitative manner. Methods like the media ponderata and Stanley South’s calculation, which have been employed on Roman sites in Italy throughout the 1980s and 1990s, have not been considered fruitful for use at Gabii thus far (Evans and Millett 1992; Terrenato and Ricci 1998; Martin 1998). This is partially because, with the exception of limited stratigraphic units in the Tincu House, many of the deposits excavated in the first seasons at Gabii were large accumulation layers. With the further study and publication of structures recovered since the Tincu House, it is conceivable that experiments comparing the quantifiable dates of sealed fills will be part of our future analyses.

Instead, a thoughtful estimation, taking into account the sherd condition and quantity of vessel types, is used to assess the date of a stratigraphic unit. During preliminary processing of the finds on site, “spot dates” are assessed and recorded for each stratigraphic unit, on the basis of datable diagnostic fragments. For example, particularly datable fineware fragments for which we can find close comparanda in excavation reports and wares that have very limited periods of production are referred to here. The manner in which these dates are reported in the Gabii online database has changed slightly over the course of excavation seasons at Gabii.

From 2009 to 2011, the finds staff recorded “spot dates” for the earliest to the latest datable material in the stratigraphic unit. A very broad date that reflected the degree of residuality or disturbedness was then assigned to the layer; in many cases, a single stratigraphic unit was given a date like 500 BCE to 180 CE. This vast date range was objective: it meant that the finds staff was not interpreting the character of the deposit or assessing its potential for residual early pottery or intrusive later pottery. With experience, the high degree of residuality at the site caused us to acknowledge that this was not a useful way to record dates or to assist in the preliminary phasing of the site.

In 2012, we began recording two different dates for each stratigraphic unit: one “chronological range of layer,” which reported the full range of dates as before, and one “approximate date of layer,” which reported the interpretive date of the stratigraphic unit based on an assessment of the ceramics’ condition.

By 2014, this practice was changed so that preliminary processing included reporting the “spot dates” for the wide chronological range of materials in the stratigraphic unit; however, only one date was assigned to the layer overall, an interpretive dating that took into account the quantity and condition of the ceramic fragments. An “observations” box in the database allows us to comment on how we arrived at a limited date range despite the vast date range reflected in the ceramic material.

The dates assigned in the preliminary processing of the ceramics allows for our working understanding of the phases at Gabii. These dates are then refined with the closer specialist study of the ceramic materials for publication.

Small finds study

Since the 2009 field season, we have separately collected and cataloged “special finds.” These include bone objects, lithics, unusual ceramic objects (e.g., inscribed vessels, terracotta figurines, or architectural fragments), and diagnostic metal objects (e.g., coins, keys, weights, and nails). When these objects are identified in the field, they are recorded and occasionally have their topographical location mapped in with the digital total station. The decision about whether the precise physical location of an object is important is made based on the type of layer and its stratigraphic reliability. Beginning in 2015, an active program of study has encouraged the examination of these artifacts by specialists and students enrolled in Gabii’s Finds Field School, as part of the research for undergraduate theses and graduate papers. Close metrological and use-wear study of these objects allows for the precise understanding of their production, function, and use life and thus of the daily activities at the site.

Searching for comparanda for these objects has not been trivial, since small finds in Italian archaeology do not have a strong history of study. We have found that referring to publications further afield in Greek and Romano-British contexts has revealed fruitful avenues for understanding how these objects were used and how behaviors at Gabii fit in with the broader ancient Roman world.

The integration of this object study within the study of the landscape and architecture of the site promises to enrich our understanding of Gabii’s development and decline.

Theory: The 3D models of the stratigraphy and material culture-centrism

Archaeology, classical archaeology in particular, has long engaged with questions of the formation and lived experience of towns and cities. Such studies might draw on evidence of local topography, the arrangement of the built environment, and the placement of architectural details, monuments, and inscriptions (e.g., Johnson and Millett 2013). Fundamental to the continued development of these studies is the growing body of evidence emerging from new excavations. Digital techniques for recording evidence “on the ground” (notably SfM, “structure from motion,” aka close-range photogrammetry), for the creation of detailed 3D models, and for scene-level modeling in 3D have advanced rapidly in recent years. These parallel developments have opened the door for approaches to the study of the creation and experience of urban space that are driven by an explicit combination of scene-level reconstruction models (e.g., Klein, Weinlinger, and Vermeulen 2012; Paliou, Whitley, and Earl 2011; Paliou 2014) and detailed SfM or scanning-based 3D models representing stratigraphic evidence.

The 3D digital model, as used in our publications, explicitly encourages—even forces—interaction with it. The natural mode of engagement isn’t static (the gaze), as with an image; rather, you rotate the model, you move closer to it, you toggle its visibility, you push or pull it, you move around it. These are all descriptions of movement, of physical interaction; they are tactile and kinesthetic. This is what makes the digital model that much closer to thingness than the image. The default mode of interaction, while seeming visual (we look at the 3D models), is, in fact, substantially physical: as we view, we touch and move. This added level of engagement is closer to how we interact with objects and constructions. By making an interactive 3D environment our default interface for the archaeological materials, we escape the gaze as the default mode of engagement.

Publishing and communicating archaeology through these models is an explicit and radical move toward an object-centric archaeology led by material culture. Because the things are driving the narrative and because the superstructure of the argument is entered through the physical remains, we are forced to ground ourselves in what was found. Rather than the publication model of laying out the theoretical framework, saying we will explore x and y through material culture, and then presenting the evidence and argument, the theoretical framework is embedded in the structure and form of the communication. This approach to recording and interpretation and publication—the pervasive digital 3D—both provides a raison d’être for 3D recording, reconstruction, and modeling in archaeology and promotes an explicitly and radically archaeological means of engagement with the past, embedded in the production of archaeological knowledge.

Bibliography

Acconcia, V., and G. Bartoloni. 2013–2014. “Le ricerche dell’Università di Roma ‘La Sapienza’ a Veio.” Part 2, “La ‘cittadella di Piazza d’Armi.’” Atti della Pontificia Accademia di Archeologia: Rendiconti 86: 273–296.

Almagro Basch, M. 1958. “Excavaciones españolas en Gabii.” Cuadernos de Trabajos de la Esacuela Española de Historia y Arqueología en Roma 10: 7–27.

Angelelli, C., C. Boscarini, and A. Lugari. 2012. “I rivestimenti marmorei del foro di Gabii.” In F. Guiodobaldi and G. Tozzi, eds., Atti del XVII Colloquio dell’Associazione italiana per lo studio e la conservazione del mosaico: Teramo, 10–12 marzo 2011, 187–199. Tivoli: Scripta Manent.

Ashby, T. 1902. “Classical topography of the Roman Campagna.” Part 1. PBSR 1: 127–285.Banducci, L. M. 2015. “A tessera lusoria from Gabii and the afterlife of Roman gaming.” HEROM: Journal on Hellenistic and Roman Material Culture 4 (2): 199–221.

Banducci, L. M., and J. Farr. 2012. “Coils over spoil: Metal detecting and archaeological interpretation at Gabii.” Poster presented at the Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, Frankfurt am Main.

Becker, J. A. 2007. “The building blocks of empire: Civic architecture, central Italy, and the Roman Middle Republic.” PhD diss., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Becker, J. A., M. Mogetta, and N. Terrenato, 2009. “A new plan for an ancient Italian city: Gabii revealed.” American Journal of Archaeology 113: 629–642.

Becker, J. A., and Nowlin, J. 2011. “Orientalizing infant burials from Gabii, Italy.” BABesch 86: 27–39.

Bietti Sestieri, A.M. 1992a. The Iron Age Community of Osteria dell’Osa: A Study of Socio-Political Development in Central Tyrrhenian Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bietti Sestieri, A. M. 1992b. La necropoli laziale di Osteria dell’Osa. 3 vols. Rome: Quasar.

Bietti Sestieri, A. M. 2010. L'Italia nell'età del bronzo e del ferro: Dalle palafitte a Romolo (2200–700 a.C.). Rome: Carocci.

Boethius, A. 1978. Etruscan and early Roman architecture. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Bonghi Jovino, A. M. 2010. “The Tarquinia Project: A summary of 25 years of excavation.” American Journal of Archaeology 114: 161–180.

Brown, F. E. 1967. “New soundings in the Regia: The evidence for the Early Republic.” In Les origines de la République romaine: Neuf exposés suivis de discussions, 47–64. Entretiens sur l'antiquité classique 13. Vandoeuvres, Geneva: Fondation Hardt.

Brown, F. E. 1974–1975. “La protostoria della Regia.” Atti della Pontificia Accademia di Archeologia: Rendiconti 47: 15–36.

Carandini, A., and P. Carafa, eds. (1995) 2000. “Palatium e Sacra Via.” Part 1, “Prima delle mura, l’età delle mura e l’età delle case arcaiche.” Bollettino di Archeologia 31–32: 1–326.

Cifani, G. 2008. Architettura romana arcaica: Edilizia e società tra monarchia e repubblica. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider.

Cristofani, M., ed. 1990. La Grande Roma dei Tarquini: Roma, Palazzo delle esposizioni, 12 giugno–30 settembre 1990. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider.

D’Agostini, C., and S. Musco. 2016. “Gabii: Mosaici dale terme pubbliche.” In C. Angelelli, D. Massara, and F. Sposito, eds., Atti del XXI Colloquio dell’Associazione italiana per lo studio e la conservazione del mosaico: Reggio Emilia, 18–21 marzo 2015, 335–348. Tivoli: Scripta Manent.

De Sena, E. C. 2002. “Reflections on the supply of domestic pottery in Ostia, 50–450 A.D.” In The urbanistic project on the previously unexcavated areas of Ostia (DAI-AAR 1996–2001), 259–304. Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome.

Evans, J. 1973. “Sherd weights and sherd counts: A contribution to the problem of quantifying pottery studies.” Archaeological Theory and Practice, 131–149.

Evans, J., and M. Millett. 1992. “Residuality revisited.” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 11: 225–240.

Evans, J. M. 2014. “Funerary ritual and urban development in Archaic central Italy.” PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley.

Fabbri, M. 2011. “Cerere, Libero e Libera a Gabii: Una nuova proposta ricostruttiva della storia edilizia del santuario orientale.” Ostraka 20: 13–38.

Fabbri, M. 2015. “A seat of power in Latium Vetus. The archaic building complex on the arx of Gabii.” In E. Kistler, B. Öhlinger, M. Mohr, eds., Sanctuaries and the power of consumption. Networking and the formation of elites in the archaic western Mediterranean world. Proceedings of the International Conference in Innsbruck, 20th – 23rd March 2012, 187-204. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.

Fabbri, M., Musco, S. and Osanna, M. 2012. “Nuove indagini al santuario orientale di Gabii.” Supplement, Ostraka 21: 229–242.

Farr, J. 2014. “Lapis Gabinus: Tufo and the economy of urban construction in ancient Rome.” PhD diss., University of Michigan.

Farr, J., F. Marra, and N. Terrenato. 2015. “Geochemical identification criteria for ‘peperino’ stones employed in ancient Roman buildings: A lapis Gabinus case study.” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 3: 41–51.

Fentress, E., ed. 2003. Cosa V: An intermittent town; Excavations, 1993–1997. Supplements of the Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 2. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Fernándes Flores, Á. 1999. “El uso de detectores de metales en intervenciones arqueológicas urbanas: Métodos de aplicación y resultados.” In Actos XXV. Congreso Nacional de Arqueología, 258–261. Valencia: Diputació de Valencia.

Fortson, B. W., and D. S. Potter. 2011. “A fragmentary early public inscription from Gabii.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 178: 255–260.

Fulminante, F. 2014. The urbanisation of Rome and Latium Vetus: From the Bronze Age to the Archaic era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gallone, A., and M. Mogetta. 2011. “Gabii: Indagini archeologiche nel settore meridionale della città.” In Lazio e Sabina, vol. 7, Atti del convegno “Settimo incontro di studi sul Lazio e la Sabina,” Roma 9–11 marzo 2010, 211–215. Rome: Quasar.

Gallone, A., M. Mogetta, and A. Johnston. 2016. “Gabii in età repubblicana: Nuovi dati sui rivestimenti pavimentali di un grande edificio pubblico.” In C. Angelelli, D. Massara, and F. Sposito, eds., Atti del XXI Colloquio AISCOM, Reggio Emilia, Italy, 18–21 March 2015, 329–334. Tivoli: Scripta Manent.

Giannichedda, E. 2007. “Lo scavo, i residui e l’affidabilità stratigrafica.” Facta: A Journal of Roman Material Culture Studies 1: 51–64.

Gobbi, C. 2010. “Gabii: Scoperta la regia di VI secolo a.C.” Forma Urbis 15 (7–8): 46–51.

Gros, P., and M. Torelli. 2014. Storia dell’urbanistica: Il mondo Romano. 3rd ed. Rome: Laterza.

Guaitoli, M. 1981a. “Gabii.” Parola del Passato 36: 152–173.

Guaitoli, M. 1981b. “Gabii: Osservazioni sulle fasi di sviluppo dell’abitato.” In Ricognizione archeologica: Nuove ricerche nel Lazio, 23–57. QITA 9. Florence: Leo S. Olschki.

Guaitoli, M. 2003. Lo sguardo di Icaro: Le collezioni dell’Aerofototeca nazionale per la conoscenza del territorio. Rome: Campisano.

Helas, S. 2010. “Prospezioni geofisiche a Gabii : Interpretazioni e prospettive per uno studio delle mura.” In G. Ghini, ed., Lazio e Sabina, vol. 6, Atti del convegno “Sesto incontro di studi sul Lazio e la Sabina,” Roma 4–6 marzo 2009, 249–258. Rome: Quasar.

Helas, S. 2013. “Gabii-Latium: Die Befestigungen vonarchaischer bis in mittelrepublikanische Zeit; Erster Vorbericht.” Kölner und Bonner Archaeologica 3:145–166.

Helas, S. 2014. “Gabii: Gli impianti difensivi dell’insediamento urbano (VIII–III sec. a.C.).” In G. Ghini, ed., Lazio e Sabina, vol. 10, Atti del convegno “Decimo incontro di studi sul Lazio e la Sabina,” Roma 4–6 giugno 2013, 319–321. Rome: Quasar.

Hubbard, R.N.L.B. and A. Clapham 1992. “Quantifying macroscopic plant remains”. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73: 117-132.

Johnson, P., and M. Millett, eds. 2013. Archaeological survey and the city. Oxford: Oxbow.

Johnston, A. C. 2015. “Another early fragmentary public inscription from Gabii.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 195: 255–258.

Jolivet, V. 2011. Tristes portiques : Sur le plan canonique de la maison étrusque et romaine des origines au principat d'Auguste (VIe–Ier siècles av. J.-C.). Bibliothéque des Écoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome 342. Rome: École Française de Rome.

Kay, S. 2013. “Geophysical survey of the city of Gabii, Italy.” In Johnson and Millett 2013, 283–302.

Keay, S., and M. Millett 2005. Portus: An archaeological survey of the port of Imperial Rome. London: British School at Rome.

Keay, S., M. Millett, S. Poppy, J. Robinson, J. Taylor, and N. Terrenato. 2000. “Falerii Novi: A New Survey of the Walled Area.” PBSR 68: 1–93.

Knappett, C. 2005. Thinking through material culture: An interdisciplinary perspective. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Knappett, C. 2012. “Materiality.” In I. Hodder, ed., Archaeological theory today, 188–207. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity.

Maaskant-Kleibrink , M. 1992. Settlement excavations at Borgo Le Ferriere (Satricum). Vol. 2, The campaigns, 1983, 1985, and 1987. Groningen: Forster.

Majarini, V., and S. Musco. 2001. “Gabii: Indagini archeologiche: Area urbana, area della chiesa di S. Primitivo e area del santuario extraurbano orientale.” In F. Filippi, ed., Archeologia e Giubileo: Gli interventi a Roma e nel Lazio nel piano peril Grande Giubileo del 2000, 490–499. Naples: Electa Napoli.

Mancini, A., and C. Pilo. 2006. “Materiali votivi ed oggetti rituali dal Santuario Orientale di Gabii.” Siris 7:85–126.

Marcus, J., and J. A. Sabloff, eds. 2008. The ancient city: New perspectives on urbanism in the old and new world. Santa Fe, NM: School for Advanced Research Press.

Martin, A. 1998. “La formula di South per il calcolo della data media della ceramica applicata a contesti romani.” In F. Guidobaldi, N. Lamboglia, and C. Pavolini, eds., I materiali residui nello scavo archeologico, 197–234. Rome: École Française de Rome.

Millett, M. 1979. “How much pottery?” In Pottery and the Archaeologist, 77–80. London: Institute of Archaeology.

Mogetta, M. 2014. “From Latin planned urbanism to Roman colonial layouts: The town-planning of Gabii and its cultural implications.” In Robinson 2014, 145–174.

Mogetta M., and J. A. Becker, 2014. “Archaeological research at Gabii, Italy: The Gabii Project excavations, 2009–2011.” American Journal of Archaeology 118: 171–188.

Musco, S., and C. Pilo. 2006. “La stipe del santuario extraurbano orientale di Gabii.” In Tomei 2006, 314–316.

Orton, C. R. 1985. “Two useful parameters for pottery research.” Computer Applications in Archaeology, 114–120.

Orton, C. R. 1993. “How many pots make five? An historical review of pottery quantification.” Archaeometry 35 (2): 169–184.

Pacciarelli, M. 2000. Dal villaggio alla città: La svolta protourbana del 1000 a.C. nell'Italia tirrenica. Florence: All’Insegna del Giglio.

Paliou, E. 2014. “Visibility analysis in 3D built spaces: A new dimension to the understanding of social space.” In E. Paliou, U. Lieberwirth, and S. Polla, eds., Spatial analysis and social spaces: Interdisciplinary approaches to the interpretation of prehistoric and historic built environments , 91–113. Topoi: Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 18. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Paliou, E., D. Whitley, and G. Earl. 2011. “Three-dimensional visibility analysis of architectural spaces: Iconography and visibility of the wall paintings of Xeste 3 (Late Bronze Age Akrotiri).” Journal of Archaeological Science 38: 375–386.

Patterson, J. R. 2006. Landscapes and cities: Rural settlement and civic transformation in Early Imperial Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Peña, J. T. 1998. “Aspects of residuality in the Palatine east pottery assemblage.” In F. Guidobaldi, N. Lamboglia, and C. Pavolini, eds., I materiali residui nello scavo archeologico, 5–19. Rome: École Française de Rome.

Piccarreta, F. 1981. “Saggi di restituzione e interpretazione di fotografie aeree.” In Ricognizione archeologica: Nuove ricerche nel Lazio, 13–21. QITA 9. Florence: Leo S. Olschki.

Pinza, G. 1903. “Gabii ed i suoi monumenti.” BullCom 31: 321–50.

Quilici, L. 1988. “La posa del nuovo acquedotto Marcio attraverso la zona archeologica di Gabii.” Archeologia laziale 9: 140–160.

Riva, C. 2010. The urbanisation of Etruria: Funerary practices and social change, 700–600 BC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Robb, J. 2004. “The extended artefacts and the monumental economy: A methodology for material agency.” In E. DeMarrais, C. Gosden, and C. Renfrew, eds., Rethinking materiality: The engagement of the mind with the material world, 131–139. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

Robinson, E., ed. 2014. “Papers on Italian urbanism in the first millennium B.C.” Supplement, Journal of Roman Archaeology S97.

Roger, D., C. Sauvin, and A. Taiuti. 2012. “Un projet de fouille du musée du Louvre : Le site de Gabies (Italie).” In La recherché au musée du Louvre (2012), 180–181. Paris: Musée du Louvre.

Sewell, J. 2010. “The formation of Roman urbanism, 338–200 B.C.: Between contemporary foreign influence and Roman tradition.” Supplement, Journal of Roman Archaeology S79.

Terrenato, N., A. Gallone, J. A. Becker, and S. Kay. 2010. “Urbanistica ortogonale a Gabii: Risultati delle nuove prospezioni geofisiche e prospettive per il future.” In G. Ghini, ed., Lazio e Sabina, vol. 6, Atti del convegno “Sesto incontro di studi sul Lazio e la Sabina,” Roma 4–6 marzo 2009, 237–248. Rome: Quasar.

Terrenato, N., and D. C. Haggis, eds. 2011. State formation in Italy and Greece: Questioning the neoevolutionist paradigm. Oxford: Oxbow.

Terrenato, N. and L. Motta 2006. “Uno stato debole? Alcune riflessioni su potere pubblico e potere private in Roma arcaica.” In Studi di protostoria in onore di Renato Peroni, 764-768. Borgo S. Lorenzo: All’Insegna del Giglio.

Terrenato, N., and G. Ricci. 1998. “I residui nella stratificazione urbana: Metodi di quantificazione e implicazione per l’interpretazione delle sequenze; Un caso di studio dalle pendici settentrionali del Palatino.” In F. Guidobaldi, N. Lamboglia, and C. Pavolini, eds., I materiali residui nello scavo archeologico, 89–104. Rome: École Française de Rome.

Tomei, M. A. 2006. Roma: Memorie dal sottosuolo; Ritrovamenti archeologici 1980/2006. Milan: Electa.

Veal, R. 2013. “Fuelling ancient Mediterranean cities. A framework for charcoal research.” In W. V. Harris, ed., The ancient Mediterranean environment between science and history (Columbia studies in the classical tradition, 39), 37-58. Leiden: Brill.

Visconti, E. Q. 1797. Monumenti gabini della Villa Pinciana. Rome: Presso A. Fulgoni.

The story of the house

The town of Gabii is shaped like the flattened skeleton of a fish, a long curved spine with ribs splayed out, running off either side. It sits on the southern slopes of a low conical mound with a crater at its center; a bit of landscape whose topography was defined by a long-dormant volcano. The town’s main east-west thoroughfare, the Via Gabina, traces the contour of the slopes of the crater, not far from the base of the mound, linking Rome to Praeneste. Between this road and the rim of the crater that defines the northern limit of the town, a series of terraces rise up. South of the road, the town continues across more level terrain.

Once upon a time in this town, there was a house. In fact, there were a number of houses, but this story is about a particular house: the Tincu House. This house was built two terraces north of the main road and one block east of a particularly important side street that runs down the slope from the crater’s rim to join up with the Via Gabina. The location of this house, tucked just off this crossroad, gives shape to its story.

To tell the story of this house, we must begin before the house was built and even before the streets that defined the limits of the property were laid out or the terraces were cut into the bedrock. At this time, huts, yards, and other small structures, some grouped into compounds and ringed with their own walls, were scattered across the slope of the crater. In the place where our house will be built, someone is living or working. Later events largely obscure the actions and lives of these early occupants, but we know they were there. We see a scrap of a floor—a compact clay surface, disconnected bits of stone-built architecture, and a few cuts in the bedrock that may have served as drains or as foundation trenches for walls. A thorough reorganization of the town in the late 5th or early 4th c. BCE disrupted whatever these people were doing. The decision was taken to lay out a network of streets that would divide the slope and the plain below into a series of long narrow blocks. Within each block, terraces delimited by rock-cut roads provided relatively flat areas on which new structures could be built. Our house is built in a space defined by a street on the west and terracing cuts on the north and south. The eastern limit of the property ends roughly halfway to the next street over, but it is not defined by the skeleton of streets and terraces that provide the physical frame for the town.

After a pause when the block may have stood empty, the building of the house begins in the early 3rd c. BCE—roughly 280-260 BCE—with the serious business of creating a level and well-drained surface. We see a large cut into the bedrock to construct a level terrace, as well as the installation of channels cut into the bedrock, designed to funnel water south down the slope. Soil and rubble are spread across the building site where the house will appear. The initial outlines of the house are simple enough, a large rectangular courtyard flanked on its eastern side by four rooms. The courtyard is entered from the west through a doorway onto the north-south side street. The walled courtyard space was built open to the sky, and a well was set into the ground in the northern part. The rooms themselves are entered from the courtyard, and some may have connected to one another. The roofs slope outward, dumping rainwater into drains running along the exterior walls of the house. The house is built almost exclusively of local stone—the lapis Gabinus quarried just up the hill.

What happened in the house when it was in its first, simplest form? The usual things, we must suppose. People lived there, cooked and ate, argued and misplaced things, swept and trod down the floors.

Sooner or later, as often happens with houses and their occupants, the domestic arrangements proved unsatisfactory—not enough space/light or just things wearing down a bit. The floors in the eastern rooms are redone—scraped, leveled, re-packed, and resurfaced. A series of new rooms are added along the southern edge of the courtyard, providing more places to keep things, work, or have a bit of privacy. The house is still a house—just a nicer one with some extra rooms and new floors. Then the change comes.

What makes a family leave their home or allow it to be transformed into something that is not a home, even if they still own it? We can’t say, but we know it happened here. The house stops being a house, and a complete transformation into a place with another purpose begins. Two large rooms are added on the northern end of the house, taking over part of what had been an open courtyard. The door through the wall on the western side of the courtyard is blocked up, and a new entrance to the courtyard is built from the south, fronting on a drive that branches off the north-south road that runs up from the Praenestina. A small vestibule is built between the new doorway and the courtyard. Further rooms, small and confining, are added on the southern side of the courtyard, and a large basin is installed in the courtyard, taking up more than its fair share of space. A new wall is added in the courtyard, running parallel to the line of the original rooms, blocking off the formerly easy access to them. The kinds of stones used to build the walls are changed, with the local lapis Gabinus swapped out for the lighter if less durable tufo lionato. The sewers and drains that used to collect water running off the eaves outside the house are closed off. The roofs are rearranged, and instead of water dumping outward and running away from the property, it is gathered inward, pouring down the sloping tiles into the courtyard, perhaps spouted into the new central basin.

Why do all this? Why invert the roofs, block the drains, install a basin, add walls, and close and open doorways. It’s clear at this point that the house no longer works as a house. But it looks like a house, at least as seen from the interior of the courtyard or from the road looking across the threshold. There would be roofs, a basin to catch water, and some surrounding rooms—all the things one might expect. Like a stage set of a house, there’s no home behind it, but the look is good. What’s behind the facade?

For a time, the rooms behind the courtyard remain in use, serving some unknown, backstage purpose. Offices, storage, or something along those lines seem likely. The spaces certainly aren’t well lit, easily accessed, or prominently positioned. This transformation, from a house into a something else, seems to be associated with the arrival of new neighbors. The installation of a large public complex one block to the west doubtless affected the story of this house. Its presence seems the most likely explanation for the radical change witnessed here: the transformation from a house into an annex. This conversion from private domestic to “other use” space requires some explanation. To propose an answer, we must stretch the limits of imagination. Maybe this public complex needed an administrative area. Maybe the house lot was bought and transformed, effectively split into two parts. In the former courtyard, the new walls, rearranged roofs, and basin create the illusion of standing in the interior court of a modern house. Hiding behind the domestic facade are spaces that might work for official business and storage. Together, these spaces create the illusion of the public parts of a house, with functional, if inconvenient, spaces hidden from view.

Something like this must have happened. We can be certain there is a transformation from a place that acts as a house, with fairly modest and uncomplicated spatial arrangements and a look as much rural farmhouse as contemporary urban dwelling, into a place that looks like a more modern “Roman” house but doesn’t act as one.

The activities that required the illusion of a house wind down or shift elsewhere. The rooms hidden behind the facade are repurposed again, as quarrying in this part of the city creeps south down the slopes. The northern wall of the house comes down, and dumps accumulate within some of the rooms, while others remain used for something that required a clear space in reasonable repair. Eventually, the whole place is given up.

The basin in the courtyard is removed, and rubble and dirt are dumped in fits and starts. Over time, this space fills with debris. The walls of the house come down; whether of their own accord or through intentional removal is uncertain. The useful material is carted off elsewhere, and more dirt accumulates. In the end, there is no longer a house, a facade of a house, or a rough repurposed industrial space. There is just an empty lot once more. Then the next thing happens.

More

The Tincu House architecture in its broader archaeological context

The archaeological significance of the story of this house can only be understood in the broader context of the development of Roman urbanism and that of urban and rural domestic architecture in the second half of the first millennium BCE. We begin with two premises: first, that the people building houses and laying out urban infrastructure at Gabii, a top-tier settlement that emerged during the same wave of urbanization in central Italy that brought us Rome, were engaging with many of the same influences, ideas, and examples as their Roman neighbors to the west; second, that in the context of ongoing experimentation with ways to make towns and live urban life in central Italy, the specifics of the division of private and public areas and the layout and form of structures should provide insights into the Gabines' specific experiments in urbanism.

The excavated sequence at the Tincu House speaks to these larger questions in two important ways. First, at a basic level, it adds a new item to the small collection of excavated exemplars of Early Republican and Mid-Republican domestic architecture in an urban context and encourages us to consider the particular requirements of urban housing at this time. Second, it allows us to observe and date, with greater precision than previously possible, some crucial transformations in the trajectory of occupation at Gabii. Specifically, it clarifies the tempo and dynamics of the transition from the sparse and scattered settlement that allegedly characterized the Iron Age phase (Guaitoli 1981b; also seemingly supported by the findings in Area A and Area D of this project’s excavations as published in Mogetta and Becker 2014) to the full-fledged city of the Hellenistic period, which was distinguished by the semblance, if not the reality, of a continuous urban fabric (Mogetta 2014; Mogetta and Becker 2014). Given these premises, while acknowledging that we know relatively little about the form and function of houses in an urban context during the Early Republican and Mid-Republican periods and equally little about the dynamics of dividing up a city to create public and private properties, we turn to the specifics of the excavated sequence and materials.

The House Lot

The urban fabric at Gabii is influenced by the natural topography of the landscape, a gentle slope running south from the rim of the crater of a defunct volcano. The slope is cut back in places, forming a series of terraces and areas of level ground on which to build. The terraces were likely created sporadically as areas of the future town were occupied, as evidenced by the uneven intervals and varied elevations at which they appear. Around the late 5th or early 4th c. BCE, a substantial formalization of the layout of the town is enacted through the construction of a system of streets. A main thoroughfare runs along a contour near the base of the crater rim, with streets radiating upslope and downslope from it, defining blocks of roughly regular widths.

This main thoroughfare exits the town near the site of the “Santuario Orientale” (Fabbri 2011; Fabbri, Musco, and Osanna 2012) and continues in the direction of Tibur. It certainly connects Rome and Praeneste, through Gabii, from the 1st c. BCE onward, following the systematization of the consular road known as Via Praenestina, though it may have served more local traffic for the earlier period and hence is referred to simply as the Via Gabina in this volume (see Mogetta and Becker 2014, 174 nn. 5–6, for a discussion).

The sloping topography of the elongated block where the Tincu House was to be constructed was regularized by cutting a series of horizontal terraces into the bedrock. As one moves uphill from the thoroughfare toward the rim of the crater, at least three terrace levels are present.

Nearby Praeneste provides a roughly contemporary parallel for this form of urban development, notably the terraced structures of the “Borgo” (dated to ca. 200 BCE: Demma 2010–2011, 11–26), though this is a sanctuary site. For a much earlier example in the domestic sphere, we cite the ad hoc project of regularization of the bedrock and construction of ashlar walls and an associated drainage system at the San Giovenale acropolis (dated to ca. 600 BCE: synthesized in Boëthius 1978, 74–75; Colonna 1986, plate VIII).

The Tincu House sits on the middle terrace, tucked between another property to the north, likely domestic, and a property at the level of the thoroughfare, excavated by the Soprintendenza of Rome and seeming to contain the remains of domestic architecture succeeded by public structures, possibly commercial (Angelelli and Musco 2013, 728–729, 734 figs. 2–3). The built structures that make up the Tincu House only occupy half the width of the block defined by the roads bounding the area to the east and west. The use of the eastern half of the block at the time of the occupation of the house is uncertain, as most traces were obliterated by later quarrying activity.

We group the strata and structures that occupy the house lot into four phases, representing key changes in the activities or main purpose of the area over the course of its occupation. Phase B-0 encompasses the features present on the lot prior to the construction of the first recognizable incarnation of the Tincu House. Phase B-1, which we subdivide into Phases B-1a and B-1b, represents the domestic use of the area, including the construction and a substantial renovation of the house. The original plan of the house (Phase B-1a) was subdivided into a large courtyard (approximately 10 × 17.5 m) and a row of rooms running down the east side; later (Phase B-1b) rooms were added along the southern side of the house, enlarging it slightly. In its initial construction, the house boasted paved floors, a well capped in monumental tufo slabs, drains to keep the courtyard relatively dry, and well-dressed ashlar masonry on the exterior facade of the wall. Phase B-2 encompasses the transformation of the property from a domestic space to an area serving as an annex for the public complex across the road to the west. The area was renovated and rearranged together with the paved northeast-southwest street (Road 4) that separates the Tincu House’s lot from the lot of the public building to the west. Key alterations include a new entrance, whose threshold remains in situ, together with the marks of the doorposts, reflecting a significant change in the use of this space. Phase B-3 includes all activities related to the abandonment of the site, prior to its transformation into a necropolis (see Mogetta and Becker 2014 for remarks on the necropolis phase and the later sequence in this area).

Before the House: The Early Iron Age and the Orientalizing, Archaic, and Early Republican Periods: Pre-Structures and Landscaping

Few elements of the structures and occupation surfaces present on this property lot before the construction of the house survive. These elements comprise the Phase B-0 assemblage. The truncation of the archaeological strata was particularly deep in the north sector of the lot, and no evidence of occupation pre-dating the house was identified in this area. In spite of generally poor preservation, some traces of early activity have been identified in the southeast sector of the lot, directly on the bedrock. A curvilinear trench, several compact surfaces, fragmentary rubble walls, and associated layers were obliterated by the leveling of the terrace prior to the construction of the house, leaving only a few traces preserved under the subsequent construction near the southern limit of the terrace.

It is impossible to interpret these structural scraps with any certainty or detail. We suggest that there was a built interior space, evidenced by the floor surface, and that the traces of burning indicate either domestic or production activities. The first properly interpretable evidence belongs to Phase B-1, when the house is constructed.

[picture]

Figure 1: Elements pre-dating the construction of the house are visible here, preserved under the floors of Room B6.

The date of these scant remains is likewise uncertain. Ceramics dated to the Early Iron Age or Orientalizing period are present in the deposit, though these are likely residual finds from earlier activity in the area. Similar traces of potential Orientalizing structures associated with infant burials of the suggrundarium type have been found directly upslope in Area A (Becker and Nowlin 2011).

[picture]

Figure 2: Overview of the excavated area at Gabii, with excavation areas labeled.

This horizon, on top of which the house was later built, thus provides evidence for both early activity in the area and the broad destruction level tied to the later regularization of the topography and re-orientation of boundaries of properties as part of an apparently town-wide reorganization. In fact, the 5th c. BCE date of the latest deposits sealing the cuts in the bedrock corresponds well with the chronology already proposed for the creation of the town-wide orthogonal layout of the streets (Mogetta and Becker 2014).

The definition of a series of elongated blocks, one of which comes to be occupied by the Tincu House, occurs together with the regularization of the topography mentioned above and the establishment of a formal street grid in the 5th c. BCE. This reorganization is transformational, structuring the urban area and defining its character for the whole of the Republican period. While we are convinced of the importance of the institution of an organized street system, what transpires within these newly defined spaces at the moment of their delimitation or for some time after remains uncertain. We have no direct evidence for occupation in the Tincu House’s block for the period between the 5th and early 3rd c. BCE. It seems certain that the area’s previous occupation is reorganized or removed entirely, as evidenced by the 5th c. BCE deposits over the early structural remains and cuts. The block may have remained empty, as seems to be the situation in Area D at Gabii (see the discussion in Mogetta and Becker 2014, 177–179). Alternatively, an early phase of occupation may be entirely masked by the later construction of the Tincu House, though this seems less likely. The relationship between the establishment of a formal street network and the infilling of individual blocks occurs gradually in other towns. We may cite a parallel situation at Pompeii, where the orthogonal blocks in the northwest and east sectors of town were laid out during the later 4th and 3rd c. BCE (Geertman 2007) whereas the infill with houses and shops is very gradual, intensifying in the late 3rd or early 2nd c. BCE (e.g., in the Regio VI: Coarelli and Pesando 2006, 2011). It is also notable that the Tincu House, as constructed in the Mid-Republican period, only occupies half the width of the blocks defined by the street grid, suggesting further subdivision of the blocks and a relatively complex system of property divisions.

The Mid-Republican Period: The House

Phases B-1a and B-1b: Initial construction and domestic life of the house

In Phase B-1a, we see the house as built on its original plan. The design of the house comprises an open courtyard bounded on its eastern side by four rooms. The house would have been entered from the west, by turning off the north-south side road (Road 4 in Figure 2) and coming through the courtyard. This entrance is not present as an opening in the wall separating the courtyard from the road, as found during excavation. Rather, a later patch in the western wall seems to indicate the location of the original entrance. The locations of the doorways into the eastern rooms in the house’s initial state are likewise uncertain. They may all have opened onto the courtyard, a good solution for letting in light and air, and interconnecting doors may have allowed for circulation between rooms.

The construction of the house begins with the cutting of drainage channels into the mostly leveled terrace and with the deposition of soil in some areas to create a compact, flat surface. The organization of these channels is of particular interest, as their construction provides insight into strategies for water management, an enterprise that sits necessarily at the intersection of private interests and communal civic ones. The situation at the Tincu House is an early central Italian example of a private construction project operating with the constraints imposed by centralized urban planning.

In the case of the Tincu House, channels were intended to capture water falling off the roof of the house and to carry it away from the property. During excavation, preserved channels were uncovered only on the northern and eastern sides of the house. Either the western and southern channels were removed or are masked by later activity, or the water management for this property did not require intervention to the south and west of the house. The latter seems unlikely, especially as we consider the extant channels more closely. A single channel runs along the north and east edges of the house, curving around the corner. The part of the channel north of the house is very badly preserved, barely visible as a shallow cut into the bedrock, though it is extant to a greater depth on its eastern end. On the east side of the house, in contrast, the channel is preserved to a greater depth, and we see a lining of basalt stones. This drainage channel is blocked with a fairly careful deposit, containing numerous well-preserved and nearly complete vessels, when the house is transformed in Phase B-2. The state of preservation of the finds from the channel suggests an intentional deposition more than repeated dumping or natural accumulation, and it is specifically interpreted as indicating a change in the configuration of the roofs. A second channel joins the base of the eastern one and heads off to the southeast at an oblique angle. This channel is even deeper but curiously lacks a stone lining. We can propose that the construction of the channel was uniform and that we simply lack preservation on the northern side of the house, or we can suggest that the construction of the channel varied in response to the character of the bedrock and the architecture of the house. In support of the latter explanation, we note that the roofed rooms are only on the eastern part of the structure, and consequently we may expect the eastern part of the channel to be built to accommodate more water and faster flows.

Turning to the western side of the house, while we do not have a surface channel, there is a sub-surface channel running north-south, connected to a drain that emerges in the courtyard of the house and to the drainage system of the block to the west. Interestingly, this channel, roofed with tufo lionato slabs, runs along the interior of the courtyard wall. Again we can propose two competing explanations. It is possible that a surface drain was built outside the courtyard wall on the west side of the house, paralleling the drain on the east (though we might expect a shallower construction like that seen to the north of the house, given the absence of a roof to shed water into this drain), and was later masked or removed when the property's western courtyard wall was rebuilt and when the structure was linked with the complex across the road. Alternatively, because the house's courtyard wall meets the street on its western side, the entrance to the house from the street is here, and channels originating in the interior of the courtyard flow to this limit of the property, we can argue that the channel here would have been constructed sub-surface in the first place. In this case, the preserved segment revealed through excavation represents the original arrangement.

Given the location of the house, with its southern limit just above the cut forming the step down to the next terrace, a channel on this boundary seems a functional necessity. Preservation at the southern limit of the property is extremely poor, and no evidence of a channel is present, but it seems likely the house would have been surrounded by a complete circuit of drains. A similar arrangement of channels has been identified around the property to the north (Figure 3).

[picture]

Figure 3: Area A of the Gabii Project's excavations. Likely drains surrounding the hypothesized house are highlighted.

While most of the infrastructure put in place at this early stage of the construction process is intended to carry water away from the walls of the house, there is also evidence of planning for the management of water within the open courtyard. A covered channel carrying water out from the interior of the courtyard forms a Y junction with the covered drain running along the western limit of the house, and both join with the network of channels under the road located to the west of the property. This channel goes out of use as part of or just before the broad reorganization of Phase B-2. A well cut into the bedrock, covered by large worked tufo lionato slabs, was built in the northern part of the courtyard. In the original design of the house, this well is the only source of water within the property. If we return to the idea of water management as an activity at the interface between priorities of communal infrastructure and the needs of private households, the situation here suggests that individual households at Gabii continue to be responsible for water for their own consumption. The situation in this early stage in the process of urban organization and centralization, as understood through the areas excavated so far, is slightly different from that seen at Pompeii (see Lorenz and Wolfram 2014), where water for consumption comes both from private wells and from communal cisterns and pumps, prior to the construction of the city’s aqueduct.

The construction and renovation of the structure of the house likewise shows instances of variations that may be interpreted as accommodations to suit both the property’s occupants and a developing program of coherent urban planning. We read differences in constructions that would be visible from the roads or exterior facades more generally and differences internal to the house as indicative of such accommodations.

The construction techniques used for walls identified as belonging to the first phase are diverse. A construction cut discovered in the bedrock runs the entire east-west length of the structure on its northern side and contains two preserved wall fragments, which likely form a single wall. This northern retaining wall was heavily robbed, but where it is preserved, the extant ashlar blocks reveal no trace of binding agents, though some show traces of horizontal cutting in the poor-quality tufo. The main internal wall, which divides the rooms along the east side of the house from the courtyard, is of similar construction and separates exterior from interior space. This wall is truncated at its southern end where it abuts the east-west wall that separates Rooms B1 and B6 in the southeast corner of the building. Two small fragments of walls continue toward the southern wall along this axis. One is of mixed technique, including ashlar blocks, rubble, and tile inclusions, while the other was constructed in rubble of smaller size bound with clay. The eastern exterior wall of the structure is made up of at least two different ashlar walls. The wall of Room B3 is built slightly further east, creating a slightly deeper room. An opus quadratum wall divides Rooms B1 and B2, and a gap between the east wall of these two rooms and this wall suggests a possible entranceway. The wall dividing Rooms B2 and B3 is of mixed technique and again lacks conclusive evidence for a doorway, due to poor preservation. A long eastwest wall runs along what appears to be the southern limit of the structure and the property. This southern wall features a different building technique, consisting of irregular blocks and rubble. What are we to make of this hodgepodge of construction techniques?

It seems likely that that the original construction’s builders consistently used a single technique, at least for each wall. Beyond this, we have conflated a series of minor repair episodes into a single phase, and episodes of repair are the main explanation for multiple techniques used in individual walls. As ashlar blocks in opus quadratum (using predominantly lapis Gabinus stone at least in the lower preserved courses of the walls) dominate the Phase 1a structure overall, we speculate that this technique was used in the original construction and that the opus mixtum and rubblework segments are indicative of later rebuilding. Within the opus quadratum tufo walls, we see two decidedly different qualities of stone and levels of workmanship. Notably, the western wall of the courtyard is built out of larger, more carefully dressed blocks than the other walls. The materials of this wall are dominated by lapis Gabinus, with patches of the lighter tufo lionato. This difference in quality may be explained by the presence of the public complex across the road (in which case the chronology of the construction of the final state of the wall remains uncertain) or simply by the fact that this wall faces the road. Either way, this would be the house's most publicly visible facade and seems to have warranted extra investment, initiated either by the house's owners or by the town. We can draw a parallel with Pompeii, where Wallace-Hadrill (2013, 41) interprets the distribution of the nicely appointed “Nocera tuff” facade architecture along Via dell’Abbondanza, Via Stabiana, and Via della Fortuna as a communal project of urban beautification.

As we see evidence for wall repair during the occupation of the Tincu House in its original layout, we also see the floors being resurfaced, with patches of preparation and leveling layers added. Remnants of a cocciopesto floor were identified in Room B1, with several layers of preparation under the floor preserved. While the floor and top preparation layers are truncated, the deepest preparation layer is intact, covering the whole room. Another crushed tufo floor is preserved in two small patches in Room B2. This floor abuts the dividing wall to the north and the east wall, clearly belonging to the same occupation phase. In Room B3, several layers were deposited to raise the ground level for construction of the floor. Based on the remaining patches of floor preparation and surfaces, crushed tufo and cocciopesto floors would have been found in all the eastern rooms in the house's original construction and refurbished as needed. The courtyard of the house likewise had a floor, constructed with crushed red tufo and low-quality plaster, a technique that is attested elsewhere at Gabii (most notably in the Area C house: Gallone and Mogetta 2013). Although we have little indication of the finishing surface of the floor, the extant crushed tufo preparation layers would likely have benefited from some further treatment to protect against the elements. In any case, there are numerous examples of contemporary houses in which crushed tufo floors and more-refined cocciopesto floors coexist (e.g., at Norba: Carfora, Ferrante, and Quilici Gigli 2011, 398–399). Multiple episodes of repair during a phase of domestic use are likewise attested by the character of the finds from this phase, including spindle whorls, loom weights, and fragments of fibulae, which became incorporated into the structure.

We chose to identify a new phase (B-1b) when new walls are built and when the organization of the domestic space is altered. The main additions to the house associated with Phase B-1b, a set of small rooms, are located on the former southern limit of the house and enlarge it. These additional three rooms appear to have been built onto the house during a coherent episode of expansion during its use as a residence. Two north-south walls built in the same technique appear to be contemporary with a third wall sitting a short distance further west. A noticeable cut that runs continuously, albeit slightly irregularly, along the edges of these walls delineates the additional space to the south of the original external wall of the house. The poorly preserved remains of a floor sit within the westernmost of the three rooms defined by these walls and the cut. Such an addition of new rooms as part of the arrangement of the house is common enough. In this case, it results in an L-shaped suite of rooms surrounding the central courtyard. The precise chronology of the addition of these rooms is uncertain. It may have been contemporaneous with one of the episodes of resurfacing the floors and general structural repairs or a separate action. The salient point is that the owners and residents of the house re-invested in the structure, expanding the livable space and updating their arrangements, implying the continued value of the property as a home. The renovations notably do not move the house much further toward a "typical" atrium house plan (as seen broadly contemporaneously at Gabii in Area C: Mogetta and Becker 2014, 179–80 and fig. 9) but continue to maintain a simple layout.

Within the area delimited by the new rooms, several features are preserved south of the southern wall of the house, as it was first built. A worked block lies slightly southwest within this space and may have been once part of one of the new walls or used as a threshold. However, the alignment of this worked block and two circular stone presses suggests they have been displaced, an impression supported by all three floating above intact stratigraphy in the top soil. These features, therefore, are not considered in our consideration of the renovation and expansion activities.

The Tincu House is clearly one in which the owners and occupants continually re-invest. Repair and maintenance activities take place periodically. A planned southern extension is undertaken, which would have required significant effort, though the real gain in space was limited. The house, as far as we know, is in a good state of repair when it ceases to be used as a domestic residence. There is no clear evidence for a period of abandonment or disuse prior to Phase B-2, the transformation of the house into an annex.

Phase B-2: Transformation

The transformation from a house to what can be best characterized as an annex to the public complex across the road to the west (Gallone, Mogetta and Johnston 2016) is a marked one in terms of the use of the space but is deceptive in its alterations to the surface appearance of the structure. The property continues to look more or less like a house from the perspective of someone passing by on the road or standing in the courtyard, but it contains several notable oddities that constitute the evidence that the area no longer functions as a residence.

The first significant change comes as the entrance to the house located in its western wall is blocked up and a new entrance is constructed. This new entrance is accessed via a short drive paved in basalt that forms a Y junction off the main road. One would enter through double doors and step into a small enclosed entryway before entering the courtyard.

[picture]

Figure 4: The new entrance to the courtyard, associated with Phase B-2 of the structure. Note the basalt paving stones—a material not employed in the initial construction of the house—and some reused blocks (lower segment of the image).

The entryway room is too small for one to have done much more than take off shoes or simply pass through. As such, it is the first of several symbolic rooms or features within the annex—spaces that were built to look like part of a canonical domestic structure but could not have been functional. The internal space in the property is effectively split into two functional areas by two walls that define a new, smaller courtyard space. The attenuated courtyard is, we suggest, dominated by a newly installed shallow basin. The well in the courtyard may go out of use at this point; if it continues to be active, then walking around the north side of the basin becomes quite awkward. Certainly, the channel located in the southwest corner of the courtyard, which served to keep the courtyard drained, goes out of use, as the branch of the drain oriented toward the center of the courtyard is intentionally blocked. The constructions dated to this reorganization were built using a variety of materials, including tufo blocks in lapis Gabinus and tufo lionato, as before, but also travertine, rubble, basalt, and tiles. Some of these materials are likely reused from earlier constructions.

[picture]

Figure 5: Elements of the reconfigured courtyard, including new walls added to enclose a smaller space and a cut, from which a basin may have been removed.

As part of the same rearrangement, the drains running around the outside of the structure to the north and east are blocked, and soil is allowed to accumulate in them. The combination of the closing of these drains and the construction of two new walls defining the courtyard points to a re-orientation of the roofs. In the first phase, the roofs of the room sloped outward; in the second phase, their direction seems to be reversed, with their sloping faces visible from within the courtyard. To reverse the orientation of sloping roofs is no small job. Again the motivation for the rearrangements seems to be one of creating the appearance of a canonical house of a certain type. The installation of an impluvium-type feature and roofs oriented into the courtyard point to the look of an atrium house.

There is no concrete evidence for doorways leading from the redefined courtyard into the rest of the structure, though it seems likely one would have been present. The most probable location based on the remains of these later walls is in the southern part of the north-south wall between the courtyard and the rooms. This doorway would have led into a series of interconnected rooms, the pre-existing ones and two new, large rooms on the northern side of the courtyard, in the space created by the walls dividing the space. These rooms, which could not have been well lit or aired, more closely resemble what we see in storage or warehouse spaces than in the living areas of Italic or Roman houses. Taken together, the series of functional, if not pleasant, rooms and the non-functional courtyard that looks like the internal court of an atrium-style house (though the canonical alae are altogether missing) lead to our interpretation of this space as an annex. The suite of rooms could readily have functioned as storage or administrative space. The courtyard would have sufficed for loading or unloading of small goods or as a non-specific overflow or waiting area.

While we cannot be precise about the activities that took place here in the second phase, it is certain that the property has been wholly subsumed by the business of the complex across the road. Whatever the function or functions of that complex, it required what is effectively back-office space, hinting strongly at a public or semi-public use and some administrative or business activities. Perhaps more interesting is the investment in creating the facade of a house as seen from the courtyard or the road just outside of it, combined with the location of a second, side entrance to the larger complex. Motivations for creating the look of a house in the “back rooms” of a public complex may hint at some connection between the idea of a house and the overall purpose of the complex.

The case of the Comitium of Pompeii should be recalled in our discussion of the transformation of domestic urban space. In that instance, we have a public space that was created as part of the same project that resulted in the construction of the porticus at the south end of the Forum (the so-called Porticus of Popidius). During the creation of this space, a pre-existing atrium house was repurposed, with elements of the structure reused (Ball and Dobbins 2013, 474, 483, 470 fig. 2, 472 fig. 4).

We also see the disjuncture between appearance and activities, the imitation of one canonical type in a place that is something else, in many of the small row houses at Pompeii. These row houses adopted some architectural elements of the atrium house at various stages of their occupation. The Casa del Bell’Impluvio is a famous example of a row house converted to imitate an atrium house (Sewell 2010, 132, 133 fig. 57). The dating of the restructuring of the Tincu House, then, seems to correspond with the period of maximum diffusion of this status-related design.

Phase B-3: Disuse and Obliteration

The third phase defined for this area encompasses a variety of activities associated with the end of the life of the building as an annex and a new use of the area, for activities associated with quarries located to the north (see Mogetta and Becker 2014) and, eventually, as an informal dump. The northern rooms are the first to be appropriated for refuse deposition associated with quarrying. The dumping activity pre-dates indicators of collapse and the accumulation of associated rubble. Therefore, it seems the courtyard and possibly the southeastern rooms continued to be used during the initial abandonment of the northern portion of the building.

As refuse deposition intensified throughout the building, structural modifications were made to accommodate the new purpose of the property. Three new walls were built, reflecting some investment in the reconfigured activities here. There is a slight northwest physical shift in terms of the orientation of the newest architecture. One of the walls is a relatively long north-south polygonal partition constructed turning slightly west from where it cuts the structure’s original exterior wall and obliterates it in sections. It extends north far beyond the property line, faced nicely on its western side toward the road, but leaving the eastern side with the rubble packing exposed. Again we see a clear emphasis on presenting the architecture to the traffic using Road 4 and presumably interacting with the large adjacent complex. This wall also cut the basalt re-pavement of Road 4 of the previous phase, indicating a general rise in the road that is mirrored in the courtyard.

Two shorter walls were constructed perpendicular to this large north-south wall and cut across the courtyard. These walls overlie the well-made tufo slab well covers and clearly denote the abandonment of the original occupational function of the property and its features. All three of these walls seem to be associated with the now-segmented northern part of the courtyard and the northern rooms currently being subsumed as a formal dumping ground for the activities further north of the structure. The new organization of the property reflects a series of decisions made by people conscious of interactions with the large multi-terrace complex to the west, the main arteries of the settlement to the south, and incipient Imperial quarrying activities to the north on the terrace above.

It is important to note that a late floor was constructed over the dump in the northeast room of the structure. It has no relationship with the pre-existing walls or other features, although it seems to respect the original boundaries of the room. While it is unclear what function this served, it clearly demonstrates that activity did not cease entirely. Other activities, expected given disuse, were prevalent as well, including the extensive robbing of building materials and the gradual accumulation of material through the mid-1st c. CE. Throughout the 1st c. CE, there are a variety of accumulation and dumping layers that variously respect different room and structure boundaries as the remains of the house became less and less visible. The refuse includes a wide range of materials, from personal adornments to iron slag, as well as a range of coins—all doubtless deposited out of their original context. We interpret these later dumps as representative of disuse, while the earlier dumps confined to the northern rooms are representative of industrial activity.

Relationships to contemporary domestic architecture at Gabii and in central Italy

The Tincu House represents the most complete example of domestic architecture known so far for the early phase of the orthogonally planned city. Within the Gabii Project excavation area, two other habitation contexts have been identified for this period. In Area A, a group of badly preserved structures and associated drainage channels has been investigated, providing a fragmented and partial view of the complex. Its discernible plan, however, seems to have elements in common with that of the Tincu House: an oblong tripartite wing facing an open court and delimited by drains on all sides. In another city block to the east, Area C, a much larger structure has been exposed, but its first phase is partially masked by a later restructuring that has been dated preliminarily to ca. 200 BCE.

The original plan of the Tincu House perpetuates a template that emerged in central Italy in the Archaic period. The basic habitation unit of the compound is an oblong rectangular building (5 × 17.5 m), whose interior is subdivided into a single row of smaller rooms. This wing opens onto a courtyard, which is twice as large (about 10 x 17.5 m; at a later stage, two rooms were added on its north short side) and bound on three sides by a carefully drafted ashlar wall. This type of domestic architecture is well attested in Archaic Latium, with a peak in the period between 600 and 450 BCE (e.g., Ficana, Rome-Sepolcretum, Torrino: synthesized in Lindenhout 2014, with fig. 2). Larger known compounds feature a symmetrical arrangement of the modular unit on both sides of the courtyard (a notable example is House A at Satricum, whose wings measure 5 x 25 m, with a courtyard three times as large). The presence of a well and/or a basin connected to a drainage system in the open courtyard also finds comparanda in Archaic contexts of the broader region, especially in Etruria (e.g., Houses I and II on the acropolis at San Giovenale, of smaller size: Izzet 2007, 149 fig. 5.2).

What is most remarkable about the new example from Gabii, therefore, is neither the architecture nor the building technique (with the exception of the technology used for the floor surfaces: see Gallone and Mogetta 2013). Many parallels can be suggested for the practice of using different building methods for different parts of the house. Most notably, the 3rd and 2nd c. BCE houses at both Pompeii (Pesando 2013) and Norba (Carfora, Ferrante, and Quilici Gigli 2013) show the use of more elaborate techniques for facades and load-bearing walls (at Pompeii, opus quadratum and limestone-framework technique, also known as “opus africanum,” in different combinations; at Norba, polygonal masonry), as well as clay-based mortared-rubble architecture for interior partitions. Remarkable, rather, is the fact that a centuries-old model was selected and fitted into the new layout of the city. This aspect is particularly interesting because it has often been suggested that the emergence of orthogonal town-planning in the Late Archaic period influenced parallel developments in house architecture, such as the introduction of designs based on axial symmetry (though this is inferred mostly from contemporary Etruscan funerary evidence: Colonna 1986, 447–448). It is also commonly believed that such early developments would ultimately bring about houses of the so-called Roman atrium type (for this tradition see Jolivet 2011; a case for such an early date has been made for Rome by Carandini and Carafa [1995] 2000). From a chronological standpoint, however, the evidence from Gabii may be used to support recent views that place the genesis of the canonical Roman atrium at a later stage (Sewell 2010, 129–130). The oldest atrium house at Fregellae was initially dated to the late 4th c. BCE (Domus 7: Coarelli 1995, 18–20; 1998, 62–65), but the chronology was later revised to the first half of the 3rd c. BCE (Pesando 1999, 245–246; Battaglini and Diosono 2010). At Pompeii, the earliest standard atrium houses documented by the Progetto Regio VI (Coarelli and Pesando 2006, 2011; Pesando 2010) seem to post-date the middle of the 3rd c. BCE (e.g., Casa del Naviglio), and what was once believed to be a well-dated example of the basic early template, the House of Sallust, has now been shown to be much later (ca. 140 BCE: Laidlaw and Stella 2014). In Rome, the Auditorium site features a standard atrium in its late 3rd c. BCE phase (De Davide and Di Giuseppe 2006). The urban fabric of both Cosa (Fentress 2003) and Norba (south neighborhood: Carfora, Ferrante, and Quilici Gigli 2010), though, reflects an intensive phase of expansion dating to the 2nd c. BCE.

While the Area B structure seems to have never been updated along these lines, the Area C house was indeed provided with an atrium and an axial tablinum, though again only in its second phase. There, the new arrangement had to be fitted into the pre-existing topography, which explains both the lack of axial fauces and the presence of asymmetrical alae (one can perhaps observe a similar phenomenon in the Late Republican houses on the north slopes of the Palatine in Rome, which oddly are far less regular than their allegedly canonical predecessors: see the state of the evidence in Carandini and Papi [1999] 2005).

Further excavations in the city block of the house in Area C are needed to reveal whether the Tincu House is representative of a generalized pattern at Gabii. It is worth noting, in this respect, that another example of the architectural tradition reminiscent of the Archaic template, although in an expanded version, has been found in the countryside of Gabii: the so-called Via Gabina site 11 (Widrig 2002, Plan Phase 1b). The compact rectangular plan with elongated courtyard and three or more rooms on the long side characterizes Hellenistic rural buildings in Latium, Campania, Apulia, and southern Etruria (Torelli 2011, arguing for a derivation of the model from prototypes in Magna Graecia), so what we might be seeing here is an interesting case of parallel developments in both urban and rural contexts.

The continuation of research at this long-lived primary site will undoubtedly enrich the dataset of urban domestic architecture for the period under discussion, which is mostly based on the evidence from cities that, unlike Gabii, were intentionally founded or re-founded as Roman colonies. Based on the available data, we can already suggest that the urban development at Gabii in the 3rd c. BCE is characterized by quite a different pattern, having originally little in common with the mass-construction projects attested at colonial sites like Fregellae. At the latter site, contemporary housing appears to be based on standardized designs, comprising the atrium house and the row house. The diffusion of individual elements of the Roman atrium house in the second half of the 2nd c. BCE may betray Roman influence. We know that, around the time when the Tincu House was transformed, the Roman family of the Cornelii Cethegi was involved in the monumental reconstruction of the sanctuary of Iuno Gabina (Coarelli 1982; Palombi 2015). Yet construction activities sponsored by Roman magistrates at Gabii are also attested in the 3rd c. BCE (at the site of the “Santuario Orientale,” where a Roman consul dedicated an altar: Fabbri 2012, 19 fig. 3), that is, in a building period that does not demonstrate a particular concern with imitating Roman models, at least in private architecture. The sequence of the Tincu House, then, should probably be interpreted as a specifically local response to broader architectural trends and stimuli, mediated through the particular social conditions, which ultimately produced a rather hybrid form.

Artifacts and Ecofacts from the Tincu House

The structural remains of the Tincu House provide us insight into the changing priorities of both the property’s owners/ inhabitants and the group steering Gabii’s centralized planning. The stratigraphic and structural remains provide evidence for four key moments in the town’s history: the organization of the town to have a coherent layout, the construction of domestic architecture, the growing influence of public institutions, and the shrinking of the inhabited area in favor of expanding industrial activities. The artifacts and ecofacts found within the property support and augment the picture painted by the stratigraphic and structural evidence.

Ceramics from the Tincu House

The excavations carried out within the urban area of the ancient site of Gabii have uncovered a complex sequence of occupation spanning from the Mid-Republican period to the Early Imperial period. The study of the ceramic assemblage recovered from these stratigraphic deposits contributes significantly to our understanding of the material culture, society, and economy of the Latin town at that time. Until recently, the only available corpora of ceramics from contemporary contexts at Gabii were those from the votive deposits at the sanctuary of Iuno (Almagro Gorbea 1982), from the extraurban “Santuario Orientale” (Musco and Pilo 2006), and from the rural shrine at Ponte di Nona (Potter 1989), which is located about three miles from the urban center and has been interpreted as a healing sanctuary (see Musco 2006, with further bibliography). In all these cases, therefore, the ceramics represent activities typical of sanctuary sites. The activities associated with sanctuary sites, which we presume are dominated by votive depositions, feasting, and other acts of public consumption, lead to the overrepresentation of finewares and terracottas, as opposed to common and coarse wares in the assemblages. The study of the materials collected from the Area B house therefore not only provides the absolute chronology for its occupation and transformation but, importantly, allows us to chart the consumption and discard patterns associated with the occupation of domestic and urban non-religious public contexts. Equally important, the changing character of the deposits provides supporting evidence for major alterations in the character of the activities taking place.

The chronology of the property has been established primarily based on the ceramics, with complementary evidence provided by the coins found in floor preparation layers. From the layers associated with Phase B-1 (and especially Phase B-1b) comes a large assemblage of objects (more than 5,000 fragments, corresponding to 36% of the total sample), which makes it possible to date the main building activities to between the first half of the 3rd c. BCE (Phase B-1a) and the late 3rd or early 2nd c. BCE (Phase 1b) with some confidence, revealing a general picture of the kinds of pottery in use in or near the habitation at that time. In Phase B-2, a few diagnostic elements, combined with the stratigraphic relationships, indicate a date within the second half of the 2nd c. BCE and the early or first half of the 1st c. BCE. Almost all the pottery from the Phase B-3 deposits are residues from Phases B-1 and B-2. The available dating elements, however, are consistent with a terminus post quem of the second quarter of the 1st c. CE for the final abandonment of the property, prior to its conversion into a necropolis.

The most representative group of materials related to the domestic occupation phase of the property, essential to its dating, has been recovered from the fill of the drain running along the eastern exterior wall of the house. The assemblage is outstanding not only in terms of quantity and quality but also for the state of preservation (several individual vessels have been fully or almost fully reconstructed). This suggests that the items deposited in the drain may have been part of the pottery set in use in the house itself, not secondary refuse. It is possible that the discard of the materials happened immediately before the restructuring of the house in Phase B-2. That this was the result of a single action and not of a series of dumps over a longer period of time is indicated by the fact that most elements can be dated to the same chronological range. The assemblage is dominated by finewares, including Black Gloss, Impasto, Bucchero, and a mixture of imported wares and locally produced specimens. A small number of amphorae and common wares are also present.

The assemblage from Phase B-2, representing the transformation to a public space, comes from leveling layers for the floors rather than a drain deposit and, as such, is less likely to be representative of use on the property. Rather, we read these ceramics as representative of the materials in use in the neighborhood or across the town. The bulk of the assemblage is comprised of coarse wares, unsurprising given the use as packing. As such, it is not reasonable to associate the ceramics with activities connected to the use of the property as an annex. The information provided is purely chronological. It is similarly untenable to associate activities closely linked to the property with the ceramics belonging to the third phase, as a mixture of dumps and natural post-abandonment accumulations are present. In both cases, the materials dumped or accumulating represent activities taking place in other areas of the neighborhood and across the town. They do, however, provide a chronology for the industrial activities on the property and the active dumping phase.

The Coins from the Tincu House

As with the later ceramics, the coins found in the Tincu House paint a picture of the materials generally in circulation at Gabii during the periods in question, rather than representing the specific context of the house or the public space that succeeds it. Of eight coins found in the Tincu House, seven date to the 3rd c. BCE, beginning ca. 280 BCE and running up to the start of the new century. Of the datable coins, one can be confidently associated with the domestic phase of the property, three with its reorganization and transformation into an annex associated with the adjacent complex. All these coins were discovered embedded into floor preparation layers, explaining their survival in situ in the house, given its crushed tufo paved floors. The remaining coins, while dating to the years when the property was a house and then an annex, were found in dumping layers associated with industrial processing related to the quarries and represent secondary or tertiary depositional contexts. Most of the coins originate in relatively local mints in Rome and appear to have circulated for some time, as indicated by their highly eroded faces. They are generally bronze, lightweight, and of a low denomination.

Overwhelmingly, the coins cluster around two epochs: the turn of the second quarter of the 3rd c. BCE and the last quarter of that century. This reflects the production pattern of Roman coinage during the late Early Republican and Mid-Republican periods. At the beginning of the 3rd c. BCE, Rome utilized a variety of bronze currencies, in addition to very limited issues of silver coinage. Indigenous Roman currency was based on large weights of bronze: aes rude, aes signatum, and the casted aes grave. When Rome adopted coined silver and bronze, the earliest issues were derived from the coins minted in Southern Italy, particularly the coinage of Neapolis (Burnett 2012, 300). As a result, due to the legends, types, or weight of some of these early issues, they are believed to have been minted at a South Italian mint for Roman use. By the second quarter of the 3rd c. BCE, Rome was capable of minting its own issues of silver and bronze coins. The frequency and scale of these issues, however, stagnates in the middle of the century, before increasing in the second half of the century. During the late 3rd c. BCE, there was a great deal of change in the currency, as certain denominations were abandoned and as the purities and weight standards of other denominations were reduced. This debasement and weight reduction were the result of Rome’s military campaigns during this time period, particularly the Punic campaigns. The greatest change occurred when Rome introduced the silver denarius in 211 BCE, which corresponds with a drastic reduction in the weight of the as, the principle bronze denomination.

The later phases of the Tincu House, Phases B-2 and B-3, produced coins representing these varied denominational standards. The poor condition of the coins has been discussed and attributed to prolonged periods of use or circulation, based on the appearance of the flan’s surface. For Phases B-2 and B-3, it could be possible to dismiss the early 3rd c. coins (Δ238b and Δ268) as residual artifacts. This may certainly be the case for Δ268, from Phase B-3, since dumping activity characterizes this period and since this coin is quite removed in time from the mid-2nd c. coin Δ434, also associated with this phase. Yet these earlier coins may indicate that bronze coinage experienced a long life at Gabii. The limited and sporadic issues of coinage during the Mid-Republican period would have encouraged the extended use of bronze coins. The value of these coins, a necessity for smaller transactions, was likely based on their weight rather than their supposed denomination. This must certainly be the case for any issues of the early 3rd c. BCE that are still in circulation at the end of that century.

Notable objects from the Tincu House

Beyond the ceramics and coins, a variety of objects were recovered during the excavation of the house. While most of these did not derive from stratigraphic contexts that can be securely associated with specific activities in the house, we suggest some correlations between the assemblages of notable objects and the activities associated with its various phases of use. The first phase, when the house is in use as a house, produced numerous loom weights, a spindle whorl, delicate bronze nails, fibula fragments, and a bone bead, among other items. Phase B-2, when the site served a more public function, has few finds. A fragment preserving two different scenes from a small terracotta altar (Δ213) was found in a collapse layer. Descriptions of the scenes are recorded below in the section on notable objects under “Details.” Phase B-3, a period of abandonment and dumping, unsurprisingly produced the most finds, including a broken but complete bone hairpin (Δ139) and a lead slingshot bullet (Δ144). Most of the finds from this layer, however, are highly fragmentary and a mix of domestic or personal items and utilitarian, even industrial refuse, such as the iron crucible slag (Δ585). While specific conclusions further than this are not possible at present, the character of each assemblage remains suggestive.

Archaeobotanical Remains from the Tincu House

The results of the archaeobotanical study of the property defined by the Tincu House are quite limited due to the character of the strata, which are dominated by construction and dumping layers that do not lend themselves to the preservation of meaningful ecofact assemblages. A handful of cereal crops (Triticum sp. and Hordeum vulgare) have been retrieved among mostly unidentifiable remains.This lack of data is a further strong indication of what was argued in the introductory volume. In a Roman urban context for the Late Republican and Imperial periods, this kind of mixed tertiary deposit, extremely rich in building and residual material, is not a good candidate for the collection of flotation samples aimed at the analysis of archaeobotanical remains. We therefore await the excavation of more favorable sequences to elucidate the archaeobotany of this period at Gabii.

Zooarchaeological Evidence from the Tincu House

Little can be said based on the faunal assemblage recovered from the Tincu House. The bones recovered were highly fragmented, making the accurate identification of species difficult. During the property's domestic inhabitation phase, the livestock is dominated by pigs, with ovicaprines and cattle making up the rest of the assemblage. While individual pigs outnumber the other domestic species, cattle represent the bulk of the meat supply. The cattle consumed here are adult, and the range of ages represented in the assemblage suggests that they were primarily serving as a food supply, though exostosis and robust tendon attachments hint at their use as a labor force. The ovicaprines present, based on the distribution of ages, were likely exploited for milk and wool as well as being part of the meat supply. That relatively young pigs and piglets dominate the assemblage may suggest a certain level of wealth, as the occupants of the house could afford to consume immature animals. Fish and shellfish are very rare, as are birds, suggesting that the local diet centered on red meat.

Beyond these generalities, we can note that butchery marks are infrequent but present and that they represent all parts of the carcass-processing cycle. There is nothing to suggest that the animals are being butchered on site or that there is a preference for a particular method of preparation. There is virtually no evidence of burning, which hints at food preparation methods using indirect heat. Stewing, boiling, and braising, rather than grilling or roasting, should be imagined. This is typical for domestic consumption assemblages for central Italian urban centers. Interestingly, the same picture of consumption is seen in the second phase, when the use of the building transitions from domestic to public. This consistency across a clear transition in the use of the space should be considered together with the fact that the majority of the assemblage for both phases is derived from the fills of drains located just outside the walls of the house. Taken together, these facts suggest that the consumption pattern we are seeing may be a general one at Gabii and not limited to or tightly associated with this particular house. The bones found in the three stratigraphic units that make up much of the sample likely accumulated from upslope and through intentional dumping. Consequently, much of what we see is likely not in its primary depositional context. The same may be said for the faunal assemblage found in the dumps that accumulate as the property goes out of active use in Phase B-3. These remains likely represent the pattern of consumption at Gabii more generally. In this later phase, we can note a broad increase in the number of avian bones present, in particular chicken (Gallus gallus), and surmise that fowl became a larger part of the Gabine diet over time.

Conclusion

It seems clear that the development of the Area B plot altered the previous settlement organization radically. This suggests that the new urban layout was the result of a site-wide redistribution of property, which, in turn, implies the existence of a public, central authority capable of imposing and coordinating the spatial reconfiguration of the city. It comes as no surprise to see that public monumental writing appears in the same period (Fortson and Potter 2011; Johnston 2015). While comparable sites in the region (e.g., Rome) seemed to grow “organically” over time (i.e., with the multiple foci that composed the early settlement expanding slowly and occupying the free areas over time), the urban development of Gabii was the result of a sudden, centralized process.

The ceramics found and not found in Phase B-0 and Phase B-1 of the Area B plot support the idea of a total transformation of the property, associated with the laying out of the town's street grid, and a possible gap in the active use of this area. The ceramics associated with the Phase B-0 structures date between the Iron Age and the 5th c. BCE—the date of the creation of the street system, as established through the excavation of two road sequences (Mogetta and Becker 2014). The ceramics associated with Phase B-1a and the construction of the house date to 280–260 BCE. There is no evidence for activity or occupation on the plot between the construction of the road system in the later part of the 5th c. BCE and the construction of the house as we find it in the early 3rd c. BCE. How can we explain a gap of over 100 years in this area? The situation finds parallels at Pompeii and elsewhere at Gabii (Area D), where a block appears never to be reoccupied after the 5th c. BCE rearrangement associated with the street system (Mogetta and Becker 2014). At Pompeii, the orthogonal blocks in the northwest and east sectors of town were laid out during the later 4th and 3rd c. BCE (Geertman 2007), but the infill is only very gradual, intensifying in the late 3rd or early 2nd c. BCE (e.g., in the Regio VI: Coarelli and Pesando 2006, 2011). While it is possible that traces of some activity dating to the 4th c. BCE are masked by the construction of the house, it is equally likely that the lot stood empty for a time before being purchased and built upon as part of an ongoing process of urbanization. The situation in the Area B plot adds to the body of evidence offering a more nuanced view of the process of becoming urban.

Several features of the Area B structure in Phase B-1 demonstrate that the housing project was well integrated with the overall urbanization program. The collection and disposal of surface waters was needed especially in the case of abutting houses and/or adjoining terraces. A gap was left between the cut in the bedrock and the back wall of the house, creating a channel that connected with the main drain. The wall delimiting the house on its west side functioned as a physical boundary of the property as well as a formal street frontage. The building technique chosen for this side of the structure, which features at least a course of large ashlar blocks, shows much greater quality and accuracy than that of the interior structures, which are built with smaller blocks of now highly degraded tufo. A reason for this may be that there was an attempt at beautifying the facades on this particular street, which was located at a crucial node of the town plan where it intersected further downslope with the main artery, at its junction with the important regional road to Praeneste. As discussed above, the impetus for this project could actually have come directly from the civic institutions (the phenomenon is particularly well known in the Greek context, especially in the case of intra-urban processional roads: e.g., Selinus; see Mertens 2006, 172–183). Similarly, the transformation of the house in Phase B-2, when an entrance was inserted in the corner of the courtyard, can be linked with broader public building interventions, including the paving of Road 4 (Gallone, Mogetta, and Johnston 2016). The road surface was widened at this time, encroaching on the western part of the property, and a drive branching off the main road was added to give access to the courtyard through its new entrance. On the opposite side of this drive was the access to a large complex, probably a public building. The rearrangement and substantial renovations of the Tincu House, the paving of Road 4, and the public building west of Road 4 suggest a significant change in the use and character of this part of the town. In short, the evidence from the Tincu House, combined with the large-scale data collected by the Gabii Project, allows us a glimpse into the actual negotiations between public and private interests that may have brought about and shaped urban forms at other multi-phased sites in the region.

Details

This section provides a more detailed discussion of the materials presented in the “Story” and “More” sections of this volume, with direct reference to individual stratigraphic units. Information on the stratigraphy of the property is outlined by phase and construction type or formation process. Specialist reports are included here, with detailed data supporting general statements made in the narrative.

Detailed Stratigraphic Analysis

Phase B-0: Pre-house structures and property limits

Stratigraphic units (henceforth SUs) 1416, 1462, and 1223 represent the earliest recovered occupation activity within this property. SU 1416 is a burnt layer below an array of tiles, SU 1411. SU 1462, still in situ, is a compact clay surface—possibly a floor—that extends below later structures (including wall SU 1185: see below). SU 1223, which was never excavated, also appears to run under later wall SU 1185. Also dating to this phase is an early semicircular rubble wall, SU 1206, running under the later wall SU 1184 and curving east-west in association with a semicircular cut in the bedrock, SU 1235. The wall preparation SU 1468 seems to belong to another early feature, located east of later wall SU 1393. SU 1472 also appears to be a remnant of an earlier wall or other stone feature associated with an early southern wall and SU 1468. Analysis of the ceramics associated with these SUs dates this phase of activity to around the 5th c. BCE.

Phase B-1: Construction of the house

Leveling Layers

The initial stages of construction of the house included leveling deposits and the cutting of drainage and other infrastructure. In some areas, the topography was regularized by means of leveling layers deposited prior to construction. This construction almost entirely obliterates traces of previous occupation and activity, leaving us with the scant remains described as belonging to Phase B-0. Leveling layer SU 1399 was deposited on top of earlier surface 1462 in Room B4. SU 1204, a reddish-orange layer of soil and tufo, also covers previous activity layer SU 1223. It is possible that this layer’s color and composition can be attributed to activities related to the heating of tufo blocks for the preparation of subsequent floor surfaces probably associated with this period of construction. On top of this layer, SU 1205 seems to have been deposited to regularize the slope and level of Room B5 for the construction of the house.

Northern and Eastern Drainage System

The construction of drains occurs early in the building of the house. Along the northern and eastern perimeter of the property, a sewer, SU 1322, was cut into the bedrock and likely served as the drainage ditch for the northern side of the structure. Portions of the northern wall are still visible adjacent to this cut, although both wall and cut are heavily eroded. A double cut formed by SUs 1476 and 1322 was made parallel to the eastern side of the house, and a stone lining (SU 1402) was built within it. Another stone feature, SU 1348/1398, was built of irregular basalt blocks against the eastern wall of the house and along the western edge of the sewer. This construction served as a retaining wall and raised and leveled the irregular bedrock. Fills accumulated in these drains. SU 1465 is an early fill of the sewer cut, while SU 1279 and its continuation SU 1385 both appear to have accumulated in the drain later in its use. These deposits are dense, and a variety of materials are present, from ceramics to bones. As stated elsewhere, their contents likely reflect the detritus of the neighborhood rather than exclusively the refuse of this house.

The Courtyard

Originally a single courtyard associated with a large crushed tufo floor, SU 1173 (= SUs 1215, 1231, 1216, 1255) occupied the western two-thirds of the house. The cocciopesto floor was constructed with a stratum of crushed red tufo and low-quality plaster. This surface has been truncated by several different phases of walls, later burials, and a massive robbery trench, SU 1229 (which exposed the drainage system for the courtyard, discussed below), as well as structures installed during the reorganization of the southwest corner of the house.

At its fullest extent, the courtyard was bound by western wall SU 1245, northern wall SU 1217, SU 1390 to the south, and SUs 1183, 1469, and 1393 to the east. The western courtyard wall, SU 1245, is preserved entirely except for its southern limit. Originally built of large oblong ashlars, it was later patched with tiles and irregular, small tufo blocks. The northern wall, SU 1217, is heavily robbed to the east and broadly poorly preserved. Its extant ashlar blocks stand on only a thin layer of accumulated sand, SU 1313, which rests directly on the bedrock. No direct evidence of a binding agent was noted, although some of ashlars show traces of horizontal cutting, possibly representing preparation and roughing of the surface for a binding agent. Of similar construction but better preserved, the wall SU 1183 runs north-south, separating a series of rooms along the eastern side of the house (Rooms 1, 2, 3, and 6) from the courtyard. This wall is truncated in the south where it abuts east-west wall SU 1184. Two short sections of wall, SUs 1469 and 1393, continue toward the southern courtyard wall SU 1390 along the north-south axis of SU 1183. SU 1469 uses mixed techniques, including ashlar blocks, rubble, and tile inclusions, while SU 1393 was constructed in opus incertum. In spite of the mix of techniques, these segments of wall likely serve a single function—to separate the courtyard from the eastern rooms of the building.

The Drains and Well in the Courtyard

Two sets of features related to water management are present in the courtyard during Phase B-1, with partial continued use into Phase B-2. In the southwest corner, we find a set of structures clearly intended to drain water away from the property. A rock-cut channel, SU 1228, and the soil accumulated within it, SU 1221, were exposed by the excavation of a portion of floor SU 1173, running parallel to the wall SU 1245, along the western edge of the courtyard. The channel was covered by a series of large tufo slabs, SU 1230. These tufo coverings are held in place by an extremely large ashlar block, SU 1410, which sits directly to the east of the channel. Looking into the channel, it clearly forms a T juncture with another drainage conduit heading west toward Road 4. In the northern part of the courtyard, a well, SU 1257, is cut into the bedrock and covered by large well-cut tufo slabs, SU 1188. No further evidence of a superstructure is present for the well. It is simply accessed from the courtyard’s surface.

Rooms

The walls that delimit Room B1—SUs 1183, 1184, 1185, and 1250—are all poorly preserved, with only a few courses or part of a single course remaining. SU 1183 is discussed above. SU 1184 is a smaller east-west wall that abuts SU 1183 to the west and SU 1185 and, later, SU 1387 to the west, separating Rooms B1 and B6. SU 1250 is an east-west opus quadratum wall that divides Rooms B1 and B2. A gap between east wall SU 1183 of these two rooms and SU 1250 suggests an entranceway. However, poor preservation means that the presence of a doorway here is uncertain.

Remnants of a cocciopesto floor, SU 1178, were identified in Room B1 abutting the dividing wall, SU 1250, to the north. Several layers of preparation under this floor, including SUs 1179, 1180, and 1181, were preserved. These floors layered on top of one another indicate episodes of repair and resurfacing. We see a similar pattern in other rooms of the house, particularly those on the eastern side of the courtyard that were in use from Phase 1a through Phase B-2. While the latest floor surface and top preparation layers, SUs 1179 and 1180 (a gravel layer and a crushed tufo preparation layer respectively), are truncated, the deepest preparation layer, SU 1181, is intact and is bounded by all four walls of Room B1.

Room B2 is bounded by walls SUs 1183, 1250, 1185, and 1299. SU 1299 is built using mixed techniques, with both ashlar and rubble masonry present. This wall divides Rooms B2 and B3; it abuts SU 1183 to the west and SU 1309 to the east where the latter ends, and SU 1185 abuts it to the south, serving as the eastern wall for Rooms B1 and B2. A crushed tufo floor is preserved in two small patches, SU 1244, in Room B2. This floor abuts a dividing wall, SU 1299, to the north and SU 1183 to the east, and it clearly belongs to the same occupation phase.

SUs 1399 and 1321 are layers deposited in Room B3 to raise the level for the construction of a floor that would have been in phase with walls SUs 1299, 1183, 1309, and 1308 but was not preserved. These soil and rubble leveling layers, SUs 1399 and 1321, were deposited over the earlier surface SU 1462. The ashlar tufo wall SU 1309 serves as the eastern boundary of this room and the structure; interestingly, it jogs slightly to the west from the other eastern limiting wall, SU 1185, which continues to the south of SU 1299, bounding Rooms B1 and B2. The tufo ashlar wall SU 1308 bounds the room and structure to the north. Construction cut SU 1395, cut into bedrock, runs the entire east-west length of the structure, suggesting that walls SUs 1308 and 1217 are likely two fragments of the same wall.

Room B6, located in the southeast corner of the structure, was bounded by the wall SU 1184 in the north, SU 1390 to the south, and the rubble continuation, SU 1387, of ashlar wall SU 1185 to the east. The western limit of Room B6 is composed of two wall fragments: SU 1469 is built using mixed techniques, including ashlar blocks, rubble, and tile inclusions, while SU 1393 was constructed using the opus incertum technique. Both walls SUs 1469 and 1393 were truncated by a grave (cut SU 1437), which revealed the construction cut, SU 1475, of wall SU 1393.

SU 1386 is a later fill within Room B6 that consisted of a large amount of tufo, basalt, and cut stone debris. This fill, based on the dates of its ceramic inclusions, belongs to the substantial renovations of Phase B-2. At the time of excavation, the excavators were uncertain of the extent of this SU and noted that there is likely contamination from the silty soil above, SU 1327 (clear from its broad date range: see below). During the course of excavation, the western limit of the SU was noted as extending through the gap between walls SUs 1469 and 1184 and out of Room B6, implying that there may have been a doorway there and that the fill might have extended or been treaded out toward the west. The suggested doorway would have served as the entrance from the courtyard to the rooms of the structure during its Phase B-2 use, when the building was associated with the adjacent public building. While the excavators noted that SU 1386 seemed to cover walls SUs 1390 and 1448, the thinness of this cover, less than one centimeter, suggests erosion and thus does not affect the interpretation of the layer as a leveling fill in the room.

Phase B-1b: The southern addition

Wall SU 1390 runs east-west along what appears to be the southern limit of the structure in Phase 1a. It is very likely that, in its initial construction, SU 1390 continued west to meet SU 1245. This configuration was altered by the installation of a new entrance to the house in the southeast corner of the courtyard as part of the Phase B-2 reorganization. SU 1390 features a different building technique than many of the walls in the northern part of the building, comprising irregular blocks and rubble. Two north-south walls built in the same technique, SUs 1448 and 1449, seem to be contemporary with SU 1390. Several more features are preserved south of SU 1390. Worked block SU 1454 lies slightly southwest of wall SU 1448 and may have been once part of this wall or used as a threshold. The alignment of this worked block and two circular stone presses, SUs 1507 and 1429, suggests that they have been displaced. This interpretation is further supported by the fact that all three are floating above intact stratigraphy and just under the top soil. While SU 1507 is almost completely obliterated by wall SU 1448, stone vessel 1429, filled by SU 1430, was placed within cut SU 1432 and fill SU 1431. Additionally, a floor preparation, SU 1470, abuts the south face of wall SU 1390. SU 1397, a tufo slab, is embedded in this preparation and is presumably related to the drainage channels visible in the courtyard to the north. SU 1390 itself and this collection of features south of it are interpreted as making up the main addition to the house carried out in Phase 1b or as related to later activity in this area. While this interpretation must remain tentative because of prior excavations, it seems to provide the best explanation for the presence of further rooms on this terrace built using a mix of techniques and seemingly “added on” to the main structure.

Phase B-2

The new southern entrance

In Phase B-2, the north-south street running along the western side of the property was widened, and a Y junction was added, providing a new route of access to the property, now serving as an annex to the public building across the road (Area F). This drive is paved with basalt slabs (SU 1400) and terminates at the threshold (SU 1394) marking the entrance to the building. The upper step of the threshold preserves two circular depressions, one on each side, with rusted rings worn into the stone—suggesting double doors. A new side wall (SU 1391) was built to retain the basalt paving blocks, running northwest-southeast from the threshold and along the eastern limit of the road. Both the enlarged pavement, SU 1400, and wall SU 1391 truncate SU 1390, which is clearly visible between the first and second northernmost ashlars of SU 1391. Further, the western part of SU 1390 was incorporated in a new structure, SU 1415, adjacent to the roadside wall. The paving of the road, which we date to ca. 150 BCE, provides tentative links to a wider increased use of all-weather paved roads in urban contexts in central Italy. The earliest road pavements in Rome were built by the censors of 174 BCE (Livy 41.27.5–13), and the limestone pavement of the street grid of the south neighborhood at Norba also seems to date to the 2nd c. BCE.

To the west of the threshold SU 1394 sits an ashlar block, SU 1508, which is misaligned both with the threshold and also with wall SU 1245 further west. An ashlar block, SU 1414, sits to the east of the threshold and to the north of the pavement and wall SU 1391. The threshold leads onto the remains of a crushed tufo floor, SU 1477, to the north, which may not have extended much further north at the same level, as there are two small tufo blocks to the northeast, SU 1504. Together, these features are interpreted as forming a small vestibule. Additionally, two more tufo blocks, SU 1505, were found sitting slightly northeast of the threshold and may have originally been part of the construction of this entrance.

Closing the western entrance

An area of masonry patching, SU 5018, was identified in the western wall SU 1245, located adjacent to the drain SU 1230. This patch in the wall, of a size appropriate for a doorway, is interpreted as the original entrance to the house. This entrance, it seems, was blocked up, likely concurrently with the construction of the new entrance in the southwest corner of the courtyard and the repurposing of the building. This interpretation is further bolstered by an extremely shallow construction cut and fill, SUs 5017 and 5016 respectively, identified on the western side of SUs 1254 and 5018 during the excavation of the north-south road adjacent to the entrance. The shallowness of the cut and fill suggests that the construction of SU 5018 required only the removal of a small amount of accumulated material in the road, consistent with the idea that SU 5018 represents a modification of an existing structure.

The southern addition in Phase B-2

The southern part of the courtyard, to the east of the new Phase B-2 entrance, is severely truncated by graves and other disruptions, making it difficult to read. Only small fragments of various cocciopesto floors, preparation layers, and some small walls are preserved. These include SU 1396, a tufo opus signinum floor that just barely covers the eastern side of block SU 1414 and extends toward the east through a seeming “threshold” created by two walls of mixed ashlar and rubble, SUs 1453 and 1450, the latter of which sits partially on top of SU 1390. Preserved under this floor, SU 1396, is a preparation layer, SU 1417, which was cut by SU 1419 and fill SU 1420. This cut may have to do with the construction activity, as it is irregular with a rectangular channel. The preparation layer SU 1417 was also cut by the construction cut SU 1435 for wall SU 1434 and fill SU 1436. Preparation layer SU 1417 lies on top of yet another preparation and raising level, SU 1443; comprised of sandy soil and larger rocks, this represents a fill of cut SU 1451. SU 1451 cut a more compact layer, SU 1447, which slopes up on the sides of the cut to the layer of the floor preparation SU 1417. SU 1417 also lies on top of an earlier tufo cocciopesto floor, SU 1452, cut by SU 1451. Preserved only in a small rectangle, this cocciopesto floor, SU 1452, abuts threshold SU 1453 (see above). Another layer of tufo preparation, square SU 1455, was cut by SU 1451 and lay below SU 1417. This lays above another rocky subfill, SU 1457, comprised of basalt and tufo that seems to have served as a leveling layer and on top of an irregular clay layer, SU 1467.

Enclosing the northern courtyard in Phase B-2

The building of three walls—SUs 1226 (construction cut SU 1296), 1186, and 1187—broke up the previously unified space covered by a continuous floor (SU 1173) and created two northern rooms (Rooms B5 and B4) cut off from the rest of the courtyard. Walls SUs 1187 and 1186, with construction cut SU 1312, consist of a mix of lower ashlars topped with rubble and slate. Wall SU 1187 runs east-west and abuts SU 1245 to the west and north-south wall SU 1186 to the east.

It is particularly interesting that instead of wall SU 1187 continuing all the way to pre-existing north-south wall SU 1183, a new wall, SU 1186, was constructed, leaving a small space, filled later by soil SU 1182, between the two north-south walls SUs 1186 and 1183.

Drains and channels in Phase B-2

The drains operating in the courtyard (the rock-cut channel SU 1228, covered by a series of large tufo slabs, SU 1230) are blocked up in the second phase. Made in the third phase is a large shallow cut, SU 1229, with one roughly square corner. The blocking of the courtyard drains is associated, we propose, with the insertion of a shallow basin, meant to represent an impluvium, which was later removed.

The drains running outside the house (SU 1322) and the cut formed by SU 1476 go out of use, with deposits SUs 1306, 1385, and 1279 accumulating over time. The disuse of these drains is taken as part of the evidence for the inversion of the roofs in the Phase B-2 reorganization of the space.

Phase B-3

New walls and the division of space

In Phase B-3, the construction of walls SUs 1058, 1135, and 1163 reflects a change in the focus of the activity within the structure, with activity oriented toward the western road and activities to the north. North-south polygonal tufo wall SU 1058 was constructed slightly west of SU 1245; it continues north, as SU 363, on top of the fill of a possible quarry in Area A, for most of its length and only slightly past east-west wall SU 1187, which had divided the courtyard. This wall (SU 1058) was faced nicely on its western side facing the road but was not faced on the eastern side, leaving the rubble packing exposed. This reflects a focus on the activity associated with the road and not the structure itself. The construction of SU 1058 (and its continuation SU 5146 to the south) clearly cut the structure’s western wall SU 1245. Construction cuts SUs 1175 and 1407 also cut the re-pavement of Road 4 (SU 1400) of the previous phase, indicating a general raising of both the road and the courtyard. Construction fills included SUs 1406 and 1174. SU 1162 and a single block, SU 1263, are associated with further patching of SU 5018 and further obliteration of SU 1245.

Walls SUs 1135 and 1163 and their corresponding construction cuts, SUs 1170 and 1171 respectively, were constructed perpendicular to SU 1058 and cut across the courtyard overlying the tufo slab well covers, SU 1188. This construction of these walls directly over the well, clearly demonstrating that the courtyard was no longer in use, seems to indicate that the construction of SUs 1058, 1135, and 1163 are associated with the northern part of the courtyard and northern rooms being subsumed as a dumping ground for the activities further north of the structure. SUs 1189 and 1176 represent soil that accumulated or was deposited in between walls SUs 1135 and 1163 and previously constructed walls SUs 1187 and 1186.

Infant Burials

In Phase B-3, two infant burials are placed in the drains on the eastern side of the house. These burials, tombs 43 and 45, are typical container burials, with roof tiles forming the coffin for each skeleton. In tomb 43, the two imbrices containing the skeleton (SUs 1392 and 1460) are placed into a cut (SU 1461) in the bedrock within the sewer. In tomb 45, the coffin and skeleton (SUs 1479 and 1480) are likewise placed in a cut (SU 1483) that slightly enlarges the sewer. A third infant burial, tomb 32, is of similar date. This burial is roughly aligned to the exterior eastern wall of the house. The skeleton (SU 1349) is placed in a vessel (SU 1338), which is buried on the property in a purpose-made cut (SU 1350). The presence of burials indicates, if nothing else, that the drain was no longer in use. This implies that the house was no longer being maintained, though the drain and walls were likely visible. While the presence of infant burials under the eaves of occupied houses is common in central Italy, the association of burials with buildings abandoned or transformed for industrial use is more tenuous.

Dumps, robbing, and accumulation of debris

The earliest dumps appear in Rooms B3 and B5 (SUs 1300 and 1242). Immediately on top of SU 1242 is a large dumping layer, SU 1232, and a collapse or rubble layer, SU 1222, further indicating disuse and gradual appropriation of the house for refuse deposition.

Accumulations SUs 1165, 1158, 1156, 1320, 1327, and 1340 are bounded by walls SUs 1058 and 5146 to the west and walls SUs 1135 and 1163 in the north, seem to respect the limits of Room B3 (SUs 1183 and 1184), but also cover SUs 1387 to the east and 1390 to the south. These large abandonment layers reflect the increasing disuse of the structure. The accumulation of debris seems to indicate that activity may have continued in Room B3.

This continuation of activity is further supported by the presence of a floor, SU 1198, constructed over a dump, SU 1300, in Room B3. This SU has no relationship to the pre-existing walls or other features, suggesting some activity in the eastern rooms at a later stage. Later, SUs 1275, covering SU 1216 in Room B4, and SUs 1218 and 1168, dating to the 1st c. CE, reflect the loss of visibility of the northern part of wall SU 1183 and dividing wall SU 1299 but respect the east, south, and west boundaries of Room B4.

Building materials and local tufo—by Jason Farr

The Tincu House was built using locally available stone resources, chiefly derived from two separate geological deposits known in the archaeological literature as lapis Gabinus (geologically, the Valle Castiglione ground surge deposit) and tufo lionato (the Villa Senni Eruption Unit). Both are varieties of tufo (in English, tuff) that appear frequently at Rome, where archaeologists have identified them in numerous ancient monuments (for an excellent overview see Jackson and Marra 2006). The lapis Gabinus deposit is found, as the name implies, only in the immediate area of Gabii, including beneath the city itself; the bedrock directly underlying the house, in fact, consists of this type of tufo. The main quarries, many of which are still visible, lie just beyond the city walls to the northeast and are the subject of ongoing research. The tufo lionato deposit, by contrast, can be found over a much wider area. While the famous Aniene quarries are about 10 kilometers to the northwest along the Aniene River, outcrops can also be identified along the "Fosso del Ossa [sic]", which runs northwest from "Osteria dell’Ossa [sic]", just west of Gabii, to the Aniene at Lunghezza. Blocks of both varieties of tufo could thus have been extracted locally, probably within a kilometer or two from the house.

Identification of geologically distinct tuffs is not always possible macroscopically, and archaeologists have, in the past, conflated or confused different varieties. In our work at Gabii, we have the advantage of on-site comparison with the lapis Gabinus bedrock, and, furthermore, the tuffs with which it is sometimes confused are not local to the area of Gabii. In addition, a number of samples were taken from the excavated remains and analyzed using Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass-Spectrometry (ICP) mass spectrometry, allowing accurate measurement of trace elements such as zirconium, yttrium, niobium, thorium, and tantalum (Farr, Marra, and Terrenato 2015). The ratios between these elements provide a geochemical signature that is unique to a given tufo deposit, allowing us to determine the source of each sample. While no samples have been analyzed from the Tincu House, results from elsewhere in the excavations support the visual identifications below.

In the initial construction phase of the house, ashlar blocks of lapis Gabinus were used almost exclusively in the opus quadratum walls, at least in the limited number of courses that are preserved. This includes the original northern boundary of the courtyard (SU 1217) and the walls of Rooms B1, B2, and B3 (SUs 1183, 1184, 1185, 1250, 1299, 1308, 1309). Blocks vary somewhat in size and are very badly eroded in places but average about 50 cm long, 40 cm wide, and 27 cm high. The southern boundary of the courtyard (SU 1390) and the early additions just beyond it to the southeast (SUs 1448, 1449) were built of irregular blocks of lapis Gabinus in combination with rubble. The western wall of the courtyard (SU 1245), however, contains a few blocks of tufo lionato, but this may be due to later patching activity. In this early phase, tufo lionato is mainly associated, it seems, with the drainage features of the area: the well-cut carved slabs covering the wellhead (SU 1188) and the large slabs covering the channel itself (SUs 1230, 1410). It also appears in the crushed tufo floor levels throughout the house in this and later phases.

In the second phase, we see both types of tufo in the construction of the new southern entrance to the courtyard. The threshold itself (SU 1394) is lapis Gabinus, as are the fragmentary blocks just within that may have delimited a small vestibule (SUs 1504, 1505). The small blocks adjacent to the threshold (SUs 1414, 1508) and the nearby wall (SU 1391) associated with the basalt paving of the street beyond it are constructed of tufo lionato, though SU 1391 transitions to lapis Gabinus where it extends south beyond the area of the house. The new walls (SUs 1186, 1187) that break up the former open space of the courtyard were built with a mix of materials: larger lapis Gabinus ashlars, most notable in the well-cut blocks at the corner of these walls, and smaller rubble consisting of both types of tuff in addition to roof tiles, basalt, and even travertine. The basalt is probably reused material from nearby street pavements, but it is worth noting that the lava flows from which it must have been extracted lie within two kilometers to the east and west. The small amounts of fragmentary travertine, a stone imported from Tivoli some distance away, are almost certainly reused from an earlier context, perhaps decorative.

In the dramatic reorganization of Phase B-3, the wall (SU 1058) built west of courtyard wall SU 1245 was constructed with irregular blocks of both types of tuff, and the new walls within the former house (SUs 1135, 1163) were built with small rubble of various materials.

A number of factors must have been involved in the choice of building materials for the Tincu House, including cost, availability, and the physical properties of the stone. Both lapis Gabinus and tufo lionato were readily available at this time, as they appear throughout the city and in much earlier structures, and the proximity of the quarries would have limited transportation costs for each. Lapis Gabinus is slightly heavier and harder to cut, but, for these reasons, it is more durable and has significant load-bearing capacity. It seems the builders of the house may have understood these qualities, utilizing the more durable lapis Gabinus for the load-bearing walls of the house and the high-traffic threshold and using the lighter tufo lionato for the very large slabs of the drainage features, which would have been more difficult to transport. It is notable that even in the later walls built mainly of rubble, lapis Gabinus blocks were used (or perhaps reused) in key locations such as the lowest course or the corners.

These findings suggest that stoneworkers at Gabii had an excellent understanding of the structural properties of the local stones, long before lapis Gabinus was introduced at Rome, which was probably no earlier than the mid-2nd c. BCE. The Tincu House thus demonstrates the expertise of Gabine builders and provides an alternative perspective on the economy of stone construction in Mid-Republican Latium, which has usually been approached through the immense public monuments of Rome.

The archaeobotanical sampling and processing strategy—by Laura Motta

The sampling and recovery strategy for faunal and botanical remains in Area B has taken into consideration the depositional history of the contexts and has been informed by a previous experiment carried out in Area A, where a similar stratigraphic sequence had been excavated. In Area A, 40 SUs, interpreted as general fill layers of Late Republican or Imperial periods, have been selected to evaluate recovery rate and identification potential for different kinds of materials in extremely mixed tertiary deposits rich in construction debris. For each SU, in addition to normal excavation routine and sampling for flotation, four 10 L samples have been sieved with a 6 mm mesh and wet sieved (in order to allow the sediment to pass through the mesh) with a 2 mm mesh. The cultural material found in each procedure has been kept and analyzed separately. The excavation and processing of every SU has also been timed, and the total excavated volume has been recorded. A formal comparison of the results for the different recovery –methods—flotation, dry screening, wet screening, and visual recovery—is still in progress. However, a preliminary assessment shows that while flotation and the addition of the screened samples has obviously improved the recovery of small fragments in all classes of material, their analysis has revealed a surprisingly low number of identifiable and quantifiable remains in the assemblage. Moreover, their recovery is associated with a considerable increase in excavation time. Significantly, these fragmented and unidentifiable remains do not add any quantitative and/or qualitative information to the dataset for these kinds of context.

Most of the deposits in Area B can be assigned to domestic contexts, including built features (e.g., floor preparations and walls) and fills deposited between different phases of occupation, post-abandonment layers, and burials. These layers are characterized by a very high proportion of older residual ceramics (Ferrandes, this volume) and a great density of building material. In keeping with the observations made above, a blanket sampling strategy and total screening were not deemed appropriate. Instead, flotation samples have been taken from specific contexts following a well-judged sampling strategy based on prior knowledge of urban deposits in general and at Gabii in particular. Sampled SUs have been selected according to their composition and stratigraphic position to further test the suitability of such deposits for the recovery of archaeobotanical material and to provide a control sample for small animal bones. Only sediments from the burials have been dry screened with a 5 mm mesh to provide a total recovery of body parts and possible grave goods.

The majority of the ecofacts from the Tincu House have thus been hand collected during the excavation of the deposits. Excavators were specifically instructed to pay particular attention to botanical and faunal remains and to collect any wood charcoal bigger than the little fingernail, as well as any animal bone fragment or anatomical piece regardless of size. Although visual recovery is regarded as unreliable because heavily biased toward larger remains and potentially spatially uneven, it could be the most cost-effective method for obtaining a representative assemblage of ecofacts when dealing with these kinds of deposit. Especially when charred plant remains are few and far apart or very fragmented, carefully handpicked charcoals increase the number of identifiable taxa compared to that retrieved with flotation (see below). Furthermore, the range and occurrence of small faunal remains, including mollusks, fish, birds, and small mammal bones, turned out to be similar to that in the floated samples. Only microfauna such as small rodents (mice) are underrepresented in the handpicked remains. As a result, the hand-collected bone assemblage is characterized by a good recovery rate and can be considered to be largely representative (Alhaique, this volume).

Thirty-two samples have been collected from general fill layers and dumps between floors of the Tincu House. For each SU, 20 L of sediment have been processed with a machine-assisted flotation system. A standard sample size, rather than a standard sample fraction, has been implemented, for practical reasons and to assure better comparability of the remains (Pearsall 2015, 75-76; Lee 2012). Prior experience in urban central Italian stratigraphy, together with the evaluation of the average quantity of charred material recovered in other contexts at Gabii, determined the appropriate sample size (Motta 2011).

Flotation was carried out on site with a machine built by the project. High-pressure tap water from the main water line supplies the flotation tank through a showerhead at the bottom of the tub. Geological and archaeological material is collected in a removable 1 mm inside screen, while floating remains overflow in an external geological 0.25 mm sieve. The heavy fraction has been sorted in the field during the excavation season. It included fragments of charcoal and microfauna bones. Light fractions have been analyzed in the archaeobotany lab at the University of Michigan, using a stereozoom microscope 10–100x. In the flots, charred plant remains are scarce and very small: in particular, carpological remains have been found in sixteen samples only (including SUs 1168, 1169, 1277, 1300, 1341) and six flots did not contain any archaeobotanical material at all. The great majority of charcoal and almost all the charred seeds are not identifiable at any taxonomic level, due to fragmentation and preservation issues. Densities are also extremely low: the richest sample (SU 1300) contained 50 items.

No significant results can be presented for the carpological analysis: a handful of cereal crops (Triticum dicoccum, Hordeum vulgare and Panicum miliaceum) have been retrieved together with few fava bean seeds (Table 0). One caryopsis of Triticum can be very tentatively identified as free threshing wheat while all barley grains show morphological traits of the hulled type. Some of them are also twisted indicating the cultivation of the six-row variety. This lack of data is a further strong indication of what was argued above. In a Roman urban context for the Late Republican and Imperial periods, this kind of mixed tertiary deposit, extremely rich in building and residual material, is not a good candidate for the collection of flotation samples aimed at the analysis of archaeobotanical remains. Wood charcoal is still under study by R. Veal: it is worth noting that only four samples (SUs 1168, 1320, 1327, 1385) contained fragments big enough to be identifiable, in contrast with the handpicked charcoal collected from 26 different SUs. Microfauna description is included in the following discussion of faunal remains.

Table 0: Tincu house, charred archaeobotanical remains from floated samples. [View HTML version of Table 0] [Download Table 0 data]

[picture]

Zooarchaeological remains from the Tincu House at Gabii – —by Francesca Alhaique

Introduction: Character of the assemblage

A total of 3,891 faunal remains was recovered in the SUs of the different phases of the Area B House. The distribution of the findings does not appear to be uniform (Figure 1). Rather, it is strictly correlated to the number of SUs that yielded animal remains in each phase (Figure 2). The preservation of the specimens is not optimal, but the condition of bone surfaces allowed for the observation and identification of human, animal, and other natural modifications, and all specimens, including the unidentifiable ones, were inspected for such modifications.

[picture]

Figure 1: The quantity of zooarchaeological remains per phase. Clearly, the distribution is quite uneven and skewed toward the abandonment phases.

[picture]

Figure 2: The percentage of SUs from each phase containing zooarchaeological remains is correlated with the overall amount of zooarchaeological remains in each phase.

Introduction: Terms and Methods

The assemblage is very fragmented in general, resulting in a high number of unidentifiable remains, in addition to specimens that could only be attributed to more general size categories (i.e., small mammal, medium mammal, large ungulate). This is especially true for the SUs where flotation samples were collected and included in the analysis. In discussing the species identifications, we use the category “small mammal” to comprise rabbit, cat, fox, and other animals of similar size; sheep, goat, pig, and dog are considered “medium mammal”; and cattle, horse, donkey, and red deer are categorized as “large ungulate.”

The age of the domestic species identified was calculated on the basis of archaeozoological literature (Barone 1981, 1995; Bull and Payne 1982; Grigson 1982; Payne 1973; Silver 1969). Withers height was estimated using Teichert’s method (1969) for pig and Matolcsi’s (1970) for cattle. The moray body length was assessed employing comparative modern material. Meat yield for the main domestic taxa was based on Flannery 1969. For the calculation of minimum number of individuals (MNI) and minimum number of elements, the different SUs were considered separately.

Phase B-0

Only six bone specimens were collected belonging to Phase B-0, all from SU 1416: five were completely unidentifiable, and one was a lumbar vertebra fragment attributable to a medium mammal.

Phase B-1: Assemblage

The faunal sample belonging to Phase B-1 includes a total of 773 fragments. The distribution of the specimens is not uniform across the SUs (Figure 3, Table 1), and over half of the assemblage comes from SU 1279 (= 1385).

[picture]

Figure 3: In Phase B-1, the distribution of faunal remains is decidedly uneven.

Table 1: The uneven distribution of faunal remains in Phase B-1 SUs. [Download Table 1 data]

Phase 1
| N | %
SU 1173* | 114 | 14.7
SU 1180 | 6 | 0.8
SU 1181* | 89 | 11.5
SU 1204 | 1 | 0.1
SU 1205 | 15 | 1.9
SU 1279=1385* | 431 | 55.8
SU 1399 | 35 | 4.5
SU 1410 | 1 | 0.1
SU 1424 | 11 | 1.4
SU 1428 | 69 | 8.9
SU 1440 | 1 | 0.1
TOTAL | 773 | 100

Phase B-1: Common Domestic Species

Within the assemblage of domestic livestock, pig is the most common species, followed by ovicaprines (among which only sheep can be identified with certainty) and then by cattle (Figure 4, Table 2). The relative proportions of the domestic species are also evident when the MNI for each species is calculated (Figure 5, Table 3). Pig dominates the assemblage, but when meat yield is taken into account, cattle becomes the most important food source (Figure 6).

Table 2: Proportions of all taxa present in Phase B-1. [Download Table 2 data]

SPECIES | TOTAL Phase 1
N | %
Terrestrial Gastropoda | 9 | 1.2
Fresh water Bivalvia | 2 | 0.3
Marine Bivalvia | 3 | 0.4
Pisces | 2 | 0.3
Aves | 13 | 1.7
Columba palumbus | 1 | 0.1
Corvus corone | 1 | 0.1
Gallus gallus | 5 | 0.6
Microfauna | 17 | 2.2
Homo sapiens | 1 | 0.1
Canis familiaris | 4 | 0.5
Equus caballus | 2 | 0.3
Sus domesticus | 67 | 8.7
Ovis aries | 1 | 0.1
Ovis vel Capra | 54 | 7.0
Bos taurus | 50 | 6.5
Medium Mammal | 41 | 5.3
Large Ungulate | 8 | 1.0
Unidentifiable | 492 | 63.6
TOTAL | 773 | 100

[picture]

Figure 4: The relative proportions of the taxa present in the Phase B-1 assemblage.

Table 3: Proportions of individuals, as encapsulated by MNI counts, of the taxa present in the Phase B-1 assemblage. [View HTML version of Table 3] [Download Table 3 data]

[picture]

[picture]

Figure 5: Proportions of individuals, as encapsulated by MNI counts, of the taxa present in the Phase B-1 assemblage.

[picture]

Figure 6: Proportions of meat yield in Phase B-1, suggesting that beef played the largest role in the local diet, followed by pork.

Within the assemblage of domestic species, almost all the skeletal elements have been identified (Table 4). Only the vertebrae are largely absent. This may be explained by the relative fragility of vertebrae and the difficulty of identifying species, especially on the basis of fragmented specimens.

Table 4: Skeletal elements present for the three main domestic species present in Phase B-1. [View HTML version of Table 4] [Download Table 4 data]

[picture]

The age at death of the domestic animals (Table 5) suggests that piglets and young pigs were consumed relatively often, in addition to adult specimens. The consumption of young pigs may suggest elite consumption. A similar pattern is presented by ovicaprines, although it may, in this case, simply be evidence for the consumption of milk, in addition to meat. We have little data on the age of the cattle at death, but the specimens studied suggest their use as a source of meat, although some slight exostosis and robust tendon attachments on a first phalanx may indicate that they were also used as work animals, likely in an agricultural or transport context. While age could be determined for a number of the specimens studied, sex could be ascertained only in the case of the pigs. Within this assemblage three male individuals and a single female were identified. Given the paucity of data, we cannot yet speculate on consumption patterns based on sex. Similarly, little can be said about the health of the animals at their time of death. Dental anomalies were detected on an ovicaprine mandible with a second molar with a third pillar like a third molar and a skewed fourth premolar, but these represent the only evidence of ill health noted during the study.

Table 5: Age at death of the main domestic taxa present in Phase B-1. [Download Table 5 data]

Phase 1
SPECIES | Very Young | Young | Young-Adult | Prime Adult | Older Adult | Senile | Indet. Adult | Total
Sus domesticus | 5 | 1 |  | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 18
Ovis vel Capra | 3 | 1 |  | 3 | 1 |  | 2 | 10
Bos taurus |  |  | 1 | 1 |  |  | 4 | 6

Bone modifications related to butchery are quite rare in this assemblage (3.8% of the total). However, if we focus on the main domestic species, 18% of the cattle bones, 18.2% of the ovicaprine bones, and 9% of the pig bones showed traces of human processing. Such modifications can be related to all the phases of carcass processing, from skinning to meat removal. It is likely that different tools were employed, ranging from small knives to heavier chopping implements. While cutting and chopping marks are relatively frequent on the main domestic species, burning affects merely 0.9% of the specimens, and it is probably accidental rather than directly related to cooking. This may suggest culinary practices where boiling and braising are preferred over roasting.

The domestic species assemblage also contains some indications of post-consumption modifications. Carnivore gnaw marks and punctures are quite rare (1.9%), but when they do occur, it is often together with human modifications, implying that, as expected, dogs chewed on bones discarded by humans. A further two fragments display traces of rodent teeth, likely occurring after discard. While most bones were likely discarded after the consumption of meat, some do seem to be worked and used in secondary contexts (e.g., a pin made from a fragment of bone is identified within the assemblage).

Phase B-1: Aquatic Species

The sample from this phase is very fragmented, resulting in a high number of unidentifiable remains (Table 1). The terrestrial mollusks are represented by land snails, some of which, being of small size, are certainly intrusive, though it is possible that larger edible species could have been exploited by humans. The presence of freshwater shells is more dubious, though it could be suggested by some mother-of-pearl fragments that may belong to Unionidae. Marine bivalves are represented by Cerastoderma edule and Glycymeris species. The shell of the latter species appears beach-worn and with a hole at the umbo, suggesting that the specimen was not used as food but, rather, collected, possibly for ornamental purposes. The hole may have been natural or created through intentional abrasion. Fish is extremely rare: there are just two small vertebrae. The first could be assigned to a member of the Carcharhinidae family (a variety of shark), the second to Scomber colias (Atlantic chub mackerel).

Phase B-1: Avian Species

The extreme fragmentation of the avian assemblage did not allow for the identification of many species. However, other than Columba palumbus, Corvus corone, and a very small bird, which are probably not related to human consumption, there are few remains. These remains belong mainly to the species Gallus gallus, with a smaller number belonging to small birds, possibly hens.

Phase B-1: Rare Species and microfauna

The microfauna are primarily represented by the remains of small rodents, which can be considered intrusive. A single humerus fragment of a young human was also found, probably accidentally incorporated in the sediments. The remains of dogs are very rare, as are those of horses, although the latter is represented by two individuals: a very young foal less than 12 months old and an adult animal of undetermined age.

Phase B-2: Assemblage

An assemblage of 821 animal remains was collected from the SUs belonging to Phase B-2 (Table 6), most of them from SU 5016 (Figure 7, Table 7). As in the previous phase, the faunal sample is extremely fragmented, with a high number of unidentifiable specimens (Table 8).

Table 6: The percentages and counts of remains from SUs producing faunal evidence dated to Phase B-2. [Download Table 6 data]

Phase 2
| NR | %
SU 1182 | 14 | 1.7
SU 1386 | 83 | 10.1
SU 1423* | 192 | 23.4
SU 1457 | 43 | 5.2
SU 5016 | 489 | 59.6
TOTAL | 821 | 100

Table 7: Counts and proportions of faunal remains coming from SUs producing zooarchaeological evidence in Phase B-2. [Download Table 7 data]

SPECIES | SU 1182 | SU 1386 | SU 1423* | SU 1457 | SU 5016 | TOTAL Phase 2
N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | %
Terrestrial Gastropoda |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.5 |  |  | 11 | 2.2 | 12 | 1.5
Marine Bivalvia |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 7 | 1.4 | 7 | 0.9
Marine Gastropoda |  |  | 1 | 1.2 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.1
Pisces |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.5 |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.1
Amphibia |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.5 |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.1
Aves |  |  | 1 | 1.2 | 1 | 0.5 |  |  | 4 | 0.8 | 6 | 0.7
Corvus corone |  |  | 1 | 1.2 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.1
Corvidae |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 2.3 | 1 | 0.2 | 2 | 0.2
Gallus gallus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 8 | 1.6 | 8 | 1.0
Microfauna |  |  |  |  | 5 | 2.6 |  |  |  |  | 5 | 0.6
Lagomorpha |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.2 | 1 | 0.1
Equus caballus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.2 | 1 | 0.1
Sus domesticus | 2 | 14.3 | 16 | 19.3 | 18 | 9.4 | 2 | 4.7 | 91 | 18.6 | 129 | 15.7
Ovis aries |  |  | 1 | 1.2 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.1
Ovis vel Capra | 3 | 21.4 | 18 | 21.7 | 5 | 2.6 | 4 | 9.3 | 77 | 15.7 | 107 | 13.0
Bos taurus |  |  | 2 | 2.4 | 3 | 1.6 |  |  | 63 | 12.9 | 68 | 8.3
Small Mammal |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.2 | 1 | 0.1
Medium Mammal | 1 | 7.1 | 10 | 12.0 | 5 | 2.6 |  |  | 15 | 3.1 | 31 | 3.8
Large Ungulate |  |  | 2 | 2.4 | 2 | 1.0 |  |  | 5 | 1.0 | 9 | 1.1
Unidentifiable | 8 | 57.1 | 31 | 37.3 | 150 | 78.1 | 36 | 83.7 | 204 | 41.7 | 429 | 52.3
TOTAL | 14 | 100 | 83 | 100 | 192 | 100 | 43 | 100 | 489 | 100 | 821 | 100

TOTAL Phase 2
| N | %
Mollusca | 21 | 6.796116505
Amphibia | 1 | 0.323624595
Aves | 18 | 5.825242718
Microfauna | 7 | 2.265372168
Lagomorpha | 1 | 0.323624595
Equus caballus | 1 | 0.323624595
Sus domesticus | 98 | 31.71521036
Ovis vel Capra | 96 | 31.06796117
Bos taurus | 66 | 21.3592233
TOTAL | 309 | 100
Sus domesticus | 98 | 47.80487805
Ovis vel Capra | 96 | 46.82926829
Bos taurus | 66 | 32.19512195
TOTAL | 260 | 126.8292683

Table 8: Counts and proportions of the taxa appearing in the Phase B-2 assemblage. [Download Table 8 data]

SPECIES | SU 1182 | SU 1386 | SU 1423* | SU 1457 | SU 5016 | TOTAL Phase 2
MNI | MNI | MNI | MNI | MNI | MNI | %
Equus caballus |  |  |  |  | 1 | 1 | 2.9
Sus domesticus | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 14 | 41.2
Ovis vel Capra | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 12 | 35.3
Bos taurus |  | 1 | 2 |  | 4 | 7 | 20.6
TOTAL | 3 | 5 | 8 | 3 | 15 | 34 | 100

[picture]

Figure 7: The proportions of faunal remains coming from the SUs producing zooarchaeological evidence in Phase B-2.

Phase B-2: Common Domestic Species

Focusing on the remains of the main domestic animals, we again find pig specimens more frequently than ovicaprines (among which only sheep specimens can be confidently identified), as well as a smaller number of cattle specimens (Table 9, Figure 8). As for Phase B-1, the relative proportion of each species in the assemblage persists when MNI ratios are used (Table 9, Figure 9), but when we consider the meat yield, cattle becomes by far the most important food source (Figure 10).

Table 9: Proportions of the remains of identifiable individuals of the main domestic taxa from Phase B-2. [Download Table 9 data]

Phase 2
ELEMENT | SUS DOMESTICUS | OVIS VEL CAPRA | BOS TAURUS
NR | NME | NMI | NR | NME | NMI | NR | NME | NMI
Horn |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Cranium 1/2 | 13 | 3 | 3 |  |  |  | 10 | 4 | 3
Maxilla 1/2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2
Mandible 1/2 | 12 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 3 | 2
Teeth | 19 | 14 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 3
Hyoid |  |  |  | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |
Atlas |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Axis |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Cerv.Vert. |  |  |  | 2 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 3
Tor.Vert. |  |  |  | 4 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 4 | 3
Lumb.Vert. |  |  |  | 8 | 4 | 4 |  |  |
Sacr.Vert. |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 | 1 | 1
Caud. Vert. |  |  |  | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |
Vertebra |  |  |  | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1
Rib | 15 | 9 | 4 | 52 | 12 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 1
Scapula | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3
Humerus | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2
Radius | 11 | 9 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 2 |  |  |
Ulna | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3
Pelvis 1/2 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 1
Femur | 4 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |
Patella |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Tibia | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1
Malleolus/Fibula | 4 | 2 | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |
Carpals |  |  |  | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |
Astragalus | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |
Calcaneum | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |
Tarsals |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Metacarpals | 6 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 |  |  |
Metatarsals | 5 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1
Metapodials | 9 | 8 | 3 |  |  |  | 1 | 1 | 1
Phalanx 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |
Phalanx 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |  |  |  | 1 | 1 | 1
Phalanx 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 |  |  |  |  |  |
Sesamoids |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Total | 129 | 94 |  | 108 | 59 |  | 68 | 42 |

[picture]

Figure 8: Proportions of the taxa appearing in the Phase B-2 assemblage.

[picture]

Figure 9: Proportions of the remains of identifiable individuals of the main domestic taxa from Phase B-2.

[picture]

Figure 10: Proportions from the main domestic taxa from Phase B-2, quantified by meat yield.

With the exception of the axial portions of pigs, almost all the skeletal elements have been identified (Table 10) for the three main taxa. The analysis of the age at death for the domestic livestock (Table 11) suggests, as in the previous phase, the exploitation of piglets and young pigs together with adult individuals. The sex was identified in a few cases, and three female pigs and a cow were identified. These were all adult specimens, as evidenced by the height at the withers. The cow was about 132 cm at the shoulder, and the estimated withers height of two pigs was 77.7 and 70.5 cm. In the second phase, we see a shift, with the possible predominant use of secondary products (milk and wool) from the ovicaprines before their use as a meat source. Further, a possible multi-purpose exploitation of cattle may be suggested, even by the scanty data collated here. Pathologies detected on the cattle’s bones may, as in the first phase, support the hypothesis of their utilization for cultivation or transport.

Table 10: The skeletal elements present from the main domestic taxa in Phase B-2. [Download Table 10 data]

Phase 2
SPECIES | Very Young | Young | Young-Adult | Prime Adult | Older Adult | Senile | Indet. Adult | Total
Sus domesticus | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 14
Ovis vel Capra | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 5 |  |  | 12
Bos taurus |  | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 7

Table 11: Age at death of identifiable individuals from the main domestic taxa from Phase B-2. [Download Table 11 data]

Phase 3
| NR | %
SU 1135=1163 | 33 | 1.5
SU 1156* | 58 | 2.6
SU 1158* | 231 | 10.4
SU 1162 | 2 | 0.09
SU 1165* | 291 | 13.1
SU 1168* | 135 | 6.1
SU 1169* | 114 | 5.1
SU 1174 | 32 | 1.4
SU 1177* | 109 | 4.9
SU 1190 | 3 | 0.13
SU 1199* | 88 | 4.0
SU 1203 | 11 | 0.5
SU 1211 | 1 | 0.04
SU 1214 | 13 | 0.6
SU 1218 | 67 | 3.0
SU 1221* | 44 | 2.0
SU 1222 | 20 | 0.9
SU 1227* | 57 | 2.6
SU 1232 | 19 | 0.9
SU 1242* | 51 | 2.3
SU 1260 | 3 | 0.13
SU 1270 | 5 | 0.2
SU 1271 | 1 | 0.04
SU 1273 | 18 | 0.8
SU 1275 | 9 | 0.4
SU 1320 | 172 | 7.7
SU 1327 | 400 | 18.0
SU 1330 | 1 | 0.04
SU 1340 | 128 | 5.8
SU 1384 | 4 | 0.2
SU 1388 | 17 | 0.8
SU 1401 | 17 | 0.8
SU 1405 | 9 | 0.4
SU 1406 | 16 | 0.7
SU 1412 | 33 | 1.5
SU 1422 | 11 | 0.5
SU 1304 | 17 | 25.8
SU 1408 | 4 | 6.1
SU 1459* | 45 | 68.2
SU 1465 | 2 | 0.09
TOTAL | 2291 | 200

Human modifications related to carcass processing are present on 5.7% of the whole assemblage, but if we focus on the main domestic species, 29.4% of the cattle bones, 12% of the ovicaprine elements, and 10.1% of the pig remains showed traces of butchering. These marks, produced mainly with heavy tools, can be referred to various phases of carcass treatment. Burning was detected on 1.5% of the specimens. The burning is likely related not directly to cooking but, rather, to accidental contact with fire or to discard practices. We also see evidence of discard practices through carnivore gnaw marks and punctures, seen on 1.3% of the sample, sometimes co-occurring with butchery traces. Only three fragments display traces of rodent teeth, also likely related to discard.

Phase B-2: Aquatic Species

The presence of aquatic species is minimal in the Phase B-2 assemblage, as in the other phases. Terrestrial gastropods are represented by Helicidae and Rumina decollata, likely the result of natural accumulation. Marine mollusks include mostly Glycymeris species and possibly a fragment of Spondylus gaederopus. The shells of these sea bivalves were consistently beach-worn, in one case with a natural hole at the umbo, indicating a non-alimentary exploitation of these resources. Another interesting marine species is a small cowrie shell. A small vertebra of Murena helena (Mediterranean moray) indicates occasional fish exploitation. Based on comparison with modern specimens, the estimated size of the animal was about 100 cm. A single amphibian (frog or toad) bone is also present, but it is likely intrusive rather than part of human diet.

Phase B-2: Avian Species

Birds represent almost 5% of the identified assemblage (Figure 8), a greater portion than in the first phase. Gallus gallus is the most commonly identified fowl, with both small and large individuals identified. This possibly indicates the presence of hens and roosters, although none of the remains could be surely sexed. Corvids are the only other avian taxon recovered, of which one of the specimens could be assigned to Corvus corone; all these latter bird elements should be considered the result of natural accumulation.

Phase B-2: Rare species and microfauna

The microfauna remains are dominated by those of small mice, which are very likely intrusive. There is a single mandible fragment of a lagomorph (either rabbit or hare), possibly indicating hunting of wild mammals. Horses are rare in the assemblage, as in Phase B-1, with only one fragment of a lateral metapodial identified.

Phase B-3: Assemblage

Phase B-3 yielded the largest faunal assemblage found in the Tincu House: 2,225 specimens collected from 37 SUs. The number of remains per SU is unevenly distributed, ranging from 1 to 400 (Figure 11, Table 12). As in the previous phases, the bone sample is very fragmented, with a high number of unidentifiable remains (Table 13).

Table 12: Per SU counts and proportions for each SU producing faunal remains in Phase B-3. [View HTML version of Table 12] [Download Table 12 data]

[picture]

Table 13: Counts and percentages for each SU with faunal remains from Phase B-3, abbreviated. [View HTML version of Table 13] [Download Table 13 data]

[picture]

[picture]

Figure 11: Proportion of remains from each SU producing faunal evidence from Phase B-3.

Phase B-3: Common Domestic Species

As in the prior phases, pig is the most commonly identified species, both in number of specimens and number of individuals, followed by ovicaprines (among which only sheep were identified) and then by cattle (Tables 13–14, Figures 12–13). Contrary to the earlier phases, the meat yield of the pigs in Phase B-3 is almost equal to that of the cattle, while ovicaprines represent only 10% of the meat yield (Figure 14). Almost all the skeletal elements of the three main taxa have been recovered (Table 15), and the larger sample size allows us to draw a few additional conclusions.

Table 14: Counts and percentages for the main domestic taxa from each SU with faunal remains from Phase B-3, abbreviated. [Download Table 14 data]

Phase 3
ELEMENT | SUS DOMESTICUS | OVIS VEL CAPRA | BOS TAURUS
NR | NME | NMI | NR | NME | NMI | NR | NME | NMI
Horn |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Cranium 1/2 | 10 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 2
Maxilla 1/2 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1
Mandible 1/2 | 17 | 9 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1
Teeth | 94 | 73 | 36 | 46 | 38 | 25 | 10 | 9 | 6
Hyoid |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Atlas | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |
Axis |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Cerv.Vert. | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |
Tor.Vert. |  |  |  | 5 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1
Lumb.Vert. |  |  |  | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3
Sacr.Vert. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |
Caud. Vert. |  |  |  | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |
Vertebra |  |  |  | 8 | 3 | 3 |  |  |
Sternum |  |  |  | 2 | 1 | 1 |  |  |
Rib | 19 | 11 | 8 | 51 | 14 | 12 | 11 | 9 | 9
Scapula | 9 | 8 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 5 |  |  |
Humerus | 12 | 12 | 11 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 3 | 3 | 3
Radius | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |  |  |
Ulna | 10 | 9 | 9 | 3 | 3 | 3 |  |  |
Pelvis 1/2 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1
Femur | 10 | 8 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1
Patella | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |
Tibia | 11 | 10 | 9 | 4 | 4 | 4 |  |  |
Malleolus/Fibula | 4 | 3 | 3 |  |  |  |  |  |
Carpals | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |  | 1 | 1 | 1
Astragalus | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1
Calcaneum | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |  |  |
Tarsals |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Metacarpals | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2
Metatarsals | 5 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 7 |  |  |
Metapodials | 14 | 10 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1
Phalanx 1 | 15 | 15 | 12 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 3
Phalanx 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2
Phalanx 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1
Sesamoids |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Total | 266 | 209 |  | 192 | 131 |  | 50 | 44 |

Table 15: Counts and MNI statistics for the elements present from the main domestic taxa in the Phase B-3 assemblage. [Download Table 15 data]

SPECIES | TOTAL Phase 0 | TOTAL Phase 1 | TOTAL Phase 2 | TOTAL Phase 3 | General TOTAL
N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | %
Terrestrial Gastropoda |  |  | 9 | 1.2 | 12 | 1.5 | 20 | 0.01 | 41 | 1.05
Fresh water Bivalvia |  |  | 2 | 0.3 |  |  | 4 | 0.00 | 6 | 0.15
Marine Bivalvia |  |  | 3 | 0.4 | 7 | 0.9 | 9 | 0.00 | 19 | 0.49
Marine Gastropoda |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.1 | 1 | 0.00 | 2 | 0.05
Pisces |  |  | 2 | 0.3 | 1 | 0.1 |  | 0.00 | 3 | 0.08
Amphibia |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.1 | 4 | 0.00 | 5 | 0.13
Aves |  |  | 13 | 1.7 | 6 | 0.7 | 37 | 0.02 | 56 | 1.44
Anas platyrhincos |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 | 0.00 | 2 | 0.05
Columba livia/oenas |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.03
Columba palumbus |  |  | 1 | 0.1 |  |  | 1 | 0.00 | 2 | 0.05
Vanellus vanellus |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.03
Corvus corone |  |  | 1 | 0.1 | 1 | 0.1 |  | 0.00 | 2 | 0.05
Corvidae |  |  |  |  | 2 | 0.2 |  | 0.00 | 2 | 0.05
Gallus gallus |  |  | 5 | 0.6 | 8 | 1.0 | 26 | 0.01 | 39 | 1.00
Microfauna |  |  | 17 | 2.2 | 5 | 0.6 | 41 | 0.02 | 63 | 1.62
Lagomorpha |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.1 |  | 0.00 | 1 | 0.03
Homo sapiens |  |  | 1 | 0.1 |  |  | 10 | 0.00 | 11 | 0.28
Vulpes vulpes |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 | 0.00 | 2 | 0.05
Canis familiaris |  |  | 4 | 0.5 |  |  | 36 | 0.02 | 40 | 1.03
Equus asinus |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.03
Equus caballus |  |  | 2 | 0.3 | 1 | 0.1 | 5 | 0.00 | 8 | 0.21
Sus domesticus |  |  | 67 | 8.7 | 129 | 15.7 | 268 | 0.12 | 464 | 11.92
Cervus elaphus |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.03
Ovis aries |  |  | 1 | 0.1 | 1 | 0.1 | 3 | 0.00 | 5 | 0.13
Ovis vel Capra |  |  | 54 | 7.0 | 107 | 13.0 | 192 | 0.08 | 353 | 9.07
Bos taurus |  |  | 50 | 6.5 | 68 | 8.3 | 52 | 0.02 | 170 | 4.37
Small Mammal |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.1 | 7 | 0.00 | 8 | 0.21
Medium Mammal | 1 | 16.7 | 41 | 5.3 | 31 | 3.8 | 105 | 0.05 | 178 | 4.57
Large Ungulate |  |  | 8 | 1.0 | 9 | 1.1 | 16 | 0.01 | 33 | 0.85
Unidentifiable | 5 | 83.3 | 492 | 63.6 | 429 | 52.3 | 1446 | 0.63 | 2372 | 60.96
TOTAL | 6 | 100 | 773 | 100 | 821 | 100 | 2291 | 100 | 3891 | 100

[picture]

Figure 12: Proportions for each taxon from SUs producing faunal remains from Phase B-3.

[picture]

Figure 13: Proportions of individuals from the main domestic taxa from the Phase B-3 assemblage.

[picture]

Figure 14: Meat yield from the main domestic taxa in Phase B-3, represented as a proportion of the total meat yield.

Mortality data for the domestic livestock (Table 16) indicates, as in the previous phases, the exploitation of piglets and young pigs alongside adults and the multi-purpose exploitation of ovicaprines and cattle. Eight males and three female pigs were identified (Table 16). Of these, one pig’s withers height is estimated at 66.8 cm. A slight pathology on a bovine vertebra may further support the hypothesis of their exploitation as a source of animal power, while dental caries identified on a pig maxilla and possible age-related exostosis identified on a sheep metacarpal suggest that some animals in these species were fairly old at the time of their butchery.

Table 16: Age at death of the main domestic taxa present in Phase B-3 strata. [Download Table 16 data]

Phase 3
SPECIES | VeryYoung | Young | Young-Adult | Prime Adult | Older Adult | Senile | Indet. Adult | Total
Sus domesticus | 16 | 10 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 4 | 11 | 62
Ovis vel Capra | 7 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 8 | 4 | 8 | 41
Bos taurus | 1 |  | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 18

Human modifications were detected on 3.1% of the whole assemblage. These modifications can generally be related to butchery and food production, but some cases are certainly related to other activities; for example, specimens with saw marks (discussed below) indicate craft activities, and a polished ovicaprine astragalus may represent a gaming piece. Looking only at the butchery marks on the main domestic species, we see evidence of butchery on 10% of the cattle bones, 12.5% of the ovicaprine elements, and 7.1% of the pig remains. These traces were produced using heavy implements in most cases, and as in the previous phases, burning is a relatively rare occurrence (2%) and very likely accidental rather than related to cooking procedures. Carnivore and rodent gnaw marks are even less frequent: 1.3% and 0.8% respectively.

Phase B-3: Aquatic species

Among the mollusks, we find naturally present terrestrial gastropods (Helicidae and Rumina decollate) and marine species (Glycymeris sp., Donax trunculus, Cerastoderma edule, Murex brandaris) that must have been introduced by humans, though not necessarily as a food source. One of the Glycymeris shells was beach-worn, with a natural hole at the umbo, and may have been ornamental. There are also fragments of possible freshwater bivalves of the Unionidae family. Four amphibian remains were also recovered and may be naturally occurring.

Phase B-3: Avian species

Birds represent 3% of the total sample, but many of the remains were too fragmented to be identified. Among the recognized taxa, Gallus gallus is dominant, and small-sized, possibly female individuals dominate, some of them young. The other avian species present are Anas plathyrhyncos (whether wild or domestic status could not be ascertained), Columba palumbus, Columba livia/oenas, and Vanellus vanellus.

Phase B-3: Rare species and microfauna

As in other phases, the microfauna assemblage includes the remains of small mice, likely intrusive. The few human remains recovered in the assemblage are likely accidental inclusions. Two elements of Vulpes vulpes and a fragment of a red deer antler are the only representations of wild species. Saw marks, indicating craft activities in the area, were present on the red deer antler and on the long bone diaphysis of two large ungulates.

Dog is more abundant in this phase, but 24 out of a total of 36 specimens were recovered in SU 1165 and belong to a single individual, whose skeleton was probably originally complete. Although in very low numbers, both horse and donkey are present. The representative of the latter displays cut marks on the fourth metatarsal, probably related to disarticulation and/or skinning.

Discussion and Conclusions: Assemblage

Based on a comparison of the zooarchaeological evidence from the phases, exclusive of Phase B-0 (which contains too few remains to be included in the analysis), it is possible to make several observations. First, the general preservation is comparable across phases, with equivalent proportions of identifiable versus less-identifiable and un-identifiable specimens (Figure 15). Likewise, the overall faunal composition of the different phases is very similar, although we note that the range of species identified is strictly related to the number of specimens recovered in each phase (Table 17, Figure 16).

Table 17: MNI statistics and counts for the aquatic taxa, compared across the three main phases. [Download Table 17 data]

SPECIES | TOTAL Phase 1 | TOTAL Phase 2 | TOTAL Phase 3 | General TOTAL
MNI | % | MNI | % | MNI | % | MNI | %
Canis familiaris | 2 | 4.9 |  |  | 11 | 7.9 | 13 | 6.1
Equus asinus |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.7 | 1 | 0.5
Equus caballus | 2 | 4.9 | 1 | 3.7 | 3 | 2.1 | 6 | 2.8
Sus domesticus | 18 | 46.3 | 14 | 37.0 | 63 | 45.0 | 95 | 44.8
Ovis vel Capra | 10 | 26.8 | 12 | 37.0 | 42 | 30.0 | 64 | 30.2
Bos taurus | 6 | 17.1 | 7 | 22.2 | 20 | 14.3 | 33 | 15.6
TOTAL | 38 | 100 | 34 | 100 | 140 | 100 | 212 | 100

[picture]

Figure 15: Fragmentation of the faunal remains, by phase. Most remains are so fragmented as to be unidentifiable.

[picture]

Figure 16: The quantity of the remains of each taxon per phase. Note the dominance of the domestic fauna.

Discussion and Conclusions: Common Domestic Species

In all phases, the three main domestic taxa represent the majority of the identified assemblage, in terms of both the number of remains and the MNIs (Tables 16–17, Figures 15–16). Pigs and ovicaprines, among which only sheep have been identified with certainty, are consistently more abundant than cattle in terms of the number of remains and MNI. The proportions are reversed when meat yield (Figure 17) is considered, with the exception of Phase B-3, where the exceptionally high number of pigs makes this species almost comparable to cattle as meat source. This estimate of meat yield does not take into account the age of the animals, which includes a high proportion of young and very young animals, particularly pigs.

[picture]

Figure 17: Meat yield of the main domestic taxa, compared by phase.

Body part frequencies for pig, ovicaprines, and cattle have been analyzed (Figures 18–20) and indicate that almost all the skeletal elements were present for these taxa, although with different proportions, mainly related to preservation and identifiability (e.g., lower number of vertebrae and ribs). This suggests, for all phases, that butchery probably occurred at the site and that if livestock were imported from the countryside or from other settlements, they arrived as complete animals, possibly live.

[picture]

Figure 18: The minimum number of faunal elements present from each phase for the Sus taxa.

[picture]

Figure 19: The minimum number of faunal elements present from each phase for the Ovis taxa.

[picture]

Figure 20: The minimum number of faunal elements present from each phase for the Bos taxa.

The age at death of domestic species provides some further hints about the exploitation strategies and the economic role of these animals at Gabii. Mortality data for the pigs are relatively uniform in Phases B-1, B-2, and B-3, with the constant exploitation of piglets and young pigs alongside adults (Figure 21). This may indicate consumption by an elite group, expressed as the preferential selection of animals producing very tender meat but with a low meat yield and therefore a low economic return. Although there are slight differences between phases (Figure 22), the general age pattern for ovicaprines suggests their exploitation as a source of secondary products (i.e., milk, wool) as well as of meat. The data for cattle (Figure 23) are less reliable, because the age of almost 60% of the individuals could not be determined with precision. However, based on the available information, it is possible to suggest their use both as a meat source and as a source of animal power. The latter hypothesis is further supported by some stress-related pathologies identified on cattle bones.

[picture]

Figure 21: Age at death counts for each phase for Sus.

[picture]

Figure 22: Age at death counts for each phase for Ovis.

[picture]

Figure 23: Age at death counts for each phase for Bos.

Several of the pigs could be sexed on the basis of the shape and size of their canines, resulting in a collection of three males and one female in Phase B-1, three females in Phase B-2, and eight males and three females in Phase B-3. This information, together with the age at death of these animals, suggests that females were usually kept alive until a later age, possibly for the purposes of reproduction, while males were killed earlier in life, for their meat, with only few reserved for breeding. Sex could be ascertained in the case of one Phase B-2 cow, whose withers height was about 132 cm. This information, together with data from bone measurements across the assemblage, suggests that the cattle from this sequence are smaller than those of the later period at Gabii, although an exceptionally large scapula fragment was identified in Phase B-3.

Traces of human modification were detected in all phases (Figure 24). Almost all of the marks resulted from butchery, and most were created using heavy implements rather than small knives. From the location of the marks, it is possible to infer that all stages of carcass processing, from skinning to meat removal, took place on site. The percentages of butchery marks on the bones of the different species follow a similar pattern in all phases, with a higher proportion for cattle and a lower one for the pigs. This distribution may be related partly to the size of the animals and partly to the processing and cooking procedures selected for each taxon (Figure 25). The consistent scarcity of indications of burning and their location on the bones suggest that roasting was probably not the preferred way of preparing food. Rather, after being chopped into smaller portions, the animals were probably boiled or stewed. The few burned specimens likely represent accidents or portions discarded in the fire.

[picture]

Figure 24: Percentage of elements with traces of human or animal modifications, by phase.

[picture]

Figure 25: Percentage of elements with butchery marks, per taxa and per phase.

While most marks are related to food processing and preparation, some marks on the Phase B-3 bones are related to craft activities. The working debris identified indicates that some manufacture of bone objects occurred locally. Other examples of alternative use include an ovicaprine astragalus from Phase B-3, which seems to have been polished by handling and may possibly suggest that gaming was taking place. Some other bone tools and objects were also found in the house.

Modifications produced by carnivores are rare (Figure 24) but suggest the presence of dogs even in phases where the bones of these animals were not recovered. Gnaw marks frequently co-occur on the same elements as human modifications, suggesting that dogs were fed with the leftovers from the kitchen or from the table. Rodent traces are decidedly sporadic (Figure 24) and were most frequently identified on softer bones of very young animals.

Discussion and Conclusions: Aquatic Species

Mollusks have been identified in all phases. Terrestrial gastropods (mainly Helicidae and Rumina decollata) are always the most abundant. These animals may be naturally occurring, although the use of larger species as occasional food cannot be ruled out a priori. Possible evidences for the presence of freshwater bivalves (Unionidae) are in Phases B-1 and B-3, and these may have been exploited both for alimentary purposes and as a source of mother-of-pearl. Marine gastropods and bivalves (Glycymeris sp., Donax trunculus, Cerastoderma edule, Murex brandaris, Cypraeidae, and possibly Spondylus gaederopus) were surely imported from the coast, but in several specimens, especially of Glycymeris species, the shell appears worn, as if the specimens were deceased when collected on the beach. Some of these latter specimens also have a hole at the umbo that, although often probably natural, may suggest the use of these shells as ornaments rather than as food.

Fish is very rare across all phases: only three vertebrae were recovered in Phases B-1 and B-2. Such scarcity of fish cannot simply be attributed to the project’s recover methods, as many samples were floated and as the number of microfauna remains is relatively high, suggesting that the collection of small bones was thorough. All the fish species identified across the assemblage come from the sea. This fact, together with the prevalence of marine mollusks over freshwater ones, may suggest that the lake and the streams present near the town were only rarely exploited. Fishhooks have been recovered at Gabii, including some specifically from the Tincu House, but their relatively large size is not compatible with fishing for most freshwater fish species available in central Italy. The bone assemblage and fishhooks provide further support for the hypothesis of long-term occasional exploitation of marine resources.

Very few amphibian remains were recovered in Phases B-2 and B-3 and indicate the presence of wet areas nearby. As in the case of the larger land snails, these toads or frogs may represent just natural occurrences as well as an occasional food source.

Discussion and Conclusions: Avian Species

Birds are present in all phases, but fragmentation heavily affected their fragile bones, therefore many specimens could only be assigned to the class Aves. Most of the identified remains belong to Gallus gallus, with young and adult animals usually characterized by small-sized individuals and a possible prevalence of females. This pattern may suggest the exploitation of locally reared poultry. The few other avian taxa recovered are Columbiformes (Columb palumbus and Columba livia/oenas), Corvidae (Corvus corone), Anas plathyrhyncos, and Vanellus vanellus. Only the crows were probably not used as food, although no traces of human activity were detected on the bones of these avian taxa.

Discussion and Conclusions: Rare species and microfauna

Microfauna are always present, mostly as the remains of small mice that represent intrusive natural occurrences. A single lagomorph mandible fragment, either from a rabbit or a hare, was found in Phase B-2 and may suggest occasional hunting of wild mammals. Vulpes vulpes remains were found only in Phase B-3 and possibly provide another indication of hunting or simply the presence of an intrusive urban scavenger.

A fragment of a sawn red deer antler was recovered in Phase B-3. This, supported by the presence of fragments of large ungulate long bone shafts with saw marks, in the same phase, suggests in situ manufacturing activities. In this case, the presence of the wild species does not necessarily imply hunting, given the complete absence of other skeletal elements of this animal and the potential for collection of antlers that have been shed during the spring.

Dog remains are present in only Phases B-1 and B-3, but traces of their activity seen on the bones have been identified in all phases, implying that they were always present. The specimens are too fragmented to assess the size or breed of these animals, but we note that only mature and senile dogs have been recovered. In other areas and/or occupation periods at Gabii, dog remains are much more frequent and include young and very young puppies, and some canines have been pierced and used as pendants. The explanation for the reduced number of dogs in this sequence is not apparent.

Horse bones and teeth were found in all phases but in very low numbers, while a single donkey’s vestigial metatarsal was recovered in Phase B-3. Interestingly, this latter specimen shows disarticulation and/or skinning cut marks, suggesting that this species was used as pack animal and then later butchered. The few data on the age of the horses at death indicate the presence of a young foal as well as adults. These findings are somewhat at odds with the expectation of older animals exploited for traction and transport.

Discussion and Conclusions: General

From a faunal perspective, the economy in the Area B House at Gabii was based on three main domestic taxa: pigs, ovicaprines, and cattle. The latter two were also employed for secondary products and as animal power. Birds, especially chickens, were probably reared locally and served as a supplement to the diet, while aquatic, mainly marine resources (mollusks, fish) and wild mammals were only occasionally exploited. The conclusions that may be reached based on the zooarchaeological evidence remain limited. Future analyses on the faunal assemblages from other areas of the site should permit further study of synchronic and diachronic differences and similarities with the pattern that emerged from the present study.

The ceramic evidence: The stratigraphic deposits and their chronology—by A. Ferrandes (translated by M. Mogetta)

Introduction

The excavations carried out within the urban area of the ancient site of Gabii have uncovered a complex sequence of occupation spanning from the Mid-Republican period to the Early Imperial period. The study of the pottery assemblage recovered from these stratigraphic deposits contributes significantly to our understanding of the material culture, society, and economy of the Latin town at that time. Until recently, the only available corpora of ceramics from contemporary contexts at Gabii were those from the votive deposits at the sanctuary of Iuno (Almagro Gorbea 1982), from the extraurban “Santuario Orientale” (Musco and Pilo 2006), and from the rural shrine at Ponte di Nona (Potter 1989), which is located about three miles from the urban center and has been interpreted as a healing sanctuary (see Musco 2006, with further bibliography). In all cases, then, we are dealing with sanctuary sites, for which the particular use and function of the objects resulted in the overrepresentation of finewares and terracottas as opposed to common and coarse wares. Useful comparanda for the analysis of vessels used for food preparation, cooking, and storage, which is an underrepresented class in the published assemblages from Gabii, are provided by the finds from recent developer-driven archaeology projects in the east suburban sprawl of Rome. A number of dumping sites dating to the Mid-Republican and Late Republican periods have been identified as a result of these projects, whose timely publication (Bertoldi 2011) provides us with an updated repertoire of the main shapes and types of utilitarian pottery then common in the sector of Rome’s suburbium closer to Gabii.

The study of the materials collected from the Tincu House allows us to chart the consumption and discard patterns associated with the occupation of domestic contexts (either the house itself or the neighborhood), although nothing can be said about specific classes of materials (particularly precious materials or stones) that only rarely get lost or dumped.

Table 18 shows the distribution of pottery fragments (sherd counts) by phase. The deposits have been distinguished into occupation levels (Activity A); leveling layers whose function was to raise the surface to create new floors (Activities B, H); structural features, such as fills of foundation trenches or dumps connected with the construction of new walls (Activities C, E, I, K); floor preparations, floors, and pavements (Activities D, F, J); abandonment levels of individual features, such as drains and sewers or rooms (Activities G, L); spoliations (Activity M); natural deposits (Activity N); and layers with uncertain function (Activity O). Thus, the analysis of the materials has proceeded in parallel with the analysis of the stratigraphic sequence, emphasizing the activities associated with the stratigraphy and structure and paying particular attention to both the relative proportions and combinations of the different pottery classes. Further, the study by type of formation process has proved essential for the identification of residues or intrusions.

Table 18: Activities associated with phases and features in the Tincu House. Discussion of the ceramics refers to these activities. [View HTML version of Table 18] [Download Table 18 data]

[picture]

In this respect, it is worth emphasizing that the assemblages assigned to Phases B-0, B-1a, and B-1b (5th–2nd c. BCE) contained a significant amount of material whose dating is contemporary with the formation of the deposits, thus providing useful data to reconstruct consumption patterns in the periods when the property was in active use. The assemblages assigned to Phases B-2 and B-3 (1st c. BCE–1st c. CE) were much less informative, despite the fact that they are quantitatively more representative (about 12,000 fragments, corresponding to 70% of the entire sample), because almost all the finds from these levels are in secondary or tertiary deposition and should be associated with the activities taking place during previous phases of occupation of the site.

The study of the ceramics is based on a general quantification of all the fragments recovered in the excavation of the Tincu House. Because of the high rate of residuality that characterizes the deposits of Phases B-2 and B-3, the estimate of the minimum number of individuals (MNI) has been attempted only for the finds from the earlier levels, where the numbers may provide meaningful information. The estimates are derived primarily based on counts of rim fragments. The analysis is based on handles and bases/floors only when these classes of materials could not otherwise be included in the assessment, and fragments of walls have been considered only when assessing pottery classes otherwise unrepresented.

The analysis presented here concentrates on the overall interpretation of the deposits and their absolute chronology, leaving the classification, detailed quantification, and description of individual ceramic classes for future study. As such, it should be considered preliminary.

Table 19 details the distribution by phase of the more than 14,000 pottery fragments collected from the stratigraphic excavation of the Tincu House.

Table 19: Distribution by phase of the ceramic sherds, by class. [View HTML version of Table 19] [Download Table 19 data]

[picture]

Figures 26 and 27 show the distribution by phase of the more than 14,000 pottery fragments collected from the stratigraphic excavation of the Tincu House.

[picture]

Figure 26: Ceramics counts per phase.

[picture]

Figure 27: Proportion of ceramics contributed to the total by each phase.

Because a limited number of strata belonging to Phase B-0 were revealed and excavated, only a very small number of ceramics were recovered, which may be used to characterize and suggest a chronology for this phase. Most features pre-dating the house have, in fact, only been recorded. On the basis of the few ceramic elements retrieved from these SUs (25 fragments, corresponding to a mere 0.2% of the entire sample), it has been possible to define a terminus post quem falling between the 5th and early fourth of the 4th c. BCE (perhaps more precisely between the first half or middle and the end of the 5th c. BCE) for the Phase B-0 activities.

The layers associated with Phase B-1 (and especially Phase 1b) produced a large assemblage of objects (more than 4,600 fragments, corresponding to 32.5% of the total sample), which makes it possible to date the main building activities to between the first half of the 3rd c. BCE (Phase B-1a) and the late 3rd or early 2nd c. BCE (Phase B-1b) with some confidence. This assemblage further reveals a general picture of the kinds of pottery in use in or near the habitation at that time.

The data for Phase B-2 are less robust, due to both the small quantity of sherds recovered from this stratum (1,038 sherds, about 7.3% of the total) and the high levels of residuality of materials originally associated with the stratigraphy of Phases B-1a and B-1b, which were heavily disturbed during the repurposing of the house in Phase B-2. The few diagnostic elements, combined with the stratigraphic relationships, indicate a date within the second half of the 2nd c. BCE and the early or first half of the 1st c. BCE.

Residual materials are frequent in the strata belonging to Phase B-3. Despite the large quantity of ceramics retrieved from these levels (more than 8,500 sherds, corresponding to 60% of the total sample), materials contemporary with the possible formation dates of the layers, as limited by the earlier phases of the stratigraphic sequence, are rare. Almost all the pottery from the Phase B-3 deposits are residual and have dates contemporary with the activities of Phases B-1 and B-2. Though residuality complicates the dating of this phase, ceramics that are likely contemporary with the deposit of the strata are consistent with a terminus post quem of the second quarter of the 1st c. CE for the final abandonment.

Phase B-0 (5th c. BCE)

The ceramics belonging to the Phase B-0 strata, though few (25 fragments), can be generically associated with the occupation of the area in the period pre-dating the construction of the Tincu House and provide some insights into the activities occuring at this time.Activity A1—containing the ceramics in question—was recovered from one of the few strata excavated below the Phase B-1 floors. The strata is a leveling layer, on top of which a tile structure whose function remains uncertain was constructed. This tile structure can be confidently linked with activities taking place in the area. The date of the materials from this deposit ranges between the Early Iron Age and the 5th c. BCE (Figure 28).

[picture]

Figure 28: Quantities of sherds per ware for the Phase B-0 assemblage.

Table 20: Diagnostic elements from Phase B-0. [Download Table 20 data]

Activity | Class | Production | Shape | Type | Chronology
A1 | ISW | Local (?) | Olla | non id. | 500/450 – 250/200 BCE

Activity A1 is dominated by ceramic classes commonly found at sites in Tyrrhenian central Italy between the 6th and 5th c. BCE. The most common vessel types are coarse wares used for food preparation. This includes types finished with a slip on either the exterior (External Slip Ware, ESW) or the interior (Internal Slip Ware, ISW) (Table 20). The occasional presence of graffiti and the complete lack of traces of heat exposure or soot on the exterior of ESW vessels has led scholars to believe that objects of this class were used not for ordinary cooking activities but, rather, in sacred activities. A specific ritual function has also been proposed for ISW, at least during its initial phases of diffusion (i.e., assuming that this type of object was introduced into domestic contexts only at a later stage). These hypotheses, however, remain highly debated¹ and are of little value for the interpretation of the deposit and associated structures found here. Rather, we must consider the possibility that both ESW and ISW are, in fact, used in domestic food production. Finewares associated with Phase B-0 activities are represented by few fragments of Bucchero and Cream ware. Based on the stratigraphic position of the SU containing the single fragment of Thin-Walled pottery recovered, it must be considered an intrusion. Similarly, a small subset of Early Iron Age and Orientalizing finds (Impasto and Impasto Rosso) pre-date the formation of the deposit and are therefore likely residual.

The most diagnostic element used in dating the deposit is a fragment of an ISW olla. There is some disagreement regarding the absolute dating of the production, especially as to when it began. Helga Di Giuseppe has recently re-examined the problem² and has proposed attributing the earliest examples to the second half of or the late 5th c. BCE, confirming the initial chronology suggested by Leslie Murray Threipland on the basis of the finds from Veii.³ Newly published evidence from Veii⁴ and recent finds from Rome (most notably a Late Archaic building brought to light on the Quirinal)⁵ seem to indicate a slightly earlier date, between the end of the 6th and first half of the 5th c. BCE. The preliminary results of ongoing work at S. Omobono,⁶ the re-examination of the stratigraphy of the Regia,⁷ and the data gathered through current excavations by the Sapienza University of Rome on the northeastern slopes of the Palatine⁸ all seem to confirm the pattern. At the latter site, finds from the excavation of the Early Republican and Mid-Republican levels of a road leading to the Forum and from two early cult sites facing onto it clearly confirm that the pottery class is present in the urban layers dating from at least the first half / middle of the 5th c. BCE. Up to 360–340 BCE, however, examples are quite rare (the class represents approximately 1% of all the coarse wares in contemporary deposits). After this date, the relative frequency of ISW increases progressively, peaking between 280–260 BCE and the mid-3rd c. BCE. Based on the available sample, the production of the pottery class seems to decline sharply by the second half of the 3rd c. BCE.⁹

The presence of ISW in Deposit A1 suggests that these layers were formed sometime between 500/450 and 280/260 BCE (the terminus ante quem being derived from the chronology of Phase 1a). It should be noted, however, that elements that are otherwise typical in Mid-Republican assemblages in central Tyrrhenian Italy, such as Early/Mid-Republican Red Slip Ware, Red Figured pottery, and Black Gloss pottery with overpainted decoration (to mention only the main ones)¹⁰ are not found in our sample. If not entirely stochastic, this could indicate that the findings from Phase B-0 pre-date the appearance of such pottery classes, which we know occurred between the early and mid-4th c. BCE.¹¹ This chronological bracket can be narrowed down further when one considers that the remains assigned to Phase B-0 pre-date the extensive urban redevelopment linked to the creation of the orthogonal layout of the city. This has been dated independently to the late 5th or early 4th c. BCE.¹² It is therefore probable that Deposit A1 is earlier than the end of the 5th c. BCE.

Phase B-1a (ca. 280/270–265/260 BCE)

The Phase B-1a assemblage is associated with the original phase of construction at the Tincu House (Table 21, Figure 29).

[picture]

Figure 29: Proportion of the Phase B-1 assemblage coming from each activity.

Figure 29 reports on 571 pottery fragments recovered from the leveling layers pre-dating the construction of the walls (Activity B). The majority of the sherds present in the assemblage, 63.92%, were retrieved from these strata. A small subset of the assemblage (2.8% of the sample) comes from construction activities (Activity C), notably the fill of the construction cut for the drainage on the east side of the house (SU 1465) and the fill of the foundation trench for one of the main walls (SU 1440). Finally, another group of objects, corresponding to about 42% of the assemblage, is associated with floor preparations (Activity D1: 9.28%) and finished surfaces (Activity D2: 24%).

Table 21: Quantification per ware from each of the Phase B-1 activities. [Download Table 21 data]

[picture]

Activity B1—The leveling layers (SU 1205, 1399) pre-dating the house structures have yielded 365 sherds in total (Figure 30). These deposits contain a particularly high percentage of residual sherds that may be linked with the previous occupation phases of the settlement (Impasto, Impasto Rosso, and a group of Bucchero objects, corresponding to about one-third of the entire group). This seems to indicate that earlier deposits were at least partially reworked, most likely in the context of the demolishing of pre-existing structures to make room for the new orthogonal layout in the course of the 5th c. BCE. Given the large volume of soil needed to raise the ground level, it is unlikely that the material originated entirely from the Area B site. Rather, it may have been sourced from other neighborhoods of the ancient city.

[picture]

Figure 30: Quantities of each ware associated with Activity B1.

Another substantial subset of the sample, roughly equal to one-third of the assemblage, consists of cooking wares. The recorded types are not very diagnostic, as the forms in question are in use over a long period. The same is true for the few recorded fragments of large containers (coarse ware dolia), of Impasto Chiaro Sabbioso, and of External, External/Internal, and Internal Slip Ware.

Only a small proportion of the Bucchero can be associated with the late production of the class (for general observations see Rossi 2004; Van Kampen 2004). This late production is found abundantly in Rome and its surroundings until at least the first half of the 4th c. BCE (Ferrandes 2016, Facies MR 1–2), after which this category of vessel was definitively replaced by the new finewares of the Mid-Republican period (Black Gloss and other wares with figural decoration). The two lone fragments of Black Gloss pottery—two walls belonging to open shapes—can be generically assigned, on the basis of their technical features, to types whose production began at the end of the 4th and continued throughout the 3rd c. BCE (on this point see Ferrandes 2008, 2016).

Transport containers are also found associated with this set of activities, but it is not possible to draw any detailed conclusions based on this aspect of the assemblage. The provenance can be suggested, on the basis of macroscopic observation of fabric composition, to derive generically from the Iberian Peninsula, the Tyrrhenian coast of the Italian peninsula, or the Vesuvian area, though the absence of rims, handles, and bottoms does not allow us to establish whether these elements are residues or contemporary with the formation of the deposits.

Activity C1—The materials originating from the fill (SU 1440) of the foundation trench of the ashlar wall SU 1390 yielded a small number of objects (16 fragments; Figure 31). Almost all of these are very early residuals (Impasto pottery and Impasto Rosso), once again likely derived from the first phase of the occupation of the settlement. One single fragment of Black Gloss pottery confirms the dating of these strata to the Mid-Republican Era, as suggested by the stratigraphic sequence. The Black Gloss fragment present comes from a closed shape and may be attributed to the productions at the end of the 4th through the 3rd c. CE on the basis of its technical characteristics.

[picture]

Figure 31: Quantity of sherds for each ware associated with Activity C1.

Activity D1—SU 1180, a preparation layer (SU 1180) for the cocciopesto floor (SU 1178) found within Room B1, yielded a fair number of sherds—93 fragments, representing nearly 9% of the sample. These ceramics do not, however, add useful information that might allow us to refine the terminus post quem obtained from other contexts assigned to this phase (late 4th c. BCE; Figure 32). The deposit mostly contains residual fragments dating to between the Orientalizing and Archaic periods (Impasto Bruno and Impasto Rosso) or wares and shapes that changed little over time (coarse ware dolia, Impasto Chiaro Sabbioso). The fragment of a “gray” Bucchero bowl with thickened rim finds comparanda from stratigraphic levels in Rome and neighboring sites dating to between the mid-6th and early 5th c. BCE (Van Kampen 2004). Finally, a fragment of amphora wall with very micaceous fabric could be identified with one of the productions of the Eastern Mediterranean, but it is impossible to determine its precise date.

[picture]

Figure 32: Quantity of each ware associated with Activity D1.

Activity D2—The finds from the only portion of finished floor excavated in the courtyard (SU 1173) consist of 137 fragments (Figure 33), approximately one-quarter of the entire sample for Phase 1a. Important for distinguishing this assemblage from the assemblages described above is the relative scarcity of residues, which are represented by just a few fragments of Impasto and Bucchero. While residues are rare, Impasto Chiaro Sabbioso vessels are much more common, and coarse ware cooking vessels are also well represented. Within the assemblage of coarse ware cooking vessels, the proportion of ISW ollae is noticeably greater than that of containers without a slip coating, suggesting that the context should be dated to the period in which, in the region of Rome, this pottery class became more common for the preparation and storage of food (see remarks on Activity A1, above). Unfortunately, rims are absent in this subset of the assemblage, and more detailed studies cannot be pursued.

[picture]

Figure 33: Quantities of each ware associated with Activity D2.

The specimens of Early/Mid-Republican Red Slip Ware present in the assemblage are consistent with a date in the later part of the Mid-Republican period. The only recorded rim belongs to one of the most widespread and long-lasting forms belonging to this category: bowls characterized by a rim with flat lip. This form is found almost exclusively at sites in central Tyrrhenian Italy in contexts dating between the second half of the 5th and the second quarter / middle decades of the 3rd c. BCE (Ferrandes 2016, forthcoming).

A more precise chronological range is provided by the Black Gloss pottery in the assemblage. Present are several rim fragments of hemispherical bowls of the Morel 2783–2784 type, which appear by the end of the 4th c. BCE and whose production continued for about a century, until the late 3rd or early 2nd c. BCE. The same date can be assigned to smaller-sized bowls of the Morel 2787 type and to the bowls with concave and convex profile of the Morel 2621 type. A more refined terminus post quem is given by several floors of bowls of the Morel 2783–2784 type, featuring four stamped palmettes with the same orientation. The palmette type, the profile of the foot, and technological aspects of both fabric and gloss have good parallels in contexts from Etruria and Latium dating to the period 280/270–265/260 BCE (Ferrandes 2006, 151–157, Facies 6; Ferrandes 2016, Facies MR 7), a phase that has been described as influenced by contemporary productions of Magna Graecia (Morel 1969; Pedroni 2001, 117–129; Stanco 2005, 210; Ferrandes 2006, 153–154; Stanco 2009, 158). A single fragment of Internal Red Slip Ware may be assigned to the same period. This pottery class consists primarily of frying pans whose initial production was originally assigned to the final decades of the 3rd c. BCE (Goudineau 1970). However, this class recently has been re-dated to the first half of the 3rd c. BCE, on the basis of stratigraphic evidence from Etruria and Latium (for the earliest attestations see Ferrandes 2015, Facies MR 6–7; Ferrandes 2016a; Ferrandes, forthcoming 2). In Rome, small frying pans with a dark red slip on the interior surface similar to that used on ISW are found in deposits dating to the first quarter of the 3rd c. BCE: leveling layers for the construction of the Temple of Victoria on the southwest corner of the Palatine, at a site contracted out in 303 BCE and dedicated in 295/4 BCE (Rossi 2004), and construction levels on the north slopes of the Palatine, at a site for which Carafa, Arvanitis, and Ippoliti (2014) propose an identification with the Temple of Iuppiter Stator, vowed in 294 BCE (the finds from the latter site are discussed in Ferrandes forthcoming 1 and forthcoming 2). Examples from this early stage of their production are relatively rare, becoming more common in the next generation of the production (corresponding to the “Magna-Graecian” phase described above). At this stage, the class is present in most contexts with large pottery assemblages. The diffusion of the class peaks in the middle/third quarter of the 3rd c. BCE (Ferrandes 2016, Facies MR 7–8; Ferrandes forthcoming 1 and 2). While it may be understood in the context of a growing production and diffusion, as described above, the example from Gabii is a floor fragment and cannot be securely identified with a specific type.

The only fragment of lamp found in the deposits of Phase B-1a seems to belong to the same chronological range. The fragment is very poorly preserved, but it is possible to ascribe it to the so-called “biconico dell’Esquilino” type, whose first appearance in Rome (its likely production center) dates to the “Magna Graecian” phase (a slightly later date is suggested by Pavolini 1987, but see now Borgia 1998 and Ferrandes 2016, Facies MR 7).

A single amphora rim fragment of the “early” Greco-Italic production (as first identified in Manacorda 1986; 1989, 443 n. 1) can be generically dated from the end of the 4th c. BCE (type van der Mersch V: see van der Mersch 1994, 2001). A more detailed typology of the amphora type in question has been recently proposed (Cibecchini and Capelli 2013), distinguishing three sub-types (Va, Vb, and Vc). Our fragment has points in common with both sub-types Va and Vb. The latter seems to have been introduced only after 280/270 BCE and to have become especially common in the 260/250–220 BCE period. Unfortunately, however, the preserved portion of the container is not large enough to assign the specimen to the latter sub-type (the inclination of Vb rims does not vary significantly from that of Va rims). It is, in any case, certain that our fragment does not belong to sub-type Vc, whose diffusion dates from 225/220 BCE onward, because the profile of Vc rims is much more everted.

A series of final observations can be made on the composition of the ceramic assemblages of Phase 1a and their absolute chronology. First, it is worth noting that the leveling layers and dumps connected with the construction of the house contain a large proportion of residual pottery fragments, mostly dating to the earliest phases of the city formation, that is, pre-dating the 5th c. BCE restructuring of the urban layout. Thus, we can conclude that building activities in the Mid-Republican period involved the destruction of substantial portions of the pre-existing stratigraphic sequence through the redeposition of many of the early deposits formed within the town. This has important implications for the study of the distribution and character of the pre-5th c. BCE activities at Gabii. While the leveling activities clearly reuse materials from within the town, the floor surfaces themselves appear to be made of more carefully selected materials, as residual ceramics are minimal. The excavated portion of the floor surface in the courtyard of the house did not yield any pre-5th c. BCE ceramics, and the majority of the finds from this context can be assigned to the Mid-Republican phase.

The most diagnostic elements (Table 22) of the assemblage include both finewares (Black Gloss pottery) and utilitarian wares (Internal Slip Ware, Internal Red Slip Ware), which provide a terminus post quem of 280/270–265/250 BCE for the construction activities. Given the uncertain identification of an amphora fragment (van der Mersch / Cibecchini Va or Vb sub-type), the possibility of a slightly later date (post-260/250 BCE?) cannot be altogether excluded. Based on these elements, the earliest structures of the Tincu House were built in the period between the second quarter and middle of the 3rd c. BCE. For about half a century, the occupation of the house continued without affecting the overall layout, as this was first modified only in the late 3rd or early 2nd c. BCE.

Table 22: Phase B-1a: Diagnostic elements. [Download Table 22 data]

Act. | Class | Production | Shape | Type | Observations | Chronology
D1 | BG | Etrusco-latial/ Local (?) | Bowl | Stamped floor (Morel 2783/84?) | Decoration: Ferrandes 2015, Style 00 | post 280/270 – 265/260 BCE
D1 | Pompeian Red Slip Ware | Etrusco-latial | Pan | non id. |  | post 300/290 BCE
D1 | Lamps | Etrusco-latial/ roman (?) |  | Biconico dell’Esquilino |  | post 280/270 – 265/260 BCE
D1 | Amphorae | Tyrrhenian Italy(?) |  | Cibecchini, Capelli 0000, Va (or Vb?) |  | Post 330/325 (or 260/250 – 225/220 BCE?)

Phase B-1b (late 3rd c. BCE–first quarter of 2nd c. BCE)

Only a very small proportion of the materials assigned to this phase (Table 23, Figure 34) come from construction levels (Activity E: 0.91%) and new floor preparations (Activity F: 3.72%). Almost all the evidence (95.37% of the entire sample) comes from deposits related to the obliteration (Activity G) of a drain built in Phase 1a (SU 1322). These layers yielded a significant number of diagnostic elements, which allow us to fix, with some confidence, a terminus post quem for Activities E1–G1 at the end of the 3rd c. BCE or beginning of the 2nd c. BCE. The precise dating of the stratigraphic contexts of Phase 1b has been facilitated by the availability of well-dated reference assemblages from sites in the Etrusco-Latial area (Rome, S. Omobono, post-213 BCE: Mercando 1963–1964; Ferrandes 2006, 160–161; Lucus Feroniae, post-211 BCE or 196 BCE: Stanco 2005), as well as from shipwrecks (especially the Grand Congloué 1: Benoit 1961; Long 1987).

Table 23: Quantification of each ware in Phase B-1b. [Download Table 23 data]

| E1 | F1 | G1
R | H | F | tot. | % | R | H | F | frr. | % | R | H | F | frr. | %
Impasto |  |  |  | 2 |  | 4 |  |  | 16 |  | 9 | 1 |  | 30 |
Impasto Rosso | 1 |  |  | 3 |  | 1 |  |  | 1 |  |  | 2 |  | 4 |
Impasto Sabbioso |  |  |  | 4 |  | 1 |  |  | 4 |  | 7 | 2 | 3 | 75 |
Dolia (Coarse ware) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 4 |  |  | 38 |
Coarse Ware | 1 | 1 |  | 12 |  | 8 |  | 5 | 50 |  | 290 | 20 | 57 | 2844 |
External slip ware |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
Bucchero |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 5 |  | 3 | 1 | 2 | 11 |
Red figures/silhouette |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 | 3 |  | 2 |  | 1 | 2 |
Early/Mid-Republican Red Slip |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  | 1 |
Internal slip ware | 1 |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  | 1 |  | 7 |  | 4 | 18 |
Black Gloss | 5 |  |  | 9 |  | 1 | 1 |  | 5 |  | 128 | 8 | 40 | 382 |
Overpainted |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  | 1 |
Amphorae |  |  |  |  |  | 3 |  |  | 19 |  | 6 | 10 | 5 | 173 |
Lamps |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
Impasto sabbioso/cream ware |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 4 |  |  | 16 |
Dolia (Impasto sabbioso) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |
Thin-walled |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 | 11 |  | 7 |  | 1 | 18 |
Cream ware |  |  |  | 5 |  | 2 | 4 | 3 | 34 |  | 2 | 1 | 4 | 206 |
Pompeian Red Slip |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |  | 4 |  |  | 45 |
Total |  |  |  | 37 | 0.91% |  |  |  | 151 | 3.72% |  |  |  | 3873 | 95.37%

[picture]

Figure 34: Proportion of the sherds from each activity in Phase B-1b.

Activity E1—The stratigraphic levels connected with the construction of the southern addition (SU 1424 and SU 1446) contained very few ceramics (37 sherds, corresponding to about 1% of the overall Phase B-1b sample). With the exception of a small number dating to the Early Iron Age and Archaic period (Impasto and Impasto Rosso pottery), the finds can be assigned to the Early Republican and Mid-Republican periods (Figure 35).

[picture]

Figure 35: Quantification of the wares associated with Activity E1.

In addition to the ubiquitous hemispherical bowls of the Morel 2783–2784 type, the Black Gloss pottery present includes less-common types, like the small bowl with continuous profile and groove at the foot (Morel 2753). The latest element in the assemblage is a plate/patera with oblique wall and groove at the lip (Morel 2823). Notably, this type is never found in the deposits dating to the first half or middle of the 3rd c. BCE (Phase B-1a). Rather, it is systematically associated with Phase B-1b contexts (see Activity G1). The distribution of this shape at Etrusco-Latial sites dating to the late 3rd and early 2nd c. BCE (e.g., at Lucus Feroniae: Stanco 2005, 214) provides a reliable terminus post quem for the entire assemblage.

Activity F1—The deposits associated with the new floor preparations produced a relatively small number of ceramics (151 sherds, Figure 36), among which there are several diagnostic elements. Residues include both pre-5th c. BCE classes (Impasto, Impasto Rosso, and Bucchero) and Early/Mid-Republican wares (e.g., Genucilia plates, coarse ware, and ISW). However, most of the finds seem to date to the Late Republican period, to which we assign this activity.

[picture]

Figure 36: Quantification of wares associated with Activity F1.

The sample of Black Gloss pottery associated with this activity consists of fragments of walls, with the exception of one handle, so it is not possible to identify specific morphological types. While lacking the usual diagnostic elements, the technological aspects of these materials demonstrate a clear difference with the Mid-Republican productions: the latter are characterized by shiny gloss and an extremely fine fabric fracturing with clean break lines, while the former feature a coarser fabric producing irregular fractures and opaque gloss.

A more precise chronological indicator is a Thin-Walled beaker of the type Marabini I, whose earliest examples in central Italy date to ca. 200 BCE (Ferrandes 2016, Facies MR 10). Another production that first appears in the Phase B-1b contexts of the Tincu House is a Cream Ware one-handled goblet with an everted rim and slip on the upper part of the body, which is common in the Gabii area in the late 3rd and early 2nd c. BCE (e.g., Città dello Sport, Ponte di Nona: Bertoldi 2011, 85–86, Olla type 2).

The amphora sample includes fragments that can be generically attributed to Eastern Mediterranean, North African, Tyrrhenian, and perhaps Iberian productions. The Tyrrhenian amphorae, which are probably all from the Campanian region, include fragments of the “late” Greco-Italic type van der Mersch / Cibecchini VIb, dating to the first quarter of the 2nd c. BCE (Cibecchini and Capelli 2013, 443).

Activity G1—With its 3,873 fragments (Figure 37), the fill that obliterates one of the main drains of the Phase B-1 house represents the richest deposit not only from our site (the finds correspond to about 27% of the total number of sherds collected from the Tincu House) but also from contemporary sites in the broader region of Rome. Our assemblage is outstanding not only in terms of quantity and quality but also for the state of preservation (several individuals have been fully or almost fully reconstructed). This suggests that the items deposited in the drain may have been part of the pottery set in use in the house itself, not secondary refuse. It is possible that the discard of the materials happened immediately before the restructuring of the house in Phase B-2. That this was the result of a single action and not of a series of dumps over a longer period of time is indicated by the fact that most elements can be dated to the same chronological range. Residual pottery is negligible, representing less than 5% of the assemblage. We can mention fragments of Early Iron Age Impasto pottery and fragments of Impasto Bruno, Impasto Rosso, and Bucchero, dating between the 7th and 5th c. BCE. Among the cooking vessels are a few sherds of coarse ware and Internal Slip Ware, dating between the Late Archaic and the Mid-Republican periods.

[picture]

Figure 37: Quantification of wares associated with Activity G1.

Among the materials dating from the Mid-Republican period onward, two fragments can be assigned to the class of the Genucilia plates (Figure 38, no. 1), a Red Figured pottery produced in central Italy (Poulsen 2002). The state of preservation does not allow us to identify whether the motif in the central tondo was that of a female head or a geometric one. There is just one specimen of overpainted Black Gloss pottery, a jug decorated with vegetation motifs of the so-called Gnathia style (Figure 38, no. 2), which is another class produced by workshops of central Tyrrhenian Italy from the end of the 4th c. BCE until 260–240 BCE (Ferrandes 2006, 157–160; 2016a). The object is fully preserved and can be compared with the Morel 3682 form (though shoulder and rim are quite different from the published examples). The object in question might be interpreted as an heirloom, unless we admit that the production of this ware continued for a longer period than commonly thought.

[picture]

Figure 38: Illustrations of key diagnostic elements from the east drainage fill assemblage (Activity G1, SU 1279): Genucilia plates (no. 1), Gnathia ware (no. 2), and Black Gloss pottery (nos. 3–7).

Besides these sporadic attestations of figured ceramics, the most frequent fineware class is Black Gloss, which, with 382 fragments (corresponding to 10% of the sample from Phase 1b), represents almost the totality of the subset. The vessel shapes attested in the assemblage are almost exclusively open forms dating to between the end of the 4th and the first half of the 2nd c. BCE. Types appearing in the late 4th c. BCE include plates with an outcurving rim thickened on the outside (Morel 1111; Fig. 38, no. 3), rare fish plates (Morel 1124; Fig. 38, no. 4), and a bowl with concave and convex profile (Morel 2621; Fig. 38, no. 5). Of a slightly later date (i.e., 280/270–265/260 BCE) is a bowl decorated with four stamped rosettes on the bottom. The rosettes are of a type characteristic of the phase in which the Etrusco-Latial productions were heavily influenced by contemporary styles from Magna Graecia (Ferrandes 2016, Facies MR 7). Bowls with a single stamp (mostly rosette), which are more frequent in the assemblage, date to the next phase of the Petites Estampilles production (Ferrandes 2016, Facies MR 8, mid-3rd c. BCE). Examples of Heraklesschalen characterized by a stamped figural motif surrounded by a rouletted band, in at least one case associated with a plate/patera (Morel 1534; Fig. 38, no. 6), can be assigned to the late 3rd c. BCE (Ferrandes 2016, Facies MR 9, 240–210 BCE). Although commonly dated to the first half of the 2nd c. BCE, several examples of hemispherical bowls of the Morel 2534 type ( Fig. 38, no. 7) should be attributed to a slightly earlier period, the late 3rd or early 2nd c. BCE, due to the presence of the single central stamp (indeed, the Latial production of Black Gloss pottery featuring stamped decoration terminates at the end of the 3rd c. BCE).

Another subset of Black Gloss pottery has been identified based on both technological features (fabric, quality of the gloss) and type of decoration (impressed and rouletted). This is represented by plates/patera with everted rim and groove near the lip, Morel 1281 (Figure 39, nos. 8–9), and by deep bowls decorated with grooves on the exterior of the rim, Morel 2572 (Figure 39, no. 10) and 2573 (Figure 39, nos. 11–12). Both the Morel 1281 and the Morel 2572 pieces attested in the sample are decorated on the interior with three stamps, featuring a palmette motif surrounded by rouletted bands. While the dimensions of the stamps vary, the compositional style is very uniform. The palmettes are extremely stylized, with the leaves represented with simple oblique lines branching off from a thicker central element (Stanco 2005, 210). Perhaps slightly later in date are examples of the larger plate/patera of the Morel 2821–2823 form (Figure 39, no. 13; cf. Activity E1), which are characterized by the same kind of decoration (Figure 39, no. 14). These standardized features suggest that the vessels were produced by the same workshop, whose identification remains uncertain. A group of objects very similar in terms of shape range and decoration, however, has been documented at the sanctuary site of Lucus Feroniae and tentatively attributed to Faliscan workshops active in the second half of the 3rd c. BCE (Stanco 2005, 210–217).

[picture]

Figure 39: Illustrations of key diagnostic elements from the east drainage fill assemblage (Activity G1, SU 1279): Black Gloss pottery (nos. 8–14)

Lamps are rare in this assemblage. Three fragments of the Black Gloss type were identified. The shapes of these vessels find comparanda with Roman examples, of which the earliest examples are dated stratigraphically to the late 3rd and early 2nd c. BCE, such as the Tevere 2a biconical type with vertical rim (Borgia 1998).

To conclude our discussion of the finewares, it is worth noting the occasional presence of fragments of Thin-Walled beakers of the Marabini I type (cf. Activity F1), which is documented in stratigraphic deposits at other sites of central Italy from the late 3rd c. BCE, though only sporadically. The type becomes more common in the first half of the 2nd c. BCE.

Common wares for the preparation, consumption, and storage of food represent approximately 6% of the drainage fill deposit and can be dated generically to the second half of the 3rd c. and the 2nd c. BCE. This group of vessels includes a spouted mortarium (Figure 40, no. 15), whose shape recalls earlier examples of the Impasto Chiaro Sabbioso production (Figure 40, nos. 16–17), from which it differs in that there is significantly less augite in the fabric. Furthermore, there are at least two examples of the (one?-)handled olla with an outcurving rim and slip on the upper body (Figure 40, nos. 18–19), of the type also found in Activity F1 at Gabii.

[picture]

Figure 40: Illustrations of key diagnostic elements from the east drainage fill assemblage (Activity G1, SU 1279): Impasto Chiaro Sabbioso mortaria (nos. 15–17) and one-handled Cream Ware ollae/goblets (nos. 18–19).

Most fragments, however, belong to cooking vessels (almost 3,000 sherds, corresponding to 73% of the entire sample), whose comparanda date to the 2nd c. BCE. The most common shape is the olla, particularly the type with an outcurving and slightly pointed rim (Bertoldi 2011, 94–95, Type 4; Figure 42, nos. 20–24). Less commonly found are specimens with small thickened rims, especially the variant with a rounded lip (Bertoldi 2011, Type 1). Both types are documented elsewhere at Gabii (Temple of Juno: Vegas and Martin Lopez 1982, 453 fig. 1.7), in the east suburbium of Rome (Città dello Sport, Ponte di Nona, and Torre Spaccata: Bertoldi 2011, 91, 94–95), and at the urban site of Tusculum (Dupré I Raventós and Aquilué Abadías 2000, 34 fig. 26.14), again in deposits that have been dated to between the 3rd and 2nd c. BCE. Important for understanding the character and chronology of the assemblage is the complete absence of ovoid ollae of the type known as “orlo a mandorla,” which are ubiquitously found in contexts dating from the middle of the 2nd c. BCE onward (Bertoldi 2011, 95–97, Type 5). Lids are less numerous than the ollae; the types present can be dated to between the second half of the 3rd and the early 2nd c. BCE (Figure 42, nos. 29–32). The form identified most frequently other than the ollae and lids is the pan, of which there are examples in both coarse ware and Internal Red Slip Ware (Figure 42, nos. 33–36). The variants find comparanda with types common during the period of transition from the Mid-Republican to Late Republican periods. Finally, there are several examples of portable ovens (clibanus), which have been documented at nearby sites (e.g., Ponte di Nona) in 2nd c. BCE deposits (Bertoldi 2011, 108–109).

[picture]

Figure 41: Illustrations of key diagnostic elements from the east drainage fill assemblage (Activity G1, SU 1279): Internal Slip Ware ollae (nos. 20–28).

[picture]

Figure 42: Illustrations of key diagnostic elements from the east drainage fill assemblage (Activity G1, SU 1279): coarse ware lids (nos. 29–32), coarse ware and Pompeian Red Slip pans (nos. 33, 35–36), and a coarse ware cooking stand (no. 34).

Amphorae appear infrequently in the deposits from this phase. The assemblage includes at least two examples of the “early” Greco-Italic type van der Mersch Va (330/325–275/260 BCE) or Vb (260/250–220 BCE), whose fabric suggests a Campanian origin. Another fragment, possibly from the same production area, can be attributed to the van der Mersch / Cibeccini type Vc (last quarter of the 3rd c. BCE) or VIa (210–190 BCE: Cibecchini and Capelli 2013, 434–443). A single example of a North African amphora of the type van der Werff 3 (Figure 43, no. 39), which dates to between the late 3rd or early 2nd c. BCE, is present. Fragments of at least one other Late Punic container have been identified (Figure 43, no. 40), as well as walls of Eastern Mediterranean amphorae.

[picture]

Figure 43: Illustrations of key diagnostic elements from the east drainage fill assemblage (Activity G1, SU 1279): Amphorae (nos. 37-40).

Table 24: Phase B-1b: Diagnostic elements. [Download Table 24 data]

Act. | Class | Production | Shape | Type | Observations | Chronology
G1 | Black gloss | Etrusco-latial/ Local (?) | patera | Morel 1281 |  | post end 3rd/early 2nd c. BCE
G1 | Black gloss | Etrusco-latial/ Local (?) | bowl | Morel 2572 |  | post end 3rd/early 2nd c. BCE
G1 | Black gloss | Etrusco-latial/ Local (?) | bowl | Morel 2573 |  | post end 3rd/early 2nd c. BCE
G1 | Black gloss | Etrusco-latial/ Local (?) | patera/plate | Morel 2821 |  | post end 3rd/early 2nd c. BCE
G1 | Black gloss | Etrusco-latial/ Local (?) | patera/plate | Morel 2822 |  | post end 3rd/early 2nd c. BCE
E1 | Black gloss | Etrusco-latial/ Local (?) | patera/plate | Morel 2823 |  | post end 3rd/early 2nd c. BCE
F1, G1 | Thin wall | Etrusco-latial/ Local (?) | beaker | Marabini I |  | Late 3rd/mid-1st c. BCE
G1 | Lamps | Etrusco-latial/ Local (?) | ... | Tevere 2a |  |
F1, G1 | Cream ware | Etrusco-latial/ Local (?) | beaker | Bertoldi 2011, olla type 2 |  | post end 3rd/early 2nd c. BCE
G1 | Coarse ware | Etrusco-latial/ Local (?) | olla | Bertoldi 2011, olla type 1 |  | Late 3rd/2nd c. BCE
G1 | Coarse ware | Etrusco-latial/ Local (?) | olla | Bertoldi 2011, olla type |  | Late 3rd/2nd c. BCE
G1 | Amphorae | Campania | ... | van der Merch/ Cibecchini VIa |  | 210 – 190 BCE o right after
F1 | Amphorae | Campania | ... | van der Merch/ Cibecchini VIb |  | 200 – 175 BCE ca.
G1 | Amphorae | North Africa | ... | van der Werff 3 |  | post end 3rd/early 2nd c. BCE

To summarize, there are numerous diagnostic finds that allow us to date the activities of Phase B-1b (Table 24) with confidence. The Black Gloss pottery sample includes types that were introduced in Etruria and Latium during the transition from the Mid-Republican period to the Late Republican. The examples of the patera Morel 1281 form and bowls of the Morel 2572–2573 form seem to originate from a single production center, as they share similar fabric, gloss, and decorations. Further analyses are required to confirm the possible connection with Lucus Feroniae. While these productions have a limited diffusion in central Tyrrhenian Italy, the plate/patera of the Morel 2821–2823 form is widely distributed in 2nd c. BCE contexts. Another significant aspect of the character of the assemblage is the presence of Thin-Walled pottery. Most notably, the earliest beaker type, Marabini I, provides a terminus post quem of 200 BCE. The same horizon is suggested by the “late” Greco-Italic amphorae van der Mersch / Cibecchini VIa and the North African van der Werff 3 (both dating from the end of the 3rd c. BCE onward) and by the slightly later van der Mersch / Cibecchini VIb (first quarter of the 2nd c. BCE). Finally, a fixed point in the late 3rd c. BCE has been proposed for some of the common wares for food storage and consumption (the olla/beaker Bertoldi 2) and for two cooking vessels (ollae Bertoldi 1 and 4). Beyond changes in the morphology of the vessels, there are interesting technological innovations, which indicate a complete departure from the pottery traditions established in the Archaic period.

To conclude, it is possible to date the construction activities of Phase B-1b between the late 3rd c. or early 2nd c. BCE and the late 2nd or early 1st c. BCE (i.e., the terminus ante quem provided by the materials recovered from the stratigraphy of Phase B-2). The absence of finds common in central Italy during the second quarter / middle of the 2nd c. BCE is a strong indication that these activities occurred during the first quarter of the 2nd c. BCE, a period that corresponds well with the date of the latest elements of the assemblage.

Phase B-2 (late 2nd / early 1st c. BCE)

The strata associated with Phase B-2 yielded 1,038 fragments (Table 25, Figure 44), corresponding to about 7% of the entire sample from the Tincu House. The construction activities occurring during this phase have been interpreted as the result of a significant change in the function of the building, from a domestic to a utilitarian structure. The majority of the material for this phase derives from the leveling layers that raise the floors (Activity H: 75.91%). A smaller yet still significant group of objects belongs to construction features (Activity I: 20.47%), while few ceramics come from the layers used for finishing floor surfaces (Activity J: 3.62%).

Table 25: Quantification of each ware per activity in Phase B-2. [View HTML version of Table 25] [Download Table 25 data]

[picture]

[picture]

Figure 44: Proportion of sherds coming from each activity associated with Phase B-2.

Activity H1—Leveling layers that have been excavated in Room B6 (SUs 1386, 1443, 1457) contained 788 sherds (Figure 45), many of which are residual. These residual finds range from the earliest phases of occupation of the settlement, the Early Iron Age to Late Archaic period (Impasto, Impasto Bruno, Impasto Rosso, Impasto Chiaro Sabbioso, Bucchero, coarse ware dolia, ESW, and ISW), to the Mid-Republican phase (Early/Mid-Republican Red Slip; Black Gloss, including the overpainted types; coarse ware; and Cream Ware). Several diagnostic elements, however, allow us to date the building activities with some precision.

[picture]

Figure 45: Quantification of the wares associated with Activity H1.

Black Gloss pottery is again the most common fineware in the assemblage. Other than a few fragments dating to the Mid-Republican period, which can be interpreted as obvious residues from Phase B-1a–b, the diagnostic fragments suggest that the context dates to after the middle of the 2nd c. BCE. Frequent finds of pateras with everted rims (series Morel 2252–58), plates with the same profile (Morel 2283, 2286), and fragments of large plates with undulating rims (Morel 1440) characterize the assemblage. This last type may be slightly later in date (last quarter of the 2nd c. BCE).

Within these deposits, a fragment of Late Republican Red Slip Ware was recovered. Recently, this class has been identified in stratigraphic contexts from Rome dating to between the late 2nd c. BCE (e.g., at the northeast slopes of the Palatine: Ferrandes 2014a, 187 n. 94) and the middle of the 1st c. BCE (e.g., the fill of a Pozzolana quarry at the site later occupied by the Horti Lamiani on the Esquiline: Ferrandes 2014b, 360–361). This seems to be one of the many local red gloss productions that pre-date Italian sigillata. The class is characterized by an extremely fine micaceous fabric and a slip ranging in color from orange to coral red, with soapy consistency (much like the contemporary Dressel 2 and 3 lamps and the Black Gloss productions with gray fabric, also known as Roman D, both manufactured in Rome). While the morphological repertoire is still poorly known, both closed and open shapes have been documented. The Gabii example is an open form.

Fragments of Megarian bowls and Thin-Walled pottery are datable to the 2nd c. BCE generically and so are not helpful for refining the chronology. One exception to this is the ovoid beaker Ricci I/7 (Marabini III) found in the deposits, which dates to after 150 BCE (Ricci 1985, 245). A more precise terminus post quem is provided by the Cream Ware lamp of type Ricci H (usually dated from the late 2nd c. BCE onward at Delos and somewhat later in Rome, especially from the Sullan phase onward: Ricci 1973, 223–226).

About two-thirds of the sample is made up of common wares, including types whose presence has been noted in Phase B-1b. These date generically to the 2nd c. BCE, and it is uncertain whether they are residues or types in circulation for a long period. Among the cooking wares, the “orlo a mandorla” olla (Bertoldi 2011, 95–97, Type 5), which appears in the Late Republican period and becomes widespread in Etruria and Latium, contributes to establishing the chronology.

A date of 150 BCE or later is provided by rare fragments of Dressel 1 amphorae. The rim types seen at Gabii can be generically attributed to the Tyrrhenian production. The same provenance is suggested for a rim fragment relating to the more recent variants of the “late” Greco-Italic productions (van der Mersch / Cibecchini VIb) or to the transitional amphorae that precede the Dressel 1 (Cibecchini 2004, 5 n. 16). The remaining amphora fragments are not diagnostic, but the fabrics are related to Eastern Mediterranean (perhaps also Rhodian?), North African, Adriatic, and Iberian productions.

Activity I1—The fill connected with the construction of wall SU 1186 contained 30 sherds, corresponding to 2.89% of the Phase B-2 sample (Figure 46). The fill mostly contained residues (Impasto, Impasto Rosso, Bucchero, and some coarse wares). Materials generically dating to the second half of the 2nd c. BCE include Thin-Walled pottery fragments and the rim of a Dressel 1 amphora of Campanian production.

[picture]

Figure 46: Quantification of wares from the Phase B-2 assemblage.

Activity I2—The set of materials recovered from SU 1423, which is connected with the reorganization of the main access to Room B6 from the new atrium, is larger (177 fragments, at 17.1% for the phase; Figure 47). Impasto, Impasto Chiaro Sabbioso, Bucchero, almost all of the coarse ware, Cream Ware, and External Slip Ware, as well as a large proportion of the Black Gloss pottery, are residual. The diagnostic fragments, however, allow us to refine the terminus post quem provided by the finds from Activity H1. Fragments of ovoid beaker type Ricci I/7 (Marabini III), also present in the latter context, indicate a date to after the middle of the 2nd c. BCE. The Black Gloss lamp of type Ricci F, however, post-dates 130/110 BCE (Ricci 1973, 219–222). Another lamp fragment from the assemblage has been tentatively assigned to the Dressel 3A type, which is a transitional shape between the Late Republican and the Augustan productions. If the identification was confirmed, this would represent the latest find from the Phase B-2 sample, which would have to be dated to the Sullan period. The rim of the only clearly identifiable Dressel 1B amphora is consistent with a late 2nd or early 1st c. BCE horizon.

[picture]

Figure 47: Quantification of wares associated with Activity I2.

Activity I3—The fill of a foundation trench of wall SU 1435 in the southern addition contained a mere five fragments, which are either residual (Impasto Chiaro Sabbioso, Black Gloss) or of uncertain chronology (coarse ware). Therefore, little can be said about the chronology of this activity.

Activity J1—The preparation of a crushed tufo floor (SU 1455) in the courtyard / southern addition yielded 38 fragments (3.62% of the Phase B-2 sample; Figure 48). The majority of the finds are residual (Impasto, Impasto Rosso, coarse ware dolia, and Mid-Republican Black Gloss), while some coarse ware and Cream Ware fragments are of uncertain chronology. As for activity I3, little can be concluded about Activity J1.

[picture]

Figure 48: Quantification of wares associated with Activity J1.

In summary, the deposits associated with Activities H1–J1 featured a significant quantity of residual inclusions, but useful elements to define a terminus post quem for the phase are available (Table 26). The datable elements derive from ceramic classes whose diffusion started in the late 2nd c. BCE and peaked in the early 1st c. BCE. Among the finewares, the most representative class is the Late Republican Red Slip Ware, a contemporary Roman production that has been recently identified. The fragment of a Dressel 1B amphora is consistent with this chronology. The lamps seem to provide a slightly later date: the Ricci H type is common from the Sullan period onward, though earlier examples are known from Delos in the late 2nd c. BCE. The Dressel 3A variant can be securely dated to the Sullan period, but the fragment from Activity I2 can only be tentatively identified with the type.

Table 26: Diagnostic elements associated with Phase B-2. [Download Table 26 data]

Act. | Class | Production | Shape | Type | Observations | Chronology
H1 | Late-Republican Red Slip Ware | Etrusco-latial | open | non id. |  | Late second/early first century BCE - 50/30 BCE (?)
H1 | Lamps | Etrusco-latial |  | Ricci H |  | Afterlate second century BCE - Sullan period
I2 | Lamps | Etrusco-latial |  | Dressel 3A (?) |  | 80/70 BCE - Augustan period
I2 | Amphorae | Tyrrhenian Italy |  | Dressel 1B |  | Late second/early first century BCE - Augustan period

Phase B-3 (second quarter / middle of 1st c. CE)

The contexts from the last phase of activity discussed in this volume contained the largest quantity of excavated materials (Tables 27A–B, Figure 49): 8,576 sherds, corresponding to 60% of the entire collection of finds from the Tincu House. Despite the large sample size, relatively few elements are available to fix a terminus post quem, because the assemblage is dominated by residues from earlier periods. In fact, fragments from construction levels (Activity K, Table 27A) amount to a mere 3% of the Phase B-3 sample. Most of the material comes from extensive layers that obliterate the structures of Phase B-2, marking the final abandonment of parts of the house (Activity L, Table 27B), making up 86% of the total. Anthropic activities in this phase are very limited and are related to spoliation (Activity M: 1.24%) or to cuts of uncertain function (Activity O: 0.6%). The latest levels sealing the structures are layers of colluvium of natural origin, which included a fair amount of redeposited material (Activity N: 9.18%).

Table 27: Quantification of each ware per activity in Phase B-3. [View HTML version of Table 27] [Download Table 27 data]

[picture]

[picture]

Figure 49: Proportion of sherds from each activity associated with Phase B-3.

Activity K1—SU 1174, one of the fills of the courtyard connected with the construction of wall SU 1058, yielded 202 sherds (1.99% of the Phase B-3 assemblage; Figure 50). Almost all the material is residual from both Phase B-0 and Phases B-1 and B-2. The latter group includes fragments of a Genucilia plate with geometric decoration, which are found at sites in Etruria and Latium from the early 3rd c. BCE onward (Ferrandes 2016). Coarse ware and Cream Ware fragments mostly belong to types with long circulation periods, so their interpretation is uncertain. The same is true for the wall fragments of vessels from classes that were still being produced at the time of the deposit formation.

[picture]

Figure 50: Quantification of the sherds per ware in the Phase B-3 assemblage associated with activity K1.

Activity K2—SUs 1176 and 1189, which are associated with the construction of wall SU 1163 in between Rooms B1 and B2, yielded 28 fragments in total (0.33%; Figure 51). The overall composition of the assemblage is similar to that of the finds from Activity K1, as it mostly includes residual ceramics from the Archaic through the Late Republican periods. The relative distribution of the pottery classes finds a parallel with that documented for Phase B-2 contexts, suggesting that the Phase B-2 levels were extensively reworked in the context of the new construction activities. This parallels the situation we see in the transition from Phase B-0 to Phase B-1.

[picture]

Figure 51: Quantification of the sherds per ware in the Phase B-3 assemblage associated with activity K2.

Activity K3—SU 1406, a layer connected with the construction of wall SU 5146 in the southeast sector of the building, shares the same features of Activities K1–2 (Figure 52). The latest material includes Late Republican pottery classes. A unique find from this level is a very poorly preserved fragment of an Attic Black Figured kylix of uncertain production and date.

[picture]

Figure 52: Quantification of the sherds per ware in the Phase B-3 assemblage associated with activity K3.

Activity L1—The dump SU 1401, located along the west wall of the courtyard, represents the first in a long series of accumulations, within various areas of the Tincu House, whose deposition reflects the progressive abandonment of the building. This layer contained 55 fragments (0.65% of the Phase B-3 sample), dominated by coarse ware (Figure 53; the SU also includes a high proportion of faunal remains). The material is generally residual, although types in circulation over an extended period are also present. As is the case for Activities K1–3, the latest ceramics date to between the middle and late 2nd c. BCE, thus suggesting that the material originated from the destruction and reuse of Phase B-2 strata.

[picture]

Figure 53: Quantification of the sherds per ware in the Phase B-3 assemblage associated with activity L1.

Activity L2—SU 1221, soil accumulated in the drain SU 1228 in the courtyard, included 17 fragments (0.2% of the Phase B-3 assemblage) (Figure 54). The few pottery fragments can be interpreted as residual materials. A notable inclusion is the base of a Black Gloss vessel of Arretine production featuring the attribution “Q.AF.” stamped on the floor. This is one of the most frequently recorded names for the production, appearing in the first quarter of the 1st c. BCE and becoming more common around 60/50 BCE (Morel 2009; Brecciaroli Taborelli 2013; there are references to imports in Rome in Ferrandes 2014a, 357). In light of the terminus post quem suggested for the formation of the Phase B-2 construction deposits, which is slightly earlier, the vessel in question must represent an object that was in use during the actual occupation of the building in Phase B-2.

[picture]

Figure 54: Quantification of the sherds per ware in the Phase B-3 assemblage associated with activity L2.

Activity L3—The dumping layers deposited within Room B5 (SUs 1232, 1242) yielded 300 fragments (3.5% of the Phase B-3 assemblage), thus representing one of the richest contexts (Figure 55). However, the composition of this subset of materials does not differ substantially from the typical assemblage of Phase B-2. These levels feature pottery classes dating to the Archaic through Mid-Republican periods and a smaller proportion of 2nd c. BCE objects. Present are fragments of large bowls featuring a thin coating of opaque Black Gloss, which covers the interior floor and ends irregularly just below the rim on the exterior, a class of vessel not seen elsewhere at Gabii. Recent studies of this class of ceramics in Rome, where it is found in urban contexts dating to between the late 2nd and mid-1st c. BCE, suggest, based on its limited distribution, that it is intended for local consumption (Ferrandes 2014a, 357–360 fig. 7 nos. 6–7). The presence of the same class at Gabii and the technical similarities with the Roman examples might indicate that there was a single production center whose products had a wider diffusion.

[picture]

Figure 55: Quantification of the sherds per ware in the Phase B-3 assemblage associated with activity L3.

The coins from SU 1124, two quartunciae in copper alloy, are also residual: Δ238a, dating to the late 3rd c. BCE, and Δ238b, perhaps 275–270 BCE. Pottery and coin evidence demonstrates that the soil dumped in Room B5 was quarried from the strata accumulated in the previous phase.

Activity L4—It is unclear whether SU 1222 was a layer of collapse or yet another accumulation on top of the dumps grouped under Activity L3. The sample is, in any case, of very limited value (Figure 56; 44 fragments, at 0.42%). The few datable materials are residual.

[picture]

Figure 56: Quantification of the sherds per ware in the Phase B-3 assemblage associated with activity L4.

Activity L5—The accumulations documented in Room B3 (SUs 1158, 1165, 1320, 1327, 1340) yielded the largest assemblage from the Tincu House (Figure 57): 6,336 fragments (corresponding to 73.89% of the finds from Phase B-3 levels and about 44% of the entire sample). The composition of the assemblage does not vary significantly from that of the other sets of materials described above, indicating a similar formation process: the destruction of deposits originally associated with the building activities of Phase B-2. Thanks to the larger sample size, a series of diagnostic elements have been identified, which provide a terminus post quem of the middle of the 1st c. CE.

[picture]

Figure 57: Quantification of the sherds per ware in the Phase B-3 assemblage associated with activity L5.

The assemblage includes a group of finds dating from the Augustan period onward, most notably Italian sigillata. An important element for establishing the date of the assemblage is a carinated cylindrical cup of the type Conspectus 26.2. Dating to the slightly later Tiberian period are cups with restricted walls of the type Conspectus 32 and dishes with sloping walls of the type Conspectus 3. The element latest in date is a fragment of the hemispherical Conspectus 34 type, whose date begins around 30 CE. A generic date in the Augustan period can be proposed for fragments of lamps similar to the Bailey B type and the Camulodunum 184 amphorae from Rhodes (the earliest examples in Rome come from the Forum of Caesar, 42–29 BCE: Zampini 2014, 189–203; the diffusion picks up beginning around 20–10 BCE, as indicated by the finds from the construction levels of the Augustan Aqua Marcia: Volpe 1996, 27, Att. 5).

The stratigraphic position of a few fragments of African Red Slip A ware from one of these layers (SU 1165) is uncertain. The numerous Imperial tomb features that cut through the Phase B-3 sequence may perhaps explain the presence of what would seem to be intrusive material. The earliest sporadic examples of the class in Rome date, in fact, to 60/70 CE (e.g., from the stagnum of the Domus Aurea: Rizzo 2003, 107; recent unpublished finds from the northeastern slopes of the Palatine seem to confirm this date). The progress of excavation and study of the stratigraphic sequence in neighboring city blocks (Areas A and F) will hopefully provide more conclusive evidence.

The coins retrieved from these deposits are also uncertain or not legible (Δ150 from SU 1158, Δ143 from SU 1165) and therefore do not add useful information on the chronology of the dumps.

Activity L6—The levels obliterating the structures of Room B4 yielded 642 fragments (corresponding to 7.48% of the Phase B-3 sample; Figure 58). The overall composition of this group of materials confirms the trend identified for Activity L5: a high proportion of residual materials, including a small number of fragments related to the early phases of occupation and frequent Late Republican finds. The sample of Italian sigillata includes some significant diagnostic elements. In addition to the carinated cylindrical bowl of the Conspectus 26.2 type, already seen in the strata formed during Activity L5, we note the bowl with a sloping wall of type Conspectus 8. Broad dishes with sloping walls of the Conspectus 3 type, dating to the Tiberian Period, and the Conspectus 32 cup with a restricted wall, here in the variant 32.2, form part of the assemblage. Plates with vertical rims of the Conspectus 20.4 type provide a terminus post quem of 30 CE. As in the context described above, poorly preserved fragments of lamps can be generically assigned to the Augustan period onward. Sherds of the Camulodunum 184 amphora are also present.

Finally, two coins have been recovered from these levels: a litra dating to 270 BCE (Δ268 from SU 1275) and a late 3rd c. BCE as (203 from SU Δ1218), in copper alloy. Neither provides useful chronological information to further define the terminus post quem.

[picture]

Figure 58: Quantification of the sherds per ware in the Phase B-3 assemblage associated with activity L6.

Activity M1—Spoliation activities of uncertain function have been documented in both Room B3 and the atrium courtyard (SUs 1260, 1270, 1271). These features yielded 107 fragments, which correspond to 1.24% of the Phase B-3 sample (Figure 59). Like other contexts from Phase B-3, the assemblage is composed of residual ceramics, in most cases pre-dating the 5th c. BCE. The most recent finds, which are represented by coarse ware types of long duration, do not seem to go beyond the Late Republican period.

[picture]

Figure 59: Quantification of the sherds per ware in the Phase B-3 assemblage associated with activity M1.

Activity N1—Colluvial deposits have been identified within Rooms B1 and B2, the courtyard, and Road 4. These layers included a fairly large number of fragments: 1,788 sherds, about 9% of the entire assemblage of Phase B-3 (Figure 60). Residual materials are predominant, and their distribution by class is similar to that of other Phase B-3 contexts. Diagnostic elements include a lamp with volutes, close to the Bailey B type, whose production started in the Augustan period, and a dish with sloping walls, of the Conspectus 3 type, dating to the Tiberian period. Both types are also documented in Activities L5–6.

[picture]

Figure 60: Quantification of the sherds per ware in the Phase B-3 assemblage associated with activity N1.

Activity O1—Another spoliation feature, purpose unknown, has been identified in Room B6 (SU 1422). This fill yielded 52 fragments (0.6% of the Phase B-3 assemblage). The ceramics are once again residual (Figure 61), as is the only coin retrieved in this context (a quadrans attributed to M. Aburius Geminus, dating to 132 BCE).

[picture]

Figure 61: Quantification of the sherds per ware in the Phase B-3 assemblage associated with activity O1.

To sum up, the finds from Activities K1–O1, although quantitatively rich (more than 8,500 fragments), include only a small fraction of diagnostic materials (Table 28). A well-defined group of Italian sigillata objects, including plates with vertical rims of the Conspectus 20.4 type and hemispherical cups of the Conspectus 34 type, can be dated to 30 CE or soon after. Four fragments of African Red Slip are also attested, but their interpretation is problematic. If not intrusive, their presence would bring the terminus post quem for Phase B-3 to 60/70 CE, based on the date of the initial diffusion of the class in neighboring Rome.

Table 28: Diagnostic elements from Phase B-3. [Download Table 28 data]

Act. | Class | Production | Shape | Type | Observations | Chronology
L6 | TSI | Italian peninsula | plate | Conspectus 20.4 |  | 30 – 96 CE
L5 - L6 | TSI | Italian peninsula | bowl | Conspectus 34 |  | 30 – 96 CE
L5 | ARS | A1 | closed | non id. |  | 60/70 – mid-2nd c. CE
L5 | ARS | A1 | open | non id. |  | 60/70 – mid-2nd c. CE

Preliminary conclusions and future directions

The study of the complex stratigraphic sequence excavated in the Tincu House has provided the opportunity to analyze a rich corpus of more than 14,000 fragments relating to the occupation of and activities taking place in the Area B property from the 5th c. BCE to the 1st c. CE. While primarily chronological in its purpose, our examination of the ceramic assemblages has laid the groundwork that will allow us to sketch a general picture of the production, import, and consumption of goods at Gabii. The quantitative study of the finds has made it evident that the distribution of the sample is very uneven. Many deposits consist of just a few fragments, while other contexts yielded thousands of fragments. Because of the depositional processes at play, these larger deposits, especially in the case of Phases B-2 and B-3, included only a small fraction of finds that can be interpreted as roughly contemporary with the formation of the strata. This makes it difficult to reconstruct in any detail the actual composition of pottery assemblages for the Late Republican and Early Imperial periods. The data for Phase B-1 is, in general, much more reliable.

The original construction of the house (Phase B-1a) can be dated to the second quarter or middle of the 3rd c. BCE. The circulation of ceramic classes and types at Gabii in this period finds close parallels with what is known from the main urban sites of Mid-Republican Latium. The finewares fall neatly within the material-cultural koine of the Etrusco-Latial productions. The presence of a local workshop related to the group of the Petites Estampilles has been hypothesized for Gabii (Perez Ballester 2003, 230–236; Di Giuseppe 2012, 136). Archaeometric analyses are needed to characterize the chemical fingerprint of the local products and verify whether the materials from the Tincu House do belong to that group.

The 3rd c. BCE contexts from Gabii include some of the earliest examples of local (or, in any case, Etrusco-Latial) lamps, confirming the chronological trend seen in Rome. The diffusion of these vessels in this initial phase was extremely rare, suggesting that lighting was mainly based on the use of torches (Pavolini 1987).

Similarly, the distribution of amphorae, whose proportion corresponds to about 1% of the entire assemblage, mirrors the pattern documented at Rome. Therefore, it is likely that other types of containers were used to transport wine into town (e.g., animal skin: Volpe 2009; Panella 2010).

Finally, the parallel between Gabii and other Etruscan and Latin centers is seen in the common wares used for the preparation, storage, and cooking of food. The latter category, which includes some of the earliest examples of Internal Red Slip Ware, demonstrates a significant change in the technological features (e.g., fabric composition and thickness of the walls), especially when compared with the previous types of coarse ware and Internal Slip Ware, revealing important innovations in both the processing of the raw materials and the making and shaping of the vessels. The transition from the Archaic Impasto tradition to the Late Republican cooking wares is completed in the 2nd c. BCE. At that point, the formal repertoire that characterized the Mid-Republican phase disappears, and there is no longer any technological relationship with the types of objects produced in the late 3rd and early 2nd c. BCE (but see the observations on Phase B-1b). As already mentioned, some scholars link this transformation with the arrival of specialized craftsmen from Southern Italy in the region, as a result of the conquest of Tarentum in 272 BCE.

Our knowledge of the pottery classes circulating at Gabii and in use within the Tincu House in Phase 1b is much more detailed. The fill of one of the main drainage channels of the building yielded an exceptional assemblage, both quantitatively (about 4,000 fragments) and qualitatively (residuals are all but absent; the vessels are often fully preserved or mostly preserved and having many joining fragments). This assemblage represents one of the best contexts dating to the late 3rd and early 2nd c. BCE known from the Etrusco-Latial region. Well-dated comparative material from elsewhere in the region presents some limitations, either because of the small sample size (e.g., Rome, pavement of S. Omobono: Mercando 1963–1964; Ferrandes 2006, 135) or because of the association with a large proportion of residues (Lucus Feroniae, restoration of the sanctuary: Stanco 2005; Ferrandes 2006, 135). The Gabii deposit provides much more reliable evidence and must now serve as a reference collection for the period immediately before or after the Hannibalic War.

With reference to the finewares, it is worth noting a stronger than usual continuity of the regional Black Gloss production related to the group of the Petites Estampilles: although the frequency of the stamped decoration decreases progressively during the second half of the 3rd c. BCE, the Gabii deposit has yielded all the known variants spanning the transition to the Late Republican tradition. The most interesting point here centers on a subset of vessels characterized by consistently similar technological (fabric and gloss) and decorative features (e.g., three radial palmettes on the floor, surrounded by a rouletted band), which would seem to indicate the existence of a single production center. The abundance of this type in the Tincu House as well as at other sites in or around Gabii (Temple of Iuno: Perez Ballester 2003, fig. 14; Ponte di Nona: Potter 1989, figs. 70.1, 71.28, 73.10, 74.14–15) may point to a local origin, but the strong affinities with contemporary materials from Lucus Feroniae complicate the picture. Only a comparative study of the collections from these two sites will tell us if we are dealing with a single manufacture or if—as was often the case in the Mid-Republican period—the same morphological and decorative repertoire was shared by multiple Etrusco-Latial centers.

Another important observation is that the sample from the drain fill and other Phase B-1b contexts feature some of the earliest examples of Thin-Walled beakers (type Marabini I). The presence of these vessel types in the early 2nd c. BCE horizon confirms the chronology proposed for the introduction of what was an innovative vessel shape, intended for the consumption of liquids.

Lamps and amphorae continue to be poorly represented in the Gabii assemblage. In spite of their scarcity, the few elements present often serve as the most valid dating elements for the Phase 1b activities. The “late” Greco-Italic amphorae of Campanian production indicate that wine was being imported from the hinterland of Naples (the trade was well established in the late 4th c. BCE but peaked in the 2nd c. BCE: Bechtold 2007; Panella 2010, 21–29; 40–45). Transport containers of North African provenance are also attested, but there is no secure evidence as to the nature of the commodity being traded in them.

The common wares for cooking, storage, and food consumption show a radical break with the Archaic Impasto pottery tradition, with the exception of a few shapes (whose fabric and wall thickness are, however, completely different), demonstrating that the process of technological innovation begun during Phase B-1a came to its conclusion in Phase B-1b.

In contrast with the Phase B-1 assemblage, the finds from Phases B-2 and B-3 show a lesser degree of variability in the number of ceramic classes and productions represented. New types known to have been first introduced in the 2nd c. BCE are present only sporadically, usually as residual materials in the Phase B-2 stratigraphy. These fragments probably originate from objects that were in use in the Tincu House after its early 2nd c. BCE restoration. Although it represents more than 60% of the excavated materials, the sample from Phase B-3 is even poorer in terms of its composition, because it primarily consists of residual elements from Phases B-1a and B-1b. In addition to the few diagnostic elements that provide a terminus post quem of the Phase B-3 activities, objects that can be securely dated to after 100 BCE are extremely rare. This impoverishment of the material culture from the building does not necessarily result from the nature of the deposits, but it may well reflect the change in function of the Tincu building from house to annex, which occurred in Phase B-2.

Footnotes for Discussion of the Ceramics

1 The argument for the primary use of ESW and ISW being food preparation is supported by the fact that the fabric in both classes is identical to that used to make coarse ware vessels that were certainly used for cooking over fire and by the preponderance of the olla in the repertoire of forms known for both types. Further, the internal slip has been interpreted as an attempt at insulating the container in order to prevent the absorption of liquids and fats. Thus, the ISW olla has often been referred to as an ideal vessel for cooking certain foods that tend to stick, such as the puls, or meats from which much fat is rendered during the cooking process, such as pork (Di Giuseppe 2009, 205, with further bibliography). Against this interpretation, however, it has been noted that the traces of combustion on the external surface of ISW vessels are not systematic and that the thickness of the slip, particularly in the early production phases, is rather thin and would seem to be ineffective in providing any insulation from liquids. Proponents of this view, therefore, suggest that at least some of the production, most notably that of the larger containers, could have been used primarily for the storage of foodstuffs. In addition, the presence of numerous graffiti, particularly around the rim, and the frequent occurrence of the class at sacred sites would seem to suggest a preferential—though certainly not exclusive—use of these containers in ceremonial contexts, both for the cooking of food as gifts to the divinities and as containers in which to hold offerings of some other nature. The miniature versions of such wares seem to be used exclusively for ritual means (Di Giuseppe 2006, 395 n. 110).

2 Cf. Di Giuseppe 2010, 314–331; 2014, 113–118.

3 Murray Threipland 1963, 56.

4 For examples of ISW in the stratigraphy of Building B at Veii / Piazza D’Armi see Bartoloni and Acconcia 2012. A comprehensive re-examination of the materials from Veii is in Cascino and Di Sarcina 2008.

5 Arizza 2015 (stratigraphy); Piergrossi and Cherubini 2015 (materials and chronology). The building has been interpreted as a temple. Some observations on the reliability of the stratigraphic sequence and the statistical sample used for the seriation of ISW types can be found in Ferrandes forthcoming 1.

6 For the most recent excavations conducted in the sanctuary of the Forum Boarium see Terrenato et al. 2012 with bibliography. ISW fragments have been recovered from layers dating to the first half of the 5th c. BCE (Luca De Luca, personal communication).

7 This is part of a project led by N. Terrenato (University of Michigan) and P. Brocato (Università della Calabria) on behalf of the American Academy in Rome, aimed at the systematic review of the documentation and finds of the excavations conducted by F. Brown at the site. The presence of fragments of coarse wares with internal slip in contexts of the first half of the 5th c. has been brought to my attention by Carlo Regoli and Luca De Luca.

8 On the research project directed by Clementina Panella in the last 30 years along the western side of the Colosseum valley and on the northeastern side of the Palatine see Panella 2013 and updated comments in Panella, Zeggio, and Ferrandes 2014, with extensive bibliography. For a broader overview of the Mid-Republican phases see Ferrandes 2016a.

9 For a preliminary discussion of the presence of this pottery class in the Mid-Republican layers at the northeastern Palatine site see Ferrandes 2015 and, more extensively, Ferrandes 2016a. A detailed analysis of aspects of production, morphology, and chronology of the class was recently carried out by Alessandra Vivona in her master’s thesis in classical archaeology, “Ceramiche d’impasto a Roma tra la prima e la media età repubblicana: Il controverso caso dell’Internal Slip Ware tra dati acquisiti e nuove conoscenze” (University of Rome, 2016).

10 For a more detailed discussion see Ferrandes 2015; 2016a.

11 Fiano (forthcoming) discusses the problems posed by the lack of Aegean imports for the absolute dating of Late Archaic contexts.

12 Becker, Mogetta, and Terrenato 2009; Becker and Mogetta 2014, with bibliography.

Notable Objects (Special Finds) from the Tincu House—by Shannon Ness

This catalog provides a list of the special finds recorded during the course of the excavation of the Tincu House in the 2010 and 2011 seasons. The finds are organized by phase and then context, each of which is briefly defined. The finds from Phase B-1 reflect the domestic nature of this earliest phase of the Tincu House site. Phase B-1 produced numerous loom weights, a spindle whorl, delicate bronze nails, fibula fragments, and a bone bead, among other items. Phase B-2, when the site served a more public function, has few finds. A fragment preserving two different scenes from a small terracotta altar (Δ213) was found in a collapse layer. Descriptions of the scenes are recorded below in the catalog. Phase B-3, a period of abandonment and dumping, unsurprisingly produced the most finds, including a broken but complete bone hairpin (Δ139) and a lead slingshot bullet (Δ144). Most of the finds from this layer, however, are highly fragmentary and a mix of domestic or personal items and utilitarian, even industrial refuse, such as the iron crucible slag (Δ585).

Catalog of Small Finds from the Tincu House

Δ182; Δ184; Δ188; Δ276;Δ277; Δ279; Δ280; Δ284; Δ285; Δ286; Δ397; Δ593; Δ584; Δ588; Δ590; Δ213; Δ214; Δ152; Δ141; Δ140; Δ144; Δ147; Δ135; Δ138; Δ146; Δ153; Δ139; Δ145; Δ190; Δ202; Δ205; Δ227; Δ226; Δ278; Δ283; Δ287; Δ293; Δ291; Δ407; Δ408; Δ582; Δ597; Δ414; Δ433; Δ571; Δ585;

Coins from the Tincu House at Gabii—by Shannon Ness

In the 2010 and 2011 seasons, a number of 3rd and 2nd c. BCE coins were unearthed during the course of excavation in Area B. Ten coins can be securely associated with Phases B-1, B-2, and B-3 identified within the Tincu House, and these will be the focus of this discussion. Coins were identified during the course of the excavation or located within individual spoil heaps created for each SU and individually inspected by means of a metal detector. This methodology resulted in a 25% increase in the recovery rate seen in comparable deposits not inspected by expert metal detectorists.1b While recovery rates were improved through this collection strategy, the number of coins recovered remains small. The low number of numismatic finds is not unexpected given that the majority of deposits date to the Mid-Republican period. During this period, Rome, which adapted struck coinage rather late, minted relatively few types of coins and produced small issues.2b In the early 3rd c. BCE, the quantity of coins in circulation is limited. Rome begins to mint larger issues of coined bronze and silver only in the period of the Second Punic War. This topic is discussed further below in the context of the economy at Gabii.

While a limited number of coins are present, the archaeological context and importance of each of these coins is clear.3b. Coins were found in each of the successive phases of the structure other than the pre-house features belonging to Phase B-0. Half of the coins (five) were found within the latest phase, Phase B-3, when dumping related to quarrying activity and gradual abandonment took place. This stratigraphy belonging to this phase is dominated by accumulation layers and fills as rooms fell out of use.

These coins and those belonging to Phases B-1 and B-2 are in generally poor condition, with abraded and shallow surfaces that are the result of long periods of continuous use. Due to their condition, the recorded measurements and weights tend to be below the average for each denomination. However, they fit within the known range of weights and measures.4b Even as we exercise due caution in making identifications, six of the coins can be associated with 3rd c. BCE issues. These coins span from the second quarter to the end of the 3rd c. BCE. The seventh coin, Δ434, can be confidently dated to the third quarter of the 2nd c. BCE. This latest coin is the only find that can be considered to be in good condition—a detail returned to below.

Phase B-1 of the house is characterized by many anthropic layers identified by the excavators as intentional depositions. This phase produced one coin find, Δ409 (RRC 16/1a), from SU 1231, a crushed tufo flooring surface in Room B5. This context was devoid of other finds, including ceramics. A find spot was not recorded for the coin, so it is uncertain where this coin was found within the room. If the coin was embedded within the surface of this floor, as seems likely, it can provide a terminus ante quem for the completion of this anthropic activity. The coin is a South Italian issue, minted for Roman use around 275 BCE.

Phase B-2, when the house was transformed into a public space, produced two coins. One coin, Δ592, is associated with a threshold (SU 1453) in the southern part of the courtyard, which was covered by a later crushed tufo floor (SU 1396). The second coin, Δ431, was unearthed from a rubble fill (SU 1386) in the small room adjacent to Room B1. This is a large, illegible coin struck in bronze. Based on the thickness and surface of the flan, the coin may be associated with a post-semilibral or later issue, when the denominations are based on a smaller, less hefty as. This would push the date of this coin back to the last decades of the 3rd c. BCE at its earliest, providing further dating evidence for Phase B-2.

Phase B-3, the period in which the site was abandoned, produced coins from disparate periods spanning more than a century, likely reflecting the dumping activities and the high levels of residuality associated with this practice. Five of the eight coins from this phase are identifiable. The oldest coin, Δ268, is a litra minted in Rome around 270 BCE. A metal detectorist recovered this coin from SU 1275, a layer of accumulation above the tufo floor (SU 1216) in Room B4, associated with the abandonment of this area. Δ203 dates to the last decade of the 3rd c. BCE and was uncovered in a layer of debris (SU 1218) in Room B3. This anthropic layer associated with the abandonment of the site, SU 1218, corresponds with the debris layers SU 1165 and SU 1158 in Rooms B1 and B2 respectively. Each of those layers also produced a coin find, though neither coin was able to be confidently identified. Two of the coins come from the same stratigraphical unit—the only such occurrence for the whole structure. These two coins, Δ238a and Δ238b, belong to SU 1242, a roof collapse in Room B5. Again, it is uncertain where these coins were located within this layer or the room, as the metal detectorist found both coins following the initial excavation. One of these coins, Δ238a, dates to the last quarter of the 3rd c. BCE while the heavily worn Δ238b corresponds best with an earlier issue and denomination, a double litra. Although the reverse is largely illegible, the type as a whole resembles the Apollo/lion type of RRC 16/1a. This is the same identification as the one given to Δ409 in Phase B-1.

The last coin associated with the Tincu House is Δ434, a coin minted by M. Aburius Geminus in 132 BCE. The coin originates from a fill (SU 1422) of a cut (SU 1421) in Room B6. As noted above, this coin is better preserved than the other coins recovered from this site. This would suggest that the coin was lost at a point closer to the date of its minting. Alternatively, it may be surmised that the coin did not circulate widely and, thus, was exposed to less wear prior to its appearance in the archaeological record. This coin may help us to establish when the site was completely abandoned and possibly when its use as a necropolis (Gallone and Banducci, forthcoming) was established. The future study of the numismatic material from these phases will help us to better understand this transition.

[picture]

Figure 62: Coin Δ 143, obverse.

[picture]

Figure 63: Coin Δ 143, reverse.

[picture]

Figure 64: Coin Δ 203, obverse.

[picture]

Figure 65: Coin Δ 203, reverse.

[picture]

Figure 66: Coin Δ 238, obverse and reverse.

[picture]

Figure 67: Coin Δ 238b, obverse and reverse.

[picture]

Figure 68: Coin Δ 268, obverse.

[picture]

Figure 69: Coin Δ 268, reverse.

[picture]

Figure 70: Coin Δ 409, obverse.

[picture]

Figure 71: Coin Δ 409, reverse.

[picture]

Figure 72: Coin Δ 434, obverse.

[picture]

Figure 73: Coin Δ 434, reverse.

[picture]

Figure 74: Coin Δ 592, obverse.

[picture]

Figure 75: Coin Δ 592, reverse.

Numismatic site finds are often difficult to interpret. They are the result of unintentional loss and, therefore, dissimilar to purposeful depositions, such as hoards or votive deposits. There is general agreement among specialists that all coins in circulation have the potential to be lost and that more effort will be exerted to recover lost coins of more value.5b As a result, site finds tend to be coins difficult to recover and/or coins of little economic value. The ten coins associated with the house and later public complex in Area B fit well within this model of accidental coin loss. The coins, all bronze, are of generally poor condition, with eroded surfaces and light weights, which suggests extended periods of circulation. Finally, none of the coins considered here come from contexts that suggest intentional deposition or hoarding activities.

While the coins are only one of the many elements that can assist with understanding the Tincu House, this first investigation into the numismatic evidence provides an insight into the role of currency at Gabii during the 3rd and 2nd c. BCE. Overwhelmingly, the coins cluster around two epochs: the turn of the second quarter of the 3rd c. BCE and the last quarter of that century. This is not entirely surprising, as it reflects the production pattern of Roman coinage during the late Early Republican and Mid-Republican periods.

At the beginning of the 3rd c. BCE, Rome utilized a variety of bronze currencies, in addition to very limited issues of silver coinage. Indigenous Roman currency was based on large weights of bronze: aes rude, aes signatum, and the casted aes grave. When Rome adopted coined silver and bronze, the earliest issues were derived from the coins minted in Southern Italy, particularly the coinage of Neapolis.6b As a result, due to the legends, types, or weight of some of these very early issues, they are believed to have been minted at a South Italian mint for Roman use. By the second quarter of the 3rd c. BCE, Rome was capable of minting its own issues of silver and bronze coins. The frequency and scale of these issues, however, stagnates in the middle of the century, before increasing in the second half of the century. During the late 3rd c. BCE, there was a great deal of change in the currency, as certain denominations were abandoned and as the purities and weight standards of other denominations were reduced. This debasement and weight reduction were the result of Rome’s military campaigns during this time period, particularly the Punic campaigns. The greatest change occurred when Rome introduced the silver denarius in 211 BCE, which corresponds with a drastic reduction in the weight of the as, the principle bronze denomination.

The coins from the Tincu House span this exciting period of numismatic history. Moreover, the later phases of the area, Phases B-2 and B-3, produced coins representing these varied denominational standards. We have already discussed the poor conditions of the coins and have attributed this to prolonged periods of use or circulation, based on the appearance of the flan’s surface.7b For Phases B-2 and B-3, it could be possible to dismiss the early 3rd c. coins (Δ238b and Δ268) as residual coins. This may certainly be the case for Δ268, from Phase B-3, since dumping activity characterizes this period and since this coin is quite removed in time from the mid-2nd c. coin Δ434, also associated with this phase.

Yet these earlier coins may indicate that bronze coinage experienced a long life at Gabii. The limited and sporadic issues of coinage during the Mid-Republican period would have encouraged the extended use of bronze coins. The value of these coins, a necessity for smaller transactions, was likely based on their weight rather than their supposed denomination. This must certainly be the case for any issues of the early 3rd c. BCE that are still in circulation at the end of that century. Further research into the numismatic data will help to establish if and for how long such early denominations continued to circulate at Gabii leading up to and following the introduction of the denarius system.8b

Notes

1b Although the number of physical coins is higher, the number of coin types may not necessarily increase, as sites tend to circulate a set of known types; see Reece 1996, 342. This “standard set” is not well understood at this stage for Gabii, but even within the Tincu House, the limited number of finds produced examples of the same type in two instances. Further work with the Gabii Project’s numismatic finds will help to establish a predictable range of coin types for the site.

2b Burnett 2012, 300, 309.

3b Unfortunately, during these early years at the Gabii Project, the exact find spot for the coins in Area B was rarely recorded, but it was regularly indicated on the context sheet. Those coins found by the metal detectorist are denoted as such in the notes of the catalog.

4b The weights and measurements for each identified coin were compared with examples from the American Numismatic Society, the British Museum, and the Münzkabinett Berlin, by means of the Coinage of the Roman Republic Online (CRRO) digital database, accessible at http://numismatics.org/crro/

5b Reece 1996, 341.

6b Burnett 2012, 300.

7b Most of the coins feature “smoothed” surfaces rather than the gritty, pockmarked surface common to corroded metals.

8b The later phases of Area B and the ongoing work in Area C will add greatly to our knowledge of the numismatic landscape, allowing us to revisit the Tincu coins with better understanding.

Apologia

Methods in use during the excavation of the Tincu House

This section provides a brief description of aspects of the excavation and recording practices in use at the Gabii Project during the excavation of the Tincu House. The intention of this section is to alert the reader to the main sources of inconsistencies in the data and to limitations on our ability to interrogate the record and arrive at a sound interpretation. A more general discussion of the excavation's methods is included in the introductory section of this volume.

Preservation and Excavation Limits

The Tincu House, formerly known as the Area B house, was excavated over four consecutive summers between 2009 and 2012. The preservation of Republican and earlier remains in this terrace and block is –poor—the result of both later activity in antiquity and heavy erosion exacerbated by ploughing in more recent centuries. In antiquity, the installation of a small necropolis disturbed many structures and deposits. Intentional robbing in antiquity likewise confuses the picture. The effects of post-medieval agriculture across this part of the town are attested by the plough marks scratched into the bedrock, appearing in multiple orientations. As a result, no walls are preserved for more than a few courses, and floors remain only in patches (Figure 1). The poor preservation of the walls means that while we have the layout of the rooms, we can only guess at the locations of doorways. The only thresholds present are those leading into the courtyard (or blocked up). This situation makes the analysis of movement through the space difficult. We know the locations of floors, but in many areas, only the preparation layers survive, and little or nothing can be said about the character of the finished surface. The effects of later dumping in antiquity followed by heavy ploughing have a detrimental effect on our ability to establish a refined chronology based on the ceramics present. We see intrusive materials in many layers, and many sherds are abraded or fragmentary. In spite of the difficulties posed by preservation, the outlines of the structure are present, and these, together with a small number of stratigraphically secure deposits, allow us to sketch out the activities that took place here.

[picture]

Figure 1: Plough marks damaging the archaeological strata and bedrock in Area A.

[picture]

Figure 2: Poor preservation of structural elements in Area B.

When the excavation of the Tincu House concluded, the area was backfilled. Some layers whose upper surface was documented remained unexcavated. This included not only structural remains, floors and walls, as is frequently the case, but some deposits or floor preparations. These layers are listed in the database, but the information available for them is, naturally, partial at best. The Mediterranean habit of not removing structural remains means that the investigation of the early phases of the house and of activity on this property prior to its construction was difficult, relying on excavation where cuts and other later intrusions had removed the floors. The investigation of the southern limit of the house is likewise quite partial.

The area immediately south of the Tincu House had been excavated previously by the Soprintendenza, and the two excavation areas overlapped at the southern limit of the property. The record for the southern rooms is therefore incomplete, as some relevant layers were excavated prior to our work. This situation introduces a point of doubt. While we have surmised that the house and the public building that succeeded it ended at the edge of the terrace that marked the limit of our excavation area, it is possible that this property extended further south, particularly during the phase in which it was incorporated into the complex across the road running along its western limit. The complex across the road bridges three terraces, and it therefore seems plausible that this situation may have been mirrored in the annex built on the property next door. However, given the incompleteness of the available record for the southern part of this block, no certain conclusion can be drawn. There are, then, several areas of uncertainty regarding the long-term history of the property. In spite of the difficulties of both the record and the excavation itself, we can paint a convincing picture of the dynamic history of this property.

Material Collection Methods

During the excavation of the Tincu House, the collection method for finds, including special finds, has been generally uniform. Finds from the Area B excavation were identified by excavators in the field in the majority of cases. In some cases, the deposits were sieved and floated to improve retrieval of archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological remains. While sieving and flotation were carried out for most of the SUs in some areas of the excavation (e.g., Area D), those methods were the exception, rather than the rule, in Area B (see the discussion by L. Motta). The finds identified by hand are considered to be representative of the quantities and classes of materials present.

An exception to the uniformity of the collection practices relates to the treatment of metal finds, including coins. Notably, in 2010 and 2011, the project carried out an experiment in the use of experienced metal detectorists, who checked each deposit for finds. Consequently, SUs excavated in these years have substantially higher retrieval rates for metal finds.

Documentation and study of Coins

During the initial seasons, each coin was assigned a special find, or Δ, number. Brief, preliminary remarks (e.g., regarding material and legibility) were recorded, and the coins were interred at the American Academy. A more thorough investigation was not undertaken until the 2015 season, the results of which are reported here.

Identifications made in this volume are based on Crawford’s 1974 Roman Republican Coinage (RRC). The RRC types are directly referenced, and for each type, the mint, authority, and date identified by Crawford are provided. Obverse and reverse descriptions here are more detailed, in keeping with current best practices. As can be expected, it was not possible to provide a secure identification for each coin. Three coins were discussed directly due to their state of preservation. The first two (Δ150, Δ431) are devoid of any surface details and are identified as illegible. For the third, Δ143, some elements on both the obverse and reverse are preserved, but there are not enough visible details to confidently identify the coin at this time. In these instances, measurements, descriptions, and further comments (e.g., regarding possible denominations) are provided.

The remaining seven coins, which do preserve enough details to support an identification, have been listed as “related” to established RRC types or series, a more cautious approach than making a specific identification.

Digital Documentation Methods

The digital documentation method established for Gabii was in its infancy during the excavation of Area B. Photogrammetric models were processed using PhotoModeler Scanner, a software requiring substantial manual intervention for the placement of control points. Because the level of effort required to process each model was fairly high, modeling using this method was –selective—much more so than in later stages of the project. During the 2009–2011 era (the switch to Agisoft Photoscan was made in 2012), only walls, floors, burials, and other architectural features deemed particularly significant by the excavators were documented using the SfM (structure from motion) technique. All other stratigraphic units were documented using normal total station survey, with their limits outlined and surface elevations recorded. The mixed documentation method in use during this era of the project results in a set of 3D models of the house that combines data from SfM and the total station survey. The SUs surveyed using the total station appear as white semi-transparent polygonal shapes in the 3D scene. They are naturally at a lower level of detail, but their locations, dimensions, and form are accurate.

Like many long-running archaeological field projects, the Gabii Project has used a series of databases and approaches to collecting and managing the descriptive data for each SU and from the project's various labs. In 2009–2011, when the Area B house was excavated, data was recorded by hand on SU sheets. This data was then entered into a Microsoft Access database by a member of the excavation staff. Unsurprisingly, there are some problems of transcription or translation (from poor handwriting, dirt smudges, and non-native English speakers). We have elected to release a fairly raw form of our data, and while the usual efforts at copyediting were made, we expect to continue to find small inconsistencies.

Specialist Study

Much as our general practices for data entry changed over the course of the excavation, our strategy for the recording of ceramics has changed. Weights and minimum and maximum sherd sizes are now recorded at the point of initial sorting, while these data were not systematically collected in 2009–2011. In the course of preparing this publication, specialist study of the ceramics was undertaken. Some sherds were identified as belonging to a different ceramic class than that to which they were originally assigned. These items were re-categorized during specialist study, and revised counts are included in the tables published in this volume, but the original database entries were maintained. For this reason, the counts and classes listed in the database may differ from those listed in charts and tables in the text.

We have briefly described the methodological points that we believe most affected our ability to interpret the sequence and material assemblages and that we think will have the greatest impact on the ability of others to use the data provided here to draw their own conclusions. As one of the explicit goals of the project’s approach to publication (in a digital, open-access database) is the reuse of our data and encouraging the drawing of new conclusions by scholars both from and outside the original excavation team, we have erred on the side of publishing original data over sanitized data, highlighting problem areas so that our data may be as useful as possible to future scholarship.

Bibliography

Typological Abbreviations

Bailey = Bailey 1980.

Camulodunum = Hawkes and Hull 1947.

Conspectus = Ettlinger 1990.

Dressel (amphorae) = Dressel 1899, plate 2.

Dressel (lamps) = Dressel 1899, plate 3.

Morel = Morel 1981.

Ricci (Republican lamps) = Ricci 1973.

Ricci (Thin-Walled pottery) = Ricci 1985.

RRC = Crawford 1974

Van der Mersch = Van der Mersch 1994 and 2001.

Van der Mersch / Cibecchini = Cibecchini and Capelli 2013.

Van der Werff = Van der Werff 1977-78.

Alhaique, F. 1997. “Do patterns of bone breakage differ between cooked and raw bones? An experimental approach.” Anthropozoologica 25–26: 49–56.

Almagro Gorbea, M. 1982. El Santuario de Juno en Gabii. Rome: Escuela Española de Historia y Arqueología.

Angelelli, C., and S. Musco. 2013. “Mosaici inediti da Gabii (Roma).” In C. Angelelli, ed., Atti del XVIII Colloquio AISCOM, Cremona, Italy, 14–17 March 2012, 727–738. Tivoli: Scripta Manent.

Arizza, M. 2015. “Una struttura templare in opera quadrata sul Quirinale: Lo scavo, il contesto e l’interpretazione dei resti; Una analisi preliminare.” In Arizza and Serlorenzi 2015, 64–91.

Arizza, M., and M. Serlorenzi, eds. 2015. La scoperta di una struttura templare sul Quirinale presso l’Ex Regio Ufficio Geologico: Atti della Giornata di Studi (Roma, 16 ottobre 2013). Rome: Edizioni Iuno.

Bailey, D. M. 1980. A catalogue of the lamps in the British Museum. Vol. 2, Roman lamps made in Italy. London: British Museum Publications.

Ball, L., and J. J. Dobbins. 2013. “Forum project: Current thinking on the Pompeii Forum.” American Journal of Archaeology 117: 461–92.

Barone R. 1981. Anatomia comparata dei mammiferi domestici. Vol. 3. Bologna: Edagricole.

Barone R. 1995. Anatomia comparata dei mammiferi domestici. Vol. 1. Bologna: Edagricole.

Bartoloni, G., and V. Acconcia, eds. 2012. L’abitato etrusco di Veio: Ricerche dell’Universita di Roma “La Sapienza .” Vol. 2, Un edificio tardo-arcaico e la sequenza stratigrafica. Rome: Iuno Editore.

Battaglini, G., and F. Diosono. 2010. “Le domus di Fregellae: Case aristocratiche di ambito coloniale.” In Bentz and Reusser 2010, 243–53.

Bechtold, B. 2007. “Alcune osservazioni sui rapporti commerciali fra Cartagine, la Sicilia occidentale e la Campania (IV–metà del II sec. a.C.): Nuovi dati basati sulla distribuzione di ceramiche campana e nordafricane/cartaginesi.” BABesch 82: 51–76.

Becker, J. A., M. Mogetta, and N. Terrenato, 2009. “A new plan for an ancient Italian city: Gabii revealed.” American Journal of Archaeology 113: 629–642.

Becker, J. A., and J. Nowlin. 2011. “Orientalizing infant burials from Gabii, Italy.” BABesch 86: 27–39.

Benoit, F. 1961. L’épave du Grand Congloué à Marseille. Paris : CNRS.

Bentz, M., and C. Reusser, eds. 2010. Etruskisch-italische und römisch republikanische Häuser. Studien zur Antiken Stadt 9. Wiesbaden.

Bertoldi, T. 2011. Ceramiche comuni dal suburbio di Roma. Università di Roma “Tor Vergata,” Studi di Archeologia 1. Rome: ARACNE Editrice.

Boëthius, A. 1978. Etruscan and early Roman architecture. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Borgia, L. 1998. “Lucerne biconiche a vernice nera del Museo Nazionale Romano.” Archeologia Classica 50: 271–312.

Brecciaroli Taborelli, L. 2013. “Per un Corpus dei bolli nominali su ceramica aretina avernice nera.” Picus 33: 211–223.

Bull, G. and S. Payne. 1982. “Tooth eruption and epiphyseal fusion in pigs and wild boar.” In B. Wilson, C. Grigson, and S. Payne, eds., Ageing and sexing animal bones from archaeological sites, 55–71. BAR British Series 109. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Burnett, Andrew. 2012. “Early Roman coinage and its Italian context.” In W. Metcalf, ed., The Oxford handbook of Greek and Roman coinage, 297–314. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Carafa, P., N. Arvanitis, and M. Ippoliti. 2014. “Un ‘nuovo’ santuario in summa sacra via.” Scienze dell’Antichità 20: 143–158.

Carandini, A., and P. Carafa, eds. (1995) 2000. “Palatium e Sacra Via.” Part 1, “Prima delle mura, l’età delle mura e l’età delle case arcaiche.” Bollettino di Archeologia 31–32: 1–326.

Carandini, A., and E. Papi, eds. (1999) 2005. “Palatium et Sacra Via.” Part 2. “L’età tardo repubblicana e la prima età imperiale.” Bollettino di Archeologia 59–60: 3–327.

Carfora, P., S. Ferrante, and S. Quilici Gigli. 2010. “Edilizia privata nell'urbanistica di Norba tra la fine del III e l'inizio del I secolo a.C..” In Bentz and Reusser 2010, 233–42.

Carfora, P., S. Ferrante, and S. Quilici Gigli. 2011. “Pavimenti in cementizio dagli scavi di Norba.” In C. Angelelli, ed., Atti del XVI Colloquio dell'Associazione italiana per lo studio e la conservazione del mosaico (Palermo, 17–19 marzo 2010, Piazza Armerina, 20 marzo 2010), 397–411. Tivoli.

Carfora, P., S. Ferrante, and S. Quilici Gigli. 2013. “Tecniche costruttive in epoca medio-tardo repubblicana: Il caso di Norba.” In F. M. Cifarelli, ed., Tecniche costruttive del tardo-ellenismo nel Lazio e in Campania, 93–102. Colleferro.

Cascino, R., and M. T. Di Sarcina. 2008. “L’Internal Slip Ware nella media Valle del Tevere.” In H. Patterson and F. Coarelli, eds., Mercator placidissimus: The Tiber valley in antiquity; New research in the upper and middle river valley; Atti del convegno (Roma, 2004), 559–585. Rome: Quasar.

Cibecchini, F. 2004. “Affinità e divergenze nella diffusione dei materiali ceramici tra siti terrestri e relitti: Alcuni problemi di interpretazione dei dati provenienti da relitti e dei flussi di distribuzione in età repubblicana.” In A. Gallina Zevi and R. Turchetti, eds., Méditerranée occidentale antique: Les échanges; Atti del III seminario “Anciennes Routes Maritimes Méditerranéennes” (Marseille, 2004), 57–74. Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino.

Cibecchini, F., and C. Capelli. 2013. “Nuovi dati archeologici e archeometrici sulle anfore greco-italiche: I relitti di III secolo del Mediterraneo occidentale e la possibilità di una nuova classificazione.” In F. Olmer, ed., Itinéraires des vins romains en Gaule IIIe–Ier siècles avant J.-C. Confrontation de faciès: Actes du colloque européen organisé par l’UMR 5140 du CNRS (Lattes, 2007), 423–451. Monographies d’Archéologie Méditerranéenne Hors-série 5.

Coarelli, F. 1982. “L’altare del tempio e la sua iscrizione.” In Almagro Gorbea 1982, 125–130.

Coarelli, F. 1995. “Gli scavi di Fregellae e la cronologia dei pavimenti repubblicani.” In F. Guidobaldi and I. Bragantini, eds., Atti del II Colloquio dell'Associazione italiana per lo studio e la conservazione del mosaico, Roma 5–7 dicembre 1994, 17–30. Bordighera: Istituto Internazionale di Studi Liguri.

Coarelli, F. 1998. “La storia e lo scavo.” In F. Coarelli and P. G. Monti, eds., Fregellae, vol. 1, Le fonti, la storia, il territorio. Rome: Quasar.

Coarelli, F., and F. Pesando. 2006. “Introduction” Proposal for a chronological sequence of the phases of occupation of the insula VI,10.” In F. Coarelli and F. Pesando, eds., Rileggere Pompei, vol. 1, L’insula 10 dell Regio VI (Studi della Soprintendenza Archeologica di Pompei, 12), 23–26. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider.

Coarelli, F., and F. Pesando. 2011. “The urban development of NW Pompeii: The archaic period to the 3rd c. B.C.” In S. R. J. Ellis, ed., “The making of Pompeii: Studies in the history and urban development of an ancient town,” supplement, Journal of Roman Archaeology S85: 37–58.

Colonna G. 1986. “Urbanistica e architettura.” In G. Pugliese Carratelli, ed., Rasenna: Storia e civiltà degli Etruschi, 371–530. Milan: Scheiwiller.

Ettlinger, E., ed., 1990. Conspectus formarum terrae sigillatae italico modo confectae. Bonn: R. Habelt.

Crawford, M. H. (1974) 2001. Roman Republican Coinage. London: Cambridge University Press

De Davide, C., and H. Di Giuseppe. 2006. “Periodo 4: La villa ad Atrio, Fasi 1–2 (225–80 a.C.).” In A. Carandini, M. T. D’Alessio, and H. Di Giuseppe, eds., La fattoria e la villa dell’Auditorium nel quartiere Flaminio di Roma, 225–268. Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, Supplementi 14. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider.

Delfino, A., ed. 2014. Forum Iulium: L’area del Foro di Cesare alla luce delle campagne di scavo 2005–2008 ; Le fasi arcaica, repubblicana e cesariano-augustea. BAR International Series 2607. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Demma, F. 2010–2011. “Leucado cepit: Praeneste, Roma e la conquista dell'Oriente.” Atti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia: Rendiconti 83: 3–57.

Di Giuseppe, H. 2006. “Le classi ceramiche: Periodi 3 e 4 (Fasi 1–2).” In A. Caradini, M. T. D’Alessio, and H. Di Giuseppe, La fattoria e la villa dell’Auditorium nel quartiere Flaminio di Roma 375–402. Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, Supplementi 14. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider.

Di Giuseppe, H. 2009. “Uso domestico e rituale del vasellame nella villa dell’ ‘Acheloo.’” In Jolivet, Pavolini, and Tomei 2009, 195–212.

Di Giuseppe, H. 2010. “Incendio e bonifica prima del Foro di Cesare: Il contributo della ceramica.” Scienze dell’Antichità 16: 303–320.

Di Giuseppe, H. 2012. Black-Gloss ware in Italy: Production management and local histories. BAR International Series 2335. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Di Giuseppe, H. 2014. “Periodo 2: La ricostruzione e la vita dei due edifici (prima metà IV sec. a.C.–120 a.C.); I reperti ceramici, Fase A—La sistemazione dell’area distrutta (390/380–350 a.C.).” In Delfino 2014, 101–120.

Dressel, H. 1899. Inscriptiones Vrbis Romae Latinae: Instrvmentvm Domesticvm ; Parts posterior; fasciculus I. Berlin: apud Georgivm Reimervm.

Dupré i Raventós, X., and J. Aquilué Abadías, eds. 2000. Scavi archeologici di Tusculum: Rapporti preliminari delle campagne 1994–1999. Rome : Escuela española de historia y arqueologia.

Fabbri, M. 2012. “Cerere, Libero e Libera a Gabii: Una nuova proposta ricostruttiva della storia edilizia del santuario orientale.” Ostraka 20: 13–38.

Fabbri, M., S. Musco, and M. Osanna, M. 2012. “Nuove indagini al santuario orientale di Gabii.” Supplement, Ostraka, 229–242.

Farr, J., F. Marra, and N. Terrenato. 2015. “Geochemical identification criteria for "peperino" stones employed in ancient Roman buildings: A Lapis Gabinus case study.” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 3: 41–51.

Fentress, E. 2001. “Villas, wine, and kilns: The landscape of Jerba in the late Hellenistic period.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 14: 249–268.

Fentress, E., ed. 2003. Cosa V: An intermittent town; Excavations, 1993–1997. Supplements of the Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 2. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Ferrandes, A. F. 2006. “Produzioni stampigliate e figurate in area etrusco-laziale tra fine IV e III sec. a.C.: Nuove riflessioni alla luce di vecchi contesti.” Archeologia Classica 57: 115–174.

Ferrandes, A. F. 2008. “Produzioni ceramiche a Roma tra IV e III sec. a.C.: Nuovi dati.” Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautores Acta 40: 363–372.

Ferrandes, A. F. 2014a. “Circolazione ceramica e approvvigionamento urbano a Roma nel I secolo a.C.: Nuovi dati dall'area degli Horti Lamiani.” Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautores Acta 43: 353–366.

Ferrandes, A. F. 2014b. “Complessi edilizi, stratigrafie e contesti tra Palatino e Velia: Recenti acquisizioni tra media età repubblicana e tardo-antichità.” In Panella, Zeggio, and Ferrandes 2014, 179–204.

Ferrandes, A. F. 2016. “Sequenze stratigrafiche e facies ceramiche nello studio della città antica. Il caso delle pendici nord-orientali del Palatino tra IV e III secolo a.C.” In A. F. Ferrandes and G. Pardini, eds., Le Regole del Gioco: Tracce, Archeologi, Racconti. Studi in onore di Clementina Panella (Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae. Supplementum VI), 77–112. Rome: Quasar.

Ferrandes, A. F. forthcoming 1. “13B. Fanum e sacellum di Giove Statore (530–293 a.C.): Reperti datanti, Fase 12, Sottofasi 9–10.” In A. Carandini, P. Carafa, and D. Filippi, eds., with M. T. D’Alessio, Santuario di Vesta, pendice del Palatino e Via Sacra. Rome: Quasar.

Ferrandes, A. F. forthcoming 2. “13C. Fanum, aedes, edificio per le auctiones pubbliche (293 a.C.–64 d.C.): Reperti datanti.” In A. Carandini, P. Carafa, and D. Filippi, eds., with M. T. D’Alessio, Santuario di Vesta, pendice del Palatino e Via Sacra. Rome: Quasar.

Fiano, F. R. forthcoming. “13B. Fanum e sacellum di Giove Statore (530–293 a.C.): Reperti datanti, Fase 12, Sottofasi 1–8.” In A. Carandini, P. Carafa, and D. Filippi, eds., with M. T. D’Alessio, Santuario di Vesta, pendice del Palatino e Via Sacra. Rome: Quasar.

Finkielsztejn, G. 2001. Cronologie détaillée et revisée des éponymes amphoriques rhodiens, de 270 à 108 av. J.-C. environ: Premier bilan. BAR International Series 990. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Flannery K. V. 1969. “Origin and ecological effects of early domestication in Iran and the Near East.” In P. Ucko and G. Dimbleby, eds., The domestication and exploitation of plants and animals, 73–100. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.

Fortson, B. W., and D. S. Potter. 2011. “A fragmentary Early Republican public inscription from Gabii.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 178: 255–260.

Gallone, A., and M. Mogetta. 2011. “Gabii: Indagini archeologiche nel settore meridionale della città.” In G. Ghini, ed., Lazio e Sabina, vol. 7, Atti del convegno “Settimo incontro di studi sul Lazio e la Sabina,” Roma 9–11 marzo 2010, 211–215. Rome: Quasar.

Gallone, A., and M. Mogetta. 2013. “Gabii in età repubblicana: I rivestimenti pavimentali di alcune unità abitative.” In C. Angelelli, ed., Atti del XVIII Colloquio AISCOM, Cremona, Italy, 14–17 March 2012, 717–725. Tivoli: Scripta Manent.

Gallone, A., M. Mogetta, and A. Johnston 2016. “Gabii in età repubblicana: Nuovi dati sui rivestimenti pavimentali di un grande edificio pubblico.” In C. Angelelli, ed., Atti del XXI Colloquio AISCOM, Reggio Emilia, Italy, 18–21 March 2015, 329-334. Rome: Scripta.

Geertman, H. 2007. “The urban development of the pre-Roman city.” In J. J. Dobbins and P. W. Foss, eds., The World of Pompeii, 82–97. London and New York: Routledge.

Gifford-Gonzalez, D. P. 1989. “Ethnographic analogues for interpreting modified bones: Some examples from East Africa.” In R. Bonnichsen and M. H. Sorg, Bone modification, 179–246. Orono: University of Maine Center for the Study of First Americans.

Goudineau, Ch. 1970. “Note sur la céramique à engobe interne rouge-pompéien (Pompejanish-roten Platten).” Mélanges de l’Ecole Française de Rome: Antiquité 82: 159–186.

Grace, V. 1985. “The middle Stoa dated by amphora stamps.” Hesperia 54: 1–54.

Grigson C. 1982. “Sex and age determination of some bones and teeth of domestic cattle: A review of the literature.” In B. Wilson, C. Grigson, and S. Payne, eds., Ageing and sexing animal bones from archaeological sites, 7–24. BAR British Series 109. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Hawkes, C. F. C., and M. R. Hull. 1947. Camulodunum: First Report on the Excavation at Colchester 1930–1939. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hubbard, R. N. L. B., and A. Clapham. 1992. “Quantifying macroscopic plant remains.” In J. P. Pals, J. Buurman, and M. van der Veen, eds., “Festschrift for Professor van Zeist,” special issue, Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73: 117–132.

Izzet, V. 2007. The archaeology of Etruscan society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jackson, M., and F. Marra. 2006. “Roman stone masonry: Volcanic foundations of the ancient city.” American Journal of Archaeology 110: 403–436.

Johnston, A. C. 2015. “Another early fragmentary public inscription from Gabii.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 195: 255–258.

Jolivet, V. 2011. Tristes portiques: Sur le plan canonique de la maison étrusque et romaine des origines au principat d'Auguste (VIe–Ier siècles av. J.-C.). Bibliothéque des Écoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome 342. Rome: École Française de Rome.

Jolivet, V., C. Pavolini, and M. A. Tomei, eds. 2009. Suburbium, vol. 2, Il suburbio di Roma dalla fine dell’età monarchica alla nascita del sistema delle ville (V–II secolo a.C.). Rome: École française de Rome.

Laidlaw, A., and M. S. Stella, eds. 2014. The house of Sallust in Pompeii (VI 2,4).” Supplement, Journal of Roman Archaeology S98.

Lee, G. A. 2012. “Taphonomy and sample size estimation in paleoethnobotany.” Journal of Archaeological Science 39: 648–655.

Lindenhout, E. van’t. 2014. “Constructing urban landscapes in Latium Vetus in the Archaic period.” In E. Robinson, ed., “Papers on Italian urbanism in the first millennium B.C.,”supplement, Journal of Roman Archaeology S97: 126–144.

Long, L. 1987. “Les épaves du Grand Congloué: Etude du journal de fouille de Fernand Benoit.” Archaeonautica 7: 9–36.

Lorenz, W. F., and E. J. Wolfram. 2014. “The Wells of Pompeii.” Groundwater 52 (5): 808–811.

Lyding Will, E. 1982. “Greco-italic amphoras.” Hesperia 51: 338–356.

Manacorda, D. 1986. “A proposito delle anfore cosidette ‘greco-italiche’: Una breve nota.” In J.-Y. Empereur and Y. Garland, eds., Recherches sur les amphores grecques: Actes du Colloque International (Athènes, 1984), 581–586. Athens: Editore.

Manacorda, D. 1989. “Le anfore dell’Italia repubblicana: Aspetti economici e sociali.” In Anfore romane e storia economica: Un decennio di ricerche; Atti del colloquio di Siena (Siena, 1986), 443–467. Collection de l’Ecole Française de Rome 114. Rome: Ecole Française de Rome.

Mancini, A., and C. Pilo 2006. “Materiali votivi ed oggetti rituali dal Santuario Orientale di Gabii.” Siris 7: 85–126.

Matolcsi, J. 1970. “Historische Erforschung der Körpergröbe des Rindes auf Grund von ungarischem Knochenmaterial.” Zeitschrift für Tierzüchtung und Züchtungsbiologie 87 (2): 89–137.

Mercando, L. 1963–1964. “Saggi di scavo sulla platea dei Templi Gemelli: Area sacra di S. Omobono; Esplorazione della fase repubblicana.” Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma 79: 35–67.

Mertens, D. 2006. Städte und Bauten der Westgriechen: Von der Klonisationszeit bis zur Krise um 400 vor Christus. München: Hirmer.

Mogetta, M. 2014. “From Latin planned urbanism to Roman colonial layouts: The town-planning of Gabii and its cultural implications.” In E. Robinson, ed., “Papers on Italian urbanism in the first millennium B.C.,” supplement, Journal of Roman Archaeology S97: 145–174.

Mogetta M., and J. A. Becker. 2014. “Archaeological research at Gabii, Italy: The Gabii Project excavations, 2009–2011.” American Journal of Archaeology 118: 171–188.

Morel, J.-P. 1969. “Études de céramique campanienne,” Part 1, “L’atelier des petites estampilles.” Mélanges de l’Ecole Française de Rome: Antiquité 81: 59–117.

Morel, J.-P. 1981. Céramique campanienne: Les formes. Bibliothéque des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 244. Rome: École Française de Rome.

Morel, J.-P. 2009. “Le produzioni ceramiche a vernice nera di Arezzo.” In G. Camporeale and G. Firpo, eds., Arezzo nell’Antichità, 125–134. Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider Editore.

Motta, L. 2011. “The seeds of the Roman state: Archaeobotany in early Rome.” PhD diss., University of Cambridge.

Murray Threipland, L., and M. Torelli, 1970. “A semi-subterranean Etruscan building in the Casale Pian Roseto (Veii) area.” Papers of the British School at Rome 38: 62–121.

Musco, S. 2006. “La stipe di Ponte di Nona (Municipio VIII).” In Tomei 2006, 300–303.

Musco, S., and C. Pilo 2006. “La stipe del santuario extraurbano orientale di Gabii.” In Tomei 2006, 314–316.

Naso, A., ed. 2004. Appunti sul bucchero: Atti delle giornate di studio. Florence: All’Insegna del Giglio.

Palombi, D. 2015. “Gabii, Giunone e I Cornelii Cethegi.” Archeologia Classica 66: 253–287.

Panella, C. 2010. “Roma, il suburbio e l’Italia in età medio- e tardo-repubblicana: Cultura materiale, territori, economie.” Facta 5: 11–124.

Panella, C., ed. 2013. Scavare nel centro di Roma: Storia Uomini Paesaggi. Rome: Quasar.

Panella, C., S. Zeggio, and A. F. Ferrandes. 2014. “Lo scavo delle pendici nord-orientali del Palatino tra dati acquisiti e nuove evidenze.” Scienze dell’Antichità 20: 159–210.

Pavolini, C. 1987. “Le lucerne romane fra il III sec. a.C. e il III sec. d.C.” In P. Lévêque and J.-P. Morel, eds., Céramiques hellénistiques et romaines, vol. 2, 139-165. Paris : Les Belle Lettres.

Payne S. 1973. “Kill-off patterns in sheep and goats: The mandibles from Aşvan Kale.” Anatolian Studies 23: 281–303

Pearsall, D. M. 2015. Paleoethnobotany: A handbook of procedures. Third edition. Left Coast Press.

Pedroni, L. 2001. Ceramica calena a vernice nera: Produzione e diffusione. Naples: Petruzzi.

Pesando, F. 1999. “Forme abitative e controllo sociale: La documentazione archeological delle colonie latine in età repubblicana.” In F. Braemer, S. Clezuziou, and A. Coudart, eds., Habitat et société: XIXe rencontres internationals d’archéologie et d’histoire d’Antibes, 237–254. Antibes: APDCA.

Pesando, F. 2010. “La domus pompeiana in età sannitica: Nuove acquisizioni dalla Regio VI.” In Bentz and Reusser 2010, 243–253.

Pesando, F. 2013. “Pompei in età sannitica: Tipologia, uso e cronologia delle tecniche edilizie.” In F. M. Cifarelli, ed., Tecniche costruttive del tardo-ellenismo nel Lazio e in Campania, 117–126. Rome: Espera.

Perez Ballester, J. 2003. La ceràmica de barniz negro del santuario de Juno en Gabii. Rome: Escuela Española de Historia y Arqueología.

Piergrossi, A., and S. Cherubini. 2015. “I materiali ceramici.” In Arizza and Serlorenzi 2015, 93–123.

Potter, T. W. 1989. Una stipe votiva da Ponte di Nona. Lavori e Studi di Archeologia Pubblicati dalla Soprintendenza Archeologica di Roma 13. Rome: De Luca Edizioni d’Arte.

Poulsen, B. 2002. “Genucilia. A small plate with a large range.” Acta Hyperborea. Danish Studies in Classical Archaeology 9: 83-100.

Reece, Richard. 1996. “The interpretation of site finds: A review.” In Coin finds and coin use in the Roman world: The Thirteenth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History, 25.–27.3.1993; A NATO Advanced Research Workshop. Berlin: G. Mann.

Reitz, E. J., and E. S. Wing. 2008. Zooarchaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ricci, A. 1985. “Ceramica a pareti sottili.” In G. Pugliese Carratelli, ed., Atlante delle forme ceramiche, vol. 2, Ceramica fine romana nel bacino mediterraneo (tardo ellenismo e primo impero), 231–357. EAA suppl. 3. Rome: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato.

Ricci, M. 1973. “Per una cronologia delle lucerne tardo-repubblicane.” Rivista di Studi Liguri 39: 168–234.

Rizzo, G. 2003. Instrumenta Urbis. Vol. 1, Ceramiche fini da mensa, lucerne ed anfore a Roma nei primi due secoli dell’impero. Collection de l’Ecole Française de Rome 307. Rome: Ecole Française de Rome.

Rossi, F. M. 2004. “Osservazioni sul bucchero di Roma e del Lazio.” In Naso 2004, 269–273.

Sewell, J. 2010. “The formation of Roman urbanism, 338–200 B.C.: Between contemporary foreign influence and Roman tradition.” Supplement, Journal of Roman Archaeology S79.

Silver A. 1969. “The ageing of domestic animals.” In D. R. Brothwell and E. S. Higgs, eds., Science in archaeology, 283–302. London: Thames & Hudson.

Stanco, E. A. 2005. “La ceramica a vernice nera della stipe di Lucus Feroniae: Analisi preliminare.” In A. Comella and S. Mele, eds., Depositi votivi e culti dell’Italia antica dall’età arcaica a quella tardo-repubblicana, 209–218. Bari: Edipuglia.

Stanco, E. A. 2009. “La seriazione cronologica della ceramica a vernice nera etrusco-laziale nell’ambito del III secolo a.C.” In Jolivet, Pavolini, and Tomei 2009, 157–193.

Teichert, M. 1969. “Osteometrische Untersuchungen zur Berechnung der Widerristhöhe bei vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Schweinen.” Kühn-Archiv 83 (3): 237–292.

Terrenato, N., P. Brocato, G. Caruso, A. M. Ramieri, H. W. Becker, I. Cangemi, G. Mantiloni, and C. Regoli. 2012. “The S. Omobono Sanctuary in Rome: Assessing eighty years of fieldwork and exploring perspectives for the future.” Internet Archaeology 31. http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue31/terrenato_index.html

Tomei, M. A. 2006. Roma: Memorie dal sottosuolo; Ritrovamenti archeologici 1980/2006. Milan: Electa.

Torelli, M. 2011. “The early villa: Roman contributions to the development of a Greek prototype.” In J. A. Becker and N. Terrenato, eds., Roman Republican villas: Architecture, context, and ideology, 8–31. Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome 32. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

van der Mersch, Ch. 1994. Vins et amphores de grand Grèce et de Sicile, IVe–IIIe s. avant J.-C. Naples: Centre Jean Bérard.

van der Mersch, Ch. 2001. “Au source du vin romain, dans le Latium et la Campania à l’époque médio-republicaine. Ostraka 10: 157–206.

van der Werff, J. H. 1977-78. “Amphores de tradition punique à Uzita.” BaBesch 52-53: 171-200.

van Kampen, I. 2004. “I materiali dal Foro Romano e una classe di ciotole a orlo ingrossato.” In Naso 2004, 269–273.

Veal, R. 2014. “Pompeii and its hinterland connection: The fuel consumption of the House of the Vestals (third century BC to AD 79).” European Journal of Archaeology 17 (1): 27–44.

Vegas, M., and A. Martìn Lòpez. 1982. “Ceramica comun y de paredes finas.” In Almagro Gorbea 1982, 451–505.

Volpe, R. 1996. “Le attività.” In R. Volpe, ed. Aqua Marcia: Lo scavo di un tratto urbano, 19–60. Florence: All’Insegna del Giglio.

Volpe, R. 2009. “Vino, vigneti, ed anfore in Roma repubblicana.” In Jolivet, Pavolini, and Tomei 2009, 369–381.

Wallace-Hadrill, A. 2013. “Hellenistic Pompeii: Oscan, Greek, Roman, and Punic.” In J. R. W. Prag and J. Crawley Quinn, eds., The Hellenistic West: Rethinking the ancient Mediterranean, 35–43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Widrig, W., ed. 2002. The Via Gabina villa sites 10, 11, and 13. Accessed December 15, 2015. http://viagabina.rice.edu

Widrig, W., and J. Freed. 1983. “Roma, Loc. Tor Bella Monaca: Excavations on the ancient Via Gabina; Second preliminary report.” Notizie Scavi di Antichità 37: 141–182.

Zampini, S. 2014. “3.5.2 I reperti ceramici.” In Delfino 2014, 189–207.

Zuchtriegel, G. 2012. Gabii. Vol. 1, Das Santuario Orientale im Zeitalter der Urbanisierung: Eisenzeitliche und archaische Funde der Ausgrabingen 1976/77. Venosa: Osanna Edizioni.

Acknowledgments

Editors

Rachel Opitz, Department of Anthropology and Center for Virtualization and Applied Spatial Technologies, University of South Florida

Marcello Mogetta, Department of Art History and Archaeology, University of Missouri

Nicola Terrenato, Department of Classical Studies, University of Michigan

Authors

Laura Banducci, College of the Humanities, Greek and Roman Studies, Carleton University

Tyler Duane Johnson, The Interdepartmental Program in Classical Art and Archaeology (IPCAA), University of Michigan

Antonio F. Ferrandes, Dipartimento di Scienze dell'Antichità, « Sapienza » Università di Roma

Francesca Alhaique, Dipartimento di Scienze dei Beni Culturali, Università della Tuscia, Viterbo

Laura Motta, Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan

Shannon Ness, The Interdepartmental Program in Classical Art and Archaeology (IPCAA), University of Michigan

Jason Farr, Department of Modern Languages and Classics, Saint Mary University

Samantha Lash, Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World, Brown University

Matthew Naglak, The Interdepartmental Program in Classical Art and Archaeology (IPCAA), University of Michigan

The excavation of the Tincu House was supervised by Claudia Melisch with the assistance of Jason Farr, Laura Banducci, Morgane Andrieu, and Samantha Lash.

Rachel Opitz directed the topography team, which included Emanuele Casagrande Cicci, Aaron Chapnick, Paolo Maranzana, Jessica Nowlin, and Elizabeth Robinson. The digital modeling work integral to this volume was carried out by Tyler Johnson. We wish to thank Kelly Miklas, Dylan Craig and William G. Johnston for their contributions to the design and functionality of the digital content.

Abigail Crawford and Chiara Pilo managed the finds lab with the assistance of Laura Banducci, Bailey Benson, Katie Huntley, and Laura Wilke.

The environmental lab was supervised by Laura Motta with the assistance of Charlene Murphy, Sarah Oas, and Diane Tincu. Kristina Killgrove was the bioarchaeologist.

Valentina Scarpellino and Francesca Renati were the logistics supervisors.

Excavators in 2010 were Micaela Brown, Anthony Bryk, Elizabeth Butterworth, Demaine Francis, Jacob Garner, Megan Goldman-Petri, Cynthia Kazanis, Jeremiah Pearse, Christopher Pry, Jessica Ryan, Sarah Rous, Jonathan McLaughlin, and Jessica Vahl.

Excavators in 2011 were Jeremy Armstrong, Abagail Breidenstein, Zoe Fox, Timothy Hart, Ilana Hill, Sabina Ion, Jacob Kovacs-Goodman, Justin Raymond, Alison Rittershaus, Jessica Ryan, and Brandon Tomasso.

The early stages of this publication were produced as part of the 21st c. Data, 21st c. Publications: 3D Model Publication and Building the Peer Reviewer Community project, supported by a generous grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities, Office of Digital Humanities. Rachel Opitz, Nicola Terrenato, and Fred Limp were the directors of this project. The production of the digital edition was made possible through the kind support of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and the University of Michigan's Humanities Collaboratory. At University of Michigan Press Ellen Bauerle was the acquisitions editor, Jon McGlone oversaw design and user experience work, and Melissa Baker-Young and Jeremy Morse coordinated development. Roger Espinosa, Moses Hall, Seth Johnson, Greg Kostin, and Conor O'Malley all did programming work at various points in the publication's development. The publication has been produced by University of Michigan Press as an outcome of the Gabii Project. Nicola Terrenato directs the Gabii Project. Anna Gallone is the field director. Marcello Mogetta is the managing director.

The Gabii Project is supported by generous grants from the University of Michigan, the Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, the National Endowment for the Humanities, FIAT Chrysler Automobiles, the National Geographic Society, the Loeb Classical Library Foundation, and several private donors. In this volume, we would like to express our gratitude to Diane Tincu, a longtime member and supporter of the Gabii Project, after whom the house in Area B is named.

The assistance and support of the Soprintendenza Speciale per il Colosseo e l’Area Archeologica Centrale di Roma (SSCOL, formerly the Soprintendenza Speciale per i Beni Archeologici di Roma, referred to in the text as Soprintendenza of Rome), especially of Dr. Stefano Musco, Angelo Bottini, Mariarosaria Barbera, and Francesco Prosperetti, are gratefully acknowledged.

Table 0: Tincu house, charred archaeobotanical remains from floated samples. [Return to text] [Download Table 0 data]

SU | Vol.liter | charcoal > 2mm | charcoal not id | Cereals | Triticum sp. | Triticum dicoccum | Hordeum vulgare | Panicum miliaceum | Fabaceae | Vicia fava | Lolium sp.
1156 | 20 | x | xx |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |
1158 | 23 | xx | xxxx | 1 |  | 2 | 1 |  | 1 |  | 1
1165 | 20 | x | xxx | 1 |  | 2 |  |  | 1 |  |
1168 | 20 | xx | xxxx | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
1169 | 20 | x | xxxx | 2 |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |
1173 | 20 | x | xx | 6 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
1177 | 26 | xxx | xxx | 2 | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |
1181 | 20 | xx | xxx | 6 |  |  | 2 |  | 1 |  |
1189 | 10 |  | x | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
1199 | 20 | xx | xxxx |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |
1221 | 15 | x | xx |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
1227 | 13 | xx | xxxx |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
1242 | 20 | x | xxx | 2 | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |
1277 | 15 | xx | xxxx | 15 |  | 9 | 4 | 1 |  | 2 |
1279 | 1 |  | x |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
1300 | 20 | xx | xxx | 1 |  | 2 | 1 |  |  | 1 |
1385 | 20 | xxx | xxxx | 22 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
1423 | 13 | x | xx | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
1428 | 20 | x | xxx | 1 |  |  | 3 |  |  |  |

Charcoal is divided in potentially identifiable (>2mm) and not identifiable remains.
X <10 fragments; XX 10-20 fragments; XXX 20-50 fragments; XXXX >50 fragments.
Cereals include mostly distorted and fragmented remains of cultivated grasses that cannot be identified at the genus level.

Table 1: The uneven distribution of faunal remains in Phase B-1 SUs.

Phase 1
| N | %
SU 1173* | 114 | 14.7
SU 1180 | 6 | 0.8
SU 1181* | 89 | 11.5
SU 1204 | 1 | 0.1
SU 1205 | 15 | 1.9
SU 1279=1385* | 431 | 55.8
SU 1399 | 35 | 4.5
SU 1410 | 1 | 0.1
SU 1424 | 11 | 1.4
SU 1428 | 69 | 8.9
SU 1440 | 1 | 0.1
TOTAL | 773 | 100

Table 2: Proportions of all taxa present in Phase B-1.

SPECIES | TOTAL Phase 1
N | %
Terrestrial Gastropoda | 9 | 1.2
Fresh water Bivalvia | 2 | 0.3
Marine Bivalvia | 3 | 0.4
Pisces | 2 | 0.3
Aves | 13 | 1.7
Columba palumbus | 1 | 0.1
Corvus corone | 1 | 0.1
Gallus gallus | 5 | 0.6
Microfauna | 17 | 2.2
Homo sapiens | 1 | 0.1
Canis familiaris | 4 | 0.5
Equus caballus | 2 | 0.3
Sus domesticus | 67 | 8.7
Ovis aries | 1 | 0.1
Ovis vel Capra | 54 | 7.0
Bos taurus | 50 | 6.5
Medium Mammal | 41 | 5.3
Large Ungulate | 8 | 1.0
Unidentifiable | 492 | 63.6
TOTAL | 773 | 100

Table 3: Proportions of individuals, as encapsulated by MNI counts, of the taxa present in the Phase B-1 assemblage. [Return to text] [Download Table 3 data]

SPECIES | SU 1173* | SU 1180 | SU 1181* | SU 1204 | SU 1205 | SU 1279=1385* | SU 1399 | SU 1410 | SU 1424 | SU 1428 | SU 1440 | TOTAL Phase 1
| MNI | % | MNI | % | MNI | % | MNI | % | MNI | % | MNI | % | MNI | % | MNI | % | MNI | % | MNI | % | MNI | % | MNI | %
Canis familiaris |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 7.1 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 25.0 |  |  | 2 | 5.3
Equus caballus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 | 14.3 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 | 5.3
Sus domesticus | 2 | 66.7 | 1 | 33.3 | 3 | 60.0 |  |  | 1 | 50.0 | 5 | 35.7 | 3 | 60.0 | 1 | 100.0 | 1 | 100.0 | 1 | 25.0 |  |  | 18 | 47.4
Ovis vel Capra | 1 | 33.3 | 1 | 33.3 | 1 | 20.0 |  |  | 1 | 50.0 | 4 | 28.6 | 1 | 20.0 |  |  |  |  | 1 | 25.0 |  |  | 10 | 26.3
Bos taurus |  |  | 1 | 33.3 | 1 | 20.0 |  |  |  |  | 2 | 14.3 | 1 | 20.0 |  |  |  |  | 1 | 25.0 |  |  | 6 | 15.8
TOTAL | 3 | 100 | 3 | 100 | 5 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 100 | 14 | 100 | 5 | 100 | 1 | 100 | 1 | 100 | 4 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 100

Table 4: Skeletal elements present for the three main domestic species present in Phase B-1. [Back to text] [Download Table 4 data]

Phase 1
ELEMENT | SUS DOMESTICUS | OVIS VEL CAPRA | BOS TAURUS
| NISP | MNE | MNI | NISP | MNE | MNI | NISP | MNE | MNI
Horn |  |  |  |  |  |  | 12 | 2 | 2
Cranium 1/2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 1 | 1
Maxilla 1/2 | 3 | 3 | 2 |  |  |  |  |  |
Mandible 1/2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1
Teeth | 16 | 13 | 10 | 9 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3
Hyoid |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Atlas |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Axis |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Cerv.Vert. | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |
Tor.Vert. |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Lumb.Vert. |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 1 | 1
Sacr.Vert. |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Caud. Vert. |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Vertebra |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Rib | 13 | 4 | 2 | 20 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 1
Scapula | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |
Humerus |  |  |  | 4 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1
Radius | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |
Ulna | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |  | 1 | 1 | 1
Pelvis 1/2 |  |  |  | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |
Femur | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1
Patella |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Tibia | 6 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1
Malleolus/Fibula | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |
Carpals |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Astragalus |  |  |  | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1
Calcaneum | 2 | 2 | 2 |  |  |  |  |  |
Tarsals |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 1 | 1
Metacarpals | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1
Metatarsals | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2
Metapodials | 8 | 5 | 2 |  |  |  | 1 | 1 | 1
Phalanx 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1
Phalanx 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |  | 1 | 1 | 1
Phalanx 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |  | 1 | 1 | 1
Sesamoids |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 1 | 1
Total | 67 | 50 |  | 55 | 34 |  | 50 | 26 |

Table 5: Age at death of the main domestic taxa present in Phase B-1.

Phase 1
SPECIES | Very Young | Young | Young-Adult | Prime Adult | Older Adult | Senile | Indet. Adult | Total
Sus domesticus | 5 | 1 |  | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 18
Ovis vel Capra | 3 | 1 |  | 3 | 1 |  | 2 | 10
Bos taurus |  |  | 1 | 1 |  |  | 4 | 6

Table 6: The percentages and counts of remains from SUs producing faunal evidence dated to Phase B-2.

Phase 2
| NR | %
SU 1182 | 14 | 1.7
SU 1386 | 83 | 10.1
SU 1423* | 192 | 23.4
SU 1457 | 43 | 5.2
SU 5016 | 489 | 59.6
TOTAL | 821 | 100

Table 7: Counts and proportions of faunal remains coming from SUs producing zooarchaeological evidence in Phase B-2.

SPECIES | SU 1182 | SU 1386 | SU 1423* | SU 1457 | SU 5016 | TOTAL Phase 2
N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | %
Terrestrial Gastropoda |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.5 |  |  | 11 | 2.2 | 12 | 1.5
Marine Bivalvia |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 7 | 1.4 | 7 | 0.9
Marine Gastropoda |  |  | 1 | 1.2 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.1
Pisces |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.5 |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.1
Amphibia |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.5 |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.1
Aves |  |  | 1 | 1.2 | 1 | 0.5 |  |  | 4 | 0.8 | 6 | 0.7
Corvus corone |  |  | 1 | 1.2 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.1
Corvidae |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 2.3 | 1 | 0.2 | 2 | 0.2
Gallus gallus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 8 | 1.6 | 8 | 1.0
Microfauna |  |  |  |  | 5 | 2.6 |  |  |  |  | 5 | 0.6
Lagomorpha |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.2 | 1 | 0.1
Equus caballus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.2 | 1 | 0.1
Sus domesticus | 2 | 14.3 | 16 | 19.3 | 18 | 9.4 | 2 | 4.7 | 91 | 18.6 | 129 | 15.7
Ovis aries |  |  | 1 | 1.2 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.1
Ovis vel Capra | 3 | 21.4 | 18 | 21.7 | 5 | 2.6 | 4 | 9.3 | 77 | 15.7 | 107 | 13.0
Bos taurus |  |  | 2 | 2.4 | 3 | 1.6 |  |  | 63 | 12.9 | 68 | 8.3
Small Mammal |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.2 | 1 | 0.1
Medium Mammal | 1 | 7.1 | 10 | 12.0 | 5 | 2.6 |  |  | 15 | 3.1 | 31 | 3.8
Large Ungulate |  |  | 2 | 2.4 | 2 | 1.0 |  |  | 5 | 1.0 | 9 | 1.1
Unidentifiable | 8 | 57.1 | 31 | 37.3 | 150 | 78.1 | 36 | 83.7 | 204 | 41.7 | 429 | 52.3
TOTAL | 14 | 100 | 83 | 100 | 192 | 100 | 43 | 100 | 489 | 100 | 821 | 100

TOTAL Phase 2
| N | %
Mollusca | 21 | 6.796116505
Amphibia | 1 | 0.323624595
Aves | 18 | 5.825242718
Microfauna | 7 | 2.265372168
Lagomorpha | 1 | 0.323624595
Equus caballus | 1 | 0.323624595
Sus domesticus | 98 | 31.71521036
Ovis vel Capra | 96 | 31.06796117
Bos taurus | 66 | 21.3592233
TOTAL | 309 | 100
Sus domesticus | 98 | 47.80487805
Ovis vel Capra | 96 | 46.82926829
Bos taurus | 66 | 32.19512195
TOTAL | 260 | 126.8292683

Table 8: Counts and proportions of the taxa appearing in the Phase B-2 assemblage.

SPECIES | SU 1182 | SU 1386 | SU 1423* | SU 1457 | SU 5016 | TOTAL Phase 2
MNI | MNI | MNI | MNI | MNI | MNI | %
Equus caballus |  |  |  |  | 1 | 1 | 2.9
Sus domesticus | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 14 | 41.2
Ovis vel Capra | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 12 | 35.3
Bos taurus |  | 1 | 2 |  | 4 | 7 | 20.6
TOTAL | 3 | 5 | 8 | 3 | 15 | 34 | 100

Table 9: Proportions of the remains of identifiable individuals of the main domestic taxa from Phase B-2.

Phase 2
ELEMENT | SUS DOMESTICUS | OVIS VEL CAPRA | BOS TAURUS
NR | NME | NMI | NR | NME | NMI | NR | NME | NMI
Horn |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Cranium 1/2 | 13 | 3 | 3 |  |  |  | 10 | 4 | 3
Maxilla 1/2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2
Mandible 1/2 | 12 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 3 | 2
Teeth | 19 | 14 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 3
Hyoid |  |  |  | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |
Atlas |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Axis |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Cerv.Vert. |  |  |  | 2 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 3
Tor.Vert. |  |  |  | 4 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 4 | 3
Lumb.Vert. |  |  |  | 8 | 4 | 4 |  |  |
Sacr.Vert. |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 | 1 | 1
Caud. Vert. |  |  |  | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |
Vertebra |  |  |  | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1
Rib | 15 | 9 | 4 | 52 | 12 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 1
Scapula | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3
Humerus | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2
Radius | 11 | 9 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 2 |  |  |
Ulna | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3
Pelvis 1/2 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 1
Femur | 4 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |
Patella |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Tibia | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1
Malleolus/Fibula | 4 | 2 | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |
Carpals |  |  |  | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |
Astragalus | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |
Calcaneum | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |
Tarsals |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Metacarpals | 6 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 |  |  |
Metatarsals | 5 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1
Metapodials | 9 | 8 | 3 |  |  |  | 1 | 1 | 1
Phalanx 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |
Phalanx 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |  |  |  | 1 | 1 | 1
Phalanx 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 |  |  |  |  |  |
Sesamoids |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Total | 129 | 94 |  | 108 | 59 |  | 68 | 42 |

Table 10: The skeletal elements present from the main domestic taxa in Phase B-2.

Phase 2
SPECIES | Very Young | Young | Young-Adult | Prime Adult | Older Adult | Senile | Indet. Adult | Total
Sus domesticus | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 14
Ovis vel Capra | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 5 |  |  | 12
Bos taurus |  | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 7

Table 11: Age at death of identifiable individuals from the main domestic taxa from Phase B-2.

Phase 3
| NR | %
SU 1135=1163 | 33 | 1.5
SU 1156* | 58 | 2.6
SU 1158* | 231 | 10.4
SU 1162 | 2 | 0.09
SU 1165* | 291 | 13.1
SU 1168* | 135 | 6.1
SU 1169* | 114 | 5.1
SU 1174 | 32 | 1.4
SU 1177* | 109 | 4.9
SU 1190 | 3 | 0.13
SU 1199* | 88 | 4.0
SU 1203 | 11 | 0.5
SU 1211 | 1 | 0.04
SU 1214 | 13 | 0.6
SU 1218 | 67 | 3.0
SU 1221* | 44 | 2.0
SU 1222 | 20 | 0.9
SU 1227* | 57 | 2.6
SU 1232 | 19 | 0.9
SU 1242* | 51 | 2.3
SU 1260 | 3 | 0.13
SU 1270 | 5 | 0.2
SU 1271 | 1 | 0.04
SU 1273 | 18 | 0.8
SU 1275 | 9 | 0.4
SU 1320 | 172 | 7.7
SU 1327 | 400 | 18.0
SU 1330 | 1 | 0.04
SU 1340 | 128 | 5.8
SU 1384 | 4 | 0.2
SU 1388 | 17 | 0.8
SU 1401 | 17 | 0.8
SU 1405 | 9 | 0.4
SU 1406 | 16 | 0.7
SU 1412 | 33 | 1.5
SU 1422 | 11 | 0.5
SU 1304 | 17 | 25.8
SU 1408 | 4 | 6.1
SU 1459* | 45 | 68.2
SU 1465 | 2 | 0.09
TOTAL | 2291 | 200

Table 12: Per SU counts and proportions for each SU producing faunal remains in Phase B-3. [Return to text] [Download Table 12 data]

SPECIES | SU 1135=1163 | SU 1156* | SU 1158* | SU 1162 | SU 1165*
N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | %
Terrestrial Gastropoda |  |  |  |  | 3 | 1.3 |  |  | 1 | 0.3
Fresh water Bivalvia |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 | 0.7
Marine Bivalvia |  |  |  |  | 2 | 0.9 |  |  | 1 | 0.3
Marine Gastropoda |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.4 |  |  |  |
Amphibia |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 | 0.7
Aves |  |  | 1 | 1.7 | 1 | 0.4 |  |  | 3 | 1.0
Anas platyrhyncos |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Columba livia/oenas |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Columba palumbus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Vanellus vanellus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Gallus gallus |  |  |  |  | 3 | 1.3 |  |  |  |
Microfauna |  |  |  |  | 13 | 5.6 |  |  | 2 | 0.7
Homo sapiens |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.4 |  |  |  |
Vulpes vulpes |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 | 0.7
Canis familiaris |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.4 |  |  | 24 | 8.2
Equus asinus | 1 | 3.0 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Equus caballus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Sus domesticus | 3 | 9.1 | 12 | 20.7 | 18 | 7.8 |  |  | 24 | 8.2
Cervus elaphus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Ovis aries |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Ovis vel Capra | 2 | 6.1 | 4 | 6.9 | 4 | 1.7 |  |  | 13 | 4.5
Bos taurus |  |  | 2 | 3.4 | 1 | 0.4 |  |  | 6 | 2.1
Small Mammal |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Medium Mammal | 8 | 24.2 | 3 | 5.2 |  |  | 1 | 50.0 | 7 | 2.4
Large Ungulate | 2 | 6.1 | 1.0 | 1.7 |  |  | 1 | 50.0 | 2 | 0.7
Unidentifiable | 17 | 51.5 | 35.0 | 60.3 | 183 | 79.2 |  |  | 202 | 69.4
TOTAL | 33 | 100 | 58 | 100 | 231 | 100 | 2 | 100 | 291 | 100

Table 12: Continued....

SPECIES | SU 1168* | SU 1169* | SU 1174 | SU 1177* | SU 1190
N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | %
Terrestrial Gastropoda | 2 | 1.5 | 1 | 0.9 | 6 | 18.8 |  |  |  |
Fresh water Bivalvia |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Marine Bivalvia |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.9 |  |
Marine Gastropoda |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Amphibia |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Aves |  |  | 1 | 0.9 |  |  | 2 | 1.8 |  |
Anas platyrhyncos |  |  | 1 | 0.9 |  |  |  |  |  |
Columba livia/oenas |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Columba palumbus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Vanellus vanellus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Gallus gallus |  |  |  |  | 1 | 3.1 |  |  |  |
Microfauna | 6 | 4.4 | 2 | 1.8 |  |  | 2 | 1.8 |  |
Homo sapiens | 1 | 0.7 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Vulpes vulpes |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Canis familiaris |  |  | 2 | 1.8 |  |  | 1 | 0.9 |  |
Equus asinus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Equus caballus | 3 | 2.2 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Sus domesticus | 6 | 4.4 | 6 | 5.3 | 2 | 6.3 | 5 | 4.6 |  |
Cervus elaphus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Ovis aries | 1 | 0.7 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Ovis vel Capra | 6 | 4.4 | 4 | 3.5 |  |  | 3 | 2.8 |  |
Bos taurus | 2 | 1.5 |  |  | 1 | 3.1 | 2 | 1.8 |  |
Small Mammal | 1 | 0.7 |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.9 |  |
Medium Mammal | 6 | 4.4 | 6 | 5.3 | 2 | 6.3 | 2 | 1.8 |  |
Large Ungulate | 1 | 0.7 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Unidentifiable | 100 | 74.1 | 91 | 79.8 | 20 | 62.5 | 90 | 82.6 | 2 | 100.0
TOTAL | 135 | 100 | 114 | 100 | 32 | 100 | 109 | 100 | 2 | 100

Table 12: Continued....

SPECIES | SU 1199* | SU 1203 | SU 1211 | SU 1214 | SU 1218
N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | %
Terrestrial Gastropoda |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Fresh water Bivalvia |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Marine Bivalvia |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Marine Gastropoda |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Amphibia |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Aves | 1 | 1.1 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 7 | 10.4
Anas platyrhyncos |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Columba livia/oenas |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Columba palumbus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 1.5
Vanellus vanellus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 1.5
Gallus gallus | 2 | 2.3 |  |  |  |  | 3 | 23.1 | 6 | 9.0
Microfauna | 3 | 3.4 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Homo sapiens |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Vulpes vulpes |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Canis familiaris |  |  | 1 | 9.1 |  |  |  |  | 1 | 1.5
Equus asinus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Equus caballus | 1 | 1.1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Sus domesticus | 4 | 4.5 | 3 | 27.3 |  |  | 2 | 15.4 | 13 | 19.4
Cervus elaphus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Ovis aries |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Ovis vel Capra | 5 | 5.7 | 1 | 9.1 |  |  | 2 | 15.4 | 9 | 13.4
Bos taurus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 | 3.0
Small Mammal |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Medium Mammal | 1 | 1.1 | 2 | 18.2 | 2 | 100.0 | 1 | 7.7 | 4 | 6.0
Large Ungulate | 1 | 1.1 | 1 | 9.1 |  |  |  |  |  |
Unidentifiable | 70 | 79.5 | 3 | 27.3 |  |  | 5 | 38.5 | 23 | 34.3
TOTAL | 88 | 100 | 11 | 100 | 2 | 100 | 13 | 100 | 67 | 100

Table 12: Continued....

SPECIES | SU 1221* | SU 1222 | SU 1227* | SU 1232 | SU 1242*
N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | %
Terrestrial Gastropoda | 1 | 2.3 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 3 | 5.9
Fresh water Bivalvia |  |  |  |  | 1 | 1.8 |  |  |  |
Marine Bivalvia |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Marine Gastropoda |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Amphibia |  |  |  |  | 1 | 1.8 | 1 | 5.3 |  |
Aves |  |  | 2 | 10.0 | 2 | 3.5 | 1 | 5.3 |  |
Anas platyrhyncos |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Columba livia/oenas |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 2.0
Columba palumbus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Vanellus vanellus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Gallus gallus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Microfauna | 1 | 2.3 | 2 | 10.0 |  |  |  |  | 5 | 9.8
Homo sapiens |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Vulpes vulpes |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Canis familiaris | 1 | 2.3 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Equus asinus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Equus caballus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Sus domesticus | 1 | 2.3 | 3 | 15.0 | 1 | 1.8 | 2 | 10.5 |  |
Cervus elaphus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Ovis aries |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 5.3 |  |
Ovis vel Capra |  |  | 7 | 35.0 | 1 | 1.8 | 6 | 31.6 | 1 | 2.0
Bos taurus |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 | 10.5 | 1 | 2.0
Small Mammal |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Medium Mammal |  |  | 1 | 5.0 | 1 | 1.8 | 1 | 5.3 | 7 | 13.7
Large Ungulate |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Unidentifiable | 40 | 90.9 | 5 | 25.0 | 50 | 87.7 | 5 | 26.3 | 33 | 64.7
TOTAL | 44 | 100 | 20 | 100 | 57 | 100 | 19 | 100 | 51 | 100

Table 12: Continued....

SPECIES | SU 1260 | SU 1270 | SU 1271 | SU 1273 | SU 1275
N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | %
Terrestrial Gastropoda |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 5.6 |  |
Fresh water Bivalvia |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Marine Bivalvia |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Marine Gastropoda |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Amphibia |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Aves |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 5.6 |  |
Anas platyrhyncos |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Columba livia/oenas |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Columba palumbus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Vanellus vanellus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Gallus gallus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Microfauna |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Homo sapiens |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Vulpes vulpes |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Canis familiaris |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Equus asinus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Equus caballus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Sus domesticus |  |  | 1 | 20.0 | 1 | 100.0 | 5 | 27.8 | 1 | 11.1
Cervus elaphus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Ovis aries |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Ovis vel Capra |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 5.6 |  |
Bos taurus |  |  |  |  |  |  | 4 | 22.2 |  |
Small Mammal |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 5.6 |  |
Medium Mammal |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 | 11.1 | 4 | 44.4
Large Ungulate |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Unidentifiable | 3 | 100.0 | 4 | 80.0 |  |  | 3 | 16.7 | 4 | 44.4
TOTAL | 3 | 100 | 5 | 100 | 1 | 100 | 18 | 100 | 9 | 100

Table 12: Continued....

SPECIES | SU 1320 | SU 1327 | SU 1330 | SU 1340 | SU 1384
N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | %
Terrestrial Gastropoda | 2 | 1.2 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Fresh water Bivalvia |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Marine Bivalvia |  |  | 3 | 0.8 |  |  | 2 | 1.6 |  |
Marine Gastropoda |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Amphibia |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Aves | 3 | 1.7 | 4 | 1.0 |  |  | 4 | 3.1 |  |
Anas platyrhyncos |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Columba livia/oenas |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Columba palumbus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Vanellus vanellus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Gallus gallus | 1 | 0.6 | 5 | 1.3 |  |  | 3 | 2.3 |  |
Microfauna | 2 | 1.2 | 2 | 0.5 |  |  |  |  |  |
Homo sapiens |  |  | 3 | 0.8 |  |  | 1 | 0.8 |  |
Vulpes vulpes |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Canis familiaris | 2 | 1.2 | 1 | 0.3 |  |  |  |  |  |
Equus asinus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Equus caballus |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.8 |  |
Sus domesticus | 14 | 8.1 | 94 | 23.5 |  |  | 23 | 18.0 |  |
Cervus elaphus |  |  | 1 | 0.3 |  |  |  |  |  |
Ovis aries |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Ovis vel Capra | 36 | 20.9 | 58 | 14.5 |  |  | 15 | 11.7 | 2 | 50.0
Bos taurus | 4 | 2.3 | 13 | 3.3 |  |  | 6 | 4.7 |  |
Small Mammal |  |  |  |  |  |  | 3 | 2.3 |  |
Medium Mammal | 12 | 7.0 | 16 | 4.0 |  |  |  |  | 2 | 50.0
Large Ungulate | 5 | 2.9 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Unidentifiable | 91 | 52.9 | 200 | 50.0 | 1 | 100.0 | 70 | 54.7 |  |
TOTAL | 172 | 100 | 400 | 100 | 1 | 100 | 128 | 100 | 4 | 100

Table 12: Continued....

SPECIES | SU 1388 | SU 1401 | SU 1405 | SU 1406 | SU 1412
N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | %
Terrestrial Gastropoda |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Fresh water Bivalvia | 1 | 5.9 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Marine Bivalvia |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Marine Gastropoda |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Amphibia |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Aves |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 6.3 | 2 | 6.1
Anas platyrhyncos |  |  |  |  | 1 | 11.1 |  |  |  |
Columba livia/oenas |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Columba palumbus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Vanellus vanellus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Gallus gallus |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 6.3 |  |
Microfauna | 1 | 5.9 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Homo sapiens |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Vulpes vulpes |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Canis familiaris |  |  | 1 | 5.9 |  |  | 1 | 6.3 |  |
Equus asinus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Equus caballus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Sus domesticus | 2 | 11.8 | 1 | 5.9 | 2 | 22.2 | 2 | 12.5 | 14 | 42.4
Cervus elaphus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Ovis aries | 1 | 5.9 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Ovis vel Capra | 3 | 17.6 |  |  |  |  | 2 | 12.5 | 4 | 12.1
Bos taurus |  |  | 1 | 5.9 |  |  |  |  |  |
Small Mammal | 1 | 5.9 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Medium Mammal | 2 | 11.8 |  |  | 4 | 44.4 | 3 | 18.8 | 2 | 6.1
Large Ungulate |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 | 12.5 |  |
Unidentifiable | 6 | 35.3 | 14 | 82.4 | 2 | 22.2 | 4 | 25.0 | 11 | 33.3
TOTAL | 17 | 100 | 17 | 100 | 9 | 100 | 16 | 100 | 33 | 100

Table 12: Continued....

SPECIES | SU 1422 | SU 1465 | SU 1304 | SU 1408 | SU 1459*
N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | %
Terrestrial Gastropoda |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Fresh water Bivalvia |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Marine Bivalvia |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Marine Gastropoda |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Amphibia |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Aves |  |  |  |  | 1 | 5.9 |  |  |  |
Anas platyrhyncos |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Columba livia/oenas |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Columba palumbus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Vanellus vanellus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Gallus gallus |  |  |  |  | 1 | 5.9 |  |  |  |
Microfauna |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Homo sapiens |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 4 | 8.9
Vulpes vulpes |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Canis familiaris |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Equus asinus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Equus caballus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Sus domesticus | 1 | 9.1 |  |  | 2 | 11.8 |  |  |  |
Cervus elaphus |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Ovis aries |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Ovis vel Capra |  |  |  |  | 3 | 17.6 |  |  |  |
Bos taurus | 1 | 9.1 | 2 | 100.0 | 1 | 5.9 | 1 | 25 |  |
Small Mammal |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Medium Mammal |  |  |  |  | 1 | 5.9 | 2 | 50 |  |
Large Ungulate |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Unidentifiable | 9 | 81.8 |  |  | 8 | 47.1 | 1 | 25 | 41 | 91.1
TOTAL | 11 | 100 | 2 | 100 | 17 | 100.1 | 4 | 100 | 45 | 100

Table 12: Continued....

SPECIES | TOTAL Phase 3
N | %
Terrestrial Gastropoda | 20 | 0.90
Fresh water Bivalvia | 4 | 0.18
Marine Bivalvia | 9 | 0.40
Marine Gastropoda | 1 | 0.04
Amphibia | 4 | 0.18
Aves | 36 | 1.62
Anas platyrhyncos | 2 | 0.09
Columba livia/oenas | 1 | 0.04
Columba palumbus | 1 | 0.04
Vanellus vanellus | 1 | 0.04
Gallus gallus | 25 | 1.12
Microfauna | 41 | 1.84
Homo sapiens | 6 | 0.27
Vulpes vulpes | 2 | 0.09
Canis familiaris | 36 | 1.62
Equus asinus | 1 | 0.04
Equus caballus | 5 | 0.22
Sus domesticus | 266 | 11.96
Cervus elaphus | 1 | 0.04
Ovis aries | 3 | 0.13
Ovis vel Capra | 189 | 8.49
Bos taurus | 50 | 2.25
Small Mammal | 7 | 0.31
Medium Mammal | 102 | 4.58
Large Ungulate | 16 | 0.72
Unidentifiable | 1396 | 62.74
TOTAL | 2225 | 100

Table 12: Per SU counts and proportions for each SU producing faunal remains in Phase B-3. [Return to text] [Download Table 12 data]

Table 13: Counts and percentages for each SU with faunal remains from Phase B-3, abbreviated. [Return to text] [Download Table 13 data]

SPECIES | SU 1135=1163 | SU 1156* | SU 1158* | SU 1162 | SU 1165*
MNI | MNI | MNI | MNI | MNI
Canis familiaris |  |  | 1 |  | 1
Equus asinus | 1 |  |  |  |
Equus caballus |  |  |  |  |
Sus domesticus | 1 | 5 | 4 |  | 4
Ovis vel Capra | 1 | 2 | 1 |  | 4
Gallus gallus |  |  |  |  |
Homo Sapiens |  |  |  |  |
Bos taurus |  | 1 | 1 |  | 2
TOTAL | 3 | 8 | 7 | 0 | 11

Table 13: Continued....

SPECIES | SU 1168* | SU 1169* | SU 1174 | SU 1177* | SU 1190
MNI | MNI | MNI | MNI | MNI
Canis familiaris |  | 1 |  | 1 |
Equus asinus |  |  |  |  |
Equus caballus | 1 |  |  |  |
Sus domesticus | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
Ovis vel Capra | 2 | 2 |  | 1 |
Gallus gallus |  |  |  |  |
Homo Sapiens |  |  |  |  |
Bos taurus | 1 |  | 1 | 1 |
TOTAL | 6 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 0

Table 13: Continued....

SPECIES | SU 1199* | SU 1203 | SU 1211 | SU 1214 | SU 1218
MNI | MNI | MNI | MNI | MNI
Canis familiaris |  | 1 |  |  | 1
Equus asinus |  |  |  |  |
Equus caballus | 1 |  |  |  |
Sus domesticus | 1 | 2 |  | 1 | 3
Ovis vel Capra | 1 | 1 |  | 2 | 1
Gallus gallus |  |  |  |  |
Homo Sapiens |  |  |  |  |
Bos taurus |  |  |  |  | 1
TOTAL | 3 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 6

Table 13: Continued....

SPECIES | SU 1221* | SU 1222 | SU 1227* | SU 1232 | SU 1242*
MNI | MNI | MNI | MNI | MNI
Canis familiaris | 1 |  |  |  |
Equus asinus |  |  |  |  |
Equus caballus |  |  |  |  |
Sus domesticus | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
Ovis vel Capra |  | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1
Gallus gallus |  |  |  |  |
Homo Sapiens |  |  |  |  |
Bos taurus |  |  |  | 1 | 1
TOTAL | 2 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 2

Table 13: Continued....

SPECIES | SU 1260 | SU 1270 | SU 1271 | SU 1273 | SU 1275
MNI | MNI | MNI | MNI | MNI
Canis familiaris |  |  |  |  |
Equus asinus |  |  |  |  |
Equus caballus |  |  |  |  |
Sus domesticus |  | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1
Ovis vel Capra |  |  |  | 1 |
Gallus gallus |  |  |  |  |
Homo Sapiens |  |  |  |  |
Bos taurus |  |  |  | 1 |
TOTAL | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1

Table 13: Continued....

SPECIES | SU 1320 | SU 1327 | SU 1330 | SU 1340 | SU 1384
MNI | MNI | MNI | MNI | MNI
Canis familiaris | 1 | 1 |  |  |
Equus asinus |  |  |  |  |
Equus caballus |  |  |  | 1 |
Sus domesticus | 5 | 5 |  | 4 |
Ovis vel Capra | 4 | 7 |  | 2 | 1
Gallus gallus |  |  |  |  |
Homo Sapiens |  |  |  |  |
Bos taurus | 1 | 2 |  | 1 |
TOTAL | 11 | 15 | 0 | 8 | 1

Table 13: Continued....

SPECIES | SU 1388 | SU 1401 | SU 1405 | SU 1406 | SU 1412
MNI | MNI | MNI | MNI | MNI
Canis familiaris |  | 1 |  | 1 |
Equus asinus |  |  |  |  |
Equus caballus |  |  |  |  |
Sus domesticus | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4
Ovis vel Capra | 1 |  |  | 1 | 1
Gallus gallus |  |  |  |  |
Homo Sapiens |  |  |  |  |
Bos taurus |  | 1 |  |  |
TOTAL | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 5

Table 13: Continued....

SPECIES | SU 1422 | SU 1465 | SU 1304 | SU 1408 | SU 1459*
MNI | MNI | MNI | MNI | MNI
Canis familiaris |  |  |  |  |
Equus asinus |  |  |  |  |
Equus caballus |  |  |  |  |
Sus domesticus | 1 |  | 1 |  |
Ovis vel Capra |  |  | 1 |  |
Gallus gallus |  |  | 1 |  |
Homo Sapiens |  |  |  |  | 1
Bos taurus | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
TOTAL | 2 | 1 |  |  |

Table 13: Continued....

SPECIES | TOTAL Phase 3
MNI | %
Canis familiaris | 11 | 8.1
Equus asinus | 1 | 0.7
Equus caballus | 3 | 2.2
Sus domesticus | 63 | 46.3
Ovis vel Capra | 42 | 30.9
Gallus gallus | 1 | 0.7
Homo Sapiens | 1 | 0.7
Bos taurus | 20 | 14.7
TOTAL | 142 | 104.4117647

Table 13: Counts and percentages for each SU with faunal remains from Phase B-3, abbreviated. [Return to text] [Download Table 13 data]

Table 14: Counts and percentages for the main domestic taxa from each SU with faunal remains from Phase B-3, abbreviated.

Phase 3
ELEMENT | SUS DOMESTICUS | OVIS VEL CAPRA | BOS TAURUS
NR | NME | NMI | NR | NME | NMI | NR | NME | NMI
Horn |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Cranium 1/2 | 10 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 2
Maxilla 1/2 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1
Mandible 1/2 | 17 | 9 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1
Teeth | 94 | 73 | 36 | 46 | 38 | 25 | 10 | 9 | 6
Hyoid |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Atlas | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |
Axis |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Cerv.Vert. | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |
Tor.Vert. |  |  |  | 5 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1
Lumb.Vert. |  |  |  | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3
Sacr.Vert. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |
Caud. Vert. |  |  |  | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |
Vertebra |  |  |  | 8 | 3 | 3 |  |  |
Sternum |  |  |  | 2 | 1 | 1 |  |  |
Rib | 19 | 11 | 8 | 51 | 14 | 12 | 11 | 9 | 9
Scapula | 9 | 8 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 5 |  |  |
Humerus | 12 | 12 | 11 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 3 | 3 | 3
Radius | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |  |  |
Ulna | 10 | 9 | 9 | 3 | 3 | 3 |  |  |
Pelvis 1/2 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1
Femur | 10 | 8 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1
Patella | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |
Tibia | 11 | 10 | 9 | 4 | 4 | 4 |  |  |
Malleolus/Fibula | 4 | 3 | 3 |  |  |  |  |  |
Carpals | 1 | 1 | 1 |  |  |  | 1 | 1 | 1
Astragalus | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1
Calcaneum | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |  |  |
Tarsals |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Metacarpals | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2
Metatarsals | 5 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 7 |  |  |
Metapodials | 14 | 10 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1
Phalanx 1 | 15 | 15 | 12 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 3
Phalanx 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2
Phalanx 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1
Sesamoids |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Total | 266 | 209 |  | 192 | 131 |  | 50 | 44 |

Table 15: Counts and MNI statistics for the elements present from the main domestic taxa in the Phase B-3 assemblage.

SPECIES | TOTAL Phase 0 | TOTAL Phase 1 | TOTAL Phase 2 | TOTAL Phase 3 | General TOTAL
N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | %
Terrestrial Gastropoda |  |  | 9 | 1.2 | 12 | 1.5 | 20 | 0.01 | 41 | 1.05
Fresh water Bivalvia |  |  | 2 | 0.3 |  |  | 4 | 0.00 | 6 | 0.15
Marine Bivalvia |  |  | 3 | 0.4 | 7 | 0.9 | 9 | 0.00 | 19 | 0.49
Marine Gastropoda |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.1 | 1 | 0.00 | 2 | 0.05
Pisces |  |  | 2 | 0.3 | 1 | 0.1 |  | 0.00 | 3 | 0.08
Amphibia |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.1 | 4 | 0.00 | 5 | 0.13
Aves |  |  | 13 | 1.7 | 6 | 0.7 | 37 | 0.02 | 56 | 1.44
Anas platyrhincos |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 | 0.00 | 2 | 0.05
Columba livia/oenas |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.03
Columba palumbus |  |  | 1 | 0.1 |  |  | 1 | 0.00 | 2 | 0.05
Vanellus vanellus |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.03
Corvus corone |  |  | 1 | 0.1 | 1 | 0.1 |  | 0.00 | 2 | 0.05
Corvidae |  |  |  |  | 2 | 0.2 |  | 0.00 | 2 | 0.05
Gallus gallus |  |  | 5 | 0.6 | 8 | 1.0 | 26 | 0.01 | 39 | 1.00
Microfauna |  |  | 17 | 2.2 | 5 | 0.6 | 41 | 0.02 | 63 | 1.62
Lagomorpha |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.1 |  | 0.00 | 1 | 0.03
Homo sapiens |  |  | 1 | 0.1 |  |  | 10 | 0.00 | 11 | 0.28
Vulpes vulpes |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 | 0.00 | 2 | 0.05
Canis familiaris |  |  | 4 | 0.5 |  |  | 36 | 0.02 | 40 | 1.03
Equus asinus |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.03
Equus caballus |  |  | 2 | 0.3 | 1 | 0.1 | 5 | 0.00 | 8 | 0.21
Sus domesticus |  |  | 67 | 8.7 | 129 | 15.7 | 268 | 0.12 | 464 | 11.92
Cervus elaphus |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.03
Ovis aries |  |  | 1 | 0.1 | 1 | 0.1 | 3 | 0.00 | 5 | 0.13
Ovis vel Capra |  |  | 54 | 7.0 | 107 | 13.0 | 192 | 0.08 | 353 | 9.07
Bos taurus |  |  | 50 | 6.5 | 68 | 8.3 | 52 | 0.02 | 170 | 4.37
Small Mammal |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.1 | 7 | 0.00 | 8 | 0.21
Medium Mammal | 1 | 16.7 | 41 | 5.3 | 31 | 3.8 | 105 | 0.05 | 178 | 4.57
Large Ungulate |  |  | 8 | 1.0 | 9 | 1.1 | 16 | 0.01 | 33 | 0.85
Unidentifiable | 5 | 83.3 | 492 | 63.6 | 429 | 52.3 | 1446 | 0.63 | 2372 | 60.96
TOTAL | 6 | 100 | 773 | 100 | 821 | 100 | 2291 | 100 | 3891 | 100

Table 16: Age at death of the main domestic taxa present in Phase B-3 strata.

Phase 3
SPECIES | VeryYoung | Young | Young-Adult | Prime Adult | Older Adult | Senile | Indet. Adult | Total
Sus domesticus | 16 | 10 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 4 | 11 | 62
Ovis vel Capra | 7 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 8 | 4 | 8 | 41
Bos taurus | 1 |  | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 18

Table 17: MNI statistics and counts for the aquatic taxa, compared across the three main phases.

SPECIES | TOTAL Phase 1 | TOTAL Phase 2 | TOTAL Phase 3 | General TOTAL
MNI | % | MNI | % | MNI | % | MNI | %
Canis familiaris | 2 | 4.9 |  |  | 11 | 7.9 | 13 | 6.1
Equus asinus |  |  |  |  | 1 | 0.7 | 1 | 0.5
Equus caballus | 2 | 4.9 | 1 | 3.7 | 3 | 2.1 | 6 | 2.8
Sus domesticus | 18 | 46.3 | 14 | 37.0 | 63 | 45.0 | 95 | 44.8
Ovis vel Capra | 10 | 26.8 | 12 | 37.0 | 42 | 30.0 | 64 | 30.2
Bos taurus | 6 | 17.1 | 7 | 22.2 | 20 | 14.3 | 33 | 15.6
TOTAL | 38 | 100 | 34 | 100 | 140 | 100 | 212 | 100

Table 18: Activities associated with phases and features in the Tincu House. Discussion of the ceramics refers to these activities. [Return to text] [Download Table 18 data]

Fase | Contesto | Intervento | SU | frr. | Settore
Phase O | A | Occupation level? | A1. Leveling layer with tile structure | 1416 | 25 |
Phase 1A | B | Levelling layers | B1. Dumps predating the house | 1205, 1399 | 365 | Rooms 3, 5
C | Construction | C1. Fills of foundation trench and/or construction cuts | 1440, 1465 | 16 | South and East sides of property
D | Floors | D1. Floor preparation for SU 1178 | 1180 | 53 | Room 1
D2. Finished floor surface of courtyard | 1173 | 137 | Courtyard
Phase 1B | E | Construction | E1. Leveling layers | 1424, 1446 | 37 | Southern addition
F | Floors | F1. floor preparation | 1428 | 151 | Southern addition
G | Obliteration/Abandonment | G1. Fill of drain 1322 | 1279=1385 | 3873 | East side of property
Phase 2 | H | Levelling layers | H1. Dumps to raise floor level | 1386, 1443, 1457 | 788 | Room 6
I | Construction | I1. Fill associated with wall SU 1186 | 1182 | 30 | Coutyard
I2. Reorganization of access to Room 6 | 1423 | 177 | Courtyard
I3. Fill of foundation trench of wall SU 1434 | 1435 | 5 | Southern addition
J | Floors | J1. Crushed tufo preparation | 1455 | 38 | Courtyard/ Southern addition
Phase 3 | K | Construction | K1. Construction of wall SU 1058 | 1174 | 170 | Courtyard
K2. Construction of wall SU 1163 | 1176, 1189 | 28 | Rooms 1-2
K3. Construction of wall SU 5146 | 1406 | 57 | Southeast sector
L | Obliteration/Abandonment | L1. Accumulation along west wall of the courtyard | 1401 | 55 | Courtyard
L2. Accumulation of soil in drain 1228 (Fase 1A) | 1221 | 17 | Courtyard
L3. Dumps within Room 5 | 1232, 1242 | 300 | Room 5
L4. Collapse or dump of building debris in Room 5 | 1222 | 24 | Room 5
L5. Soil accumulations | 1158, 1165, 1320, 1327, 1340 | 6336 | Room 3
L6. Obliteration of walls in Room 4 | 1168, 1218, 1275 | 642 | Room 4
M | Spoliation | M1. Spoliation of elements of uncertain function (posts?) within Room 3 and courtyard | 1260, 1270, 1271 | 107 | Room 3, Courtyard
N | Natural processes | P1. Colluvial levels in North sector, Courtyard and on Road 4 | 1169, 1177, 1199, 1203, 1388 | 788 | Rooms 1-2, Courtyard, Road 4
O | Activities of uncertain function | Q1. Fill of a cut of undetermined function | 1422 | 52 | Room 6

Table 19: Distribution by phase of the ceramic sherds, by class. [Return to text] [Download Table 19 data]

| 0 | 1A | 1B | 2 | 3
R | H | F | tot. | % | R | H | F | tot. | % | R | H | F | tot. | % | R | H | F | tot. | % | R | H | F | tot. | %
Impasto | 2 |  |  | 3 |  | 19 | 4 | 4 | 88 |  | 13 | 1 |  | 48 |  | 2 |  | 2 | 28 |  | 20 | 7 | 2 | 173 |
Impasto Bruno |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 6 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 4 |  |  |  |  | 2 |
Impasto Rosso | 1 |  |  | 3 |  | 1 | 2 |  | 77 |  | 2 | 2 |  | 8 |  | 1 |  | 1 | 12 |  | 12 | 5 | 3 | 156 |
Red-on-white |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
Impasto Sabbioso |  |  |  |  |  | 5 | 1 | 4 | 28 |  | 8 | 2 | 3 | 83 |  | 7 | 2 | 5 | 38 |  | 25 | 7 | 15 | 388 |
Dolia (Coarse ware) |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  | 31 |  | 4 |  |  | 38 |  |  |  |  | 15 |  | 1 |  |  | 65 |
Coarse ware | 2 |  |  | 7 |  | 38 |  | 14 | 239 |  | 299 | 21 | 62 | 2907 |  | 57 | 2 | 23 | 445 |  | 601 | 45 | 190 | 3840 |
External slip ware |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  | 1 | 3 |  |  |  |  | 1 |  | 1 |  |  | 5 |  | 4 |  |  | 15 |
External/Internal slip ware |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  | 4 |
Bucchero | 1 |  | 1 | 2 |  | 2 | 1 |  | 14 |  | 3 | 1 | 2 | 16 |  | 6 |  | 4 | 32 |  | 18 | 5 | 9 | 94 |
Black figures |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 4 |
Red figures/silhouette |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |  | 3 | 5 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  | 6 |
Early/Mid-Republican red slip ware |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  | 3 |  | 1 |  |  | 2 |  | 1 |  |  | 1 |  | 7 |  | 6 | 38 |
Internal slip ware |  |  |  | 1 |  | 3 |  |  | 8 |  | 8 |  | 4 | 20 |  | 2 |  | 3 | 7 |  | 12 |  | 4 | 53 |
Black Gloss |  |  |  |  |  | 7 | 1 | 2 | 34 |  | 134 | 9 | 40 | 396 |  | 11 | 1 | 7 | 52 |  | 112 | 10 | 51 | 845 |
Overpainted |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |  |  |  |  | 4 |
Amphorae |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  | 19 |  | 9 | 10 | 5 | 192 |  | 6 | 4 | 4 | 104 |  | 12 | 10 | 11 | 665 |
Lamps |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |  |  |  | 3 | 8 |  | 2 | 1 | 7 | 47 |
Iberian |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |
Impasto sabbioso/cream ware |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 4 |  |  | 16 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Unguentaria |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  | 5 | 26 |
Dolia (Impasto sabbioso) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |
Megarian |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 3 | 6 |  | 3 |  | 7 | 31 |
Thin-walled |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 7 | 2 | 1 | 29 |  | 9 |  | 5 | 73 |  | 43 |  | 18 | 501 |
Eastern Sigillata A |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
Late-Republican red slip ware |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  | 2 |  | 2 | 18 |
Italic Sigillata |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 19 |  | 12 | 48 |
African Sigillata |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 4 |
Cream ware | 1 |  |  | 7 |  | 2 |  | 1 | 17 |  | 4 | 5 | 7 | 245 |  | 13 | 5 | 13 | 203 |  | 129 | 46 | 67 | 1527 |
Pompeian red slip ware |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  | 4 |  |  | 47 |  |  |  |  | 1 |  | 5 |  |  | 13 |
Mortaria |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
Glass |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
Cooking stand |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
Thread spool |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |
Total |  |  |  | 25 | 0.20% |  |  |  | 571 | 4% |  |  |  | 4061 | 28.50% |  |  |  | 1038 | 7.30% |  |  |  | 8576 | 60%

Table 20: Diagnostic elements from Phase B-0.

Activity | Class | Production | Shape | Type | Chronology
A1 | ISW | Local (?) | Olla | non id. | 500/450 – 250/200 BCE

Table 21: Quantification per ware from each of the Phase B-1 activities.

| B1 | C1 | D1 | D2
R | H | F | frr. | % | R | H | F | frr. | % | R | H | F | frr. | % | R | H | F | frr. | %
Impasto | 19 | 4 | 4 | 76 |  |  |  |  | 10 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |
Impasto Bruno |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 6 |  |  |  |  |  |
Impasto Rosso | 1 | 1 |  | 64 |  |  |  |  | 2 |  |  | 1 |  | 11 |  |  |  |  |  |
Impasto Sabbioso | 1 |  | 1 | 3 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 1 |  | 4 | 1 | 2 | 24 |
Dolia (Coarse ware) |  |  |  | 28 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  | 3 |  |  |  |  |  |
Coarse Ware | 19 |  | 3 | 157 |  | 1 |  |  | 3 |  | 8 |  | 6 | 25 |  | 10 |  | 5 | 54 |
External slip ware |  |  | 1 | 2 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
External/Internal slip ware |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Bucchero | 1 | 1 |  | 10 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  | 2 |  |  |  |  | 2 |
Early/Mid-Republican Red Slip |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  | 3 |
Internal slip ware | 1 |  |  | 3 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |  |  | 5 |
Black Gloss |  |  |  | 2 |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 7 | 1 | 2 | 31 |
Amphorae |  |  |  | 11 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  | 1 |  | 7 |
Lamps |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
Cream ware | 1 |  |  | 7 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 4 |  | 1 |  | 1 | 6 |
Pompeian Red Slip |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
Cooking stand |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Total |  |  |  | 365 | 63.92% |  |  |  | 16 | 2.80% |  |  |  | 53 | 9.28 |  |  |  | 137 | 24%

Table 22: Phase B-1a: Diagnostic elements.

Act. | Class | Production | Shape | Type | Observations | Chronology
D1 | BG | Etrusco-latial/ Local (?) | Bowl | Stamped floor (Morel 2783/84?) | Decoration: Ferrandes 2015, Style 00 | post 280/270 – 265/260 BCE
D1 | Pompeian Red Slip Ware | Etrusco-latial | Pan | non id. |  | post 300/290 BCE
D1 | Lamps | Etrusco-latial/ roman (?) |  | Biconico dell’Esquilino |  | post 280/270 – 265/260 BCE
D1 | Amphorae | Tyrrhenian Italy(?) |  | Cibecchini, Capelli 0000, Va (o Vb?) |  | Post 330/325 (o 260/250 – 225/220 BCE?)

Table 23: Quantification of each ware in Phase B-1b.

| E1 | F1 | G1
R | H | F | tot. | % | R | H | F | frr. | % | R | H | F | frr. | %
Impasto |  |  |  | 2 |  | 4 |  |  | 16 |  | 9 | 1 |  | 30 |
Impasto Rosso | 1 |  |  | 3 |  | 1 |  |  | 1 |  |  | 2 |  | 4 |
Impasto Sabbioso |  |  |  | 4 |  | 1 |  |  | 4 |  | 7 | 2 | 3 | 75 |
Dolia (Coarse ware) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 4 |  |  | 38 |
Coarse Ware | 1 | 1 |  | 12 |  | 8 |  | 5 | 50 |  | 290 | 20 | 57 | 2844 |
External slip ware |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |
Bucchero |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 5 |  | 3 | 1 | 2 | 11 |
Red figures/silhouette |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 | 3 |  | 2 |  | 1 | 2 |
Early/Mid-Republican Red Slip |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  | 1 |
Internal slip ware | 1 |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  | 1 |  | 7 |  | 4 | 18 |
Black Gloss | 5 |  |  | 9 |  | 1 | 1 |  | 5 |  | 128 | 8 | 40 | 382 |
Overpainted |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  | 1 |
Amphorae |  |  |  |  |  | 3 |  |  | 19 |  | 6 | 10 | 5 | 173 |
Lamps |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
Impasto sabbioso/cream ware |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 4 |  |  | 16 |
Dolia (Impasto sabbioso) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |
Thin-walled |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 | 11 |  | 7 |  | 1 | 18 |
Cream ware |  |  |  | 5 |  | 2 | 4 | 3 | 34 |  | 2 | 1 | 4 | 206 |
Pompeian Red Slip |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |  | 4 |  |  | 45 |
Total |  |  |  | 37 | 0.91% |  |  |  | 151 | 3.72% |  |  |  | 3873 | 95.37%

Table 25: Quantification of each ware per activity in Phase B-2. [Return to text] [Download Table 25 data]

| H1 | I1 | I2 | I3 | J1
R | H | F | tot. | % | R | H | F | tot. | % | R | H | F | tot. | % | R | H | F | tot. | % | R | H | F | tot. | %
Impasto | 1 |  |  | 14 |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  | 2 |  | 9 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  | 4 |
Impasto Bruno |  |  |  | 4 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Impasto Rosso |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  | 3 |  | 1 |  |  | 4 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |  |  | 4 |
Impasto Sabbioso | 5 | 2 | 4 | 31 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |  |  | 4 |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  | 1 | 2 |
Dolia (Coarse ware) |  |  |  | 13 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |
Coarse Ware | 35 |  | 15 | 340 |  | 2 | 1 |  | 13 |  | 14 | 1 | 5 | 67 |  |  |  |  | 3 |  | 6 |  | 3 | 22 |
External slip ware |  |  |  | 3 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  | 2 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Bucchero | 5 |  | 4 | 30 |  | 1 |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Early/Mid-Republican Red Slip | 1 |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Internal slip ware | 2 |  | 3 | 7 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Black Gloss | 10 | 1 | 7 | 34 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 15 |  | 1 |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  | 2 |
Overpainted |  |  |  | 2 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Amphorae | 5 | 4 | 4 | 87 |  |  |  |  | 3 |  | 1 |  |  | 14 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Lamps |  |  | 3 | 6 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Megarian |  |  | 3 | 6 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Thin-walled | 8 |  | 5 | 50 |  |  |  |  | 4 |  | 1 |  |  | 19 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Late-Republican Red Slip |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Cream ware | 10 | 4 | 8 | 157 |  | 1 |  | 1 | 5 |  | 2 | 1 | 4 | 39 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |
Pompeian Red Slip |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Thread spool |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Total |  |  |  | 788 | 75.91% |  |  |  | 30 | 2.89% |  |  |  | 177 | 17.10% |  |  |  | 5 | 0.48% |  |  |  | 38 | 3.62%

Table 24: Phase B-1b: Diagnostic elements.

Act. | Class | Production | Shape | Type | Observations | Chronology
G1 | Black gloss | Etrusco-latial/ Local (?) | patera | Morel 1281 |  | post end 3rd/early 2nd c. BCE
G1 | Black gloss | Etrusco-latial/ Local (?) | bowl | Morel 2572 |  | post end 3rd/early 2nd c. BCE
G1 | Black gloss | Etrusco-latial/ Local (?) | bowl | Morel 2573 |  | post end 3rd/early 2nd c. BCE
G1 | Black gloss | Etrusco-latial/ Local (?) | patera/plate | Morel 2821 |  | post end 3rd/early 2nd c. BCE
G1 | Black gloss | Etrusco-latial/ Local (?) | patera/plate | Morel 2822 |  | post end 3rd/early 2nd c. BCE
E1 | Black gloss | Etrusco-latial/ Local (?) | patera/plate | Morel 2823 |  | post end 3rd/early 2nd c. BCE
F1, G1 | Thin wall | Etrusco-latial/ Local (?) | beaker | Marabini I |  | Late 3rd/mid-1st c. BCE
G1 | Lamps | Etrusco-latial/ Local (?) | ... | Tevere 2a |  |
F1, G1 | Cream ware | Etrusco-latial/ Local (?) | beaker | Bertoldi 2011, olla type 2 |  | post end 3rd/early 2nd c. BCE
G1 | Coarse ware | Etrusco-latial/ Local (?) | olla | Bertoldi 2011, olla type 1 |  | Late 3rd/2nd c. BCE
G1 | Coarse ware | Etrusco-latial/ Local (?) | olla | Bertoldi 2011, olla type |  | Late 3rd/2nd c. BCE
G1 | Amphorae | Campania | ... | vanderMerch/ Cibecchini VIa |  | 210 – 190 BCE o right after
F1 | Amphorae | Campania | ... | vanderMerch/ Cibecchini VIb |  | 200 – 175 BCE ca.
G1 | Amphorae | North Africa | ... | van der Weff 3 |  | post end 3rd/early 2nd c. BCE

Table 26: Diagnostic elements associated with Phase B-2.

Act. | Class | Production | Shape | Type | Observations | Chronology
H1 | Late-Republican Red Slip Ware | Etrusco-latial | open | non id. |  | fine II/inizio I – 50/30 a.C. (?)
H1 | Lamps | Etrusco-latial |  | Ricci H |  | post (fine II sec. a.C.?) età sillana
I2 | Lamps | Etrusco-latial |  | Dressel 3A (?) |  | 80/70 a.C. – età augustea
I2 | Amphorae | Tyrrhenian Italy |  | Dressel 1B |  | fine II/inizio I sec. a.C. – età augustea.

Table 27: Quantification of each ware per activity in Phase B-3. [Return to text] [Download Table 27 data]

| L4 | L5 | L6 | M1 | N1 | O1
R | H | F | tot. | % | R | H | F | tot. | % | R | H | F | tot. | % | R | H | F | tot. | % | R | H | F | tot. | % | R | H | F | tot. | %
Impasto |  |  |  |  |  | 3 | 3 |  | 70 |  | 5 | 1 |  | 16 |  | 5 |  | 2 | 27 |  | 3 | 2 |  | 36 |  | 2 |  |  | 5 |
Impasto Bruno |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |
Impasto Rosso |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 1 |  | 63 |  | 1 | 4 |  | 13 |  | 2 |  |  | 6 |  | 8 |  | 3 | 49 |  |  |  |  | 2 |
Red-on-white |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Impasto Sabbioso | 2 |  |  | 5 |  | 4 | 1 | 3 | 210 |  | 5 | 2 | 2 | 39 |  |  |  |  | 1 |  | 9 | 3 | 7 | 100 |  |  |  |  | 1 |
Dolia (Coarse ware) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 32 |  |  |  |  | 5 |  | 1 |  |  | 12 |  |  |  |  | 4 |  |  |  |  | 1 |
Coarse Ware | 1 |  | 1 | 6 |  | 409 | 36 | 132 | 2994 |  | 45 |  | 17 | 287 |  | 4 |  | 9 | 49 |  | 89 | 5 | 13 | 272 |  | 4 |  | 1 | 17 |
External slip ware |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  | 7 |  | 1 |  |  | 2 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |
External/Internal slip ware |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  | 4 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Bucchero |  |  |  |  |  | 10 | 2 | 7 | 59 |  | 1 |  | 1 | 11 |  |  |  |  | 3 |  | 3 | 3 |  | 12 |  |  |  |  |  |
Black figures |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  | 2 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Red figures/silhouette |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |
Early/Mid-Republican Red Slip |  |  |  | 1 |  | 4 |  | 2 | 18 |  | 1 |  |  | 3 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |  | 4 | 16 |  |  |  |  |  |
Internal slip ware |  |  |  |  |  | 8 |  | 3 | 37 |  | 1 |  |  | 4 |  |  |  |  | 1 |  | 3 |  |  | 9 |  |  |  |  |  |
Black Gloss | 1 | 1 |  | 3 |  | 67 | 4 | 27 | 554 |  | 15 | 2 | 8 | 81 |  |  |  | 1 | 2 |  | 24 | 3 | 14 | 107 |  | 2 |  |  | 4 |
Overpainted |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 3 |  |  |  |  |  |
Amphorae |  |  |  | 2 |  | 10 | 6 | 8 | 519 |  |  | 1 | 1 | 24 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 1 | 40 |  |  |  |  | 2 |
Lamps |  |  |  |  |  | 2 | 1 | 7 | 28 |  |  |  |  | 8 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |  |  |  |  | 2 |
Iberian |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |
Unguentaria |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 4 | 10 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 | 2 |  |  |  |  |  |
Dolia (Impasto sabbioso) |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Megarian |  |  |  |  |  | 3 |  | 7 | 29 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |
Thin-walled |  |  |  | 1 |  | 34 |  | 14 | 449 |  | 7 |  | 3 | 31 |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  | 5 |  | 1 |  |  | 5 |
Eastern Sigillata A |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Late-Republican Red Slip |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |  | 2 | 15 |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Italic Sigillata |  |  |  |  |  | 15 |  | 8 | 34 |  | 4 |  | 4 | 12 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2 |  |  |  |  |  |
African Sigillata |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 4 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Cream ware |  |  |  | 4 |  | 87 | 31 | 51 | 1192 |  | 8 | 4 | 6 | 91 |  |  |  |  | 6 |  | 15 | 7 | 8 | 121 |  |  |  |  | 13 |
Pompeian Red Slip |  |  |  |  |  | 4 |  |  | 10 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  | 3 |  |  |  |  |  |
Mortaria |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Glass |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Cooking stand |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Total |  |  |  | 24 | 0.27% |  |  |  | 6336 | 73.89% |  |  |  | 642 | 7.48% |  |  |  | 107 | 1.24% |  |  |  | 788 | 9.18% |  |  |  | 52 | 0.60%

Table 28: Diagnostic elements from Phase B-3.

Act. | Class | Production | Shape | Type | Observations | Chronology
L6 | TSI | Italian peninsula | plate | Conspectus 20.4 |  | 30 – 96 CE
L5 - L6 | TSI | Italian peninsula | bowl | Conspectus 34 |  | 30 – 96 CE
L5 | ARS | A1 | closed | non id. |  | 60/70 – mid-2nd c. CE
L5 | ARS | A1 | open | non id. |  | 60/70 – mid-2nd c. CE