The remains of microfauna from the Roman and Medieval occupations at Villamagna were collected by wet-sieving a one-bucket sample of excavated sediment from all of the occupation contexts. Faunal remains larger than 0.5 cm² are reported elsewhere;¹ this report addresses faunal remains smaller than 0.5 cm², which come mainly from microfauna and are generally more closely related to environmental factors than consumption practices. For the purposes of this report, microfauna are mammals smaller than a cat or rabbit, birds smaller than a goose or chicken and all fish, reptiles and amphibians. Microfaunal remains are reliably recovered on an archaeological site only through wet-sieving at a screen size smaller than 2 mm².²

All fragments that were identifiable to a taxonomic category at least as specific as class were recorded and included in the calculations of Numbers of Identified Specimens (NISP), including a small number of fragments (NISP 12) that could be identified to class based on bone characteristics but were not identifiable to a specific skeletal element. A total of 221 fragments of faunal remains smaller than 0.5 cm² were recovered from the floated contexts from the site of Villamagna³: 190 were from microfauna, twenty-eight were very small bones or bone fragments that came from larger species and three could have come either from microfauna or from very young individuals of larger species. Of the total assemblage, 167 fragments (76%) could be identified to some taxonomic level more specific than class, though for the majority of the identifiable bones (142 NISP, 85%), this meant identification to order or suborder. Only twenty-five bones or fragments could be identified to family, genus, or species. Fifteen mammal bones were identified to genus or species and five bird bones and five fish bones were identified to family, genus, or species. Of the 142 fragments that could only be identified to order or suborder, 131 were from rodents (Rodentia spp.), three were from frogs or toads (Anura spp.), two were from lizards (Lacertilia spp.), two were from turtles (Testudines spp.), two were from snakes (Serpentes spp.), one was from a rodent or lagomorph and one was from a small carnivore (Carnivora sp.). Of the fifty-four remains that could only be identified to class, twenty-four were from mammals, twenty-four were from birds, five were from fish and one was from an amphibian.

Two hundred twenty-one NISP is a small sample size; however, analysis of this assemblage can suggest general environmental conditions in the area of Villamagna as well as add a small amount of information to our knowledge of consumption practices.

Evidence for consumption practices

Remains of fish and food birds such as chickens (Gallus gallus) add to our understanding of consumption practices at Villamagna. Fish were utilized in all periods. The NISP are too small to support very specific interpretation, but mackerel (Scomber sp., NISP 1), European eel (Anguilla anguilla, NISP 1), a member of the Cyprinidae family of freshwater fish (NISP 1) and five remains identifiable only as fish were all recovered from Roman-period contexts, indicating that the Roman diet included both locally caught riverine fish and imported marine fish. Fish remains from the Late Antique phase of the barracks (NISP 1) and the medieval monastery (NISP 1) could not be identified to family, but one vertebra from a member of the Cyprinidae family was recovered from the medieval village, indicating that fishing in the nearby river may have provided an additional source of protein in the diet of the medieval peasants. One mackerel vertebra (Scomber sp.) was recovered from the fourteenth-century castrum, demonstrating that marine fish were imported to the site at least occasionally during this period.

Two chicken (Gallus gallus) remains were identified among the Villamagna microfauna: a cervical vertebra from a context in the Late Antique barracks and a fourth phalanx in a context from the medieval village. Additionally, a total of six bone fragments identifiable only as Aves but of the correct size to belong to chicken or other yard poultry were found in contexts dating to all periods except the Late Antique barracks: two in the Roman barracks, one in the Medieval village, two in the tenth- to fourteenth-century cemetery and one in the fourteenth-century castrum. These remains should be considered in conjunction with the poultry remains that were found among the faunal remains larger than 0.5 cm², which attest to the presence of poultry particularly in the Roman diet and that of the medieval villagers.⁴

Three bird remains that probably come from the thrush family (Turdidae spp.) were found among the microfauna, one from a context from the Roman barracks and two from contexts belonging to the fourteenth-century castrum. Eating songbirds like thrushes as a delicacy is known from both Roman⁵ and Medieval historical sources and these remains may relate to consumption practices at Villamagna. However, they also might be environmental remains unrelated to consumption.

One garden dormouse mandible (Eliomys quercinus) from a context dating to the Roman use of the barracks may possibly relate to consumption given that the Romans did eat dormice as a delicacy. However, the dormice eaten were usually specially raised fat dormice (Glis glis) rather than garden dormice, and this garden dormouse mandible is probably more directly related to the local environment than consumption practices. Finally, one damaged atlas bone of a lagomorph or large rodent found in a context from the Roman use of the barracks may relate to consumption practices, though it is difficult to be certain since the bone could not be identified with confidence.

Evidence for environmental conditions

Most of the microfaunal remains from Villamagna probably relate more closely to environmental conditions in and around the site than to the consumption practices of the site’s inhabitants. Large numbers of rodent bones (total NISP 141), mostly post-cranial and unidentifiable to species, were found in the sampled contexts from all periods of occupation. A small number of rodent remains could be identified on the basis of skull and tooth morphology and identifiable remains included three from house mice (Mus musculus), three from European water voles (Arvicola amphibius), two from species of wild mice (Apodemus spp.), one from a black rat (Rattus rattus) and one from a garden dormouse (Eliomys quercinus, discussed above). There are too few identifiable remains to generalize beyond saying that they provide evidence for a variety of environmental conditions around Villamagna: woods, fields and wet areas relating to the nearby river. House mice and species of wild mice often compete to colonize the commensal niche and their remains have been discussed as relating to the density of human occupation or human modification of the landscape at other archaeological sites in Italy.⁶ However, the sampled deposits from Villamagna did not provide enough identifiable remains to engage in this kind of analysis.

Bird remains made up the next largest group of microfaunal remains. These came primarily from small birds ranging from sparrow- to pigeon-sized and were not usually identifiable, with the exception of three remains that probably come from members of the family Turdidae (above). As with rodents, too few of the bird remains were identifiable to support more specific interpretations than that they indicate wooded or shrubby environments around Villamagna.

Other identifiable microfaunal remains were quite sparse. Five shrews, four white-toothed shrews (Crocidura spp.) and one red-toothed shrew (Soricinae sp.), were present in the assemblage. Three remains from frogs or toads (Anura spp.), two from lizards (Lacertilia spp.) and two from snakes (Serpentes spp.) complete the identifiable remains.

Bibliography

Ervynck, A., Van Neer, W., Hüster-Plogmann, H., and Schibler, J. (2003) ‘The Zooarchaeology of Luxury.’ World Archaeology 34(3): 428–441.

Cucchi, T., Vigne, J. and Auffray, J. (2005) ‘First occurrence of the house mouse in the western Mediterranean: A zooarchaeologial revision of subfossil occurrences.’ Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 84: 429–445.

Holt, E. (2016a) ‘The faunal remains from the medieval village,’ in ‘The Site in the Middle Ages.’ In E. Fentress, C. Goodson, M. Maiuro, M.M. Andrews and J.A. Dufton (eds.), Villa Magna: an Imperial Estate and its Legacies. Excavations 2006–2010. Papers of the British School, Supplement, Cambridge: 328–335.

Holt, E. (2016b) ‘The faunal remains,’ in ‘The Villa.’ In E. Fentress, C. Goodson, M. Maiuro, M.M. Andrews and J.A. Dufton (eds.), Villa Magna: an Imperial Estate and its Legacies. Excavations 2006–2010. Papers of the British School, Supplement, Cambridge: 181–183.

King, A. (2002) Mammals: Evidence from wall paintings, sculpture, mosaics, faunal remains and ancient literary sources. In W. F. Jashemski and F. G. Meyer (eds), The Natural History of Pompeii. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 401–450.

MacKinnon, M. (2004) Production and Consumption of Animals in Roman Italy: Integrating the Zooarchaeological and Textual Evidence. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 54. Portsmouth, Rhode Island.

MacKinnon, M. (2002) The Excavations of San Giovanni di Ruoti 3. The Faunal and Plant Remains. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Morlan, R. (1994) ‘Dialogue: Rodent bones in archaeological sites.’ Canadian Journal of Archaeology 18: 135–142.

1 See Holt 2016a, 2016b.

2 Cf. Cucchi et al. 2005; Morlan 1994.

3 SU numbers of contexts which contained faunal remains included in this study: (1567), (1831), (1841), (1846), (2321), (2566), (2635), (4130), (4145), (4164), (4180), (4218), (4219), (4287), (4301), (4319), (4340), (4353), (5011), (5035), (5048), (5050), (5103), (5107), (5126), (5133), (5168), (5202), (5262), (5305), (5309), (5338), (5347), (5414), (5415), (5431), (5454), (6014), (6045), (7154), (7162), (7168), (7188), (7440), (7526), (8044), (8048), (8050), (8083), (8097).

4 See Holt 2016a and Holt 2016b for discussions of bird remains among the faunal remains larger than 0.5 cm².

5 See Apicius de re Coquinaria V.3.2, V.3.8 and VIII.7.14 for references to recipes including thrushes. See Ervynck et al. 2003: 436 for an example of zooarchaeological evidence of blackbird consumption in an elite Roman context.

6 See King 2002: 435; MacKinnon 2002: 74–5; MacKinnon 2004: 60 for brief discussions of the relationship between mouse species and density of human occupation/human modification of the landscape at archaeological sites in Italy.