Previous articleNext article FreeBook ReviewThe Making of a Roman Imperial Estate: Archaeology in the Vicus at Vagnari, Puglia Edited by Maureen Carroll (Archaeopress Roman Archaeology 88). Oxford: Archaeopress 2022. Pp. 392. £58. ISBN 9781803272054 (paperback).Tamara LewitTamara LewitSchool of Historical and Philosophical Studies. University of Melbourne Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreThe archaeology of the Roman countryside has for far too long been dominated by mosaics, marbles, and mansions, and this book is part of the new wave of scholarship that finally takes us beyond elite architecture into the realities of everyday rural life for the larger population. It draws on the full spectrum of modern methods of investigation, including archaeobotany; archaeozoology; osteoarchaeology; geological, chemical, and mineralogical analyses; and C14 dating. The site in Puglia (Bari), a vicus, or cluster of working and living buildings, has been identified as part of an imperial estate from the presence of roof tiles stamped by imperial slaves. The book documents in meticulous detail the findings of the University of Sheffield’s 2012–19 excavations, which built on previous work in the area.This impressive publication traces the evolution of the site from a Late Republican votive deposit and first- to second-century CE masonry buildings, to enlargement and expansion of operations in the second and third centuries, destruction by fire in the mid third century, and reuse of the site in the fourth to fifth centuries for activities probably including the recycling of iron. The first three chapters cover the history of the site’s discovery, previous geophysical survey, past archaeological investigations, and its topographical and geological contexts. This is followed by a chapter tracing in detail eight phases of the site, with discussion of possible uses of the different parts of the excavated area. Almost all the remains relate to everyday working life, production, food storage, and low-status habitation. The painted wall plaster is modest, in keeping with the functional nature of the site, and the pottery is mostly (although not exclusively) of Italian origin. Fragments of window glass, pieces of veneer in marbles of less valuable types, and mosaic all indicate the existence of a few modestly decorated rooms. Some of this material may have found its way to the site through recycling or salvage (99, 143).Eighteen chapters give specialist examinations of pottery, remains relating to viticulture, glass, coins, metal and metalworking debris, ceramic building materials (which were produced at the site), marbles and stones, wall plaster, stone and bone utensils, evidence of textile production, animal and botanical remains, the small number of human remains found in this area, and parasitology and health. The final chapter offers a synthesis and conclusions about the life and context of the site. Six appendices provide catalogues of each category of finds. The book is well illustrated in color throughout, with a further 28 full-page plates.Despite minute analysis of evidence such as plant remains and even parasite eggs recovered from drains (suggesting the location of a possible latrine), it has not proved possible to definitively identify the use of the excavated rooms, which may in fact have had mixed work, storage, and habitational functions (4). A comparison with the discovery in 2021 of a room used simultaneously as a stable for horses, a storeroom for a chariot, and a workers’ bedroom, at the suburban villa of Cività Giuliana north of Pompeii, reinforces the probability of multifunctional use. It is speculated that a large building around a courtyard, identified only by geophysics, may have functioned as either a local marketplace or a road station, since its morphology would be appropriate for either (220–21).The only clearly identifiable space is a cella vinaria, Room A, measuring 45 m2. Here at least 10, and up to 18, wine fermentation jars (dolia defossa) were partially buried in the floor, as was the established practice in Italy in order to provide a temperature-regulated environment. This was constructed along with other additions in the second century CE (49–50). Yet even this space presents some puzzles, since no traces of a wine-treading floor or press have been found, although they must have been located in close vicinity to the dolia. As noted by the excavators, it is possible to produce wine without a mechanical press simply through treading (and many such facilities are found throughout the Roman world). A mortar-lined treading trough would have been essential to wine production, but none has been found. Given the number and size of dolia found, it also seems unlikely that no press, or even a small all-wooden direct-screw press, would have been used. While the excavators are cautious in estimating capacity, it could be suggested that the annual vintage at Vagnari amounted to around 10,000 to 20,000 liters. Such capacities are most often associated with at least one and often two large lever presses, and although these can be made entirely of wood, the space allocated for the long beam, foundations for its support, and the press base or at least its imprint are usually archaeologically discernable with such careful excavation. Three presses and 20 dolia are recommended by Cato (Agr. 11.3) for “vineae iugera C,” approximately 25 ha of vines. It seems most likely that, as the excavators suggest, the trenches “just missed the relevant facilities” (49). Some reference to the work of J.-P. Brun on Italian wine production facilities (Archéologie du vin et de l’huile dans l’Empire romain, Errance 2004, 7–59) could have enhanced the discussion.Generally accepted estimations of average wine consumption suggest that this quantity of wine could have supplied something like 70 to 100 people annually. It would not have been drunk by the lowest-status workers on the site, such as enslaved persons, however, who, according to the evidence of Cato (Agr. 57) and Varro (Rust. 1.54.3), would more probably have drunk lora, a cheap drink made from the left-over skins and pips of trodden grapes, soaked in water. An important discovery was the source of the dolia, which were found on the basis of mineralogical-petrographic analysis to have been brought from as far away as Latium (87–89). These extremely large and heavy pottery containers, which would normally be made on or near the wine-making site, were thus apparently transported hundreds of kilometers. It is postulated that they were supplied by another imperial estate, possibly in exchange for wheat, with the advantages of an internal exchange between properties of the same owner outweighing the difficulties of transport (90–91).Wine production seems not to have been one of the major or long-standing productive activities at the site, which over a longer period included cultivation of cereals, fruits, olives, and pulses; production of roof tiles (for which the kilns were identified in previous investigations); lead processing; and animal, especially sheep, husbandry. It is uncertain to what degree textile production was carried out. No spindle whorls and few loom weights have been found, although as noted (169), the absence of loom weights can be explained by the introduction of two-beam looms.Based on archaeobotanical remains, it is concluded that a variety of different cereals, including emmer, einkorn, spelt, free-threshing wheat, and barley, were cultivated and harvested with sickles. Although the authors comment on the “extra effort” required to grow a variety of cereals that would need to be sown, harvested, and processed at different times (195), this accords perfectly with the record of agronomists such as Varro, Columella, and Palladius, who amply attest the ploughing of soil for sowing and harvesting with falces of just such a variety of cereal crops over many months of the year as a normal part of Roman farming practices. The overview of mixed cereal farming at Italian sites by F. Heinrich (“Modelling Crop-Selection in Roman Italy: The Economics of Agricultural Decision Making in a Globalizing Economy,” in T.C.A. de Haas and G. Tol, eds., The Economic Integration of Roman Italy, Brill 2017, 141–69) could helpfully have been referred to here, along with other chapters in the same volume, to balance the statement that “comparatively little has been published regarding Roman agricultural production in Italy” (188).The legal status of the inhabitants and workers of the vicus cannot be determined, although the presence of at least some enslaved people is attested by tile stamps. But telling insights can be gained into their conditions of life by the presence of malaria and soil- and water-transmitted parasites, which would have caused illness and probably also have contributed to malnutrition (214, 222). A companion project funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada is currently assessing evidence from the nearby cemetery for exposure to high levels of lead during childhood among some (although not all) inhabitants (222). The McMaster University investigations of this cemetery, published elsewhere, identified the inhabitants as mostly (75%) of local origin, but, interestingly, also including individuals of North African and East Asian ancestry (221).The book meets the highest standards for up-to-date archaeological investigation, documentation, and presentation. The data and discussions presented will be of great value and interest to every scholar or student working on the Roman countryside. The findings are also of significance to the broader study of the Roman economy, health and diet, and the lives of working populations.Notes[email protected] Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by American Journal of Archaeology Volume 127, Number 2April 2023 The journal of the Archaeological Institute of America Views: 73Total views on this site Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/724483 Views: 73Total views on this site HistoryPublished online February 07, 2023 Copyright © 2023 by the Archaeological Institute of AmericaPDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.