Previous Work
Any research based on comparative analysis of published material inevitably draws on the work of others, and this is particularly the case for bone reports. The basic methodology of archaeozoological reportage has a common currency amongst specialists that allows comparisons to be made (within tolerable limits allowing for differences in fragment counting methods). With the exception of reports based solely on the less common methods of minimum numbers of individuals (MNI) or bone weights, this means that most bone reports are useful for comparative analysis.
The extensive bibliography for this article demonstrates the large number of analyses that have been undertaken. It is by no means a complete listing, since it is inevitable that some, perhaps many reports have not been available to the author. However, the nature of the exercise, a survey of data from regions of the Roman empire, means that in some areas there is a great deal, possibly too much evidence, while in others there is very little, and a pressing need for further work. Data will obviously continue to accumulate as excavations proceed, with the result that this article will need to be supplemented after a few years, hopefully in order to flesh out the picture for regions where the data are currently meagre.
This article is, in fact, itself a supplement to earlier work. Previous analyses by the author (King 1999; 1984; 1978) have covered Roman bone reports for military sites, western European sites and British sites respectively. Luff (1982) has also surveyed western European sites, particularly from the point of view of bone measurements, which are not dealt with here, as well as species counts. There have also been a series of important regional comparative analyses of Roman-period assemblages, notably Lepetz (1996) on northern France, Columeau (1991) on Provence, Lauwerier (1988) on the Netherlands and Peters (1998) on Germany. These can be placed alongside regional surveys that take a much longer time frame, such as Bökönyi (1974) on central Europe or Boessneck (1988) on Egypt.
None of these previous sur veys has covered the Roman Empire as a whole. It is the intention of this article to provide an overview of this macro-region, in order to explore provincial and regional differences within an area that was, nominally at least, united in political terms, and culturally in thrall to the nebulous process of 'Romanization'.