Journal of Field Archaeology

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjfa20

Animal Economy in Hellenistic Greece: A

Zooarchaeological Study from Pherae (Thessaly)

Dimitris Filioglou & Canan Çakırlar

To cite this article: Dimitris Filioglou & Canan Çakırlar (2023): Animal Economy in Hellenistic
Greece: A Zooarchaeological Study from Pherae (Thessaly), Journal of Field Archaeology, DOI:
10.1080/00934690.2022.2163782

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2022.2163782

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

View supplementary material

Published online: 10 Jan 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjfa20
JOURNAL OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2022.2163782

Animal Economy in Hellenistic Greece: A Zooarchaeological Study from Pherae

(Thessaly)
Dimitris Filioglou and Canan Çakırlar
Groningen Institute of Archaeology

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The scale of animal husbandry in ancient Greece has been debated for decades. To contribute to this Received 28 July 2022
debate, we examined faunal assemblages from Pherae in central Greece using non-destructive Revised 6 December 2022
zooarchaeological methods. The results show that Pherae was involved in a caprine-oriented Accepted 9 December 2022
husbandry. The limited mobility of domesticated animals, indicated by mortality profiles, suggests
KEYWORDS
that small-scale animal husbandry was the norm. Meat was redistributed across the town, and the Hellenistic; Roman;
quality of meat a household consumed depended on that household’s financial status. These zooarchaeology; biometry;
results lead us to propose an economic model whereby both small-scale and semi-specialized ancient Greek economy
animal husbandry were practiced, corroborating arguments for multiple co-existing animal
husbandry practices in ancient Greece. Unlike in other parts of the Roman Empire, the
predominance of caprines, indications of their use in meat and dairy production, and their
relatively small “Hellenistic” size suggests that the Roman presence in Pherae did not influence
animal economy.

Introduction
Neither archaeologists nor historians deny that agriculture
was the backbone of the ancient Greek economy (Chang
and Koster 1986, 102; Forbes 1995; Nixon and Price 2001;
Prummel 2003; Reger 2007, 465; Chandezon 2008; Bowman
and Wilson 2009; Haagsma 2010; Ober 2015; Bresson 2016).
However, researchers debate how animal husbandry and cul-
tivation were organized and how agricultural products were
re-distributed and consumed by different social groups in
different parts of ancient Greece and different segments of
poleis (city-states) (e.g., astu [city center] and chora [rural
hinterland]) (e.g., Halstead 1987, 2002; Hodkinson 1988;
Skydsgaard 1988; Chang and Tourtellotte 1993; Alcock,
Cherry, and Davis 1994; Reinders and Prummel 1998;
Howe 2008; Margaritis 2018; Cardete 2019). This study con-
tributes to the discussion pertaining to the scale of animal
management and production in ancient Greece during the
Hellenistic period (late 3rd–1st century B. C.) using zooarch-
aeological evidence from Pherae, an urban site in Thessaly.
Although the zooarchaeological evidence from Pherae
comes from rescue excavations in random plots in the mod-
ern city center and represents the activities in and around
Pherae rather than regions further away from it, putting
the evidence from this city into a wider historical and archae-
ological context allows general inferences about animal pro-
duction in ancient Greece at this time.
Despite the general consensus among historians and
archaeologists on the main characteristics of animal hus-
bandry, the historical and archaeological data divide
researchers regarding the scale of animal and plant pro-
duction in domestic economies in Classical and Hellenistic
mainland Greece. There are three main lines of arguments
in the discussion. Georgoudi (1974), Skydsgaard (1988),
and Reinders and Prummel (1998) argue in favor of an
economic model based on specialized production of ani-
mals or plants. This model proposes that farmers either
extensively cultivated large fields or managed large herds
of one or two species, aiming for the maximum production
of certain products (e.g., cereals, milk, or hair). Agricultural
goods were produced on a large scale for market consump-
tion. Long-distance seasonal movements (i.e., transhu-
mance) ensured good quality pasture for the flocks and
maximized productivity; as a result, surplus products
could be sold at the market and generate a profit. Contrast-
ing an economy focused on specialized production, Hal-
stead (1987, 2002) and Hodkinson (1988) suggest a mixed
agrofarming model, where agriculture and animal husban-
dry were practiced side by side. Intensive cultivation of
small plots of land was combined with husbandry of small
mixed herds that were kept close to the fields, manuring
the land. Therefore, the production was on a small scale
and targeted subsistence, making long-distance seasonal
movements time-consuming and unnecessary. In this con-
text, central markets did not exist. Differing from these
dichotomous interpretations of the archaeological and tex-
tual evidence, other scholars argue that the two models co-
existed (Alcock, Cherry, and Davis 1994; Howe 2008, 24–
48). Howe, for example, argued that households owned
small herds, whereas the elite owned large mobile herds
(Howe 2008, 27–48).
The slowly, but steadily growing zooarchaeological
research on animal management in ancient Greek domestic
contexts (e.g., Boessneck 1994; Leguilloux 2003; Niskanen
2009; MacKinnon 2014; Dibble 2017, 2021; Bishop et al.
2020; Filioglou, Prummel, and Çakirlar 2021) predominantly
concludes that animal production was small-scale and geared

CONTACT Dimitris Filioglou d.filioglou@rug.nl Groningen Institute of Archaeology (GIA), 6 Poststraat, 9712 ER Groningen, the Netherlands.
Supplementary material for this article is available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2022.2163782
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/),
which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
2 D. FILIOGLOU AND C. ÇAKIRLAR
to meet local subsistence needs. However, the variation in
animal management strategies among non-religious sites in
mainland and island Greece from the Mycenaean and Early
Iron Age onwards (Slim, Çakırlar, and Roosevelt 2020; Dib-
ble 2017) might be an indication of the co-existence of differ-
ent systems.
While diet was mainly plant-based, the scale of animal
production was at least partly influenced by rituals involving
animals, complicating the interpretation of economic scale.
Meat played a minor role in the diet of Classical Greece,
and it was reserved for consumption at sacrifices and other
public occasions (e.g., Jameson 1988, 87; Garnsey 1999,
16–17). Animal carcasses could be acquired either by the
participants in the form of offerings or directly by the butch-
ers (Ekroth 2017). Ancient sources (e.g., Theophrastus 1909,
9.4; Aristophanes 1938, 143 et passim; Plato 1967–1968,
849d) hint that from the 4th century B. C. onwards, part of
the population, likely the elite, started consuming meat
more regularly (Chandezon 2015, 140–141). The age and
the species of the culled animals varied; young animals
(galathêna) were preferred over older animals because of
their tender meat (Dalby 1996, 60). However, since buying
tender meat or slaughtering a young animal was not always
affordable (Chandezon 2015, 142), the tough meat of older
animals was often consumed.
Not all festivals and rituals were of the same scale. The
scale of the ritual depended on the importance of the deity
involved and associated species. Cattle, as an important sym-
bolic statement, were possibly sacrificed and consumed in
state and larger interregional sacrifices, while private and
local consumption of cattle was probably limited (Davies
2007, 345; Reden 2007, 394–395). Dibble’s review of faunal
assemblages from sanctuaries, temples, and/or altars across
Greece revealed a distinct heterogeneity in the taxonomic
composition; the most abundant species were related to the
devoted deity (e.g., pigs were the most dominant species in
sites devoted to Demeter’s cult) (Dibble 2017, 292). Overall,
as Chandezon (2003, 402–403) pointed out, animal husban-
dry (and consequently meat consumption) was not uniform
throughout Greece; both the environment and the socio-pol-
itical status quo of a region, or even of a settlement, affected
and defined human-animal relationships.
The impact of cults and festivals on the local economy
also depended on the importance of the city that hosted
these events. In Classical Athens, for example, textual evi-
dence suggests that a well-organized system with people
holding discrete roles (i.e., boonai = cattle buyers, epimeletai
= those responsible for the Mysteries, and hieropoioi = super-
visors of sacred rites) was necessary to ensure the success of
the festivals and cults (McInerney 2010, 173–195), as the
yearly sacrificial requirements were very high (more than
6500 cattle, according to Rosivach [1994, 78]). The auth-
orities leased lands around Athens and received a tribute
of cattle from Athenian allies or bought cattle from private
herds to compensate for the lack of a permanent sacred
herd (McInerney 2010, 173–195). The high volume of meat
produced was possibly not only destined for the spectators
but could also be sold in the market by mageiroi, those
who conducted both the sacrifice and the trade of meat (McI-
nerney 2010, 173–195). Therefore, it becomes evident that
state cults and festivals played a significant role in the animal
husbandry and meat consumption in a polis. Although tex-
tual evidence from minor urban or rural centers is lacking
(Naiden 2012, 251), the impact of cult events in such places
is expected to have been smaller, as the concentration of
people, and thus the meat demand, was lower.
In addition to the uncertainties regarding the organiz-
ation and scale of the agricultural economy in ancient
Greece, little is known about how agricultural economy in
Greece changed under the Romans. Most of our knowledge
on animal husbandry in Roman Greece derives from limited
textual evidence (i.e., Cato 1934; Columella 1954). Recent
zooarchaeological work throughout Europe has revealed
some general trends in Roman animal husbandry (Valen-
zuela-Lamas and Albarella 2017). Animal management
became standardized and intensified in some parts of the
Empire, while in others, animal management practices
remained the same. For instance, biometric analysis in
urban villae (farmhouses) and military sites showed that in
Italy (MacKinnon 2010) and the western and northwestern
provinces of the Roman Empire (Valenzuela-Lamas and
Albarella 2017), cattle, pigs, and to a lesser extent caprines
generally increased in size during the Roman period, likely
as a consequence of the high demand for meat. The focus
of animal husbandry under Roman influence shifted towards
intensive cattle exploitation for agriculture and meat pro-
duction (Rizzetto, Crabtree, and Albarella 2017). In Asia
Minor, across the Aegean from mainland Greece, both ani-
mal and plant husbandry intensified from the Hellenistic
to the Roman period in some sites (Cupere 2001; Fuller
et al. 2012; Cupere et al. 2017; Frémondeau et al. 2017); in
other sites, pastoralist traditions continued unchanged
from the Hellenistic period, despite the introduction of
some recognizably Roman approaches to livestock exploita-
tion, such as intensive pork production (Çakırlar and Mar-
ston 2019). Such variability has been observed elsewhere in
the Empire, especially across rural sites (e.g., southeastern
Britain) (Valenzuela-Lamas and Albarella 2017; Albarella,
Johnstone, and Vickers 2008). The westernmost part of the
Empire, present-day Portugal, however, experienced no
major changes in animal husbandry (King 1999; Davis
2006; Valenzuela-Lamas and Fabião 2012). Notwithstanding
a few exceptions (e.g., the zooarchaeological evidence from
the 2nd–1st century B. C. Athenian Agora [MacKinnon
2014]), the archaeological study of Roman period agricul-
tural production in Greece has been limited.
In this study, we attempt to identify the modes and scale
of animal production and consumption in Hellenistic
Pherae, taking into account the intertwined ritual and econ-
omic aspects of animal exploitation. We examine the faunal
assemblage from Pherae, looking at the relative taxonomic
frequency, age-at-death, body part distribution, sex, pathol-
ogies, and size of the main domesticates and compare our
zooarchaeological data (taxonomic frequency and biometry)
with respective data from other domestic sites throughout
Greece to put the assemblage into its broader historical
and archaeological context. Specifically, we look for Roman
signatures in the zooarchaeological evidence in Pherae and
elsewhere in Greece using published data.
The Site
Pherae is located in southeastern Thessaly on the edge of the
Greater Thessalian Plain, approximately 14 km away from
the Pagasetic Gulf and between the Othrys Mountain to
the south and Pelion Mountain and Lake Karla to the
 JOURNAL OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY 3

Figure 1. A) Location of Pherae and B) map of Greece with the sites included in the species composition and biometrical analysis: 1) Azorias; 2) Knossos; 3)
Eleutherna; 4) Delos; 5) Athenian Agora; 6) Rachi; 7) Messene; 8) Lousoi; 9) Magoula Plataniotiki; 10) New Halos; 11) Pharsalos; 12) Kastro Kallithea; 13) Pherae;
14) Kassope; 15) Kastanas; and, 16) Olynth. For contextual information for each site, see Supplemental Material 1, SM Table 1.

northeast (Figure 1A). Nowadays, the landscape surrounding Pherae and a sacred oak forest near the Temple of Zeus at the
Pherae is heavily cultivated. However, testimonies from Pherae city border in antiquity (Doulgeri-Intzesiloglou 1990;
recent centuries mention the existence of oak forests around Kakavoyiannis 1990, 436). Although we can surmise that, in
4 D. FILIOGLOU AND C. ÇAKIRLAR
the Hellenistic Period, part of the landscape was covered by
woodland, paleoenvironmental studies to support this are
lacking. Pherae’s proximity to the famous grain fields of
Thessaly and to important maritime and land routes (Rein-
ders 2003, 17–19) led several powers (e.g., Macedonians,
Aetolians, and Romans) to compete for control of the town
through the centuries, causing extensive instability in the
greater area (Chamoux 2003).
Pherae underwent important fluctuations in significance,
size, and connectivity throughout its history and especially in
the period under study. From the 7th–6th century B.C .
(Archaic period) onwards, Pherae was one of the largest
independent urban centers of Pelasgiotis, an eastern subre-
gion of Thessaly in antiquity (Strabo 1877; Decourt, Nielsen,
and Helly 2004, 704) and was governed by elite families
(Graninger 2010). In 197–196 B. C., after ca. two centuries
of Macedonian domination, the Romans defeated the Mace-
donians and re-founded the Thessalian League (Thessaliko
Koino), designating the Pheraean general Pausanias Ehekra-
tous as its leader (Doulgeri-Intzesiloglou 1994a; Doulgeri-
Intzesiloglou and Arachoviti 2008). Archaeological (Doul-
geri-Intzesiloglou 1994a) and textual (Strabo 1877) evidence
suggest that from the 1st century B. C., Pherae was gradually
abandoned for reasons that are not yet established.
The city consisted of two parts, the upper and the lower
city. It was fortified and reached its maximum size in the
Figure 2. Location of five plots where the assemblages were excavated and the landmarks of Pherae in the modern town of Velestino (modified from Efstathiou
[2014, 176]). The purple line represents the route of the fortification wall suggested by Efstathiou (2014).
Late Classical/Early Hellenistic period (4th century B. C.)
(Figure 2). During this period, the upper city consisted of
the acropolis and possibly other buildings that have not yet
been excavated, due to overlaying modern construction.
The city center, residential area, workshops, agora (the com-
mercial, civic, social, and religious center), and other public
buildings were located in the lower city. Differences in size
and architecture (e.g., the presence of stoae [colonnades])
among houses may imply social differentiation or different
functions of the houses (Efstathiou 2009, 89). Pottery and
coinage indicate extensive connections to Mainland Greece,
the Aegean, and even Rome (Doulgeri-Intzesiloglou 1994b,
2014; Moustaka and Doulgeri-Intzesiloglou 2004). The dis-
covery of a workshop district revealed pottery, copper, tex-
tile, figurine, metal tool, and glass production (Doulgeri-
Intzesiloglou 1994b, 2000b; Doulgeri-Intzesiloglou and Ara-
choviti 2008; Connolly et al. 2012; Arachoviti 2014). Pherae
was surrounded by an extensive network of farmhouses that
formed its countryside (chora) (Efstathiou 2009, 53).
Materials and Methods
The faunal remains under study were collected by hand
during the rescue excavations of five different plots in the
modern town of Velestino in the periods 1986–1989 and
2000–2004. The plots are: A. Apostolina, N. Tsekou,

E. Tsoumbekou, V. Chadjitheodorou, and
E. Chadjitheodorou (see Figure 2). The excavations in
A. Apostolina and N. Tsekou plots revealed part of a large
house that was inhabited from the late 3rd–1st century B.C .
and accommodated a workshop; this house was located in
the southern part of the city, the workshop district (Doul-
geri-Intzesiloglou 1993a). In the same sector of the city, the
excavations in the Ε. Tsoumbekou plot uncovered part of a
smaller house with a single occupational phase (2nd–1st cen-
tury B.C .) (Doulgeri-Intzesiloglou 1992). Part of a large, long-
term-occupied house (2nd century B. C.–3rd century A. D.)
was unearthed in the excavations of the
V. Chadjitheodorou plot under a Middle/Late Byzantine
cemetery in the northeastern sector of Pherae (D. Efstathiou,
personal communcation 2022). Close to this plot, another
Hellenistic (2nd–1st century B.C .) house came into light in
the E. Chadjitheorodou plot (Doulgeri-Intzesiloglou
1993b). Despite some differences in size and architecture
among houses, there is no distinct evidence of wealth in
any of the houses. Material discussed here comes primarily
from the houses’ floors, whereas some of the remains come
from possible trash pits inside the houses (Arachoviti, per-
sonal communication 2019). We analyzed the zooarchaeolo-
gical data of all plots together to increase the sample size.
According to the dating provided by pottery and coinage,
most of the faunal material comes from the Hellenistic por-
tion of the transitional phase to the Roman period during the
1st century B. C. For this reason, and to comply with the
established terminology for Thessaly, we use the term Helle-
nistic over Early Roman period, despite the active involve-
ment of the Romans in the politics of the Thessalian poleis
from the 2nd century B.C. onwards.
To assess the anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic fac-
tors that formed the faunal assemblage, bone modifications
and degree of fragmentation were recorded. To examine
bone modification, we assessed the remains for plant etch-
ings, weathering, encrustations, metal stains, burning, and
gnawing; to examine fragmentation, we grouped faunal
remains into the following categories: complete, fresh breaks
(post-mortem), and old breaks (ante- and peri-mortem).
Taxonomic abundance was estimated using the Number of
Identified Specimens (NISP) (Davis 1987) in order to recon-
struct the past herds and understand the scale of production.
It has been suggested that zooarchaeological assemblages
with relatively even taxonomic frequencies imply small-
scale animal rearing for subsistence, while clear predomi-
nance of a single (or a few) species indicates specialized ani-
mal production for the market (Halstead 1996). Only
specimens with a Diagnostic Zone were included in this
study (Watson 1979). The numbers of metapodials and pha-
langes were normalized in order to compare taxa with
uneven numbers of skeletal elements (see Supplemental
Material 1, SM Table 6 for detailed methodology). In order
to measure the diversity of the main domesticates in the fau-
nal assemblage, we applied the Shannon diversity index
(Shannon and Weaver 1949). The relative proportion of
bone weight for each taxon was calculated in an effort to
roughly estimate the contribution of different meat types
(species and body parts) to human diet in Pherae (sensu
Çakırlar and Marston 2019).
When possible, sheep and goats were distinguished, fol-
lowing Payne (1985) and Halstead, Collins, and Isaakidou
(2002) for teeth, despite the observed pitfalls of the
JOURNAL OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY 5
identification criteria (e.g., Zeder and Pilaar 2010), for con-
sistency with zooarchaeological work in Greece. Identifi-
cation of postcranial remains was based on Zeder and
Lapham (2010). Red deer were differentiated from cattle fol-
lowing Prummel (1988), while dog, fox, and cat remains
were identified following Johnson (2015). Horse and donkey
remains were grouped under the equids category. For the
identification and the recording of the faunal material, we
used the reference collection of the Zooarchaeological Lab-
oratory of the Groningen Institute of Archaeology, the
Wiener Lab of the American School of Classical Studies at
Athens, and the personal collection of Dr. Vasiliki
Tzevelekidi.
Anatomical abundance for the main domesticates was
estimated based on the %Minimum Animal Units (%
MAU) in order to examine meat provisioning and access
in Pherae (Binford 1984; Lyman 1994) (for a detailed list
of the recorded anatomical units, see Supplemental Material
1, SM Table 1). %MAU facilitates the consistent comparison
of the frequency of skeletal elements that occur in different
numbers in an individual. Unidentified metapodials and
loose epiphyses were excluded from the analysis.
To investigate the goal of animal exploitation, the degree
of specialization, herd mobility (Legge, Williams, and Wil-
liams 1991), and meat provisioning, the mortality profiles
of caprines, pigs, and cattle were reconstructed using man-
dibular teeth wear and bone epiphyseal fusion using: Payne
(1973, 1987) and Zeder (2006) for sheep and goat; Lemoine
and colleagues (2014) and Zeder, Lemoine, and Payne (2015)
for pigs; and, Grant (1982), Legge (1992), and Reitz and
Wing (2008, 72) for cattle. When caprine teeth were attribu-
ted to multiple age groups, they were proportionally assigned
to avoid overrepresentation, following Payne (1973). We
classified the mid-shaft, post-cranial elements with spongy
texture as fetal/neonatal, neonatal/infant, and infant/juvenile
depending on their size (Prummel 1987). Intensive slaugh-
tering of caprines and cattle around two years old could
reflect meat production; slaughtering of very young individ-
uals (up to two months old), together with high represen-
tation of older females, could imply dairy production; and,
keeping males alive for longer periods would reflect hair pro-
duction (Payne 1973).
Pathologies in cattle were documented to explore whether
cattle were used as work animals, following Bartosiewicz, van
Neer, and Lentacker (1997). Whenever possible, we assigned
sex to caprine pelves and pig canines and canine sockets in
the mandible to determine herd composition and husbandry
strategies and to investigate sex-based culling methods fol-
lowing Boessneck, Muller, and Teichert (1964) and Schmid
(1972, 81).
Available teeth and bones were measured following den
Driesch (1976) to infer size variation in adult populations
in Pherae and elsewhere in Hellenistic and Early Roman
Greece. The Log Size Index (LSI) technique was applied fol-
lowing Meadow (1999) to include as many breadth measure-
ments as possible in the analysis and increase the sample size.
Given that caprines, cattle, and pigs are sexually dimorphic
species, smaller values in the LSI could represent females,
whereas larger values may represent males (Albarella
2002). Since we did not separate the anterior and posterior
phalanges of cattle, we used the average of the anterior and
posterior phalanx’s standard value as a standard
measurement.
6 D. FILIOGLOU AND C. ÇAKIRLAR
Moreover, we compared taxonomic abundances and the
LSIs among Pherae and additional earlier and contemporary
sites in Greece (Figure 1Β) as a means to examine the poten-
tial influence of Romans on traditional animal management
(i.e., more intensive exploitation of cattle or size increase of
animals), as observed in other areas of Europe. We refrained
from comparing age-at-death and body part distribution
among sites because not all published work has provided
such information, and mortality profiles published in var-
ious forms are not quantitatively comparable with each
other. The faunal material from the most closely dated
sites comes from domestic contexts, apart from Messene
(Peloponnese), where the material was retrieved from public
space contexts (see Supplemental Material 1, SM Table 2).
Finally, we applied ANOVA statistical tests to measurements
to examine whether any observed differences are significant.
In total, we identified and included 1265 specimens (includ-
ing 65 bird bones, 4 fish bones, and 1 rodent bone) in this
study.
Results
Overall, the Pherae faunal material is relatively well pre-
served (see Supplemental Material 1, SM Table 3). Carnivore
and rodent gnawing are observed on approximately 20% of
the faunal remains, suggesting that at least 20% of them
come from mixed/tertiary deposits. Around 7% of the faunal
remains are burnt. 25% of the specimens were recovered
complete, while old breaks are significantly more frequent
than recent ones (see Supplemental Material 1, SM Table
4). Although bone alteration rates are equally distributed
among houses, 35% of the recorded faunal material from
the house in the Tsekou Plot was encrusted with minerals.
Remains of domesticates (82%) outnumber wild fauna
(18%) in relation to the total NISP. Most of the wild fauna
consists of red deer (Cervus elaphus) mandibles, metapodials,
and phalanges that have been recovered in the E. Tsoumbekou
plot (see Supplemental Material, SM Table 5). This research
focused on the main domesticates: caprines (sheep [Ovis
aries], goat [Capra hircus], and sheep/goat), cattle (Bos
taurus), pig (Sus domesticus), and equids (horse [Equus cabal-
lus]/donkey [Equus asinus]). Caprines comprise 62% of the
main domesticates (Figure 3A), with sheep outnumbering
goats (goat:sheep ratio = 1:4.3). Pigs are the second most fre-
quent taxon (27%), followed by cattle (9%) and equids (2%).
Shannon’s diversity index confirmed the predominance of
caprines over the other main domesticates (see Supplemental
Material 1, SM Table 7). In contrast, the bone weights of
caprines and cattle are nearly equal (Figure 3B), while the
weight of pig remains is lower (around 20%). Equids comprise
9% of the total weight of the main domesticates.
All anatomical units of caprines are represented in the
assemblages (Figure 4A), however, they are in different
proportions. Distal tibia is the most abundant unit; mand-
ible, distal humerus, proximal radius, proximal tibia, and
proximal metatarsus are also well represented, whereas
phalanges, ulna, and the axial skeleton are infrequent. Mov-
ing to pigs, all anatomical units are also present in the fau-
nal assemblage (Figure 4B), but distal humerus dominates
the assemblage, followed by mandible, scapula, ulna, distal
tibia, and calcaneus. Proximal humerus, femur, and
especially pelvis and lower extremities occur less frequently.
As with caprines and pigs, no anatomical units of cattle are
Figure 3. Comparison of main domesticates’ frequencies in Pherae in A) NISP
(DZ = 849) and B) bone weight (total weight = 14516 g; teeth are excluded).
For the primary data, see Supplemental Material 1, SM Tables 6, 8.
missing from the Pherae faunal assemblage (Figure 4C).
Proximal metacarpal, mandible, distal tibia, calcaneus,
and proximal metatarsal are the most common anatomical
units, whereas both front and hind lower extremities are far
less represented.
Figure 5A illustrates the survivorship curve based on
tooth wear of sheep and goat combined from all plots.
Almost one-third of the individuals were slaughtered
between six months and two years of age. Between the
third and sixth year of age, nearly 60% of the caprine popu-
lation was slaughtered, while only 2% of the total population
survived after the sixth year. The mortality profiles, as esti-
mated by the epiphyseal fusion stage, indicate that most indi-
viduals were kept alive during their first three years of life
(Figure 5B). However, the proportion of unfused bones in
the age group of 30–48 months equals the proportion of
fused bones. Along with 191 ageable caprine skeletal
remains, five perinatal, two neonatal/infant, and 26 infant/
juvenile specimens were identified.
A majority (55% of NISP) of the pig population
(Figure 6A) was slaughtered before reaching one year.
Between 12 and 30 months, only a small proportion of pigs
(7%) were killed, whereas no individuals survived beyond
52 months of age. Skeletal remains provide a similar pig mor-
tality profile (Figure 6B); very few individuals survived after
their third year of life. Moreover, some individuals died
around birth (n = 5).
The construction of mortality profiles of cattle based on
tooth wear was not possible, due to the small sample size
(NISP = 6); these few individuals were slaughtered between
the first and the tenth year of life (see Supplemental Material,
SM Table 16). Young (younger than six months of age) and
senile (older than ten years of age) cattle are absent from the
faunal assemblage. Concerning the age-at-death based on
cattle epiphyseal fusion, almost all age groups are present
in the faunal assemblage (Figure 7). Apart from one

Figure 4. Body part distribution in Α) caprines (n = 669), Β) pigs (n = 272), and
C) cattle (n = 95) based on %MAU. Silhouettes are from https://www.
archeozoo.org/archeozootheque/. For the primary data, see Supplemental
Material 1, SM Tables 9–11.
individual that died as an infant/juvenile, most of the recov-
ered elements belong to anatomically mature individuals.
Regarding sexing data, female caprines outnumber the
male ones at a ratio of 1:12 (see Supplemental Material 1,
SM Table 18). Contrasting the caprines, male pigs occur
more frequently than the female ones with a ratio of 1:2.7.
Pathologies on the main domesticates are infrequent, and
they mostly occur in metapodials and phalanges (see Sup-
plemental Material 1, SM Table 19).
The comparison of taxonomic abundances across Greece
shows that caprines were the most common animals at the
majority of sites (Figure 8). Apart from Messene, where the rep-
resentation of main domesticates is relatively even, caprines
representation varies between 50 and 70% at most of the
sites; in Azorias, Eleutherna, Rachi, and Kastro Kallithea, the
frequency of caprines is more striking (80% or more).
JOURNAL OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY 7
Sheep from Pherae and the southeastern gate of New
Halos have the widest distribution in LSI values in compari-
son to most other sites across Greece (Figure 9). Despite the
variability of sheep size in Pherae, the measurements are nor-
mally distributed; the LSI mean is just below the standard.
The individuals from the southeastern gate of New Halos
are the largest compared to sheep from other sites; only Hel-
lenistic Magoula Plataniotiki sheep are of similar size (see
Supplemental Material 1, SM Table 22). Moreover, Pherae
sheep, along with Pharsalos and Hellenistic Magoula Plata-
niotiki ones, display the largest mean size (around -0.01).
A smaller, statistically significant mean (between -0.04 and
-0.03) is observed in Classical Magoula Plataniotiki, New
Halos, and Eleutherna (see Supplemental Material 1, SM
Table 22). The lowest value at both New Halos and Pharsalos
comes from astragali. Given that astragali do not bear any
epiphyses, we may assume that these two animals were
young and thus significantly smaller. The lowest value in
Eleutherna comes from the greatest breadth of a metacarpal
proximal epiphysis. As the size of the proximal epiphysis of
the metacarpal is age-dependent, we may assume that this
element belongs to a young individual, even though the distal
epiphysis is not preserved.
Pheraean goats (Figure 10) are more or less of similar size
to the ones from other Greek sites, as mean differences are
statistically insignificant (see Supplemental Material 1, SM
Table 23). One specimen is far larger compared to the others,
and the size distribution is not normal. The distribution in
New Halos, Pherae, and Eleutherna is skewed towards the
larger values, whereas in Pharsalos, it skews towards the
lower ones. The lowest value in Eleutherna measurements
comes from the distal epiphysis of a humerus. Since distal
humeri fuse early in life, it is possible that this individual
was slaughtered young and, thus, was smaller compared to
other individuals. Regarding pigs in Pherae, the distribution
of measurements is slightly skewed away from the mean
towards lower values, while most of the individuals are smal-
ler than the standard. Moreover, although metric data
suggests that pigs from Pherae have a smaller mean com-
pared to the Messene ones (Figure 11), statistical analysis
shows that the difference in means between sites is insignifi-
cant (see Supplemental Material 1, SM Table 24). Despite
this, the spread of pig measurements in Pherae is much nar-
rower compared to Messene.
Cattle measurements in Pherae are much smaller than
the standard, while their distribution is skewed towards
lower values (Figure 12). The mean of LSI values is rela-
tively even among sites and periods (between -0.09 and
-0.07), and statistical differences are insignificant. Only
cattle from New Halos—southeastern gate seem to differ
significantly from Hellenistic Messene and Pherae cattle
(see Supplemental Material 1, SM Table 25 for the statistical
analysis). The lowest value in pre-Hellenistic Messene
comes from a scapula’s neck that could belong to a young
individual, as distal scapulae ossify rather quickly after
birth. In Hellenistic Messene, the lowest value is attributed
to the proximal epiphysis of a radius; since this is an early
fusing element, we could assume that this belongs to a
young individual. Finally, the two lowest values in New
Halos—southeastern gate come from the early fusing distal
epiphysis of a humerus and an astragalus; therefore, we
might assume that both elements belong to young
individuals.
8 D. FILIOGLOU AND C. ÇAKIRLAR

Figure 5. Mortality of caprines based on A) tooth wear (n = 39) and B) bone epiphyseal fusion (n = 191). For the primary data, see Supplemental Material 1, SM
Tables 12, 13.

Discussion also indicates that caprine meat was a significant contributor

to diet. The predominance of sheep over goats is not surpris-
The high frequency of old breaks and carnivore/rodent attri-
ing, as the relatively flat relief of the Pheraean chora is suit-
tion suggests that the faunal remains represent consumption
able for sheep rearing. Pigs occurred less frequently in Pherae
waste. The low frequency of burning marks indicates that the
compared to caprines, both in terms of NISP and bone
burning did significantly impact the preservation of the
weight. Although the pig population could have been larger
material. Given the recovery method (hand collection in a
than that of cattle, pork was possibly available in smaller
rescue excavation) and the high frequency of old breaks,
quantities compared to beef, as the relative bone weight of
small-sized animals (e.g., cats, hares, and birds) and skeletal
cattle is higher compared to that of pigs.
remains of young individuals are underrepresented, as
The low NISP of cattle remains might be interpreted in
expected. Overall, the effects of taphonomic processes are
different ways. Because cattle maintenance is costly, a smaller
comparable among houses, while the high frequency of
part of the population may have been able to afford raising
encrustations in the N. Tsekou plot might have affected the
cattle and/or buying beef. Another possibility is that the
frequencies of identified attrition on bones.
bulky cattle bones might have been removed in the early
Species composition showed that the meat diet in Pherae
stages of carcass processing and discarded elsewhere. Alter-
was based primarily on domesticated animals and sup-
natively, since the limited mortality data showed that cattle
plemented with hunting. The high frequency of red deer
were killed mostly as adults, we may assume that they were
mandibles and lower extremities in the E. Tsoumbekou
not commonly killed and were more visible as livestock
plot, which elevated the overall abundance of wild fauna,
(for dairy and labor) rather deadstock (for meat) compared
could suggest that this concentration of red deer bones is
to the other taxa (Dibble 2017, 293). In terms of meat
either the rubbish of local butchers, the refuse of leather
yield, however, if we look at bone weight, beef was equally
crafting (O’Connor 1984), or both. The location of this
important as sheep/goat meat. Therefore, the marked differ-
house in the workshop district, the low rate of fragmentation,
ence in cattle frequencies between NISP and weight might
and the low quantity of meat in the aforementioned elements
provide justification for the latter interpretation.
further supports this hypothesis.
Finally, equids are the least common domesticates in
Caprines, and more specifically sheep, were, by far, the
Pherae both in terms of NISP and bone weight, despite the
most commonly exploited animals. Relative bone weight

Figure 6. Mortality of pigs based on A) tooth wear (n = 21) and B) bone epiphyseal fusion (n = 123). For the primary data, see Supplemental Material 1, SM Tables
14, 15.
high reputation of Thessalian horses in antiquity (Prummel
2003; Howe 2008, 70). This underrepresentation can be
explained by the ancient Greeks’ perception of equids.
Equids were considered mostly as companions and status
symbols and were rarely consumed in ancient Greece (Geor-
goudi 2005). As Mylona (2013) mentions, it was believed that
equid meat was consumed by the very poor and people on
the periphery of the Greek world, while it was deemed
more acceptable in a medicinal context (e.g. Galen 1916,
3.1.9; Dalby 1996, 60–61; Garnsey 1999, 83–85; Grant
Figure 7. Mortality of cattle based on bone epiphyseal fusion (n = 49). For the
primary data, see Supplemental Material 1, SM Table 17.
JOURNAL OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY 9
2000, 154–190). Since the faunal remains under study are
considered food waste from households of moderate wealth,
the low frequency of equid remains was to be expected.
Moreover, in contrast to the neighboring town of New
Halos (Prummel 2003), neither cut nor burn marks that
would suggest consumption have been identified on equid
remains in Pherae. Any deceased individual would have
been buried or discarded outside the town.
Regarding body part distribution, we did not identify any
clear pattern that would support a preference for specific
elements of the main domesticates. Early fusing elements
and compact bones are more durable to taphonomic attrition
compared to fragile, late fusing elements, and they are there-
fore more frequently represented. Given that fact, we may
assume that Pherae residents received from the meat provi-
ders both meaty (higher limb) and non-meaty (lower limb)
parts. The underrepresentation of foot bones of caprines
and pigs might be due to carcass processing methods and,
to a lesser extent, to recovery bias, as equally-sized bird
bones are relatively frequent. The few partially articulated
skeletons imply that most carcasses were processed else-
where and typically introduced to the household incomplete.
No significant differences in body part distribution among
plots were noticed.
The intensive slaughtering of caprines between six
months and two years of age could be interpreted as meat
10 D. FILIOGLOU AND C. ÇAKIRLAR

Figure 8. Comparison of the main domesticates’ composition among sites. For references, see Supplemental Material 1, SM Table 1 and for the location of the
sites, see Figure 1B.

production (Payne 1973); in this period, animals have rela-
tively tender meat, and by the end of their second year,
they have reached their maximum size. The second and
more intensive slaughtering occurred between the third
and sixth year, and this might indicate dairy production
(Payne 1973). When ewes and does could not produce
enough milk and offspring, they were slaughtered for their
meat. The presence of very young individuals and the predo-
minance of female adults, based on pelvic morphology,
further support this proposition. Ageing data from bones
provide similar information; some individuals were
slaughtered in the first months of their lives for their meat,
while most of the population was kept alive until their 30th
month of life, presumably for their hair and milk, before
being killed for their meat. Some individuals were kept
alive longer than four years old, possibly for their hair and
secondary products.
Mortality profiles based on tooth wear and bone fusion in
pigs are relatively identical. The fact that most pigs were
slaughtered before they were two years old implies meat
and lard production. Older individuals were most likely
kept for reproduction, and/or they might have acted as

Figure 9. Logarithmic size indices of sheep at Classical and Hellenistic sites in Greece (second half of the 1st millennium B. C.). For Pherae, New Halos—south-
eastern gate (forthcoming) primary data, see Supplemental Material 1, SM Tables 20, 21; Classical Magoula Plataniotiki, Hellenistic Magoula Plataniotiki, and
New Halos: Filioglou, Prummel, and Çakirlar (2021); Pharsalos: Bishop (2017, 2018); and, Eleutherna: Vila (1994). The standard measurements for the calculation
of the Log Size Index follow Uerpmann and Uerpmann (1994).

Figure 10. Logarithmic size indices of goat measurements recorded at Classical and Hellenistic sites in Greece (second half of the 1st millennium B. C.). For Pherae,
New Halos—southeastern gate (forthcoming) primary data, see Supplemental Material 1, SM Tables 20, 21; Pharsalos: Bishop (2017, 2018); and, Eleutherna: Vila
(1994). The standard measurements for the calculation of the Log Size Index follow Uerpmann and Uerpmann (1994).
animal capital which could be exploited in times of need
(Halstead 1996). Cattle, finally, were kept alive longer com-
pared to other species, principally for their secondary pro-
ducts and potentially for traction, meat, and capital. The
minimal mortality of infants hints at limited consumption
of tender beef compared to sheep/goat and especially pork
meat. The few pathologies observed in lower extremities
could be associated with traction (Bartosiewicz, van Neer,
and Lentacker 1997); however, their low frequency in cattle
remains does not allow a more detailed examination of the
use of cattle in agricultural activities and transport.
The high proportion of female caprines among pelvis
fragments is not reflected in the biometric data. The distri-
bution of sheep LSI is normal and, thus, does not represent
a male- or female-dominated population. Additionally, we
attempted to interpret the differences in sheep size across
sites by examining the chronology and size of the site. Start-
ing with temporal differences, no pattern has been identified,
as small sheep occur in both the Classical (Magoula Platanio-
tiki) and Hellenistic (New Halos) period; similarly, larger
sheep were present both in the Early Hellenistic period
(Pharsalos) and the Hellenistic (Pherae). Differences in
sheep size does not seem to be related to the size and/or
type of site, either. In fact, the sheep in the Hellenistic farm-
house of New Halos’ southeastern gate have the highest
mean size compared to the sheep from Pherae, the largest
site included in this study. Eleutherna’s location on the island
of Crete may have a role in the small size of sheep; however,
Classical Magoula Plataniotiki and New Halos, sites that
were located on the mainland, had small-sized sheep, as
well. Therefore, it is possible that the environment did not
always affect the size of the livestock.
LSI distributions of goat are skewed towards higher
values, implying the predominance of males over females,
but the sample of measured individuals is small. Moreover,
JOURNAL OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY 11
the narrower distribution of Pheraean goats compared to
the southeastern gate of New Halos and Pharsalos implies
that size differences in goats were not prominent in Pherae.
Morphological (canine and canine socket in the mandible)
and biometric data indicate that male pigs were more fre-
quent compared to female pigs. Since no sieving was applied,
we could assume that the prevalence of male individuals is a
result of bias, because male canines are larger than female
ones. However, the presence of very young individuals and
small bird bones imply that male predominance is a result
of management decisions rather than taphonomy. Due to
the small sample size, though, we refrain from making
further interpretations regarding sex selection in pigs. Com-
pared to Messene, Pheraean pigs were more or less of similar
size. Since the sample from Messene does not come from
domestic contexts, further comparison is avoided. Cattle
LSI distribution in Pherae shows that smaller individuals
(most likely females) are more abundant than larger ones
(most likely males). Pheraean cattle were also of similar
size to cattle from other sites in Greece, with a relatively
narrow distribution.
Through this study, we attempt to explore potential
specialization in animal products, scales of herd mobility,
body part distribution across the site, the main goals of ani-
mal husbandry, and the potential incorporation of animal
management practices in Pherae in the Roman world during
the late 3rd–1st century B.C . by looking at the zooarchaeolo-
gical evidence from four houses. Zooarchaeological analysis
suggests medium-scale, semi-specialized caprine rearing
during the Hellenistic period in Pherae. Specialization
requires the intensive exploitation of a few animal species
by skilled herders targeting the maximum production of cer-
tain products (e.g., milk or hair) for the market. There is no
doubt that caprines are by far the most common animals vis-
ible; however, their predominance is not striking enough
12 D. FILIOGLOU AND C. ÇAKIRLAR

Figure 11. Logarithmic size indices of pig measurements recorded at Messene and Pherae. For Pherae primary data, see Supplemental Material, SM Table 20; and,
Messene: Nobis (1994, 2001). The standard measurements for the calculation of the Log Size Index follow Hongo and Meadow (2000).

(e.g., 80–90% of the total animal population) to suggest an
animal husbandry system based solely on caprines and
their products. Pigs, and to a lesser extent cattle, played
important roles in the diet and animal economy in Pherae,
as well. Moreover, there is neither evidence for exclusive
meat and dairy (a high proportion of very young individuals)
nor for “a little of everything” (equally represented age
groups) production in caprines. The main target might
have been meat and dairy, but they could have been exploited
for their wool/fleece, as well, though not extensively. The
absence of intensive slaughtering also implies no major
demand for meat, and the local festivals did not affect the
meat supply in Pherae, as occurred in larger urban centers
such as Athens.
Female predominance based on the morphological cri-
teria could be interpreted in two ways: specialized caprine
management in which either males were slaughtered young
for their meat and females were kept alive longer for their
milk or male caprines kept separately from females. In the
first scenario, fragile pelves of young males are

Figure 12. Logarithmic size indices of cattle measurements recorded at Classical–Hellenistic (second half of the 1st millennium B. C.) sites in Greece. For Pherae,
New Halos—southeastern gate (forthcoming) primary data, see Supplemental Material, SM Table 20, 21; Messene: Nobis (1994, 2001), Classical Magoula Plata-
niotiki, Hellenistic Magoula Plataniotiki, and New Halos: Filioglou, Prummel, and Çakirlar (2021); Pharsalos: Bishop (2017, 2018); and, Eleutherna: Vila (1994). The
standard measurements for the calculation of the Log Size Index follow Degerbøl and Fredskild (1970).

underrepresented compared to more durable pelves of adult
females in the hand-collected faunal assemblage, like the one
in Pherae. In the second scenario, males underwent different
management and, in contrast to females, were not consumed
at the site. The males could have been raised specifically for
their wool/fleece and managed separately from the latter in
other regions. This would explain why males did not end
up as food waste in the houses.
The separation of rams from ewes was a practice known
both in the ancient Greek and Roman worlds. Homer men-
tions that the cyclops Polyphemus kept his does and ewes
separately from rams and billy goats (Homer 1919, 9.231),
while Roman agricultural writers (e.g., Cato 1934) rec-
ommended keeping them separately for the security of the
ewes and lambs. Biometric analysis, however, complicates
the investigation of specialization in caprine management,
as sheep measurements imply an even male:female ratio,
while goat measurements imply the predominance of
males. This discrepancy between biometric and morphologi-
cal data could be a result of castration of the males. In the
case of sheep, some of the pelves that were identified as
female could belong to males that were castrated while
young, and thus, they were not completely developed. The
high number of large measurements in goats could further
support this interpretation; Ekroth’s work on textual and
zooarchaeological evidence has indicated that castration of
male sheep and goats was practiced frequently from the
Archaic period onwards in the Greek world to better control
them and to produce more fatty, higher quality meat and hair
(Ekroth 2014).
Considering pigs, although they were evidently slaugh-
tered for their meat and lard, the presence of older individ-
uals, probably for the herd’s maintenance, suggests a lack
of large-scale specialized pork production. Both biometric
and morphological analyses suggest the predominance of
males over females; however, the sample size is too small
to infer specialized pig husbandry and the intentional breed-
ing of male pigs. In regards to cattle, the fact that they were
not killed early in life implies that cattle raising targeted sev-
eral products. They were kept alive longer primarily for dairy
and secondarily for their meat and labor. The infrequent
pathologies on lower extremities might indicate that these
animals were not used extensively for their power. The poss-
ible predominance of smaller females over larger and stock-
ier males, as seen by the biometric analysis, might further
support the assumption that cattle rearing was not focused
on the extensive production of large and strong males for
traction. The low frequency of cattle remains might be
related to taphonomy, carcass processing, and/or husbandry
decisions. As for equids, we may conclude that equid meat
was rarely consumed, but we cannot reject the possibility
that they had a prominent role in the local economy and
society. As Howe (2008, 49–76) noted, the aristocratic
regime in Thessaly was directly connected to both horse
and cattle raising as a source of wealth and prestige.
Another topic that needs attention is the degree of animal
mobility, as it is closely related to the scale and the degree of
specialization in animal production. Given that all age classes
in caprines occur in the faunal assemblage and that some
individuals died very young, we may assume that the herds
were kept in the close vicinity of the city at least part of
the year. It is possible that the network of farmhouses in
the extensive chora of Pherae would have played a central
JOURNAL OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY 13
role in agricultural production, along with livestock manage-
ment (Doulgeri-Intzesiloglou and Arachoviti 2008), and
could have functioned as stalls. Nevertheless, the presence
of caprines and pigs that died perinatally hints at house-
keeping of at least some individuals. The relatively narrow
range of pig measurements at Pherae compared to Messene
shows little variation in size, which could be attributed to
either a consistent diet or a culling strategy for the pig popu-
lation (Slim, Çakırlar, and Roosevelt 2020); therefore, it is
possible that these pigs were managed together and possibly
kept in pens where farmers could control their diet (Collins
2006). The presence of a single infant/juvenile cattle implies
limited on-site breeding; given the large size of this species,
cattle raising in areas outside the city would not be
surprising.
Textual evidence from Pherae suggests that during the 5th
and especially the 4th century B .C. and throughout the Hel-
lenistic period, foreign citizens from neighboring poleis were
provided the right to herd flocks in both the region of their
origin and Pherae (for references, see Doulgeri-Intzesiloglou
2000a, 108–20; 2014); such privilege was called “epinomia.”
Therefore, Pherae might have been able to ameliorate the
effects of potential pasture shortages with epinomia. If it
was necessary, herds could be driven longer distances to pas-
ture, overcoming potential rivalries among poleis in Thes-
saly. Provided that most of the animals were likely herded
within the public grazing areas, outside the polis, it is poss-
ible that meat and by-products were sold to neighboring
poleis and/or smaller towns; faunal remains from the four
houses in Pherae represent only a fraction of the total animal
population (Davis 1987, 22). Nevertheless, unless future
zooarchaeological data provides more evidence for animal
mobility, we cannot support longer distance movements
solely based on epinomia.
We would expect that different people preferred and/or
could afford different types of meat, but there is no evidence
for this. Taxonomic abundance and body part distribution is
relatively even among the houses included in this study. Car-
cass processing was taking place in the household, as
suggested by the non-meaty elements and partial skeletons
and, elsewhere, as suggested by the absence of lower limb
bones. Subsequently, the meat was re-distributed based on
the needs of other households. Whether festivals and cult
were an important component of the entire animal economy
and meat provisioning and consumption occurred in the
context of festivals or not remains unknown, as the material
comes exclusively from domestic contexts. Recent research
has shown that the composition of zooarchaeological assem-
blages that represent consumption events in civic contexts
are more or less identical to assemblages in domestic con-
texts (Dibble 2021). We could assume that the environment
of Pherae, suitable for grazing, could ensure a stable meat
supply to the Pheraean market, even when the demand for
meat was high (e.g., during public festivals). Mortality
profiles might argue for the availability of both tender
(until two years old) and firm meat (fully-grown animals)
in the market. The interpretation of the absence of cattle
remains from the E. Chadjitheodorou plot is twofold: it is
possible that the residents of this house did not consume
or could not afford to buy beef. Alternatively, the underre-
presentation of cattle may be a result of the small sample
size in this plot and the few cattle remains lacking recordable
Diagnostic Zones.
14 D. FILIOGLOU AND C. ÇAKIRLAR
The question of provisioning raises another issue: who
managed the livestock? Historical evidence suggests that
shepherds in ancient Greece could be slaves (Xenophon
1923, 1.5.2.), freed men (Lysias 1930, 20.11), or people of
lower status (Aristotle 1932, 2.6-7 [1448a]; Hodkinson
1988, 51) who were specialized in a particular kind of stock
breeding (Bresson 2016, 136). Regarding the Thessalian
urban centers, we can assume that the local elite owned the
herds, especially the large ones, while slaves actually mana-
ged them (Howe 2008, 69–71). Nevertheless, zooarchaeolo-
gical evidence from the examined, non-elite contexts does
not imply large-scale, specialized production which would
support the monopoly of the elite over animal husbandry;
it is also possible that less prominent individuals and house-
holds managed smaller herds for either subsistence or the
local market (Hodkinson 1988; Halstead 1996). Moreover,
the institution of epinomia might indicate that not only
could the local elite own herds and provide for the city,
but so could foreigners from neighboring poleis.
On the whole, we can speak of a combination of the mixed
agrofarming model (Halstead 1987; Hodkinson 1988) with
some hints of specialized caprine husbandry of medium-
scale in Pherae. Indicators of a certain degree of specializ-
ation among different species were identified; however,
there are no striking differences in species compositions
and kill-off patterns that would suggest large-scale, special-
ized production for market consumption. In contrast, there
are indications of limited mobility and in some cases of ani-
mal house-keeping, except from cattle, which might have
been raised outside the city. Even if the Thessalian elite prac-
ticed large-scale, specialized animal husbandry, as suggested
by textual evidence (Howe 2008, 69–71), and fed the Pher-
aean agora, this is not visible in the zooarchaeological
material from four small/medium-sized houses in Pherae.
However, it may be challenging to identify specialization
and market-oriented production, as the zooarchaeological
evidence usually provides more information about the
place of consumption than the place of production (Halstead
1992), while the Pheraean agora is yet to be excavated. Fur-
thermore, the relatively small sample size, lack of sieving, and
limited contextual information in rescue excavations compli-
cates data interpretation.
The final question we set in this study is whether animal
husbandry in Pherae was influenced by the Roman world.
Zooarchaeological evidence indicates no Roman influence
in the management of the main domesticates. In contrast
to other provinces in Roman Europe, pigs and cattle
occurred in lower frequencies than caprines. Zooarchaeolo-
gical research has shown that caprine predominance is,
despite some regional and temporal variations, common in
most of the urban domestic sites throughout Greece. Such
variations could reflect the adaptation of local animal hus-
bandry strategies into different environments, both in the
short- and long-term, a pattern that has been observed for
Late Bronze Age through Early Iron Age Greece (Dibble
and Finné 2021). Taxonomic frequencies in Pherae, as in
other sites, do not suggest a switch to extensive exploitation
of cattle over time, a pattern that was observed in other urban
sites of the Roman Empire.
Although we attempted to examine the difference in sheep
size among sites in terms of period or site size, the data did
not provide a satisfactory interpretation. It is possible that
different husbandry strategies, preferences of farmers,
availability of local food resources, foddering provisioning,
and even different breeds (among other factors) could have
resulted in the observed size differences. In any case, it
seems probable that the size of sheep varied across Thessaly.
Moreover, goats, pigs, and cattle in Pherae were of similar or
smaller size compared to other earlier and contemporary
sites in Mainland Greece and Crete, suggesting that these
species did not undergo any change in size that could be
related to changes in the local economy under Roman rule.
Mortality profiles of the main domesticates from the exam-
ined sites could further cast light on the potential impact
of Roman markets and justify or reject the current con-
clusions. However, this comparison focuses on the taxo-
nomic frequencies and biometry, as ageing data was not
available in many sites, and thus was omitted from this
research.
Summarizing, the lack of extensive exploitation of the
main domesticates and their products, as seen by the taxo-
nomic frequency, kill-off patterns, and the similar size of
Pheraean goats, pigs, and cattle compared to the ones from
earlier and contemporary sites in Greece implies that the
large size of Pheraean sheep is most likely irrelevant to the
breeding techniques observed in other Roman provinces.
Conclusions
The discussion around animal husbandry in ancient Greece
to date is mostly text-based. The limited zooarchaeological
data derives from ritual contexts and focuses on cult prac-
tices. To contribute to this debate and redress the deficiency
of zooarchaeological evidence from domestic contexts, we
studied faunal assemblages from four houses in an urban
center in Thessaly. We inferred types of specialization in ani-
mal products, scale of herd mobility, redistribution of meat,
and the main goals of animal husbandry and questioned the
influence of the Roman world during the late 3rd–1st century
B . C . on animal husbandry in Thessaly.
The combined taxonomic and age-at-death evidence indi-
cated small-scale production for subsistence but also pro-
vided some hints of specialization in animal management
and production, implying medium-scale, semi-specialized
caprine rearing. Despite the orientation towards caprine pro-
duction, and more specifically caprine meat and dairy, other
animals and their products had a prominent role in the econ-
omy, as well. Pigs provided meat and lard and possibly func-
tioned as capital animals, while cattle and horses might have
been used as status symbols, in addition to their products. All
age groups and body parts of domesticated food animals are
represented in the assemblage we studied, suggesting that
animals were brought into the city either on the hoof or as
complete carcasses, but further research (for example, stron-
tium isotope analysis) is necessary to have a more detailed
discussion on animal mobility. Despite the presence of elite
groups in the wider area of Thessaly, as attested by textual
evidence, and the presence of agora in Pherae, the fairly
even distribution of the faunal remains from four non-elite
houses did not suggest any elite monopoly in animal exploi-
tation or a market-oriented economy. A potential impact of
festivals and cults on meat demand was not visible zooarch-
aeologically, at least not in the sample we studied, implying
that meat supply in Pherae was not governed by such seaso-
nal events. The osteometric analysis of livestock body size
suggested that the traditional livestock management in

Pherae remained unaltered, despite the Roman presence in
the wider area. Although sheep were larger in Pherae com-
pared to other sites, in contrast to other species that were
of similar size across sites, the available data are not sufficient
to suggest that this difference is a result of Roman influence.
Additionally, the predominance of caprines over other dom-
esticates is common in the sites being compared, indicating
no important variation in animal management throughout
Greece.
In the future, the study of the faunal remains from more
houses and the agora will increase the archaeofaunal sample
size, assisting us in strengthening (or revising) our argu-
ments about the local economy, while incorporating the
(ongoing) isotopic analysis (Sr, C, and O) will provide valu-
able evidence of herd mobility and diet. Overall, our findings
at Pherae prompt us to argue that research on animal hus-
bandry in ancient Greece should move beyond the dipole
of the agropastoral debate and consider ancient societies
more as a mosaic of people with different livestock manage-
ment practices, rather than one entity undergoing a unilinear
development. This idea is corroborated by ethnographic
work among recent long-distance transhumant pastoralists
in Greece, which showed that, despite being specialist her-
ders, individuals of these groups were engaged in other econ-
omic activities such as land cultivation, entrepreneurship,
and trade (Chang and Tourtellotte 1993). This example stres-
ses the importance of research on animal husbandry in
ancient Greece avoiding generalization of periods and
modes of economy. Further archaeological and zooarchaeo-
logical work, integrated with historical and paleoenviron-
mental studies, will certainly expand our understanding of
the production goals, the scale of livestock management
and mobility, the modes of meat provisioning, and house-
hold economy in ancient Greece.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Dr. Roula Doulgeri-Intzesiloglou and Polixeni
Arachoviti (Ephorate of Antiquities of Magnesia) for providing infor-
mation on the archaeological contexts of the faunal remains and Prof.
Dr. Sofia Voutsaki (University of Groningen) for valuable discussions
and input while formulating the research questions. We would also
like to thank Dr. Vaso Rondiri and Ioanna Mamaloudi, archaeologists
in the Ephorate of Antiquities of Magnesia, for their help with the study
permits, the Netherlands Institute at Athens (NIA), the Ephorate of
Antiquities of Magnesia, and the Greek Ministry of Culture and Sports
for issuing the official permits. We also extend our hearty thanks to
Alexandra Katevaini, who produced the maps, Rachel Winter and
Anthi Tiliakou for proof-reading the manuscript, and the Ephorate of
Antiquities of Magnesia staff, Stelios Garelias, Giannis Mpompotis,
Kostas Giannakopoulos, and the late Stelios Giannakopoulos and Tha-
nasis (Soulis) Patousias for sorting the faunal remains from pottery
sherds.
Disclosure Statement
The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.
Funding
This work was funded by the University of Groningen.
Geolocation Information
39.38104830913871, 22.74554704612333 (source: Google
maps- 22.07.2022). These co-ordinates refer to the modern
JOURNAL OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY 15
town of Velestino, where the ancient city of Pherae was
located.
Notes on Contributors
Dimitris Filioglou (M.Sc. 2017, University of Sheffield) is a Ph.D. can-
didate at the University of Groningen. His research interests include
human-animal relationships, the scale of animal production and econ-
omy, the degree of human and animal mobility, and the zooarchaeology
of Greece from prehistoric and historic times.
Canan Çakırlar (Ph.D. 2007, University of Tübingen) is a senior lec-
turer in the department of archaeology at the University of Groningen.
She is also the director of the zooarchaeology lab and collections at the
Groningen Institute of Archaeology. Her research interests include the
Neolithic and subsequent spread of animal husbandry across western
Anatolia and into southeastern Europe, marine resource exploitation
in the ancient Mediterranean, and forms of human-animal interactions
in early state societies in southwestern Asia.
ORCID
Dimitris Filioglou http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9537-5160
Canan Çakırlar http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7994-0091
References
Albarella, U. 2002. “Size Matters’: How and Why Biometry Is Still
Important in Zooarchaeology.” In Bones and the Man: Studies in
Honour of Don Brothwell, edited by Keith Dobney and Terry
O’Connor, 51–62. Oxford: Oxbow.
Albarella, U., C. Johnstone, and K. Vickers. 2008. “The Development of
Animal Husbandry from the Late Iron Age to the End of the Roman
Period: A Case Study from South-East Britain.” Journal of
Archaeological Science 35 (7): 1828–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jas.2007.11.016.
Alcock, S., J. F. Cherry, and J. L. Davis. 1994. “Intensive Survey,
Agricultural Practice and the Classical Landscape of Greece.” In
Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies, edited
by I. Morris, 137–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arachoviti, P. 2014. “Ανιχνεύσεις Στην Ιστορία Των Αρχαίων Φερών
Μέσα Από Τα Έργα Του Αποχετευτικού Δικτύου Βελεστίνου –
Χλόης.” In Υπέρεια: Πρακτικά ΣΤ’ Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου “Φεραί-
Βελεστίνο-Ρήγας”: 4-7 Οκτωβρίου 2012, Βελεστίνο. Τόμος Έκτος, edi-
ted by D. A. Karamperopoulos, 95–113. Athens: Επιστημονική
Εταιρεία Μελέτης “Φερών-Βελεστίνου-Ρήγα”.
Aristophanes. 1938. Knights. The Complete Greek Drama. Volume. 2.
Edited by Eugene O’Neill, Jr. New York. Random House.
Aristotle. 1932. Poetics. Volume. 23. Translated by W. H. Fyfe.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London, William
Heinemann Ltd.
Bartosiewicz, L., W. van Neer, and A. Lentacker. 1997. Draught Cattle:
Their Osteological Identification and History. Musě royal de l’Afrique
centrale.
Binford, L. R. 1984. Faunal Remains from Klasies River Mouth.
New York: Academic Press.
Bishop, K. G. 2017. “Farsalos Unpublished Zooarchaeological Field
Results. Internal Report on Record with Site Director Sophia
Karapanou, Larisa, Greece.”.
Bishop, K. G. 2018. “Farsalos Unpublished Zooarchaeological Field
Results. Internal Report on Record with Site Director Sophia
Karapanou, Larisa, Greece.”.
Bishop, K. G., S. Garvie-Lok, M. Haagsma, M. MacKinnon, and S.
Karapanou. 2020. “Mobile Animal Management in the
Mediterranean: Investigating Hellenistic (323-31 BCE) Husbandry
Practices in Thessaly, Greece Using Δ13C, Δ18O, and 87Sr/86Sr
Recorded from Sheep and Goat Tooth Enamel.” Journal of
Archaeological Science: Reports 31: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jasrep.2020.102331.
Boessneck, J. 1994. “Zooarchaologische Ergebnisse an Den
Tierknochen- Und Molluskenfunden.” In Haus Und Stadt Im
Klassischen Griechenland, edited by Wolfram Hoepfner, Ernst-
Ludwig Schwandner, S Dakarēs, Joachim Boessneck, and
16 D. FILIOGLOU AND C. ÇAKIRLAR
Deutsches Archäologisches Instituts, 136–40. München: Deutscher
Kunstverlag.
Boessneck, J., H. H. Muller, and M. Teichert. 1964. “Osteologische
Unterscheidungsmerkmale Zwischen Schaf (Ovis Aries Linné)
Und Ziege (Capra Hircus Linné).” Kühn-Archiv 78: 1–129.
Bowman, A., and A. Wilson. 2009. Quantifying the Roman Economy:
Methods and Problems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bresson, A. 2016. The Making of the Ancient Greek Economy:
Institutions, Markets, and Growth in the City-States. Oxford:
Princeton University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.
ctt21c4v6h.25.
Cardete, M. C. 2019. “Long and Short-Distance Transhumance in
Ancient Greece: The Case of Arkadia.” Oxford Journal of
Archaeology 38 (1): 105–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/ojoa.12162.
Cato, Varro. 1934. On Agriculture. Translated by W. D. Hooper.
Harrison Boyd Ash. Loeb Classical Library 283. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Chamoux, F. 2003. Hellenistic Civilization. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
Chandezon, C. 2003. L’élevage En Grèce (Fin Ve-Fin Ier s. a. C.).
L’apport Des Sources Épigraphiques. Bordeaux: Ausonius Éditions.
Chandezon, C. 2008. “Les Spécificités Pastorales Du Péloponnèse à
L’époque Hellénistique et Sous Le Haute-Empire.” In Le
Péloponnèse D’Épaminondas à Hadrien, edited by C. Grandjean,
101–19. Paris: De Boccard.
Chandezon, C. 2015. “Animals, Meat, and Alimentary By-Products:
Patterns of Production and Consumption.” In A Companion to
Food in the Ancient World, edited by J. Wilkins and R. Nadeau,
First, 135–46. Chichester; Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://
doi.org/10.1002/9781118878255.ch13.
Chang, C., and H. A. Koster. 1986. “Beyond Bones: Towards an
Archaeology of Pastoralism.” Advances in Archaeological Method
and Theory 9: 97–148.
Chang, Cl, and P. A. Tourtellotte. 1993. “Ethnoarchaeological Survey of
Pastoral Transhumance Sites in the Grevena Region, Greece.”
Journal of Field Archaeology 20 (3): 249–64. https://doi.org/10.
1179/009346993791549192.
Collins, B. J. 2006. “Pigs at the Gate: Hittite Pig Sacrifice in Its Eastern
Mediterranean Context.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 6
(1): 155–188.
Columella, Lucius Junius Moderatus. 1954. On Agriculture, Volume
2. Translated by E.S. Forster, Edward H. Heffner. London.
Cambridge: William Heinemann; Harvard University.
Connolly, P., T. Rehren, P. Doulgeri-Intzesiloglou, and A. Arachoviti.
2012. “The Hellenistic Glass of Pherai, Thessaly.” In Annales Du
18e Congrès de L’association Internationale Pour L’histoire Du
Verre : Thessaloniki 2009, edited by D. Ignatiadou, and A.
Antonaras, 91–97. Thessaloniki: 27th Ephorate of Prehistoric and
Classical Antiquities.
Cupere, B. de. 2001. Animals at Ancient Sagalassos: Evidence of the
Faunal Remains. Studies in Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology,
No. IV. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols.
Cupere, B. de, D. Frémondeau, E. Kaptijn, E. Marinova, J. Poblome, R.
Vandam, and W. Van Neer. 2017. “Subsistence Economy and Land
Use Strategies in the Burdur Province (SW Anatolia) from
Prehistory to the Byzantine Period.” Quaternary International 436:
4–17.
Çakırlar, C., and J. M. Marston. 2019. “Rural Agricultural Economies
and Military Provisioning at Roman Gordion (Central Turkey).”
Environmental Archaeology 24 (1): 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14614103.2017.1385890.
Dalby, A. 1996. Siren Feasts. A History of Food and Gastronomy in
Greece. London: Routledge.
Davies, J. K. 2007. “Classical Greece: Production.” In The Cambridge
Economic History of the Greco-Roman World, edited by W.
Scheidel, I. Morris, and P. R. Saller, 333–61. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Davis, S. J. M. 1987. The Archaeology of Animals. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Davis, S. J. M. 2006. Faunal Remains from Alcáçova de Santarém,
Portugal. Trabalhos de Arqueologia. Vol. 43. Lisboa: Instituto
Português de Arqueologia. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?
hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Faunal+remains+from+Alc??ova
+de+Santar?m,+Portugal#0.
Decourt, J. C., T. H. Nielsen, and B. Helly. 2004. “Thessalia and
Adjacent Regions.” In Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis,
edited by M. H. Hansen, and T. H. Nielsen, 676–731. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Degerbøl, M., and B. Fredskild. 1970. The Urus (Bos Primigenius
Bojanus) and Neolithic Domesticated Cattle (Bos Taurus
Domesticus Linné) in Denmark. With a Revision of Bos-Remains
from the Kitchen Middens. Zoological and Palynological
Investigations. København, (Munksgaard).
den Driesch, A. von. 1976. A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones
from Archaeological Sites. Peabody Museum: Harvard.
Dibble, W. F. 2017. “Politika Zoa: Animals and Social Change in
Ancient Greece (1600-300 B.C.).” University of Cincinnati.
Dibble, W. F. 2021. “Bones Around Town: Taphonomic Patterns from
Civic Feasting and Residential Dining Contexts at Late Archaic
Azoria, Crete.” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 36
(April). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102771.
Dibble, W. F., and M. Finné. 2021. “Socioenvironmental Change as a
Process: Changing Foodways as Adaptation to Climate Change in
South Greece from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age.”
Quaternary International 597 (September 2020): 50–62. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.quaint.2021.04.024.
Doulgeri-Intzesiloglou, A. 1990. “Pherae.” Αρχαιολογία Και Τέχνες:
Τετραμηνιαίο Περιοδικό 9 (34): 58–64.
Doulgeri-Intzesiloglou, A. 1992. “Οικόπεδο Ελευθερίου Τσουμπέκου.”
A.D. 42 (1987) Β1: 259–60.
Doulgeri-Intzesiloglou, A. 1993a. “Οδός Φερών (Οικόπεδο Γεωργίου
Και Θεοδώρου Αποστολίνα.” A.D. 43 (1988) Β1: 243–45.
Doulgeri-Intzesiloglou, A. 1993b. “Οικόπεδο Ελευθερίου
Χατζηθεοδώρου.” A.D. 43 (1988) Β1: 245–247.
Doulgeri-Intzesiloglou, A. 1994a. “Oι Νεότερες Αρχαιολογικές Έρευνες
Στην Περιοχή Των Αρχαίων Φερών.” In Θεσσαλία: Δεκαπέντε
Χρόνια Αρχαιολογικής Έρευνας, 1975-1990, Αποτελέσματα Και
Προοπτικές: Πρακτικά Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Λυών, 17-22 Απριλίου
1990, edited by D. Zafeiropoulou, and E. Kypraiou, 71–92. Athens:
Ministry of Culture.
Doulgeri-Intzesiloglou, A. 1994b. “Tα Ελληνιστικά Λυχνάρια Των
Φερών.” In Πρακτικά Της Γ΄ Eπιστημονικής Συνάντησης Για Την
Eλληνιστική Kεραμική: Χρονολογημένα Σύνολα-Εργαστήρια,
Σεπτέμβριος 1991, Θεσσαλονίκη, edited by S. Drougou, 363–88.
Athens: Η εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογική ‘Εταιρεία.
Doulgeri-Intzesiloglou, A. 2000a. “Θεσσαλικές Επιγραφές Σε Τοπικό
Αλφάβητο.” University of Thessaloniki.
Doulgeri-Intzesiloglou, A. 2000b. “Οικιακοί Αποθέτες: Μικρά ‘Κλειστά’
Στρωματογραφικά Σύνολα Ελληνιστικής Εποχής: Η Ανασκαφή Στο
Οικόπεδο Γ. Και Θ. Αποστολίνα Στην Αρχαία Πόλη Των Φερών.” In
Πρακτικά Της Ε’ Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης Για Την Ελληνιστική
Κεραμική: Χρονολογικά Προβλήματα, Κλειστά Σύνολα-Εργαστήρια:
Πρακτικά. Απρίλιος 1997, Χανιά, edited by E. Kypraiou, 329–32.
Athens: Ταμείο Αρχαιολογικών Πόρων και Απαλλοτριώσεων.
Doulgeri-Intzesiloglou, A. 2014. “Η Εμβέλεια Των Φερών Και Οι
Διεθνείς Σχέσεις Των Φερών Κατά Την Αρχαιότητα.” In Υπέρεια:
Πρακτικά ΣΤ’ Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου “Φεραί-Βελεστίνο-Ρήγας”: 4-7
Οκτωβρίου 2012, Βελεστίνο. Τόμος Έκτος, edited by D. A.
Karamperopoulos, 155–61. Athens: Επιστημονική Εταιρεία
Μελέτης “Φερών-Βελεστίνου-Ρήγα”.
Doulgeri-Intzesiloglou, A., and P. Arachoviti. 2008. “H Αρχαία Πόλη
Των Φερών. Πορίσματα Ερευνών Της Τελευταίας
Εικοσιπενταετίας (1980-2005).” In 1ο Διεθνές Συνέδριο Ιστορίας &
Πολιτισμού Της Θεσσαλίας : Πρακτικά Συνεδρίου 9-11 Νοεμβρίου
2006, Λάρισα, edited by L. Glegle, 232–43. Athens: Εκδόσεις
Αλέξανδρος Ε.Π.Ε.
Efstathiou, D. 2009. “Ελληνιστικές Οικίες Των Φερών.” University of
Thessaly.
Efstathiou, D. 2014. “Ελληνιστικές Οικίες Των Φερών.” In Υπέρεια:
Πρακτικά ΣΤ’ Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου “Φεραί-Βελεστίνο-Ρήγας”: 4-7
Οκτωβρίου 2012, Βελεστίνο. Τόμος Έκτος, edited by D. A.
Karamperopoulos, 163–82. Athens: Επιστημονική Εταιρεία
Μελέτης “Φερών-Βελεστίνου-Ρήγα”.
Ekroth, G. 2014. “Castration, Cult, and Agriculture.” Opuscula 7:
153–74.
Ekroth, G. 2017. “Animal Sacrifice in the Ancient Greek World.” In
Bare Bones: Osteology and Greek Sacrificial Ritual, edited by S.
Hitch, and I. Rutherford, 15–47. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Filioglou, D., W. Prummel, and C. Çakirlar. 2021. “Animal Husbandry
in Classical and Hellenistic Thessaly (Central Greece): A

Zooarchaeological Perspective from Almiros.” Journal of
Archaeological Science: Reports 39: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jasrep.2021.103164.
Forbes, H. 1995. “The Identification of Pastoralist Sites Within the
Context of Estate-Based Agriculture in Ancient Greece: Beyond
the ‘Transhumance Versus Agro-Pastoralism’ Debate.” The Annual
of the British School at Athens 90: 325–38. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0068245400016233.
Frémondeau, D., B. de Cupere, A. Evin, and W. Van Neer. 2017.
“Diversity in Pig Husbandry from the Classical- Hellenistic to the
Byzantine Periods: An Integrated Dental Analysis of Düzen Tepe
and Sagalassos Assemblages (Turkey).” Journal of Archaeological
Science: Reports 11: 38–52.
Fuller, B. T., B. de Cupere, E. Marinova, W. Van Neer, M. Waelkens,
and M. P. Richards. 2012. “Isotopic Reconstruction of Human
Diet and Animal Husbandry Practices During the Classical-
Hellenistic, Imperial, and Byzantine Periods at Sagalassos, Turkey.”
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 149 (2): 157–71.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22100.
Galen. 1916. On the Natural Faculties. Translated by A.J. Brock.
Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Garnsey, P. 1999. Food and Society in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Georgoudi, S. 1974. “Quelques Problèmes de La Transhumance Dans
La Grèce Ancienne.” Revue Des Études Grecques 87: 155–85. http://
www.jstor.org/stable/44277360.
Georgoudi, S. 2005. “Sacrifice et Mise à Mort: Aperçus Sur Le Statut Du
Cheval Dans Les Pratiques Rituelles Grecques.” In Les Équidés Dans
Le Monde Méditerranéen, edited by A Gardeisen, 137–142. Edition
de l’Association pour le développement de l’archéologie en
Languedoc-Roussillon.
Graninger, D. 2010. “Macedonia and Thessaly.” In A Companion to
Ancient Macedonia, edited by J. Roisman, and I. Worthington,
306–25. Oxford: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444327519.
ch15.
Grant, A. 1982. “The Use of Tooth Wear as a Guide to the Age of
Domestic Ungulates.” In Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from
Archaeological Sites, edited by B. Wilson, C. Grigson, and S. Payne,
91–108. Oxford: B.A.R.
Grant, M. 2000. On Food and Diet. London; New York: Routledge.
Haagsma, M. J. 2010. “Domestic Economy and Social Organization in
New Halos.” University of Groningen.
Halstead, P. 1987. “Traditional and Ancient Rural Economy in
Mediterranean Europe: Plus Ça Change?” The Journal of Hellenic
Studies 107: 77–87. https://doi.org/10.2307/630071.
Halstead, P. 1992. “Agriculture in the Bronze Age Aegean: Towards a
Model of Palatial Economy.” In Agriculture in Ancient Greece:
Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium at the Swedish
Insitute at Athens, 16-17 May, 1990, edited by B. Wells, 105–17.
Athens.
Halstead, P. 1996. “Pastorialism or Household Herding? Problems of
Scale and Specialisation in Early Greek Animal Husbandry.” World
Archaeology 28 (1): 20–42.
Halstead, P. 2002. “Traditional and Ancient Rural Economy in
Mediterranean Europe: Plus Ça Change?” In The Ancient
Economy, edited by W. Scheidel, and S. von Reden, 53–70.
Edinburgh: Taylor & Francis Group.
Halstead, P., P. Collins, and V. Isaakidou. 2002. “Sorting the Sheep from
the Goats: Morphological Distinctions Between the Mandibles and
Mandibular Teeth of Adult Ovis and Capra.” Journal of
Archaeological Science 29 (5): 545–53. https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.
2001.0777.
Hodkinson, S. 1988. “Animal Husbandry in the Greek ‘Polis.’.” In
Pastoral Economies in Classical Antiquity, edited by C. R.
Whittaker, 35–74. Cambridge Philological Society: Cambridge.
Homer. 1919. The Odyssey. Translated by A.T. Murray, PH.D. in two
Volumes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London,
William Heinemann, Ltd.
Hongo, H., and R. H. Meadow. 2000. “Faunal Remains from
Prepottery Neolithic Levels at Çayönü, Southeastern Turkey: A
Preliminary Report Focusing on Pigs (Sus Sp.).” In
Archaeozoology of the Near East, Vol. IV A, edited by M.
Mashkour, A. M. Choyke, H. Buitenhuis, and F. Poplin, 121–40.
Groningen: ARC- Publicaties 32.
JOURNAL OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY 17
Howe, T. 2008. Pastoral Politics: Animals, Agriculture and Society in
Ancient Greece. Claremont.
Jameson, M. H. 1988. “Sacrifice and Animal Husbandry in Classical
Greece.” In Pastoral Economies in Classical Antiquity, edited by C.
R. Whittaker, 87–119. Cambridge Philological Society.
Johnson, E. 2015. “A Skeletal Comparison of Domestic Dog (Canis
Familiaris), Red Fox (Vulpes Vulpes), Badger (Meles Meles) and
Domestic Cat (Felis Catus).” University of Exeter.
Kakavoyiannis, E. 1990. “Η Επιπεδογραφία Της Φεράς Του Ρήγα
Βελεστινλή Από Άποψη Αρχαιολογική.” In Υπέρεια: Πρακτικά A’
Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου “Φεραί-Βελεστίνο-Ρήγας”: 30-31 Μαΐου-
Ιουνίου 1986, Βελεστίνο. Τόμος Πρώτος, edited by P. Kamilakis,
and A. Polymerou-Kamilaki, 423–47. Athens: Επιστημονική
Εταιρεία Μελέτης “Φερών-Βελεστίνου-Ρήγα.
King, A. 1999. “Diet in the Roman World: A Regional Inter-Site
Comparison of the Mammal Bones.” Journal of Roman
Archaeology 12: 168–202. https://doi.org/10.1017/
s1047759400017979.
Legge, A. 1992. Excavations at Grimes Graves Norfolk 1972–1976,
Fascicule 4: Animals, Environment and the Bronze Age Economy.
London: British Museum Press.
Legge, A., J. Williams, and P. Williams. 1991. “The Determination of
Season of Death from the Mandibles and Bones of the Domestic
Sheep (Ovis Aries).” Rivista Di Studi Liguri 57: 49–65.
Leguilloux, M. 2003. “The Delian Chora in Classical and Hellenistic
Times: An Island Landscape Planned for Pastoralism.” British
School at Athens Studies 9 (January): 251–56. http://www.jstor.org.
proxy-ub.rug.nl/stable/40960354.
Lemoine, X., M. A. Zeder, K. J. Bishop, and S. J. Rufolo. 2014. “A New
System for Computing Dentition-Based Age Profiles in Sus Scrofa.”
Journal of Archaeological Science 47 (1): 179–93. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jas.2014.04.002.
Lyman, R. L. 1994. “Quantitative Units and Terminology in
Zooarchaeology.” American Antiquity 59 (1): 36–71. https://doi.
org/10.2307/3085500.
Lysias. 1930. Speeches. Translated by W.R.M. Lamb. M.A. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd.
MacKinnon, M. 2010. “Cattle ‘Breed’ Variation and Improvement in
Roman Italy: Connecting the Zooarchaeological and Ancient
Textual Evidence.” World Archaeology 42 (1): 55–73. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00438240903429730.
MacKinnon, M. 2014. “Animals, Economics, and Culture in the
Athenian Agora Comparative Zooarchaeological Investigations.”
Hesperia 83 (2): 189–255. https://doi.org/10.2972/hesperia.83.2.0189.
Margaritis, E. 2018. “Agricultural Production and Domestic Activities
in Rural Hellenistic Greece.” In The Ancient Greek Economy:
Markets, Households and City-States, edited by E. M. Harris, D. M.
Lewis, and M. Woolmer, 187–203. New- York: Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139565530.009.
McInerney, J. 2010. The Cattle of the Sun: Cows and Culture in the
World of the Ancient Greeks. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Meadow, R. H. 1999. “The Use of Size Index Scaling Techniques for
Research on Archaeozoological Collections from the Middle East.”
In Historia Animalium Ex Ossibus: Festschrift Für Angela von Den
Driesch, edited by C. Becker, H. Manhart, J. Peters, and J. Schibler,
143–79. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH.
Moustaka, A., and A. Doulgeri-Intzesiloglou. 2004. “Συμβολή Στη
Μελέτη Της Νομισματικής Κυκλοφορίας Στην Πόλη Των Φερών
Κατά Την Ελληνιστική Εποχή.” In Obolos 7: Coins in the
Thessalian Region : Mints, Circulation, Iconography, History -
Ancient, Byzantine, Modern : Proceedings of the Third Scientific
Meeting, Volos 2001., 491–514. Athens: Ekdosi ton Philon tou
Nomismatikou Mouseiou.
Mylona, D. 2013. “Dealing with the Unexpexted. Unusual Animals in
an Early Roman Cistern Fill in the Sanctuary of Poseidon at
Kalaureia, Poros.” In Bones, Behaviour, and Belief: The
Zooarchaeological Evidence as a Source for Ritual Practice in
Ancient Greece and Beyond, edited by G. Ekroth and J. Wallensten.
(ActaAthen- 4°, 55). Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen.
Naiden, F. S. 2012. Smoke Signals for the Gods: Ancient Greek Sacrifice
from the Archaic Through Roman Periods. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Niskanen, M. 2009. “A Shift in Animal Species Used for Food from the
Early Iron Age to the Roman Period.” In Thesprotia Expedition I:
18 D. FILIOGLOU AND C. ÇAKIRLAR
Towards a Regional History, edited by B. Forsén, 145–54. Finnish
Institute at Athens: Helsinki.
Nixon, L., and S. Price. 2001. “The Diachronic Analysis of Pastoralism
Through Comparative Variables.” The Annual of the British School at
Athens 96 (2001): 395–424. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30073286.
Nobis, G. 1994. “Die Tierreste Aus Dem Antiken Messene: Grabung
1990/91.” In Beiträge Zur Archäozoologie Und Prähistorischen
Anthropologie, Forschungen Und Berichte Zur Vor- Und Frügeschichte
in Baden-Württemberg 53, edited by M. Kokabi, and J. Wahl, 297–
313. Landesamt für Denkmalpflege im Regierungspräsidium: Stuttgart.
Nobis, G. 2001. “Achäozoologische Studien an Tierresten Aus Alt-Messene/
Ithome (SW-Peloponnes, Griechenland), Grabungen 1992 Bis 1996.” In
Animals and Man in the Past: Essays in Honour of Dr. A. T. Clason
Emeritus Professor of Archaeozoology Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, the
Netherlands, edited by H. Buitenhuis, and W. Prummel, 95–121.
Groningen: Archeological Research and Consultancy.
Ober, J. 2015. The Rise and Fall of Classical Greece. Oxford: Princeton
University Press.
O’Connor, T. P. 1984. Selected Groups of Bones from Skeldergate and
Walmgate. (Ser The Council for British Archaeology for the York
Archaeological Trust.)
Payne, S. 1973. “Kill-off Patterns in Sheep and Goats: The Mandibles
from Aşvan Kale.” Anatolian Studies 23: 281–303. http://www.
jstor.org/stable/3642547.
Payne, S. 1985. “Morphological Distinctions Between the Mandibular
Teeth of Young Sheep, Ovis, and Goats, Capra.” Journal of
Archaeological Science 12 (2): 139–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0305-4403(85)90058-5.
Payne, S. 1987. “Reference Codes for Wear States in the Mandibular
Cheek Teeth of Sheep and Goats.” Journal of Archaeological Science
14 (6): 609–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(87)90079-3.
Plato. 1967–1968. Laws. Volumes 10 & 11. Translated by R.G. Bury.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London, William
Heinemann Ltd.
Prummel, W. 1987. “Atlas for Identification of Foetal Skeletal Elements
of Cattle, Horse, Sheep and Pig.” Archaeozoologia 1: 23–30.
Prummel, W. 1988. “Distinguish Features on Postcranial Skeletal
Elements of Cattle, Bos Primigenius f. Taurus, and Red Deer,
Cervus Elaphus.” Schriften Aus Der Archäologisch-Zoologischen
Arbeitsgruppe Schleswig-Kiel 12 (AZA): 52.
Prummel, W. 2003. “Animal Husbandry and Mollusc Gathering.” In
Housing in New Halos, a Hellenistic Town in Thessaly, Greece, edited
by H. R. Reinders, and W. Prummel, 175–223. Lisse/Abingdon/
Exton (PA)/Tokyo: A.A. Balkema Publishers.
Reden, S. von. 2007. “Classical Greece: Consumption.” In The
Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World, edited by
W. Scheidel, I. Morris, and R. P. Saller, 385–406. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CHOL9780521780537.015.
Reger, G. 2007. “Hellenistic Greece and Western Asia Minor.” In The
Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World, edited by
W. Scheidel, I. Morris, and R. P. Saller, 460–84. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Reinders, H. R. 2003. “New Halos in Achaia Phthiotis.” In Housing in
New Halos: A Hellenistic Town in Thessaly, Greece, edited by H. R.
Reinders, and W. Prummel, 7–36. Lisse/Abingdon/Exton (PA)/
Tokyo: A.A. Balkema Publishers.
Reinders, H. R., and W. Prummel. 1998. “Transhumance in Hellenistic
Thessaly.” Environmental Archaeology 3 (1): 81–95. https://doi.org/
10.1179/env.1998.3.1.81.
Reitz, E. J., and E. S. Wing. 2008. Zooarchaeology. Acta Universitatis
Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis. 2nd ed. Vol.
53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rizzetto, M., P. J. Crabtree, and U. Albarella. 2017. “Livestock
Changes at the Beginning and End of the Roman Period in
Britain: Issues of Acculturation, Adaptation, and ‘Improvement.’.”
European Journal of Archaeology 20 (3): 535–56. https://doi.org/
10.1017/eaa.2017.13.
Rosivach, V. J. 1994. “The System of Public Sacrifice in Fourth-Century
Athens.” In American Classical Studies (34th Ed.), edited by D. L.
Blank. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press.
Schmid, E. 1972. Atlas of Animal Bones for Prehistorians, Archaeologists,
and Quaternary Geologists. Earth-Science Reviews. Vol. 8.
Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0012-8252(72)90068-2.
Shannon, C. E., and W. Weaver. 1949. The Mathematical Theory of
Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Skydsgaard, J. E. 1988. “Transhumance in Ancient Greece.” In Pastoral
Economies in Classical Antiquity, edited by C. R. Whittaker, 75–85.
Cambridge Philological Society: Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.
4200/jjhg1948.35.345.
Slim, F. G., C. Çakırlar, and C. H. Roosevelt. 2020. “Pigs in Sight: Late
Bronze Age Pig Husbandries in the Aegean and Anatolia.” Journal of
Field Archaeology 45 (5): 315–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.
2020.1754081.
Strabo. 1877. Geographica, edited by A. Meineke. Leipzig: Teubner.
Theophrastus. 1909. Characters. Translated by Hermann Diels. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Uerpmann, M., and H. P. Uerpmann. 1994. “Animal Bone Finds from
Excavation 520 at Qala’at Al-Bahrain.” In Qala’at Al-Bahrain. Vol.1.
The Nothern City Wall and the Islamic Fortress, edited by F. Hojlund,
and H. H. Andersen, 417–44. Aarhus: Jutland Archaeological Society
Publications 30.1.
Valenzuela-Lamas, S., and U. Albarella. 2017. “Animal Husbandry
Across the Western Roman Empire: Changes and Continuities.”
European Journal of Archaeology 20 (3): 402–15. https://doi.org/10.
1017/eaa.2017.22.
Valenzuela-Lamas, S., and C. Fabião. 2012. “Ciervos, Ovejas y Vacas: El
Registo Faunístico de Mesas Do Castelinho (Almodôvar) Entre La
Edad Del Hierro y Época Romana.” In Actas Do V Congresso de
Arqueologia Do Sudoeste Peninsular, edited by M. de Deus, 413–
32. Almodôvar: Município de Almodôvar.
Vila, E. 1994. “Les Vestiges Osseux Animaux de L’Habitat
Hellénistique D’Eleutherna.” In Eleutherna, Tomeas II, 2. Ena
Ellinistiko Spiti (“Spiti A”) Sti Thesi Nisi, edited by T. Kalpaksis,
A. Furtwängler, and A. Schnapp, 193–209. Rethymno: Ekdoseis
Panepistimiou Kritis.
Watson, J. P. N. 1979. “The Estimation of the Relative Frequencies of
Mammalian Species: Khirokitia 1972.” Journal of Archaeological
Science 6: 127–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(79)90058-X.
Xenophon. 1923. Memorabilia. Volume 4, edited by E. C. Marchant.
London: Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA; William
Heinemann, Ltd.
Zeder, M. A. 2006. “Reconciling Rates of Long Bone Fusion and Tooth
Eruption and Wear in Sheep (Ovis) and Goat (Capra).” In Ageing
and Sexing Animals from Archaeological Site., edited by Deborah
Ruscillo, 87–118. Oxford: Oxbow Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.
ctvh1ds02.
Zeder, M. A., and H. A. Lapham. 2010. “Assessing the Reliability of
Criteria Used to Identify Postcranial Bones in Sheep, Ovis, and
Goats, Capra.” Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (11): 2887–
2905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2010.06.032.
Zeder, M. A., X. Lemoine, and S. Payne. 2015. “A New System for
Computing Long-Bone Fusion Age Profiles in Sus Scrofa.” Journal
of Archaeological Science 55: 135–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.
2014.12.017.
Zeder, M. A., and S. E. Pilaar. 2010. “Assessing the Reliability of Criteria
Used to Identify Mandibles and Mandibular Teeth in Sheep, Ovis,
and Goats, Capra.” Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 225–42.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2009.10.002.