The Roman Peasant Project (RPP) is a groundbreaking attempt to materialize the history of the “people without history,”Footnote ¹ the peasants, as well as to rethink the concept of poverty in the Roman and Late Antique countryside of central Italy. This extraordinary collective effort, carried out between 2009 and 2014, transcends traditional elitist historical narratives, focusing instead on the material realities of the “poor” or, more precisely, non-elite populations. Using a multidisciplinary and multi-scalar approach, the project has examined the socio-economic dynamics, settlement patterns, agricultural and craft practices, and environmental interactions of those populations. Within a well-defined historiographical framework regarding the role of peasants in studies of the ancient world and pre-industrial societies more broadly, the project is explicitly influenced by the works of Peter Garnsey.Footnote ² Yet it differs from his approach in rejecting the use of past-present ethnographic comparison as a scientifically valid tool for historical reconstruction. Instead, it emphasizes the importance of archaeological data. It is precisely the material evidence gathered through this bottom-up approach that reveals a peasant life that is far removed from stereotypes of marginality and decline-fall narratives. Instead, the findings highlight significant levels of interconnection with large-scale Roman material culture, thus demonstrating a more materially complex rural society (I, 16).

The RPP builds upon the findings of an intensive field survey conducted in the Cinigiano area (province of Grosseto, southern Tuscany) in early 2000 as part of the broader Carta Archeologica di Siena mapping project (I, 14).Footnote ³ This survey provided a crucial dataset for the project, which selected and excavated eight sites of varying sizes (ranging from less than 0.25 ha to 2 ha) and spanning a chronological period from the 2nd c. BCE to the 5th c. CE. A key objective was to challenge traditional assumptions by demonstrating that both large and small surface scatters could yield valuable insights into peasant life, countering the tendency to prioritize only extensive or high-status settlements in archaeological research.

The RPP publication is divided into two volumes, each with a distinct analytical focus. Volume 1 establishes the project’s theoretical and contextual framework, outlining its objectives and methodologies along with the environmental and geographical setting of the study. The volume begins with an introductory discussion of research traditions and scholarly perspectives (Chapter 1), followed by a chapter dedicated to the project’s interdisciplinary methods, which integrate archaeological surveys, geophysics, excavations, the study of material culture, zooarchaeology, archaeobotany, GIS modelling and land analysis (Chapter 2). Another key section (Chapter 3) introduces the concept of locale as a tool for understanding the historical dynamics of landscape mosaics and human-environment interactions. The core of Volume 1 presents findings from the eight excavation sites: Pievina, Case Nuove, San Martino, Poggio dell’Amore, Colle Massari, Podere Terrato, Marzuolo, and Tombarelle. Each is discussed in a dedicated chapter that functions as a comprehensive site report (Chapters 4–11) and includes an analysis of excavation contexts, remote sensing data, material finds (pottery, building materials, botanical and faunal remains, glass, coins/small finds), geological contexts, and land units. This approach ensures that each site is examined both independently and in relation to broader regional patterns.

Volume 2 shifts from site-specific discussions to a thematic analysis of the collected data. Instead of using a conventional approach of organizing results by artifact type, this volume groups findings according to key RPP research questions: Can Roman peasants be located and excavated? Where did Roman peasants live? How did Roman peasants live? How did the peasants relate to their locale? How poor were Roman peasants? The themes of these chapters include peasant dwelling practices (Chapter 12), land use and agriculture (Chapter 13), subsistence and diet (Chapter 14), production and trade (Chapter 15), architecture (Chapter 16), and mobility (Chapter 17). Each chapter begins with a review of existing scholarship on the theme before integrating the project’s dataset into these discussions. Finally, the conclusion (Chapter 18) proposes a new perspective on the study of Roman peasants. This structure allows the research to directly contribute to and challenge existing interpretations of rural life in Roman central Italy. For those requiring detailed material studies, the publication also includes comprehensive appendices (Chapter 19) cataloguing ceramics, faunal remains, and other small finds. This combination of empirical data and critical engagement with scholarly debates makes the RPP an essential reference for understanding the complexities of rural communities in the Roman world.

The RPP is an outstanding example of best practice and sound methodology applied to interdisciplinary archaeological research. Field surveys, geophysical investigations, and excavations were complemented by specialized analyses of ceramics, faunal remains, and botanical samples. The integration of environmental studies, such as pollen analysis and land-use reconstruction, enabled a holistic understanding of the rural landscape. Moreover, the project employed innovative techniques such as remote sensing and geospatial modelling, which significantly enhanced insights into settlement patterns and mobility. The emphasis on methodological rigor and cross-disciplinary collaboration stands out as one of the RPP’s greatest strengths in addressing the complexities of rural life in Roman central Italy.

One of the key theoretical contributions of the RPP is the application of the concept of locale as an analytical framework for examining the relationship between humans and their environment. Instead of treating the landscape as a passive backdrop upon which human activity unfolds, the study conceptualizes locale as a dynamic, interactive unit where social, economic, and environmental elements – ranging from ceramics to seasonal agricultural practices – are in constant dialogue with one another. Within this framework, another key analytical tool is Tim Ingold’s concept of the “taskscape,”Footnote ⁴ which emphasizes the spatial dimension of human activities and the role of those activities in actively shaping the space. Defined as “an articulation of space through the particular activities that shape it” (I, 39), this concept was applied in the project to interpret a wide range of tasks – including agricultural labor, construction, animal husbandry, field maintenance, and even movement through the landscape – as fundamental components of human-environment interaction. By considering these activities as continuous and interdependent, the project demonstrated the dialectical relationship between the rural landscape and its inhabitants, challenging static models of settlement and land use. The RPP applies this model in order to understand the spatial organization of peasant activities, from agriculture and pastoralism to construction and mobility. By foregrounding action within its environmental context, the study moves beyond static interpretations of archaeological sites, instead emphasizing the lived experience of rural communities.

The selection of Cinigiano (Grosseto province, southern Tuscany) as the primary study area was directly informed by this theoretical perspective (I, 40). The region’s relatively low intensity of modern agricultural and industrial activity has allowed for excellent archaeological preservation, making it an ideal location for testing hypotheses about long-term human-environment interactions. Additionally, the scarcity of elite Roman estates in this area provided a rare opportunity to focus on non-elite populations without the overwhelming presence of large-scale villa complexes of the kind that often dominate studies of the Roman countryside in Italy.Footnote ⁵

In this area, eight case studies have been excavated, thus convincingly answering the first question (“Can Roman peasants be located and excavated?”, I, 13–14) of the project’s theoretical/methodological framework with a full study of the material culture and landscape context.

At Pievina (I, 63–106), the Republican phase features a cistern and the site provides evidence of the ability to realize an agricultural surplus that could be stored in a granary. In the Late Antique phase, the site appears to have been smaller, yet it maintained access to trans-local trade networks (as was also the case during the Republican phase). The diversity of cooking ware and the presence of glass similar to that found in urban contexts such as Roselle suggest a different perspective from the traditional image of inland populations having no aspiration to a certain level of sophistication.

The site of Case Nuove (I, 107–62) corresponds to a productive installation, lacking a roof or stable residential structures in its vicinity. It consists of a press for oil production – possibly using olives sourced from more distant areas – and for wine, connected to vineyards located closer to the site. It was in use between the late 1st c. BCE and the mid-3rd c. CE, as well as from the late 4th to the mid-5th c. CE. This is a rare example of agricultural processing infrastructure likely intended for collective use, serving small farms in the surrounding territory during the Imperial period. However, in Late Antiquity, the pressing function ceased, and the site may have been repurposed for winnowing, threshing, and grinding cereals.

The distinctiveness of the RPP also lies in its ability to excavate structures of a type that rarely attract significant scientific and financial efforts. This is the case of San Martino (I, 163–84). This site features a pisé structure, occupied for a single phase between the 2nd and mid-1st c. BCE, which, thanks to archaeobotanical and pollen data, has been interpreted as a “multipurpose animal shelter (for ovicaprids and cattle)” (I, 182). A similar but earlier site (30 BCE–70 CE), likely used for seasonal or occasional housing of both animals and humans, was excavated at Poggio dell’Amore (I, 185–206), located in a landscape characterized by a greater biodiversity of floating plants than San Martino.

The archaeological investigation of an “off-site” scatter identified during a field survey at Colle Massari (I, 207–20) has led to the recognition of a drain within fields where a rotation of cereals, pasture, and legumes may have been practiced. Despite the limited data, this context has been dated to the early 1st c. CE and may possibly be connected to the broader agricultural reorganization associated with the nearby villa of Santa Marta.Footnote ⁶

The site of Podere Terrato (I, 221–48), originating in the Augustan period and primarily occupied during the first half of the 1st c. CE with some continued use beyond that, represents a permanent rural settlement. Unlike seasonal or temporary sites, it featured roofed rooms, open spaces, and terraced areas that were used for cultivating flowers and vegetables. The material culture from the site indicates a relatively high level of domestic sophistication. The presence of glass and ceramic dining objects, alongside metal items such as fibulae, rings, and pins, suggests a community that engaged in refined dining practices and personal adornment. Additionally, evidence of horse ownership implies their use for transportation and/or ploughing, further highlighting the economic and social standing of this peasant group within the broader rural landscape.

A particularly significant case is Marzuolo (I, 248–361), where excavations have uncovered evidence of ceramic production, particularly Italic sigillata, highlighting the economic and social complexity of rural settlements. The site underwent two primary phases of fineware pottery production, the first dating to 30–10 BCE and the second to 50–70 CE, followed by a shift towards pottery for domestic use in the 2nd–3rd c. CE. The site of Marzuolo (I, 356–59) functioned as both a residential and a commercial hub, integrated within larger mobility and exchange networks. Initially, it was a center of technical innovation, with potters experimenting with early sigillata production. Over time, it became a destination for specialist craftspeople who travelled from other production sites to work there, reflecting a fluid and skilled labor force. The site’s size and strong emphasis on grain production suggest it supported a substantial population, drawing on both local resources and external expertise. The specialized fineware pottery production at Marzuolo required a diverse workforce, including itinerant artisans, apprentices, kiln specialists, blacksmiths, and general laborers responsible for tasks such as clay extraction, fuel supply, and kiln maintenance. The organization of ceramic production at Marzuolo does not appear to align with the model of a “branch workshop,” a satellite operation dependent on a larger manufacturing center. Instead, evidence suggests that independent, mobile craftspeople were responsible for production. These artisans likely negotiated temporary agreements with various landowners, working under short- or long-term contracts to supply pottery and labor. In this arrangement, the landowners provided the necessary infrastructure and raw materials, while the potters operated with a degree of flexibility and autonomy. Beyond its resident craftspeople, the site also attracted buyers and merchants engaged in both local trade and larger-scale distribution. Customers purchased ceramics, agricultural goods, and possibly wine and oil, while traders transported bulk quantities of pottery to markets and urban centers. These commercial interactions may also have brought imported foodstuffs to the site, ensuring both Marzuolo and the surrounding rural areas remained deeply embedded in wider economic circuits.

Tombarelle is a site that exhibits long-term but discontinuous occupation (I, 361–430). Located atop a hill, it has been hypothesized that between 40 and 10 BCE it functioned as a “central place” for the surrounding territorial and local landscape. This interpretation is based on the presence of a cistern, various negative features (cuts, pits, dumps), production waste from coarse ware pottery, and elevated levels of grain pollen, suggesting significant agricultural activity. Evidence of ceramic manufacturing is also present for the 1st c. CE, further reinforcing the site’s role in artisanal production. Additionally, the presence of remains of wild fauna indicates an environment that supported both human occupation and resource exploitation, pointing to a multifaceted economic system within the rural landscape. After a period of abandonment, a new phase of occupation emerged between the 4th and mid-5th c. CE, during which the site may have resumed its role in ceramic production. This suggests a possible revival of artisanal activities, indicating that Tombarelle maintained some degree of economic significance within the evolving rural landscape.

Based on the archaeological evidence it has uncovered, the RPP has made significant contributions to the debate on Roman peasant life, addressing several key questions. One of the primary inquiries – “Where did Roman peasants live?” (I, 14–15; II, 435–70) – is built upon a critical reassessment of the archaeological literature on rural dwellings and households. This literature led to a theoretical definition of a typical peasant dwelling as a simple rectangular structure featuring at least a dry-stone foundation and an articulated outdoor area, such as a yard, courtyard, or forecourt, which served as storage space and a workspace for daily activities. In this definition, these domestic spaces likely contained the material traces of various economic and subsistence activities, including agricultural production, meat processing, food preparation, construction, animal husbandry, storage, communal dining, commercial exchange, and other modes of consumption. The RPP results offer a more fluid and landscape-oriented model of peasant dwelling. Instead of a fixed house or village, the concept of “distributed habitation” suggests that peasants occupied multiple spaces within their locale, shifting between permanent homes, seasonal production sites, and temporary work huts, according to agricultural and economic needs.

Regarding the social dimension of variations among different types of peasant dwellings, the RPP employs multivariate statistical analyses, specifically Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA). This methodological approach once again highlights how systematic data processing serves as a powerful analytical tool for unravelling the complexity of the archaeological record. By applying rigorous quantitative methods, the study ensures scientifically robust results, which in turn support coherent and well-grounded interpretative frameworks.

Another important aspect that emerges from the archaeological data from the excavated sites is the significance of seasonality and the temporality of structure use. This factor provides additional insight into settlement dynamics, challenging the often overly rigid dichotomy that equates permanent occupation with a “site” and absence of settlement with a “non-site.” By considering shifting and periodic occupation patterns, the study offers a more fluid and nuanced understanding of rural landscapes, emphasizing the variability and adaptability of habitation practices over time.

In line with the move beyond a site-centric archaeology, the territorial-scale analyses (II, 471–516) conducted as part of the project integrate land evaluation studies to assess the agricultural potential of different areas (locales). Combined with archaeobotanical data, these investigations provide new insights into the suitability of land for cultivation, the balance between woodland resources and cultivated fields, crop rotation practices, and the strategies employed in animal resource management. This broader perspective allows for a more comprehensive understanding of how rural communities adapted to and exploited their environments, applying also Land Evaluation models.Footnote ⁷

Furthermore, the RPP provides strong evidence that smallholders in Roman central Italy employed intensive agricultural practices between the late 2nd c. BCE and the 1st c. CE, challenging a traditional extensive/intensive dichotomy (II, 514–15). The presence of field drains at multiple sites suggests a deliberate investment in water management, while crop rotation and mixed farming strategies point to methods aimed at maintaining soil fertility and maximizing land productivity. The study also refutes the idea that intensive farming was exclusive to elite villas, demonstrating that peasants actively engaged in high-yield grain cultivation and livestock integration. The adaptation of pastoral cycles to local geomorphology and hydrology further highlights their strategic land use decisions.

The material evidence from the RPP has also shed new light on the dietary habits of Roman rural communities (II, 517–42). New archaeological findings suggest that Roman peasants had greater dietary diversity than previously assumed. Their diet extended beyond wheat, incorporating dairy, legumes, and various cereals such as barley and emmer. The management of small herds ensured access to milk and occasional meat, indicating a more adaptable subsistence strategy. Faunal remains indicate long-term changes in animal size and species selection, with a shift towards sheep and goats in Late Antiquity. The predominance of older animals and the frequent use of cooking pots imply that peasants relied on slow-cooking methods, a contrast to elite dining preferences. Evidence from Pievina further indicates that some peasants had to make do with “poorer-quality cuts,” highlighting economic disparities in meat consumption.

The archaeological evidence from the RPP overturns traditional stereotypes of rural populations as entirely self-sufficient and engaged solely in subsistence farming.Footnote ⁸ In fact, this research has demonstrated that peasant families were actively integrated into broader trade and production systems, participating in non-agricultural activities alongside farming (II, 543–65). For example, coin circulation trends and food imports from regions such as Gaul, Spain, and North Africa reveal that major shifts in the Roman economy directly affected rural communities (II, 565). These market connections remained significant until at least the mid-5th c. CE, showing that rural economies followed broader imperial trends rather than existing in isolation. Furthermore, household industries and ceramic workshops catered to both local exchange and urban markets, while access to imported goods, such as “Portuguese fish sauce,” consumed on regional imitations of African tableware, underscores the existence of long-distance commercial ties. The evidence highlights a far more interconnected and dynamic rural economy than was once assumed, where peasant households adapted their production and consumption patterns to meet local and supra-local demands.

The study of rural architecture provides valuable insights into construction techniques and the supply of building materials (II, 567–86). Excavations revealed that buildings were constructed with stone foundations and earthen walls, demonstrating the use of locally available materials such as soil. At the same time, the high degree to which recycled roof tiles were used indicates a broader network of connectivity, suggesting access to medium- and long-distance exchange systems. This combination of local resource utilization and material circulation highlights the interplay between self-sufficiency and external supply chains in rural building practices. The reuse of building materials is closely tied to patterns of mobility (II, 587–618). During the Late Republican and Early Imperial periods, the reuse of building materials reveals patterns of mobility and resource circulation. More permanent structures were built using fewer stone types sourced from greater distances, while temporary buildings incorporated a broader variety of stones from nearby locations. This suggests that construction materials were largely recycled from earlier structures rather than transported over long distances. In Late Antiquity, however, there is a notable reduction in both the variety of stone types and their points of origin. By the 4th–5th c. CE, sites like Pievina and Case Nuove predominantly used a single type of stone obtained from much closer sources, a sign that this episodic mobility was reduced.

The study highlights how mobility shaped the relationship between people and their locale, influencing collective identity over time. In the Late Republican and Augustan periods, movement was regular and multi-scale, fostering a cohesive and integrated landscape. By Late Antiquity, mobility patterns persisted but lacked the same interconnected structure, raising questions about whether this shift resulted in the fragmentation of how people engaged with their surroundings. Another key point is that neither peasant life nor the perception of the landscape remained static. While the physical features of the region changed little, its social and economic identity evolved significantly. As the study notes, “mobility around and across this locale, the ways in which space has been rendered meaningful in time and time rendered meaningful in space, is historically contingent and specific” (II, 615). This underscores the idea that spatial practices and movement were shaped by the particular conditions of each period rather than following a timeless, unchanging pattern. Roman peasants can thus, finally, be freed from the stereotype of timeless immobility, reclaiming their agency in their long-neglected history.

The conclusions of this extensive study (II, 617–40), followed by a comprehensive set of appendices (II, 641–714) and a substantial bibliography (II, 715–53), are structured around key thematic axes: landscapes, demographics, agriculture and productivity, labor, land tenure and power, city-country-peasants, wealth and poverty, and peasants in time and history. These concepts effectively encapsulate the interpretative depth of the research, which is grounded in a robust interdisciplinary dataset.

This collective research stands out for its coherence, intellectual integrity, and critical engagement as it extends from its theoretical foundations and historiographic-anthropological questions to its methodological challenges and their application in interdisciplinary fieldwork. The way that public archaeology has played a significant role in contributing to the social impact of the RPP on contemporary local communities is also notable. Particularly remarkable is the extraordinary ability to produce a truly collaborative work, in which specialized disciplines are not merely juxtaposed but fully integrated into a cohesive scientific and humanistic narrative. Not only has the vast amount of data been published in its entirety, serving as a valuable resource for future comparative studies in other regions of the Roman rural world or across different historical periods and geographic areas, but the high-quality reconstructions produced by Studio InkLink also provide high-impact visual representations of the daily life of the Roman peasant.Footnote ⁹ These reconstructions effectively illustrate the scientific process, from raw data collection to processing and, ultimately, contextual interpretation. Finally, the RPP exemplifies how archaeology can dismantle stereotypes and expand historical knowledge beyond the constraints of written sources and their silences. Thanks to this approach, the Roman peasantry – long marginalized as a mute and invisible presence – emerges as a dynamic and integral part of the history of the Roman landscapes in central Italy.