The Changing Landscapes of Rome’s Northern Hinterland: The British School at Rome’s Tiber Valley Project (Archaeopress Roman Archaeology)

Cover\nTitle Page\nCopyright page\nContents Page\nList of Figures\n	The Tiber Valley Project: an introduction\n		Figure 1.1. Location of the Tiber Valley Project study area and the South Etruria Survey.\n	The middle Tiber valley: history of studies and project methodologies\n		Figure 2.1a-c. Population change, as percentage growth or decline, from 1881 to 2011 in the provincie of Rome, Viterbo and Rieti, and in select comuni within the study area (based on ISTAT figures).\n		Figure 2.2. Agricultural work near the Caere Gate at Veii during the course of the original survey work. ©BSR Photographic Archive, Ward-Perkins Collection, wpset-03109.\n		Figure 2.3. Location of the South Etruria Survey areas.\n		Figure 2.4. Etruscan roads (red lines) leading out of the North-west gate of Veii (yellow) visible on a 1944 RAF aerial photograph, with South Etruria Survey findspots (red circles).\n		Figure 2.5. Cuniculi (blue) and the line of an Etruscan road (red), leading past the tumulus of Monte Tondo to the north of Veii, visible on RAF 1944 photograph. Also shown are the Via Cassia (green) and South Etruria Survey finds spots (red circles).\n		Figure 2.6. Fieldwalking at Veii during the South Etruria Survey. ©BSR Photographic Archive, Ward-Perkins Collection, wpset-1920.42.\n		Figure 2.7. Other surveys included in the Tiber Valley Project database: Farfa; Forma Italiae; Corese; Regione Lazio.\n		Figure 2.8. Distribution of sites identified by the Nepi survey of the Gruppo Archeologico Romano (after Camilli et al. 1995) in relation to sites mapped by the South Etruria Survey.\n		Figure 2.9. Timespans of all pottery form types in the Tiber valley Project database (n=2715); red line shows mid-point of date spans.\n		Figure 2.10. Timespans of principal diagnostic classes of pottery (n>50 sherds) in the Tiber Valley Project database.\n		Figure 2.11. Total numbers of artefacts collected and retained by the South Etruria Survey from each site in the eastern Ager Veientanus, and restudied as part of the Tiber Valley Project.\n		Figure 2.12. Comparison of pottery vessel parts collected by the South Etruria Survey for select ceramic classes: a) Roman amphorae; b) terra sigillata italica; c) Roman coarse-ware; d) African cooking-ware\n		Figure 2.13a-b. Weighted average number of sherds per decade from site TVP-ID00827, grouped by material with date ranges of more (n=58) or less (n=51) than 1000 years; below, the date range and total number (in red) of sherds ofeach form type collected fr\n		Figure 2.14. Examples of original South Etruria Survey record cards; ©BSR Photographic Archive, Ward-Perkins Collection, South Etruria Survey Series.\n		Figure 2.14 continued. Examples of original South Etruria Survey record cards; ©BSR Photographic Archive, Ward-Perkins Collection, South Etruria Survey Series.\n		Figure 2.15. South Etruria Survey sites by number of recorded visits.\n		Figure 2.16. South Etruria Survey records by month of fieldwork; note, month was not documented for every record (n=2177)\n		Figure 2.17. South Etruria Survey records by year of fieldwork, 1955–1974; note, year was not documented for every record (n=2556)\n		Figure 2.18. South Etruria Survey records by date (5-year timeblocks) of fieldwork; note, approximate date was not documented for every record (n=3539)\n		Figure 2.19. Land use categories recorded for each site during the South Etruria Survey; note, information on land use was not documented for every site (n=1548).\n		Figure 2.20. A reconstruction of South Etruria Survey fieldwork around Monte Quadro in the Eastern Ager Veientanus survey area; probable routes walked (yellow) and sites recorded (red circles; size relative to quantity of material collected).\n		Figure 2.21. Distribution of all Tiber Valley Project database records. Numbered gaps: surveys published after project data gathering complete: 1) Ager Ciminus Forma Italiae and 2) Ager Foronovanus Forma Italiae; 3) and 4) heavily forested and mountainous\n		Figure 2.22. Ploughing of steep slopes near the defences in the north-west area of Veii ©BSR Photographic Archive, Ward-Perkins Collection, wpset-00557.\n		Figure 2.23. Soil erosion in a ploughed field on the Pietra Pertusa ridge in October 1963 showing movement of soil and exposure of bedrock. ©BSR Photographic Archive, Ward-Perkins Collection, wpset-07187.\n		Figure 2.24. Distribution of all Tiber Valley Project records in relation to topography (north-eastern Ager Veientanus/southern Ager Capenas on west bank of the Tiber). 50 m-contours; orange/brown areas = alluvial deposits.\n		Figure 2.25. Distribution of all Tiber Valley Project records in the eastern Ager Capenas and Sabina Tiberina/Farfa river valley in relation to unirrigated arable fields (brown), olive groves (green), fruit trees (orange) and vineyards (purple). The Tiber\n		Figure 2.26. Distribution of all Tiber Valley Project records in relation to land use (southern Ager Faliscus). Dark grey = urban areas and infrastructure; greens = wooded and vegetated areas.\n		Figure 2.27. Numbers of restudied sherds recorded in the Tiber Valley Project database that can be dated precisely to each chronological period.\n		Figure 2.28. Weighted average number of sherds per decade recorded in the Tiber Valley Project database.\n		Figure 2.29. Diagnosticity of pottery recorded in the Tiber Valley Project database: form types plotted by start date (x-axis) and end date (y-axis). Symbol size is relative to number of sherds for each form type. Where y = x, the start and end date of a\n		Figure 2.30. Tiber Valley Project: the main chronological periods (centre column), with generic (left) and sub-periods (right); row height relative to period length..\n		Figure 2.31a-c. Numbers of villas, farms and scatters by period; a) all Tiber Valley Project database records; b) those with restudied pottery; c) those with >25 sherds of restudied pottery.\n		Figure 2.32a-c. Effects of different data quality thresholds (all database records; those with restudied pottery; those with >25 sherds of restudied pottery) on a) scatters; b) farms; c) villas.\n		Figure 2.33. Percentage change in the numbers of records between each successive period: all database records, those with restudied pottery, and those with >25 sherds of restudied pottery (Archaic figure is relative to the Orientalizing period; Classical\n		Figure 2.34. Numbers of Tiber Valley Project database records by period, showing the numbers of settlement sites versus all other types of site (e.g. funerary, infrastructure, etc.)\n		Figure 2.35. Numbers of settlement sites for each main period (grey) recorded in the Tiber Valley Project database, alongside the numbers of settlement sitesrecorded for generic periods (blue).\n		Figure 2.36. Weighted average number of sherds per decade versus number of settlement sites recorded in the Tiber Valley Project database.\n		Figure 2.37. Percentage change in the numbers of settlement sites recorded in Tiber Valley Project database between consecutive chronological periods.\n		Figure 2.38. Percentages of settlement sites recorded in Tiber Valley Project database as abandoned at the transition between consecutive chronological periods.\n		Figure 2.39. Percentages of settlement sites recorded in Tiber Valley Project database as continuing in occupation from the previous chronological period.\n		Figure 2.40. Percentages of settlement sites recorded in Tiber Valley Project database as newly founded in each of the main chronological periods.\n	The protohistoric to late Republican landscapes of the middle Tiber valley\n		Figure 3.1. Numbers of settlement sites recorded in Tiber Valley Project database for the Early Bronze Age to the Classical periods (2300–350 bc), showing numbers of sites dated to specific and generic periods.\n		Figure 3.2. Tiber Valley Project settlement sites in the Bronze Age (2300–1000 bc).\n		Figure 3.3. Tiber Valley Project settlement sites in the Iron Age (1000–750 bc).\n		Figure 3.4. Numbers of settlement sites abandoned (pink), continuing (grey) and newly founded (green) at the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age.\n		Figure 3.5. Numbers of settlement sites abandoned (pink), continuing (grey) and newly founded (green) at the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age.\n		Figure 3.6. Percentages of continuing versus new sites from the Iron Age to the Archaic period (750–580 BC): South Etruria versus Sabina.\n		Figure 3.7. Numbers of settlement sites abandoned (pink), continuing (grey) and newly founded (green) at the transition from the Early Iron Age to the Late Iron Age.\n		Figure 3.8. Numbers of settlements versus non-settlement (e.g. funerary sites) in the Orientalizing (Early, Middle, Late), Archaic and Classical periods (750–580 BC).\n		Figure 3.9. Tiber Valley Project settlement sites in the Orientalizing period (750–580 bc).\n		Figure 3.10. Numbers of sites, from the Orientalizing to the Republican period, identified by the Forma Italiae Cures survey (Muzzioli 1980) and during resurvey by the Corese Survey.\n		Figure 3.11. Numbers of settlement sites abandoned (pink), continuing (grey) and newly founded (green) at the transition from the Iron Age to the Orientalizing period.\n		Figure 3.12. Numbers of settlement sites recorded in Tiber Valley Project database for the Orientalizing to Archaic periods (750–580 bc): South Etruria versus Sabina (log scale).\n		Figure 3.13. Tiber Valley Project settlement sites in the Archaic period (580–480 BC).\n		Figure 3.14. Numbers of settlement sites abandoned (pink), continuing (grey) and newly founded (green) at the transition from the Orientalizing to the Archaic period.\n		Figure 3.15. Tiber Valley Project settlement sites in the Classical period (480–350 bc).\n		Figure 3.16. Numbers of settlement sites abandoned (pink), continuing (grey) and newly founded (green) at the transition from the Archaic to the Classical period.\n		Figure 3.17. Weighted average numbers of sherds per decade collected by the South Etruria Survey: 750 to 350 BC.\n		Figure 3.18. Tiber Valley Project settlement sites in the Republican period (350–50/1 bc).\n		Figure 3.19. Numbers of settlement sites recorded in Tiber Valley Project database for the Classical to the early imperial period, showing numbers of sites dated to specific and generic periods.\n		Figure 3.20. Findspots with Archaic, Classical and/or mid-Republican-period material at Veii.\n		Figure 3.21. Percentages of material of Republican date at Veii and in the Ager Veientanus survey area.\n		Figure 3.22. Weighted average numbers of sherds per decade collected by the South Etruria Survey: 400 to 1 bc.\n		Figure 3.23. Weighted average numbers of black-gloss sherds per decade collected by the South Etruria Survey and select centres in the middle Tiber Valley: Veii, Capena, Eretum and Falerii Novi.\n		Figure 3.24. Tiber Valley Project settlement sites in the mid-Republican period (350–250 bc).\n		Figure 3.25. Numbers of settlement sites abandoned (pink), continuing (grey) and newly founded (green) at the transition from the Classical to the mid-Republican period.\n		Figure 3.26. Tiber Valley Project settlement sites in the late Republican 1 period (250–150 bc).\n		Figure 3.27. Numbers of settlement sites abandoned (pink), continuing (grey) and newly founded (green) at the transition from the mid-Republican to the late Republican 1 period.\n		Figure 3.28. Tiber Valley Project settlement sites in the late Republican 2 period (150–50/1 bc).\n		Figure 3.29. Numbers of settlement sites abandoned (pink), continuing (grey) and newly founded (green) at the transition from the late Republican 1 to the late Republican 2 period.\n	The early and mid-imperial landscapes of the middle Tiber valley (c. 50 bc–ad 250)\n		Figure 4.1. Tiber Valley Project settlement sites during the imperial period (50 bc–ad 250).\n		Figure 4.2. Recorded flood frequency at Rome from 300 bc–ad 300 (based on Aldrete 2007: table 1.1).\n		Figure 4.3. Weighted average numbers of sherds per decade (100 BC–AD 250) collected by the South Etruria Survey: all pottery, plus select classes.\n		Figure 4.4. Numbers of early and mid-imperial period settlement sites, in relation to sites of earlier and generic periods.\n		Figure 4.5a-c. Numbers of settlement sites abandoned (pink), continuing (grey) and newly founded (green) at the transition from a) the Republican (350–50/1 bc) to the early imperial period; b) the late Republican (250–50/1 BC) to the early imperial period\n		Figure 4.6a-d. Numbers of sites from the late Republican to the mid-imperial period (250 BC–AD 250) based on database records with restudied material versus legacy data: a) all database records; b) scatters; c) farms; d) villas.\n		Figure 4.7. Numbers of early and mid-imperial-period settlement sites, with Republican sites divided into mid- and late Republican periods.\n		Figure 4.8. Distribution of newly founded early imperial (50 BC–AD 100) settlement sites in relation to late Republican (250–50/1 BC) settlement sites in the western Ager Veientanus, southern Ager Faliscus and Ager Sutrinus.\n		Figure 4.9. Distribution of early imperial (50 BC–AD 100) settlement sites around Eretum and Nomentum: villas (red circles) and farms (blue circles); plus settlement sites of generic imperial (50 BC–AD 250) date (black circles with no red or blue fill).\n		Figure 4.10. Distribution of early imperial-period farms and villas around Sutrium and Vicus Matrini in relation to the South Etruria and Forma Italiae survey areas.\n		Figure 4.11. Towns and road stations in the middle Tiber Valley during the early imperial period (50 BC–AD 100).\n		Figure 4.12. Weighted average numbers of sherds per decade collected by the South Etruria Survey, 350 BC to AD 350: quantities of material from Veii, the Ager Veientanus, and the remainder of the South Etruria Survey material (log scale).\n		Figure 4.13. Distance from early imperial-period towns in the middle Tiber valley (darker red indicates areas that are more distant from towns) and the location of road stations.\n		Figure 4.14. Plan of Falerii Novi based on magnetometry survey (with permission of M. Millett).\n		Figure 4.15. Ratios of early imperial-period farms and villas grouped by select surveys and groups of surveys.\n		Figure 4.16. Tiber Valley Project settlement sites in the early imperial period (50 BC–AD 100).\n		Figure 4.17. Early imperial-period sites in the eastern Ager Veientanus, Ager Capenas and southern Ager Faliscus (50 BC–AD 100).\n		Figure 4.18. Early imperial-period sites in western Ager Veientanus, Ager Sutrinus and southern Ager Faliscus (50 BC–AD 100).\n		Figure 4.19. Density of artefacts (equivalent per ha) collected by the Corese Survey in the vicinity of villa site 29.1/2.\n		Figure 4.20. Early imperial-period sites at I Costaroni and Monte Perazzo, in the eastern Ager Veientanus (50 BC–AD 100).\n		Figure 4.21. Early imperial-period sites in the area between Valle Lunga via Il Pascolaro to Valle Ciaca and Ponte Altieri, in the eastern Ager Veientanus (50 BC–AD 100).\n		Figure 4.22. Early imperial-period sites around Monte Caminetto in the eastern Ager Veientanus, adjacent to the Via Flaminia, which was previously very thinly unoccupied (50 BC–AD 100).\n		Figure 4.23. Early imperial-period sites in the Grottarossa and Via Veientana survey areas, between Veii and the Tiber (50 BC–AD 100).\n		Figure 4.24. Early imperial-period population estimates for the middle Tiber Valley.\n		Figure 4.25. Distribution of cisterns at imperial-period sites in the middle Tiber Valley.\n		Figure 4.26. Distribution of early imperial-period kilns in the middle Tiber Valley (50 BC–AD 100).\n		Figure 4.27. Distribution of terra sigillata italica pottery from production centres at Prima Porta and Vasanello\n		Figure 4.28. Distribution of early and mid-imperial-period sites with travertine construction materials in relation to the main sources of travertine in the middle Tiber Valley (50 BC–AD 250).\n		Figure 4.29. Distribution of early and mid-imperial-period sites with selce or basalt materials in relation to main sources of leucitic lavas in the middle Tiber Valley (50 BC–AD 250).\n		Figure 4.30. Distribution of vessel glass and window glass collected by the South Etruria Survey from early and mid-imperial-period sites in the middle Tiber Valley (50 BC–AD 250).\n		Figure 4.31. Distribution of stone and pasta vitrea mosaic tesserae from early and mid-imperial-period sites in the middle Tiber Valley (50 BC–AD 250).\n		Figure 4.32. Distribution of marbles at early and mid-imperial-period sites in the middle Tiber Valley (50 BC–AD 250).\n		Figure 4.33. Weighted average numbers of amphora sherds per decade collected by the South Etruria Survey (350 BC–AD 700).\n		Figure 4.34. Early imperial-period funerary sites in the middle Tiber valley (50 BC–AD 100).\n		Figure 4.35. Tiber Valley Project settlement sites in the mid-imperial period (AD 100–250).\n		Figure 4.36. Numbers of settlement sites abandoned (pink), continuing (grey) and newly founded (green) at the transition from early imperial to the mid-imperial period.\n		Figure 4.37. Ratios of continuing and abandoned early imperial-period settlement sites at the transition to the mid-imperial period, grouped by select site types, surveys and groups of surveys.\n		Figure 4.38. Distributions of abandoned early imperial (50 BC–AD 100) and newly founded mid-imperial (AD 100–250) settlement sites.\n		Figure 4.39. Mid-imperial-period sites in the eastern Ager Veientanus, Ager Capenas and southern Ager Faliscus (AD 100–250).\n	The late antique landscapes of the middle Tiber valley: the mid-third to mid-sixth centuries AD\n		Figure 5.1. Tiber Valley Project settlement sites in the late antique period (AD 250–550).\n		Figure 5.2. Comparison of Tiber Valley Project settlement numbers and weighted average numbers of sherds per decade from the late antique 1 to the middle medieval 1 period.\n		Figure 5.3. Tiber Valley Project settlement sites in the late antique 1 period (AD 250–450).\n		Figure 5.4. Numbers of settlement sites abandoned (pink), continuing (grey) and newly founded (green) at the transition from the mid-imperial to the late antique 1 period.\n		Figure 5.5. Numbers of abandoned or continuing at the transition from the mid-imperial to late antique 1 period: farms versus villas.\n		Figure 5.6. Weighted average numbers of late antique (AD 200–600) pottery sherds per decade collected by the South Etruria Survey.\n		Figure 5.7. Tiber Valley Project settlement sites in the late antique 2 period (AD 450–550).\n		Figure 5.8. Numbers of settlement sites abandoned (pink), continuing (grey) and newly founded (green) at the transition from the late antique 1 to late antique 2 period.\n		Figure 5.9. Distributions of newly founded late antique 1 (AD 250–450) and late antique 2 (AD 450–550) settlement sites.\n		Figure 5.10. Distribution of late antique (AD 250–550) sites around the former town of Veii.\n		Figure 5.11. Weighted average numbers of sherds per decade from the South Etruria Survey, AD 200 to 800: quantities of material from Veii, the Ager Veientanus, and the remainder of the South Etruria Survey material.\n		Figure 5.12. Numbers of amphora sherds collected by the South Etruria Survey by region of provenance (AD 1–300).\n		Figure 5.13. Numbers of imported Roman amphora sherds collected by the South Etruria Survey: African, East Mediterranean and Sicilian/Calabrian (AD 350–650).\n		Figure 5.14. Weighted average numbers of African red slip ware sherds per decade (AD 100–700) collected by the South Etruria Survey.\n	The end of the Roman unity: the Tiber valley in the late sixth to seventh centuries AD\n		Figure 6.1. Tiber Valley Project settlement sites in the early medieval 1 period (AD 550–700).\n		Figure 6.2. Numbers of settlement sites abandoned (pink), continuing (grey) and newly founded (green) at the transition from the late antique 2 to the early medieval 1 period.\n	The middle Tiber valley in the eighth and ninth centuries AD\n		Figure 7.1. Tiber Valley Project settlement sites in the early medieval 2 period (AD 700–900)\n		Figure 7.2. Numbers of settlement sites abandoned (pink), continuing (grey) and newly founded (green) at the transition from the early medieval 1 to the early medieval 2 period.\n		Figure 7.3. The Santa Cornelia area (northern Ager Veientanus) in the early medieval 2 period (AD 700–900).\n		Figure 7.4. The Treia valley in early medieval 2 period (AD 700–900).\n		Figure 7.5. Weighted average numbers of ceramica a vetrina pesante sherds per decade collected by the South Etruria Survey.\n		Figure 7.6. Distribution of ceramica a vetrina pesante collected by the South Etruria Survey.\nList of Tables\nList of Contributors\nPreface\nThe Tiber Valley Project: an introduction\n	Simon Keay, Martin Millett and Christopher Smith\n		1.1 The South Etruria Survey\n		1.2 An overview of the Tiber Valley Project\nThe middle Tiber valley: history of studies and project methodologies\n	Robert Witcher*\n		2.1.1 A century-and-a-half of landscape studies\n			2.1.2 From antiquarians to topographers\n			2.1.3 The South Etruria Survey\n			2.1.4 From the South Etruria Survey to the Tiber Valley Project\n			2.1.5 Summary\n		2.2 The South Etruria Survey revisited\n			2.2.1 South Etruria Survey restudy: pottery\n			2.2.2 South Etruria Survey restudy: sites\n			2.2.3 The South Etruria Survey: surveys\n		2.3 South Etruria Survey: rewalking the Eastern Ager Veientanus\n		2.4 Tiber Valley Project database\n			2.4.1 The spatial dimension: reading the maps\n			2.4.2 The temporal dimension: dividing up time\n		2.5 History of studies and and project methodologies: summary\n		2.6 Overview of settlement trends in the middle Tiber valley\nThe protohistoric to late Republican landscapes of the middle Tiber valley\n	Helga Di Giuseppe*\n		3.1 From the Bronze Age to the Iron Age\n			3.1.1 Overview of the thirteenth to eighth centuries bc\n			3.1.2 The Bronze Age\n			3.1.3. Social characterization\n			3.1.4 The Iron Age and the birth of proto-urban centres\n		3.2 The Orientalizing and Archaic: late eighth to early fifth centuries bc\n			3.2.1 Settlement centres and structured territories in the seventh and sixth centuries bc\n			3.2.2 The decline of the landscape in the fifth century bc\n		3.3 The mid- and late Republican landscape (c. 350–50/1 bc)\n			3.3.1 Historical outline of the Republican period\n			3.3.2 Continuity and transformation: the urban landscape of the Republican period\n			3.3.3 The rural landscape of the Republican period\n		3.4 Conclusions\nThe early and mid-imperial landscapes of the middle Tiber valley (c. 50 bc–ad 250)\n	Robert Witcher\n		4.2 Contexts\n			4.2.1 The historical context\n			4.2.2 Earlier studies of the imperial landscape\n			4.2.3 The environment in the imperial period\n		4.3 Imperial-period material culture and settlement sites\n			4.3.1 Pottery\n			4.3.2 Sites\n			4.3.3 Legacy data\n			4.3.4 The Republican to imperial transition\n			4.3.5 The spatial dimension\n		4.4 The urban landscape\n			4.4.1 Urban types\n			4.4.2 Larger towns\n			4.4.3 Smaller towns and centres\n			4.4.4 Port sites\n			4.4.5 Road stations and villages\n			4.4.6 Urban summary\n		4.5 The rural landscape\n			4.5.1 Villas\n			4.5.2 Farms\n			4.5.3 Rural infrastructure\n			4.5.4 Micro-regional patterning in the imperial-period landscape\n			4.5.5 Intra-regional comparisons\n		4.6 People in the landscape\n			4.6.1 Population\n			4.6.2 Status and identity\n		4.7 A landscape of resources\n			4.7.1. Agricultural production\n			4.7.2 Ceramic and brick/tile production\n			4.7.3 Extraction\n			4.7.4 Other production\n			4.7.5 Summary\n		4.8 The competitive landscape\n			4.8.1 Material culture\n			4.8.2 Funerary landscapes\n			4.8.3 Summary\n		4.9 The mid imperial-period landscape\n		4.10 The imperial-period landscape: conclusions\nThe late antique landscapes of the middle Tiber valley: the mid-third to mid-sixth centuries AD\n	Helen Patterson*\n		5.1 General introduction to the late antique and early medieval periods\n		5.2 The problems of the archaeological dataset\n			5.2.1. Identifying late antique and early medieval settlement\n			5.2.2 Defining late antique and medieval settlements\n			5.2.3 Other problems: the Tiber Valley Project data\n			5.2.4 The Tiber valley and the supply of Rome\n		5.3. Crisis, what crisis? The third to mid-sixth centuries ad\n			5.3.1 The historical context: the transformation of the classical world\n			5.3.2 Rural transformations\n			5.3.3 New late antique settlements\n			5.3.4 The villas\n				5.3.4.1 Villas with solely agricultural roles\n				5.3.4.2 Villas with roles in agriculture, manufacturing and artisan activities\n				5.3.4.3 Villas providing services\n				5.3.4.4 Villas and churches\n				5.3.4.5 Villas as residences for the aristocracy\n				5.3.4.6 Summary\n			5.3.5 Road stations\n				5.3.5.1 The Via Clodia\n				5.3.5.2 The Via Cassia\n				5.3.5.3 The Via Flaminia\n				5.3.5.4 Summary\n			5.3.6 Vici and pagi\n			5.3.7 Urban transformations\n				5.3.7.1 Failed towns\n				5.3.7.2 Towns and bishoprics\n				5.3.7.3 Towns as river ports\n				5.3.7.4 Towns and churches\n				5.3.7.5 Successful towns\n				5.3.7.6 Summary\n			5.3.8 The Christianization of the landscape\n				5.3.9 People in the late antique landscape\n			5.3.10 Rome and the Tiber valley: economic assessment\n				5.3.10.1 The river\n				5.3.10.2 Roads\n				5.3.10.3 Building materials\n				5.3.10.4 Timber\n				5.3.10.5 Foodstuffs\n				5.3.10.6 Ceramics\n				5.3.10.7 Agrarian practices, animal husbandry and diet\n				5.3.10.8 Coins\n		5.4 Conclusions\nThe end of the Roman unity: the Tiber valley in the late sixth to seventh centuries AD\n	Helen Patterson\n		6.1 The historical context: the Gothic Wars and Lombard invasions\n		6.2 The incastellamento debate\n			6.2.1 South Etruria: ceramica a vetrina pesante and Ponte Nepesino\n			6.2.2 The Sabina and the case of Casale San Donato\n		6.3 Rural transformations\n			6.3.1 South Etruria\n			6.3.2 The southern Sabina Tiberina: Eretum and Sant’Antimo\n			6.3.3 The central Sabina Tiberina: the Farfa Survey\n		6.4 The new foci of settlement\n		6.5 People in the landscape\n		6.6 Rome, the Tiber valley and the Lombards\n			6.6.1 Transport\n			6.6.2 Economic activity and pottery evidence\n			6.6.3 Coins\n		6.7 Conclusions\nThe middle Tiber valley in the eighth and ninth centuries AD\n	Helen Patterson\n		7.1 The Church and the Carolingians: historical and archaeological context\n		7.2 Rural transformations\n			7.2.1 South Etruria\n				7.2.1.1 The domuscultae\n				7.2.1.2 Settlement trends\n				7.2.1.3 Continuing sites\n				7.2.1.4 ‘New’ foundations\n				7.2.1.5 Two case-studies\n				7.2.1.6 The Ager Veientanus and the area of Santa Cornelia\n				7.2.1.7 The Treia valley\n			7.2.2 The southern Sabina Tiberina: Eretum Survey\n			7.2.3 The central Sabina Tiberina: the Farfa Survey\n		7.3 Settlement and Roman roads\n		7.4 Urban transformations\n			7.4.1 The creation of a territorium\n		7.5 People in the landscape\n		7.6 Rome, the Church and the Tiber valley\n			7.6.1 The ceramics\n		7.7 Conclusions\nThe Tiber Valley Project: retrospect and prospect\n	Martin Millett\n		8.1 Introduction\n		8.2 The scope of the Tiber Valley Project\n		8.3 The historical contribution\n		8.4 Issues for debate\n		8.5 The future of field survey: the Tiber Valley Project and beyond\nList of Tiber Valley Project publications\n	A. Forum Novum—Vescovio. Directors: Helen Patterson, Vince Gaffney and Paul Roberts\n		B. Galantina Survey. Directors: Helen Patterson, Alessandro Guidi and Paola Santoro\n		C. Roman Towns Project. Directors: Simon Keay and Martin Millett\nReferences