Microhistory, Archaeological Record, and the Subaltern Debris

1 Introduction

The translation of empirical data generated by the archaeological record into narratives capable of providing us with a more precise understanding of the historical processes developed by past societies is one of the primary challenges confronted by archaeologists worldwide. This applies regardless of our methodological approach or cultural expertise.

However, since the 1990s (Pluciennik, 1999), there has been a lack of publications thoroughly examining the scientific implications of the narrative techniques commonly employed by archaeologists.^[1] If the issue of translating material data into narratives is relevant in any historiographical context, its significance is crucial in the case of research on the history of subaltern communities (Vlassopoulos, 2021). Considering the significant disparity in quantity between narrative historical sources produced by subaltern groups and those generated by dominant groups, it can be asserted that the archaeological record (Lucas, 2012) stands as one of the primary sources of evidence for the historical analysis of these subaltern communities in the past (Cerasueolo, 2021; Paynter, 1989; Van Dommelen, 2019; Zuchtriegel, 2017). The archaeological record generated by the everyday life of these groups, especially at a domestic scale, offers a substantial amount of information. If we can harness it effectively, it becomes a valuable resource for documenting the history of subaltern communities (González-Ruibal, 2021; Marín-Aguilera, 2021).

However, this exercise of “translating the archaeological record” entails a series of problems that, in part, can help explain the still relatively limited implementation of this type of analysis in certain archaeological traditions. These problems can be divided into two fundamental types. First, there are those issues related to the profound understanding of the taphonomic nature of the archaeological record. These problems are related to the fact that, in most historical narratives used in archaeology, there is a reliance on a sequential conception of time (Lucas, 2005). The second problem, which is common to most historical analyses focused on subaltern communities, is related to the tendency to analyze historical evidence on subaltern communities in synchronic terms (Vlassopoulos, 2021, pp. 38–39).

Building upon the discussion of these historiographical problems and drawing on the concept of subaltern debris, coined by B. Marín-Aguilera in a recent work (Marín-Aguilera, 2021), I intend to articulate a proposal aimed at explaining how the dense analysis of archaeological deposits generated by the everyday life of any settlement – even within contexts created by dominant groups – can be utilized to examine the living conditions and agency of subaltern communities.

2 The Complex Nature of the Archaeological Record of Everyday Life: Sequence and Alternative Temporalities

Very often, when consulting excavation reports, I get the impression that archaeologists are obsessed with a sequential perception of time. This is largely due to the application of archaeological stratigraphy principles to document the archaeological record observed during the excavation process (Lucas, 2005, pp. 33–60). Such understanding of time finds its utmost representation in the Harris matrix, which we commonly use to express the set of stratigraphic relationships documented during the excavation process (Harris, 1989). This implies that, in many cases, the outcomes of an excavation campaign are conceived as a sequence of archaeological deposits interrelated in terms of anteriority and posteriority.

The perception of historical time as sequential is frequently associated with the documentation of various architectural elements or constructed environments during the excavation process. As Penelope Allison pointed out in the introduction to the volume she edited on the archaeology of everyday life activities (Allison, 1999, pp. 4–10), often the narratives proposed by archaeologists to interpret sites are limited by the emphasis placed on studying architectural elements at the expense of other types of archaeological records. When attempting to establish a framework for structuring the phases of occupation at a site, archaeologists typically rely on the construction of structures as a point of reference (e.g., construction phase, occupation phase, and abandonment phase). Such an approach stems from the recognition that architectural elements provide valuable insights into the historical sequence of human occupation and activities at a given site. This sequential conception of historical time often aids in understanding the archaeological record within the stratigraphic deposits that fill these architectural spaces above the circulation levels. These deposits result from the abandonment processes of these constructions, and consequently, the assemblages contained within them are regarded as guide fossils (Cameron, 1993). Artifacts recorded in these deposits are instrumental in generating proposals for dating (post or ante quem) for each of these phases. However, when conceived exclusively in this manner, artifact assemblages lose their heuristic potential as sources for analyzing the everyday lives of people in the past.

To conduct a historical analysis of the lives of people who inhabited settlements during different phases through the study of artifact assemblages contained within these archaeological deposits, we must first be aware of their taphonomic nature and incorporate it into our recording and interpretation processes (Ascher, 1968; Schiffer, 1983, 1987). The formation processes of these archaeological deposits may be linked to the construction sequences themselves (e.g., a layer composed of a tile collapse occurring after the roof collapse) or to other independent temporal processes (e.g., the predominant documentation of a certain type of pottery may also result from cultural, social, or economic patterns (Kopytoff, 1986), that is, consumption decisions made by the human groups that inhabited this space at a specific moment). Consequently, the awareness of the complex taphonomic nature underlying the formation of these deposits allows us to consider the relevance of other temporal perspectives – alternatives to the construction or habitation sequence of a building – when articulating narratives to interpret archaeological record data.

One of these alternatives’ temporal perspectives, which we will refer to as microhistorical, is grounded in the concept that through a contextual analysis of the assemblages documented in these deposits – commonly referred to as abandonment deposits – it is possible to identify events and everyday practices (Lucas, 2012, pp. 169–213). In some cases, these can be linked to specific human actions that occurred in the past. Inferences of this kind are easily obtainable through the traceological analysis of the assemblages (for an introduction to use-wear studies: Calvo Trías, García Roselló, & Albero Santacreu, 2022, pp. 45–64; Semenov, 1970, for more case-study oriented works: Robb, 2007, pp. 159–218; Verhoeven, 1999). For instance, when examining various ceramic materials from the tableware of many historical settlements, it is quite common to document incised lines generated by specific cuts that occurred at particular moments (Banducci, 2014; Bermejo Tirado, 2018). This is just one of the numerous examples that we can encounter when applying this microhistorical perspective to the analysis of specific deposits.

However, the true interpretative potential of these microhistorical perspectives lies in the ability of these assemblages to reflect the evolution of living conditions throughout history (D’Altroy & Hastorf, 2001; DeMarrais & Earle, 2017, pp. 191–192; Overholtzer & Robin, 2015; Smith & Earle, 2012). The contextual study of these assemblages, especially those related to dwelling spaces, can be understood as the outcome of a series of repeated daily habits in successive individual or group interactions. These habits can be characterized through the record of quantitative patterns (Blanco González, 2016). For example, the systematic analysis of archaeobotanical findings in recurrent proportions within one or several deposits can be used to record patterns of food consumption or preferred dietary habits within a household or community over time (Smith, 2006).

Despite being based on the identification of specific archaeological events, the everyday habits recorded in these assemblages are linked to cultural or social processes with a much broader temporal genesis. In other words, if the record of stratigraphic relationships within a settlement forces us to a sequential conception of historical time, the study of daily activities inferred from the microhistorical review of the findings leads to an alternative temporal conception based on the concept of duration. From this perspective, the specific composition of each assemblage, including the entirety of use-wear traces recorded in each specific find, should be regarded as the outcome of the dense network of cultural processes (sensu Schiffer, 1987, pp. 47–57) related to the practice of specific habits developed daily over a certain period. For all these reasons, we believe that the analysis of assemblages contained in these so-called abandonment deposits could be established within its temporal framework, independent of the sequential framework represented by the Harris Matrix. In the following section, we will discuss how this temporal perspective – an alternative to the conception of time in sequential terms (Dawdy, 2010) – opens a new horizon for the study of subaltern communities in the past.

3 What Abandonment? The Subaltern Debris in the Archaeological Record

As we have just seen, the widespread application of a sequential perspective based on the primacy of architectural remains as definers of occupation phases over other components of the archaeological record has often led archaeologists to interpret many of the deposits filling settlement rooms as “abandonment levels.” The application of the concept of “abandonment” implies a temporal hierarchy focused on a singular moment of occupation, often neglecting traces of subaltern individuals or communities in excavation records.

Some authors have approached this particular issue from the perspective of domestic waste management and its influence on the formation processes of the archaeological record (Arnold, 2015; Sosna & Brunclíková, 2017). However, such perspectives pose several interpretative challenges. For example, some of these proposals have attempted to analyze this issue concerning the practices carried out by a single household, as if these waste management practices were the outcome of a specific moment of occupation. Such an approach is only feasible in projects like the one developed by William Rathje within the framework of his Garbology (Rathje & Murphy, 1992). Applying this perspective to the interpretation of more conventional archaeological deposits, rather than individual findings, could be associated with a fallacious conception of the archaeological record akin to the Pompeii premise (Binford, 1981; Schiffer, 1985).

Nevertheless, perhaps the main issue associated with this type of interpretation lies in its conceptual nature. The analysis of household waste management, similar to the concept of “abandonment,” can only be understood from a hierarchical perspective that prioritizes the value assigned to a series of objects and practices within a specific social context (Douglas, 1966; Reno, 2017). Assigning specific social values around the concept of waste to all archaeological deposits means overshadowing the values associated with other subsequent groups or agents who inhabited these same spaces in other temporal moments.

This prioritization of architectural or social contexts has been applied even in cases where the presence of certain material patterns (e.g., segmentations or architectural reforms, the presence of hearths arranged on floors, or surfaces configured according to a different spatial organization) makes the presence of other temporal scales or moments of occupation particularly recognizable. The application of this sequencing bias leads to interpretations based on the presence of squatters (for a critical account of this concept in archaeology see Bernbeck, 2019; Worsham, 2021) or even to supposedly neutral notions of “residual” or “frequentation” often used in archaeological writing. The problem with these concepts, true archaeological neologisms, is that they are so ambiguous that they end up blurring any trace of historicity (Dawdy, 2010, pp. 776–777; González-Ruibal, 2021, p. 374).

In light of all these issues, I believe it would be very useful to reinterpret these deposits of supposed “abandonment” or “decline” based on the concept of subaltern debris proposed in a recent study (Marín-Aguilera, 2021). In this work, the notion of subaltern debris is defined through the discussion of the Gramscian concept of senso comune (Gramsci, 1971, note 1, pp. 56–57), as well as the idea of “matrix of domination” (Collins, 2009, pp. 203, 227–228, 287) coined by the feminist sociologist P. H. Collins. Marín-Aguilera argues that the application of this interpretative approach for the analysis of the everyday life archaeological record allows us “to identify the different elements which comprise subalternity and the social realities to which they are linked […] stressing the situational context in which subaltern chart their life courses” (Marín-Aguilera, 2021, p. 576). However, in this article, I will adopt a taphonomic approach to explore new paths for the archaeological application of the concept of subaltern debris, building upon the theoretical discussion developed by Marín-Aguilera.

From this approach, archaeological deposits linked to abandonment levels can be reinterpreted as reflecting alternative occupations shaped by specific archaeological events. The detailed analysis of these events, such as the reuse of monumental decoration elements for non-ornamental functions (something frequently documented by archaeologists in various historical contexts see Ellis, 1988; González-Ruibal, 2022; Lewit, 2003), allows us to apply a microhistorical temporal perspective to the living conditions within a new phase of occupation, regardless of its relationship with previous phases of the site. Very often, these events are documented in archaeological deposits resulting from the everyday activities of subaltern groups or individuals trying to secure their survival by repurposing some of the material resources generated by the social elites that constructed many of these built or monumental environments. Despite often being negatively associated with squatters' activities (Bernbeck, 2019; Dawdy 2010; Worsham, 2021), in most cases, it is impossible to infer that these events can be considered the result of illegitimate appropriations or violent acts. Rather, these types of reuses can be considered strategies of everyday resistance (Scott, 1985) aimed at making the most available resources in situations of inferiority compared to elite groups.

There is a certain correspondence between subaltern debris and many of the levels commonly referred to as “abandonment layers” deposited at the top of the stratigraphic sequence in many sites or phases of occupation. It could be asserted that all these more superficial levels constitute stratigraphic debris in which it is possible to record different aspects of the agency and ways of life developed by subaltern persons in one or successive phases of alternative occupation. The individualized study of these deposits provides us with the opportunity to record the living conditions of these groups from a microhistorical perspective. However, the comparative analysis of subaltern debris offers the opportunity to generate a new research horizon on the historical evolution of subaltern communities, even on a cross-cultural scale (González-Ruibal, 2021; Marín-Aguilera, 2021, pp. 568–576; Smith, 2010). Therefore, these comparative analyses offer us the opportunity to address the issues of synchrony (Vlassopoulos, 2021, pp. 38–39) mentioned in the introduction of the chapter.

4 Two Examples of Subaltern Debris: The Fortuna Domus (Cartagena, Murcia) and the Villa of Fuente Álamo (Puente Genil, Córdoba)

In this section, we will present two specific case studies related to late antique reoccupation in two different contexts in the Iberian Peninsula. These cases have been selected based on two fundamental criteria. The first is that they can be considered as a representation of two characteristic domestic spaces constructed by the social elites – urban and rural – of the Roman period. The second criterion for selection is the possibility of accessing a detailed stratigraphic record of all deposits documented during the excavation process of both sites (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Map with the location of the case studies discussed in the text (CAD: Fernando Moreno Navarro).

4.1 Case Study I: The Late Roman Reoccupation of the Fortuna Domus

The Fortuna Domus can be considered one of the most representative examples of Early Imperial domestic architecture documented in the Roman Colony of New Carthage (Cartagena, Murcia) placed in the southeast of the Iberian Peninsula (Gómez Marín, 2023, pp. 115–116). Thanks to a series of preventive interventions led by Pedro San Martín, we've been able to document the almost complete remains of a domus built during the Augustan period. Additionally, a significant section of one of the cardus in this city sector has been recorded (Fernández Díaz & Quevedo Sánchez, 2008, p. 284). The initial publication of the results from these interventions placed a strong emphasis on the architectural structures linked to the construction phase of the domus (Soler Huertas, 2000), as well as its decorative program comprising various opus signinum mosaics – one of these pavements includes an inscription alluding to FOTUNA PROPITIA, giving the house its name – and a remarkable collection of wall painting decoration (Fernández Díaz, 2001).

A closer examination of the recorded construction sequence and stratigraphy in the ensemble allows us to glimpse a more complex succession of occupations (Bermejo Tirado & Quevedo Sánchez, 2014). This occupational sequence reveals a later phase of reoccupation (occurring between the late second century and mid-third century AD; Figure 2). It is marked by a series of constructive removals, the existence of hearths and combustion areas directly above the mosaics, and intriguingly, Latin inscriptions directly inscribed onto portions of the wall painting decoration (Quevedo Sánchez, 2015, pp. 132–136). All these elements speak to a use of this residential space markedly different from the more conspicuous equipment linked to the levels of occupation corresponding to the Early Imperial period (Bermejo Tirado & Quevedo Sánchez, 2014, p. 505). This seems to confirm a phase of decline in the living conditions of the inhabitants during the late phase in comparison to those in the Early Imperial phase.

Figure 2

Layout of the Fortuna domus with the constructive removals related to the later phase of occupation, including the reuse of architectural decorative elements for the re-elaboration of the flooring in one of the rooms (after Bermejo Tirado & Quevedo Sánchez, 2014).

However, a detailed analysis of the assemblages associated with this later reoccupation of the domus unveils a more intricate portrait of the living conditions of its inhabitants. The study of the cooking wares from this phase indicates a growing diversification of vessels, revealing a more functional specialization compared to the patterns documented in the previous phase (Bermejo Tirado & Quevedo Sánchez, 2014, p. 496). We come across a significant number of cooking pots and dishes of the Hayes 23 (Figure 3: 3–5), 196, and 197 forms (Figure 4: 14–23), with production chronologies dating back to the second half of the second-century AD (Hayes, 1972, pp. 45–48). Excavations also discovered fragments of pots in the Hayes 200 form and a Uzita 48.1 type jar used for boiling liquids with a curved bottom. Additionally, there are remnants of a dense calcareous substance (possibly milk?) (Bermejo Tirado & Quevedo Sánchez, 2014, p. 500) (Figure 5: 1). The tableware also exhibits a diverse range of pieces, predominantly bowls and plates of several shapes of TSA (Terra Sigillata Africana [Bermejo Tirado & Quevedo Sánchez, 2014, p. 501]) (Figure 4: 1–6). Glass items, such as two bowls and a bottle in the Isings 50 form (Isings, 1957, p. 66), and other bowl of the form 85 (Isings, 1957, pp. 101–102) have also been documented (Figure 6: 1). Among the findings from this occupation phase, fragments of a loom weight have been documented (Figure 6: 26), as well as several pieces of acus crinalis (Figure 6: 5–15), identified as part of female personal adornment (Stephens, 2008), but likely associated with the production of textile items (Allison, 2015, pp. 113–115).

Figure 3

Cooking ware and amphorae fragments documented in the assemblage of the later phase of the Fortuna domus (after Bermejo Tirado & Quevedo Sánchez, 2014).

Figure 4

TSA Tableware, African cooking plates, and other relevant finds documented in the assemblage of the later phase of the Fortuna domus (after Bermejo Tirado & Quevedo Sánchez, 2014).

Figure 5

(1–4) Selected finds from the assemblage documented in the assemblage of the later phase of the Fortuna domus (after Bermejo Tirado & Quevedo Sánchez, 2014). (5) Example of one double-head vessel (doppelkopfgefässes) curated at the Louvre Museum (after Mathieux, 2008, p. 195).

Figure 6

Selection of the finds documented in the assemblage of the later phase of the Fortuna domus (after Bermejo Tirado & Quevedo Sánchez, 2014).

Other noteworthy findings documented in these contexts are related to domestic storage. Several amphora fragments have been identified in these assemblages, corresponding to Gauloise 4 (Laubenheimer, 1990, pp. 98–102), Dressel 7–11 (Márquez & Molina, 2005, pp. 135–136), Haltern 70 (Márquez & Molina, 2005, pp. 130–131), and Matagallanes I types of Betican origin (Bernal, 2008, pp. 46–48). Quite interesting is a complete amphora – with a probable local origin – filled with snail shells (Figure 5: 2). Such containers, typically used for export, are uncommonly found in domestic contexts near their production sites. It is probably a piece repurposed as a domestic container, similar to the Peña A type of reused amphorae (Peña, 2007, pp. 61–67).

In addition to these findings, we have discovered other artifacts related to personal adornments or household equipment, such as a half-rounded piece of bone that may have been the tip of a piece of furniture or the lid of a pyxis (Figure 5: 3). Also, of particular interest is the discovery of a small beaded-head, likely a fragment of a pottery bottle. It is a relief applied to contain oil or balms. The orange color of the fabric and the exterior slip in the same shade can be linked to its probable African origin. Only a few of these double-head vessels (doppelkopfgefässes) are documented in the Mediterranean (Salomonson, 1980, p. 74) (Figure 5: 4).

Other highly relevant consumption patterns associated with the study of faunal remains documented in this late phase of occupation. The quantitative analysis of the faunal remains from these assemblages, in comparison with those documented in the Early Roman period, indicates a decline in meat consumption in the dietary habits of this second phase of occupation. The faunal remains of this phase predominantly consist of crustaceans and the aforementioned snails, species that would have been more readily available in a coastal city like New Carthage (Bermejo Tirado & Quevedo Sánchez, 2014, p. 507).

The main finding from this case study is that the assemblages in the deposits of this later phase indicate a new occupation horizon in this domestic space, characterized by distinct economic practices and everyday habits compared to the Early Imperial period. But, considering the presented data, and despite the presence of material indicators that unequivocally point to a decline in living conditions – such as the mentioned decrease in meat consumption patterns – the review of these assemblages reveals that domestic activities and economic networks developed by the inhabitants of this later phase were more sophisticated and complex than typically assumed by previous scholarship.

4.2 Case Study II: the Late Antique Reoccupation of the Roman Villa of Fuente Álamo

The discussion of the late antique reoccupation of Roman villae in the Western Mediterranean has been approached by several authors in the last decades (Bowes & Gutteridge, 2005; Brogiolo et al., 2005; Brogiolo & Chavarría Arnau, 2008; Brogiolo, 1996; Castrorao Barba, 2020; Cavalieri & Sacchi, 2020; Cavalieri & Sfameni 2022; Chavarría Arnau, 2004, 2007; Lewit, 2003; Munro, 2012). However, in most cases, all these interpretations are based on the discussion of the architectural or ornamental changes experienced in these settlements. Other recent approaches, such as the one recently proposed by Dodd (2019), advocate for the application of a different perspective based on comparing individual trajectories to reconsider the various transformation processes documented in each of these villae.

Within this general historiographical framework, I aim to introduce another case study on the analysis of assemblages linked to the late antique reoccupation of various sectors of the villa of Fuente Álamo as an example of the application of the concept of subaltern debris. Despite the site has been known since the nineteenth century (Neira Jiménez, 2018), was only systematically excavated since the 1980s (Delgado Torres & Jaén, 2016). A new phase of research began in 2005, marked by the resumption of excavation campaigns that have been ongoing continuously until the present day.

The results of all these excavation campaigns have allowed us to comprehensively understand the site, revealing several construction phases, among which we can highlight three main moments (Delgado Torres & Jaén, 2019; Jáen Cubero & Delgado Torres, 2020). The first phase, dating back to the Early Imperial period, sees the site configured as a balneum, operating as a waystation linked to a crossroads connecting various communication routes in the territory (Delgado Torres & Jaén, 2014). The second phase, from the Late Roman period, is associated with the construction of a monumental villa, decorated with, among other things, exquisite figured mosaics (Neira Jiménez, 2019). Finally, during the Islamic period, various construction structures are documented, associated with the establishment of a rural settlement from the Emiral era (Figure 7).

Figure 7

Plan of the structures documented during the excavations of Fuente Álamo (Courtesy of M. Delgado & D. Jaén, Ayuntamiento de Puente Genil).

A more thorough examination of the archaeological record of the Late Roman villa reveals traces of an occupation carried out by inhabitants different from those who constructed this aristocratic residence. The so-called sector C of the pars urbana of the Late Roman villa is one of the most luxurious areas of this magnificent residence. It consists of a wing adorned with mosaics depicting mythological themes, including bacchic motifs and a possible representation of the Three Graces (Neira Jiménez, 2019). Nevertheless, the systematic excavation of these sectors has also allowed us to document the presence of hearths, composed of fired bricks, directly supported on these mosaics (Delgado Torres & Jaén, 2016). Additionally, various elements of the architectural decoration of the Late Imperial ensemble have been recorded and repurposed as part of the domestic furniture (Figure S1).^[2] All these elements enable us to visualize the existence of a new phase of late antique occupation of the site, which reused a significant portion of the monumental features that characterized the aristocratic residence during the Late Imperial period, similar to what was observed in the final phase of the abovementioned Fortuna domus. In addition to all these architectural removals, the excavations carried out in this sector of the villa have served to document several deposits (corresponding to the stratigraphic units called C. 63 and C. 64, see Bermejo Tirado, Moreno Navarro, & Colominas, 2019, p. 243; Figure S2) that exhibit features very similar to those of a de facto refuse (Schiffer, 1983) that can be considered as a paradigmatic example of subaltern debris because of their taphonomic traceability.

The chronological discussion of the assemblage documented in both units reveals around two centuries of the occupation of this late antique phase. A notable aspect that must be addressed is the significant presence of TSH (Terra Sigillata Hispánica) and African cooking ware fragments within these contexts (Table S1).^[3] The high presence of materials from this earlier chronology in these assemblages may have a similar explanation to that proposed by M. Sánchez Simón and C. García Merino for the late antique phase of the Almenara de Adaja-Puras villa (García Merino & Sánchez Simón, 2017, pp. 19–32). According to these authors, the documentation of the high volumes of Early Roman material is explained by its reuse as a binder for earth construction during this late antique phase. The collapses of these tapial walls would be impossible to distinguish from other abandonment deposits during the excavation process.

Much more critical for this chronological discussion, despite their small quantitative weight in the overall findings of these contexts, are the pieces of TSA documented. The first such find is a horizontal rim bowl of Hayes type 73 with multiple deposits of lime concretion covering its entire surface, eroding the characteristic incised marks on the lips of this type of vessel (Hayes, 1972, Figure 21). Hayes proposes a chronology for this type between 420 and 475 AD (Hayes, 1972, p. 134). In better condition is the surface of a plate of Hayes type 76, decorated with incised concentric circles in bands on the inside of its base (Figure 8: 9). The piece has a uniformly applied slip on the interior and drips on the exterior, typical of African productions of type D. For this type, Hayes proposes a similar chronology to the previous piece, located between 425 and 475 AD (Hayes, 1972, p. 125), while Bonifay proposes a chronology linked to contexts of the second half of the fifth-century AD (Bonifay, 2004, p. 203). Another fragment of TSH documented in these contexts could belong to a fragment of an African C plate of Hayes type 51 (Hayes, 1972, Figure 13) (Figure 8: 8).

Figure 8

Selection of finds recorded in the excavation units C. 63 and C. 64 from Fuente Álamo.

Other ceramic productions that can provide relevant information for the chronological discussion of these contexts are amphorae. In this regard, we must highlight the discovery of an almost complete example of Late Roman 1 type (Figure 8: 7). This is a type of Eastern production, originating from workshops located in Cyprus and Cilicia (Reynolds, 2005), probably intended for the transport of wine (Pieri, 2005). Although variants of this typology are present in the Mediterranean between the third and seventh centuries AD, there are a series of “classic” variants with a wider neck and cylindrical handles (similar to the specimen documented in Fuente Álamo) that are generally associated with the second half of the fifth century AD (Egloff, 1977, p. 196).

A crucial aspect of this analysis is the capacity of the artifacts recorded in this context to shed light on the everyday activities and economic practices performed by the inhabitants of this phase. There is a notable presence of elements related to productive activities, such as the discovery of a wrought iron rake (Figure 8: 3), indicating agricultural tools, and lithic industry fragments serving as sharpeners for pointed instruments (Figure 8: 1–2). Additionally, dolia, large vessels for storing agricultural products, are documented (Figure 8: 4–5), emphasizing the inhabitants’ concern for preserving agricultural yields.

The study of tableware consumption patterns in the late antique period focuses on specific functional groups associated with individual and communal use. The comparison of percentages between the late antique and those sampled in earlier periods indicates a surprising continuity in the distribution of tableware types, suggesting similar convivial patterns despite temporal differences. Further scrutiny delves into the composition and consumption patterns of tableware using simple correspondence analysis (Figure 9). The results reveal the maintenance of proportional distributions in these reoccupation assemblages, suggesting consistent convivial patterns. A more detailed quantitative examination identifies specific consumption patterns, such as the association of TSA with the service of solid foods and common oxidizing ceramics with liquid service.

Figure 9

Simple Correspondence Analysis chart of the relationship between different fabrics and functional groups documented in the assemblages recorded in the excavation unit C. 63 and C. 64 from Fuente Álamo. Elaborated with IBM SPSS software version 18.0. Data available in supplementary Table S2 (SPSS file with the tabulation of data related to the tableware finds in the assemblages documented in the excavation units C. 63. and C. 64 at Fuente Álamo).

On the analysis of cooking pots, even when the sample size is very small (composed of 15 vessels), its study reveals some information about the culinary practices developed in this late phase. Ollae dominate, representing the majority as in earlier phases, followed by plates and lids. The absence of mortars – present in the Early Roman phase of the site – in the late antique contexts is noted, suggesting a potential shift in culinary practices (Bermejo Tirado et al., 2019, p. 276). The detailed examination of fire abrasion use-ware traces present in these cooking wares reveals some interesting patterns. Despite the previously mentioned small size of the sample of cooking ware ceramics documented in these contexts, the fact that several of these pieces have been almost entirely preserved makes the study of the distribution of use-wear traces on their surface much more valuable than that of other larger sets with a higher degree of fragmentation. The analysis of the distribution patterns of firing use-wear traces documented on the surfaces of all these cooking ware vessels shows a tendency towards irregularity, similar to types 9 and 10 in the methodological proposal developed by Banducci (2014, Figure 7) (Figure 10). Such an irregular distribution is typical of poorly controlled culinary processes in which the vessels are directly exposed to fire (Figure S3). These are cooking processes related to stew-type recipes, characteristic of peasant communities that carry their pots to work areas and expose them to slow, uncontrolled fires for extended periods.

Figure 10

Distribution of fire abrasion trace types in cooking ware vessels from Excavation Units C. 63 and C. 64 (Elaborated after Banducci, 2014, Figure 7).

In terms of the faunal remains analyzed in this late antique phase, only seven marine mollusk remains have been recovered. These belong to the genus Ostrea (four individuals), the genus Callista (two individuals), and the genus Glycymeris (one individual [Bermejo Tirado et al., 2019, p. 262, Table 1]). Although the faunal remains from this phase of occupation do not constitute a statistically significant sample to illustrate consumption patterns of animals or livestock practices in a settlement, it is worth noting the presence of a mean number of findings of marine species originating from regions external to the territory of the Cordoban countryside where the villa of Fuente Álamo is located. The presence of these marine species implies their importation from other coastal areas of the Baetica province.

Just as in the case of Fortuna domus, a more detailed examination of the contexts within these deposits, misleadingly labeled as abandonment levels, allows us to obtain a more precise view of the living conditions carried out by the inhabitants of this latter phase of occupation. The data extracted from this analysis indicate the presence of one or several domestic units reoccupying the remains of this monumental complex between the fifth and seventh centuries AD. Both the type of productive and storage activities, as well as certain everyday consumption practices, indicate that the group who inhabited the site during this phase had a very different economic orientation than in the Late Roman period. However, other elements point to a clear continuity regarding food consumption patterns, including the presence of tableware and imported species. This suggests that these communities were not entirely isolated from the primary commercial networks that existed in the late antique Mediterranean.

5 Discussion

One of the fundamental points of our proposal focuses on the capacity of microhistorical analysis of such archaeological deposits, as those sampled in the case studies proposed, to record traces of subaltern groups from the past. A first aspect that we must consider relates to the inherent difficulty in establishing a precise definition for the term “subaltern” itself. As is well known, this is an issue that has generated significant controversy within the framework of the so-called subaltern studies (Banerjee & Wouters, 2022; Morris, 2010; Spivak, 1988). Certainly, we do not have space here to synthesize this discussion, let alone outline a new attempt to define this concept from an original perspective. Considering the inherent semantic ambiguity of the term “subaltern,” it may be necessary to provide a series of conceptual clarifications, based on the archaeological discussion of the assemblages analyzed, regarding its application within the framework of this study.

Were the deposits we have analyzed in our case studies generated by subaltern groups? From a more strictly archaeological perspective, the analyzed case studies offer us the opportunity to establish a direct comparison between the late antique assemblages we have examined earlier and others belonging to the early Roman phases (for a more detailed discussion of these earlier phases see Bermejo Tirado & Quevedo Sánchez, 2014, pp. 502–504; Bermejo Tirado et al., 2019, pp. 243–253, 259–268), that is, those generated by the groups that constructed the architectural structures that have traditionally served as reference points in the occupation sequences of both built environments. These data not only serve to confirm a clear impoverishment of living conditions recorded in the analyzed phases (in terms of diet, tableware, cooking practices, or household equipment) but also allow us to observe profound differences in the domestic economies that characterized the inhabitants of both phases. In the case of the earlier phases, the assemblages contain only the remains of consumption items, including conspicuous elements such as architectural decoration elements, mural paintings, or mosaics. On the contrary, as we have seen, the practices associated with findings from these later phases would be more characteristic of household economies situated at the margins of subsistence, with a diversified small-scale production orientation. However, these differences in economic profiles detected between both periods alone are not sufficient to assert a subaltern origin for the deposits analyzed in our case studies. The interpretation of these findings as linked to subaltern communities refers fundamentally to historiographical motivations. If we refer to the people who generated the analyzed assemblages as subalterns, it is because such groups have been marginalized, when not directly silenced, by a sequential conception of history based on grand narratives or cultural periods. As we have seen, despite this historiographical subordination, the application of a microhistorical perspective can provide us with a much more complex and expressive vision of the harsh living conditions they had to face. Despite inhabiting what has been categorized as levels of “abandonment” or “ruins,” they were able to engage in various domestic activities with sufficient success to acquire certain imported goods and other (arguably) luxurious items. Although it may seem contradictory, these reflections of “quasi-luxury amidst the ruins” (Dawdy, 2010) bring us glimpses of the lives of these people without history (Wolf, 1982).

6 Final Remarks: The Material Agency of Subaltern Communities

The two case studies we have just presented serve to illustrate the discussion on how the analysis of subaltern assemblages contained in levels traditionally allows us to gain a very precise insight into the living conditions of various subaltern groups during the late antique period of the Iberian Peninsula. Thus, by analyzing the assemblages documented during the excavation of this subaltern debris using a microhistorical approach, it is possible to create a new historiographical framework, with its own temporal scales (both integrating concrete events into long-term processes), to reintegrate these communities as historical agents in the interpretation of the social and economic dynamics of the past. I believe that the widespread application of this type of microhistorical perspective in excavation projects to prove something that I can only formulate as a working hypothesis: that a significant number of sumptuous settlements or aristocratic residences archaeologically excavated contain traces of reoccupation processes by various subaltern groups.

Despite the apparent ubiquity of these reoccupation processes, which we have linked to the application of the concept of subaltern debris, it is a fact that these communities have been marginalized in two ways. Firstly, they have been excluded from primary textual sources, as these episodes have rarely been deemed worthy of mention by past historians. Secondly, they have also been marginalized in the interpretations generated by archaeologists, as many of the subaltern assemblages have been considered mere abandonment levels when they are the result of continuous occupations.

The scrutiny of subaltern debris deposited in the archaeological record of each period may indeed help reveal the true agency of these groups in reshaping the materiality produced by the elites over time. In some cases, these processes could be understood not only as symptoms of the collapse of political and economic structures that served to reproduce the primacy of certain elite groups in the past but perhaps as a fundamental causal factor explaining such collapse. Perhaps, the development of a systematic analysis of this subaltern debris can decode collective strategies of resource redistribution. Such strategies, which can be interpreted as the materialization of subaltern agencies, would be operating at long-term temporal rhythms that have thus far gone unnoticed in more conventional historical narratives.