A recent bioarchaeological study published in the Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports investigates the differences in lifestyle between urban and rural inhabitants of Roman Italy during the imperial period. The study, based on the analysis of skeletal remains from two distinct necropolises—one in the rural area of Contrada Nevola (Corinaldo) and the other in the urban context of the Catholic University of Milan—reveals notable disparities in living conditions, access to resources, and types of physical exertion between both populations.

The methodology used in the study combined anthropological and radiographic analyses on 110 individuals, of whom 60 belonged to the rural necropolis of Contrada Nevola and 50 to the urban necropolis of Milan. The researchers examined a series of markers of physical and physiological stress, such as cribrotic lesions, Harris lines, enamel hypoplasia, Schmorl’s nodes, changes in entheses, and antemortem trauma.

The results showed that the inhabitants of the rural area appeared to have enjoyed better living conditions compared to their urban counterparts. In particular, differences in access to resources and the distribution of labor tasks were more pronounced in the rural setting than in the urban one, pointing to a distinct organization of work between genders.

One of the key aspects of the study was the analysis of oral health and nutritional indicators. A higher prevalence of dental calculus was found in the urban sample (42%) compared to the rural sample (26%), suggesting poorer oral hygiene or a diet richer in carbohydrates among city dwellers.

Roman Empire Italy Countryside cities
Spring Idyll, painting by Ettore Forti. Credit: Public domain / Wikimedia Commons

Likewise, indicators of nonspecific infections showed qualitative rather than quantitative differences: while signs of meningitis and respiratory diseases were found in the rural necropolis, intrathoracic and localized infections were identified in the urban sample, possibly linked to overcrowding and lack of sanitation.

The study also provided data on differences in physical stress between both populations. In the rural sample, men exhibited injuries in the lower part of the spine, indicating heavy labor associated with agriculture and livestock. On the other hand, women showed signs of wear in the cervical region, possibly due to household tasks that involved carrying weight on their heads.

In the urban population, musculoskeletal injuries were more evenly distributed between men and women, which could indicate a greater female participation in artisanal or commercial work. Additionally, a higher incidence of fractures was found in the urban sample, which could be related to occupational accidents or even interpersonal conflicts in a denser and more socially stratified environment.

Another significant finding was the difference in age at death. In the rural sample, women tended to live longer than men, whereas in the urban context, the opposite was true. This difference could be explained by several factors: in the city, women were exposed to health risks such as infections in enclosed spaces, lead poisoning, and complicated childbirths without adequate care. In contrast, in the rural environment, although life also involved significant physical exertion, exposure to pathogens and pollutants may have been lower.

This study provides a unique perspective on living conditions in Roman Italy, challenging the idea that cities were the sole epicenter of development and well-being. On the contrary, the evidence suggests that rural communities could offer a superior quality of life in terms of health and longevity, albeit with a labor structure differentiated by gender.

SOURCES

Claudia Moro, Lucie Biehler-Gomez, et al., Urban vs rural lifestyle in Roman Italy: a bioarchaeological and paleopathological investigation. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, Volume 62, April 2025, 105007. doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2025.105007

  • Share on:

Discover more from LBV Magazine English Edition

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.

Follow LBV Magazine on Google News