Embodying Value?
The Transformation of Objects
in and from the Ancient World
Edited by
Annabel Bokern
Clare Rowan
BAR International Series 2592
2014
Published by
Archaeopress
Publishers of British Archaeological Reports
Gordon House
276 Banbury Road
Oxford OX2 7ED
England
[email protected]
www.archaeopress.com
BAR S2592
Embodying Value? The Transformation of Objects in and from the Ancient World
© Archaeopress and the individual authors 2014
ISBN 978 1 4073 1220 0
Cover illustration: Seal impression. From W. Müller and I. Pini, Die Siegelabdrücke von Aj. Triada und
anderen Zentral- und Ostkretischen Fundorten, Corpus der Minoischen und Mykenischen Siegel, Bd. II.6, Nr.
173 (from Mallia, House Epsilon). Drawing by S. Lieberknnecht, reproduced with the kind permission of Prof.
Ingi Pini.
Printed in England by CMP (UK) Ltd
All BAR titles are available from:
Hadrian Books Ltd
122 Banbury Road
Oxford
OX2 7BP
England
www.hadrianbooks.co.uk
The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available free
from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com
BAR S2592 2014 BOKERN & ROWAN (Eds) EMBODYING VALUE?
Heavy metal in hallowed contexts
Continuity and change in aes deposits in Central Italy and Sicily
Andreas M. Murgan
Amongst the numerous finds from the middle and second half of the first millennium BC discovered in sacred contexts
in Central Italy and Sicily, the uncoined metal (mainly known as aes rude and aes signatum) found in temples and graves
is relatively understudied. Through their archaeological contexts, these pieces can reveal practical and theoretical aspects
surrounding cult practices. This article uses comparatively well published examples of such metal finds, in conjunction
with other historical sources, to consider the religious deposition of these objects, which has a long tradition in this region
that continued throughout the period of Roman expansion and lasted until at least the late Republic. This raises questions
about the purposes of this material across time, space (Italy or Sicily), place (temples or graves), and continuity and
change in ritual behaviour. Learning more about the aim, function and the embodied value(s) of aes in sacred contexts can
lead to a better understanding of its use as a votive, sacrifice, or gift to the deceased.
deposition, dedication, pre-monetary metal, coins, context, sanctuary
Das hauptsächlich unter den Begriffen Aes rude und signatum bekannte ungemünzte Metall stellt unter den zahlreichen
Funden, die aus der Mitte und der zweiten Hälfte des ersten Jahrtausends v. Chr. aus sakralem Kontext in Mittelitalien und
Sizilien stammen, eine relativ unerforschte Materialgattung dar. Ihre archäologischen Befunde, Heiligtümer und Gräber,
tragen jedoch Informationen, die sowohl theoretische als auch praktische Aspekte antiker Kultpraktiken näher beleuchten
können. In Verbindung mit anderen Quellen soll anhand von verhältnismäßig gut publizierten Beispielen die religiös
motivierte Niederlegung dieses Materials untersucht werden, welche auf eine lange Tradition zurückgeht und sich über
die Periode der römischen Expansion hinweg bis mindestens in die späte Republik zurückverfolgen lässt. Es werfen sich
Fragen auf nach der Bedeutung dieses Materials im Lauf der Zeit an verschiedenen Orten in unterschiedlichen Kontexten,
sowie nach Kontinuität und Wandel in den vollzogenen rituellen Handlungen. Eine verbesserte Kenntnis der Zwecke,
Funktionen und enthaltenen Werte von Aes in sakralen Kontexten ermöglicht ein tieferes Verständnis für den Gebrauch
als Votiv, Opfer oder Geschenk für die Toten.
Deponierung, Weihung, vormünzliches Metall, Münzen, Kontext, Heiligtum
Introduction: defining the sacred
monumental structures, cultic deposits are also found at
exceptional natural locations like wells, rivers, groves,
mountains or caves. Cultic activity also took place at
graves, an environment of transition from the sphere of
the living to the sphere of the dead. These different types
of ‘sacred’ place will be considered throughout this paper.
In the Graeco-Roman period, the sacred had a greater
importance than it has in the modern western world, and
life was loaded with mythical meanings.1 The sacred
or hallowed sphere was entangled with daily life and
permeated ancient landscapes. The omnipresence of
religion meant that people used cultic activity to attempt
to influence situations they could not otherwise control.
To modern eyes, the most visible places for these ritual
activities are sanctuaries. But in addition to built,
Due to the entanglement of the sacred and the profane
sphere, the term ‘hallowed context’ is not easy to define.
In many cases it is difficult to discern sacred contexts from
the non-sacred. Besides obvious examples like a sanctuary
or a grave, one cannot be sure that the classification of a
context as ‘profane’ corresponds with the ancient reality.
In addition, we should not forget that ‘obviously’ sacral
contexts could also supply profane needs. For example,
temples could also serve as treasury buildings, holding
the thesaurus, whose purpose was the collection of money
The research for this article comes from the broader Lichtenberg
research project, ‘Coinage and the Dynamics of Power: the Western
Mediterranean 500-100 BC’, funded by the VolkswagenStiftung. I
wish to thank the project leader, Prof. Dr. Fleur Kemmers, for her
encouragement and comments. Furthermore, I want to thank Dr. Clare
Rowan, who enhanced this article with advice and improved my English.
1
65
Embodying Value? The Transformation of Objects in and from the Ancient World
that could be used, for example, for the maintenance of
the sanctuary.2 A well-known example is the temple of
Saturn in the forum romanum where the aerarium, the
treasury of Rome, was situated.3 In this case value was
held under divine protection, but it never belonged to the
deity. The situation becomes further complicated when we
consider the fact that in the period concerned Central Italy
was inhabited by a variety of different peoples and tribes
(e.g. Etruscans, Latins, Umbri, Osci), all with their own
particular languages, traditions and rituals.
In general, valuable items or objects loaded with meaning
were used as votive offerings in the region concerned. The
former were defined by their intrinsic value or high quality,
for instance objects made of silver like jewellery or coins.
The latter could bear a particular relevance that linked the
donor with a targeted mythical entity, like the terracotta
figurines made from models produced in vast quantities
– for others such objects might appear both worthless and
meaningless.
Figure 1 Piece of aes rude © Trustees of the British
Museum.
Different occasions demanded different types of donation.
Some objects were suitable only in a very specific context
(for example, when votives were marked with the name
of the receiving deity, or figurines depicted a particular
god), while others could be used more universally (e.g.
perishable material like wine or consumable offerings).
One of the primary attributes of money is its generalpurpose usability, so it is little wonder that coins are
found as offerings in a variety of contexts, for example in
sanctuaries, graves, and other deposits.
Figure 2 Round ingot © Trustees of the British Museum.
The focus of this article is a group of metal objects that are
classically interpreted as an early form of money. The socalled aes rude, aes signatum and aes grave consist of pieces
of copper, tin, lead and iron in differing alloys and with
different purity. They are, from a chemical point of view,
pieces of ‘heavy metal’ that have an intrinsic value because
of their metal content. The term aes rude encompasses
chunks, lumps and ingots of cast copper and bronze,
objects that were chopped to different weights as and when
required (Figures 1 and 2). Since they lack a standardised
form or weight, it is believed that in transactions these
objects were measured and valued through weighing with
a set of scales. The term aes signatum has been used to
describe bronze bars that bear signs on one or both sides.
It is a confusing term that derives more from the history of
modern research than any ancient reality, and should not
be used furthermore.4 Instead this work uses the terms cast
or bronze bars, which are a more accurate reflection of the
nature of the material. Earlier bronze bars are marked with
a so-called ramo secco pattern, meaning ‘withered branch’
(Figure 3). Later bars bear different pictures like animals
or tools (Figures 4 and 5). These bars have a standardised
form but still differ in weight and are often chopped. The
Figure 3 Ramo secco bar © Trustees of the British
Museum.
term aes grave is used for the heavy cast bronze coins of
Rome (Figure 6), which have a standardised form and
weight. This article will focus on how all these objects
were used in sacred or hallowed contexts throughout
time and space. For this investigation, several examples
from clearly sacral contexts in Sicily and Italy are given
in order to illustrate how these items were used in pits,
sanctuaries and graves. Unfortunately one is confined to
the well-published cases; many other finds of this material
still await proper publication. The examples demonstrate
the specific role these objects had outside of everyday
Crawford 2003, 70-1, 76-80
Nawracala 2011, 45
4
Crawford 2009
2
3
66
A. M. Murgan, Heavy metal in hallowed contexts
Figure 6 Aes grave coin with Janus head and prow ©
Trustees of the British Museum.
Figure 4 Cast bronze bar with elephant and sow © Trustees
of the British Museum.
Figure 7 Places mentioned in the text.
clear stratigraphy provides one of the very few possibilities
to date the use of aes rude and cast bars, while providing
some insight into the processes of deposition. Initial
archaeological fieldwork was undertaken in 1901 by Paolo
Orsi,5 followed by excavations led by Piero Orlandini in
the 1960s.6 In 19917 and 19948, two further campaigns
took place. The resulting preliminary reports from these
excavations are the basis for the following discussion. The
assignment of the sanctuary to Demeter is based on the
graffiti found on the ceramics that had been dedicated.9
Figure 5 Cast bronze bar with anchor and tripod © Trustees
of the British Museum.
transactions, their ability to travel between the sacred and
profane spheres, and how their associations and value
changed according to context.
Orlandini identified five layers in the sanctuary that were
stratigraphically well-distinguished.10 Layer one, on top,
The votive pits from the sanctuary of Bitalemi, Gela
(Sicily)
Orsi 1907
Orlandini 1966; Orlandini 1967
7
Fiorentini 1993-1994, 721
8
Orlandini 2003
9
See most recently Verger 2011, 17.
10
Orlandini 1966, 11-17
5
Opposite the ancient city of Gela, across from the river of the
same name, lie the ruins of the extramural thesmophorion
of Demeter, which is situated on a sandy hill at the estuary
mouth. The sanctuary of Bitalemi is important because its
6
67
Embodying Value? The Transformation of Objects in and from the Ancient World
was medieval and contained a small chapel dedicated to
Virgin Mary of Bethlehem, built in the 13th century and
in use until modern times. Connected to the small church
was a medieval cemetery. Layer two was a sterile sand
stratum, which documents an interruption in the use of this
area. Layer three is split by a sterile sand stratum into two
substrata, both of which had evidence of Roman farming
activity. One farm is dated to the 3rd and 4th centuries AD,
the other to the Augustan period. Layer four contained
the architectural remains of the Greek sanctuary, which
was erected in the middle of the 6th century BC during
extensive readjustments to the cult area. A destruction at
the end of the 5th century BC, generally connected with
the sack of Gela by the Carthaginians in 405 BC, forms
the end of the use of the sanctuary, and finds from the 4th
and 3rd century BC are scarce. Because the whole hill
consisted of sand, an argillaceous stratum was brought
in from elsewhere to serve as foundation for the Greek
sanctuary complex. This layer separates the upper strata
from the first phase of the sanctuary.
were locally produced, some were imitations of imported
pottery, and some were actually imported from Corinth,
Rhodes or Ionia; one figurine even comes from Crete.
Numerous loom weights complete the inventory of clay
material objects. Interestingly, the objects were often
laid down or stuck into the sand head first, perhaps as a
reflection of the chthonic character of the goddess. The
few vessels in an upright position may thus have contained
sacrificial liquids like oil or wine – one example was filled
with pebbles. Amongst these finds, Orlandini’s team also
uncovered metal objects. From the bed of the stratum
came iron knives which were associated with pots and the
bones of small animals and traces of fire, and can therefore
be interpreted as sacrificial knives. From the middle of the
6th century BC comes a set of agricultural tools (a pick, a
scythe and two plough blades).14
Of these votive deposits, 31 are of special interest here. In
1967 Orlandini published them under the title ‘Depositi
votivi di bronzo premonetale’,15 a label which already
offers a clear interpretation of the material. In total
approximately 102kg of bronze was buried, with the total
weight per deposit ranging from 350 to 7095g, with one
lonely peak at 11,700g. The most common group of objects
within these deposits are aes rude, with individual pieces
weighing between 5 and 3300g. Two pieces, in deposits
15 and 23, bore engraved letters or signs whose meaning
is unknown. Another group is formed by a multitude of
different twisted and fragmented bronze sheets and plates,
the remains of different objects like bowls or phiales. Some
of these were originally decorated, for example with dots.
Different types of tools were also found in a fragmentary
condition: equipment for metalworking like melting pots
and moulds, devices for cutting like axes and knives, and a
variety of other instruments like graters and broken bits of
objects like handles. A final group is formed by jewellery,
consisting of rings, bracelets, pearls and fibulae.
In layer five, the area appears to be a ritual place without
stone architecture. Nevertheless, the base of the small
building G8 (5.65m x 4.40m) could be detected, which
was made of mud bricks that were positioned directly onto
the sand.11 This was dated to the very beginning of the 6th
century BC. About 15m to the north-east a second wall was
detected, built in the same manner, but further information
could not be obtained. Due to the oddness of the remains
and their unusual orientation, Orlandini dismissed a
sacellum as a possible function, and instead proposed
the existence of other temporary buildings, skenai, which
were constructed during feasts. Uta Kron disagreed with
this interpretation and argued that the structures were
permanent and at least had utilitarian functions, if not used
as thesauroi or oikoi.12 In 2003, Orlandini returned to this
point, and agreed with Kron’s interpretation.13
But apart from this building, the character of the early
sanctuary was roofless: the whole layer consisted of votive
deposits that were precisely placed into the sand. The
deposits were found at different heights within the layer,
which on average is 1m thick. These different positions
within the stratum illustrate the relative chronology of
the objects. The careful method of placement indicates
separate, individual burials, not the purge of an overfilled
sanctuary in a classical bothros. Based on the stratigraphy
and datable material like pottery, it is clear that the deposits
belong to the 7th and 6th centuries BC, starting in the middle
of the 7th century BC and continuing until the middle of the
6th century BC in the upper part of the stratum. Dedicated
ceramics had a variety of forms and functions (e.g.
skyphoi, kalykes, stamnoi, hydriai, amphorai, alabastra
and other unguentaria, as well as pinakes), and terracotta
lamps and votive figurines were also found. Some of these
Two of the cast ingots repay further discussion. The first
derives from deposit 26 and was buried with 72 pieces
of aes rude, as well as fragmented metal sheets and tools
like needles or the remains of knives. On both sides of the
ingot, which weighs 425g, a ramo secco sign is visible.
The second example comes from deposit seven and also
has a sign on both sides, but here the image is not as clear.
However, it is likely also to be a ramo secco pattern.
According to the stratigraphy of the site, both deposits
have been dated to the period 570-540 BC. With this, a
terminus ante quem for the appearance of ramo secco can
be established.
11
Orlandini 1967, 178
Kron 1992, 620-3
13
Orlandini 2003, 510
14
12
15
The type, size and arrangement of the deposits reveal some
aspects of the ritual performed. Many of the deposited items
are well-suited as dedications to Demeter, a female deity
with a chthonic character and associated with fertility.16
Orlandini 1966, 23-9
Orlandini 1965-1967
16
Kron 1992, 623; Verger 2011, 17-9
68
A. M. Murgan, Heavy metal in hallowed contexts
As demonstrated by the inscriptions on the ceramics, the
ritual activities at the site included thesmophoriai, feasts
that were largely performed by women. This, in addition
to the feminine character of many of the dedications (e.g.
the jewellery), has led to the suggestion that the sanctuary
was only frequented by women.17 But this assumes that the
sanctuary was used only for the thesmophoriai, or that the
female character of the ritual was strictly enforced in the
area. Furthermore, it does not explain the presence of tools
that are not associated directly with the female sphere, like
the metal working equipment. One also cannot exclude
the idea that a male could dedicate ‘feminine’ objects to a
female deity. Although the thesmophorion was likely not
important outside the region, the traceable contact sphere
provided by the dedicated objects is impressively wideranging. In addition to local products, objects came from
both east and west, spreading from France to the eastern
areas of the Black Sea.18 The objects may thus have passed
through many hands before reaching the sanctuary, and the
identity of the final owner is difficult to reconstruct. The
problems with interpreting the gender of the dedicator led
Kron to suggest that we look not for the person dedicating
the object, but for the reason behind the dedication.
Independent of the dedicator’s gender, Kron argued that
a sacrifice might have been paid for and benefitted the
whole family.19 If Kron is correct, we might see families as
having an active role behind the visible dedications in the
sanctuary. This idea, one not often considered in modern
scholarship, could equally apply to other groups like trade
guilds or military units, with an individual acting as a
representative. But the individuals or groups behind these
dedications remain difficult to reconstruct.
3. Other donations might have been chosen because
they combined both the above attributes, i.e. intrinsic and extrinsically generated value. These
were objects made out of valuable materials that
also had additional meanings or significance for
the cult (e.g. the agricultural tools, which are connected with fecundity), or valuable objects whose
individual history connected the giver with the gift
(e.g. objects of bronze, which became fragmented
during the ritual process, but which still had an intrinsic value).
Thus intrinsic or extrinsic value, or both, played an
important role in the votive selection process. Analyses
done by Verger on the composition of the different
deposits demonstrate that there was no overall framework
beyond personal preference when choosing which object
to dedicate.20 Items from different regions of the ancient
world in different states of use (e.g. broken or whole) were
used in a similar manner. The use of objects with both
intrinsic and extrinsic value is also seen in Rome, our next
example.
Votive pits in Rome
One of the characteristics of early cult in Rome was
the use of votive pits, seen in a series of finds. The first
example derives from the Quirinal, where a votive pit was
found in 1878 at the church of S. Maria della Vittoria.
The first report on the find was written by de Rossi, who
compared different features from the Quirinal, Viminal
and Esquiline Hills.21 This publication was supplemented
in the 1960s by Gjerstad with more detail and an overview
of the finds.22 The pit measured around 3m in diameter
and the embankments were revetted by rubblework walls
of roughly dressed tufa blocks. The contents of the pit
included a large amount of pottery, the only finds which
have survived until the present day. Gjerstad lists impasto
ware, bucchero, Italo-Protocorinthian and Italo-Corinthian
vases, red slip, plain white, black glazed and coarse
ware. In the great majority of cases, the pieces are intact
or could be restored. Furthermore, objects of terracotta
(e.g. beads or spindle-whorls, discs that are interpreted as
votive cakes or libation tablets, a figurine), some pieces of
bone (perhaps part of a pyxis) and iron (spear-heads and
other undetermined objects, although these are rare as at
Bitalemi) and a large number of bronzes were reported,
but these have since been dispersed. The traces of ash and
bones of animals reflecting ritual sacrifices have also not
survived until the present day. The bronze objects can be
split into groups of jewellery (fibulae, earrings, circlets),
tools (e.g. handles, vessels, a shield boss), sheets from
fragmented objects like bowls, and various unidentified
The example of Bitalemi demonstrates that material
traditionally considered as pre-monetary was deposited
with objects and tools that are normally not classified
as items that embody or store value. But while the latter
objects might be connected to sacrifices concerning
fertility and the female sphere, the pre-monetary material
does not fit into the picture so easily. These objects have
no obvious connection to the cult of Demeter, nor are
they valuable from a visual standpoint. The only reason
for depositing these objects is their intrinsic worth, the
amount of raw metal material contained within the object.
Thus there were three main reasons behind the decision
to choose a particular object to sacrifice at the sanctuary:
1. Items were chosen because of a clear thematic connection to the deity (here fertility and the feminine
sphere), although, in terms of material, they were
worthless (e.g. pebbles) or had lost their value during ritual practice (e.g. the broken pottery).
2. Objects which carried value mainly/only through
their intrinsic worth could also be chosen (e.g. aes
rude).
Verger 2011, 58-64
de Rossi 1878
22
Gjerstad 1960, 145-60; Gjerstad 1966, 376-7
Orlandini 1966, 30
Verger 2011, 25-57, especially Fig. 36
19
Kron 1992, 635-8, 649-50
17
20
18
21
69
Embodying Value? The Transformation of Objects in and from the Ancient World
fragments and lumps of aes rude. In all the bronze objects
total c. 600 specimens and have a total weight of 3kg.
Independent of further detail, the text is obviously an
oath formula that should be connected to a ritual context,
an object dedicated in a sanctuary and later deposited in
the bothros amongst a variety of dedicated objects. Both
deposits on the Quirinal belong to a group of early finds
in Rome where no remains of sanctuary buildings could
be found. Gjerstad thus sees them as ‘loci sacri sine tecto’
with deposits in so-called ‘favissae’.
The composition of the finds suggests that this pit was a
sanctuary deposit. In contrast to the votive pits of Bitalemi,
the find from S. Maria della Vittoria is characterised by the
creation of a single pit of larger dimensions, in which the
votive objects were all placed at the same time. This means
that we do not have the direct result of ritual practice, but
rather the secondary act of burying the offered dedications
of the sanctuary in a bothros/favissa in order to free up
space for new offerings. Gjerstad dated the material from
the ‘pre-urban’ period until the 4th to 3rd century BC.
Thus, the deposit must have taken place in this period at
the earliest. Because of the secondary nature of the context
it is senseless to analyse the association of objects. Items
that had been offered over a long period of time were only
placed together after the purge. But nonetheless the deposit
reveals which objects were chosen to sacrifice. The deity
is unknown and the votives are of no help in this regard,
since the items are suitable for sacrifices in a general way,
and could have been used for many deities. Again there is
a mix of objects: those that have extrinsic value attached
to them (e.g. the terracotta discs), items that have mainly/
only intrinsic worth (aes rude being the prime example),
and intrinsically valuable objects which are visibly given
additional meaning through ritual processes (like the
intentionally broken bronze vessels). Again these items do
not appear to have a visible hierarchy, and selection may
have remained with the individual.
A third example is a deposit found in the 1920s at an
unknown sanctuary, this time on the Capitoline.25 The
deposit was placed within and below a stone wall of
cappellaccio blocks that belonged to the oldest sacral
building unearthed during the excavations. Gjerstad
rightly noted the connection between the ‘remains of
votive offerings associated with the cult practised before
the erection of the temple’ and the need for the building
itself to have a foundation deposit in order to satisfy ‘the
desire to preserve the sacred power and the continuity
of the cult by taking care of the sacred objects and using
them again for sacred purposes’.26 Gjerstad believed that
this explained the uncommonly long accumulation period
of the objects in this foundation deposit. Once again, the
objects recovered are comparable to the other deposits
discussed above. Beneath traces of fire, the pit contained
pottery (bucchero, plain white ware, Italo-Corinthian style
ware, coarse ware), terracotta (discs of unknown purpose
like those mentioned above in the Quirinal deposit),
jewellery (bronze rings) and pieces of bronze. The last
are of particular interest: several thin bronze sheets were
shaped into rough anthropomorphic forms, with sizes
ranging from 2.1 to 3.6cm. Their rough appearance
resembles the fragmented bronze sheets and associated aes
rude, but their form is closer to votive figurines, and these
objects thus may combine the functions of these two rather
different object groups.
In 1880, two years later and again on the Quirinal, in the
area of the Villino Hüffer near the church of San Vitale, a
similar votive deposit was found containing a variety of
objects including pottery and aes rude.23 Again the finds
were dispersed and consequently a detailed analysis is
not possible. But according to the descriptions given of
the find, it seems that the composition was comparable
to the votive pit mentioned above. One find from the pit
was preserved, the famous Duenos Vase, named after
one of the words contained in the inscription around the
vessel. This inscription is written in very early Latin, and
its interpretation is still contested today. But following
Gjerstad and his translation from 1960, the text might be
understood in the following way (and it should be noted
that Gjerstad channelled the archaic nature of the Latin
into his translation): 24
Votive practices in Italy outside Rome
The following examples, which come from outside Rome,
are later in time. The first two finds, Velitrae and Tifernium
Tiberinum, lack a detailed context but nonetheless provide
some information relevant to the discussion here.
The first example comes from ancient Velitrae, which
is close to Rome and today known as Velletri. In 1784 a
small deposit was found at the church of S. Maria della
Neve, which Haeberlin wrote consisted of two cast bronze
bars and an inscribed tablet. The first bar bears an image
of a flying eagle with a thunderbolt on one side, and
Pegasus and the inscription ROMANOM on the other
(RRC 4/1a). The second bar is decorated with a sword and
scabbard (RRC 8/1). Haeberlin reported the third object
was a bronze tablet with an inscription in the Volscian
language.27 The inscription seemed to provide more
He who puts me on the market swears by the
gods: ‘Thy girl shall not be amiable to thee, shall
not stand by thee, unless thou wilt befriend her by
using (my) assistance.’ Good man has made me for
a good purpose and for the benefit of a good man;
may a bad man not present me!
Helbig 1880, 137-9; Dressel 1880, 158-60; Gjerstad 1960, 160-5
Gjerstad 1960, 161-4 provides some insight into the abundant philological discussion.
Colini 1927; Colini 1940, 209; Gjerstad 1960, 190-201
Gjerstad 1960, 195, 198
27
Haeberlin 1910, 64 no. 1, 80 no. 1
23
25
24
26
70
A. M. Murgan, Heavy metal in hallowed contexts
information concerning the deposit, which, following
Untermann, reads as follows:28
hypothesis is also possible, where the tablet may have
been chosen as a sacrificial object because of its intrinsic
value, detached from its original context mentioned in the
inscription for a secondary use as a massive bar of bronze.
In this case there would be no need to hypothesise about
accompanying votives since detachment from its primary
context would have transformed the object itself into
a votive. But this hypothesis raises the problem that the
tablet would thus be a recycled object used as a sacrifice,
but taken from another sacrificial context, thus being in
absolute contrast to the aim for which it was made (i.e.
not to touch the sacrifice). If these votive objects had been
somehow removed from another sacrificial context, one
would then expect the inscription to be deleted or at least
marked as a sign of transition.
Erected for the deity Deklun[a/us]. If somebody
touches [the object] in order to repair it, an expiatory
sacrifice shall be performed. He shall sacrifice a cow
and (a further unknown thing) with pots and wine.
If somebody does this with the knowledge of the
comitium, it shall be pious to remove [this item].
Erected by the meddices NN and NK.
According to the inscription, objects which were brought
to the sanctuary had to be left there and could not be
altered. If repairs were needed, an entire procedure had
to be initiated involving sacrifices and a public decision.
Given this, the question arose as to whether the bars were
deposited with this inscription as a part of the expiatory
sacrifice for the repair of an object that was perhaps a cult
image. In terms of use and function, the bars may be what
was referenced with the unknown word in the inscription,
or perhaps were used as a substitute for the entire sacrifice:
the cow, the unknown object, the wine and the pots. Over
100 years later, in 1910, additional excavations revealed
a Volscian temple directly under the church,29 which was
assigned, on the basis of the inscription given above, to a
deity named Dekluna or Deklunus.
The second example has unfortunately lost its context
completely. In 1899 at Città di Castello in Umbria, ancient
Tifernium Tiberinum, charcoal burners dug up a bronze
bar decorated with a bull walking to the left on one side
and a bull walking to the right on the other (RRC 5/1).
It was found directly beneath the surface, without any
associated finds. On one side, an Umbrian inscription
was engraved in retrograde letters: FUKES SESTINES.
FUKES is, following Haeberlin, linguistically related to
the Latin word focus, meaning fire or hearth, and it is
suggested in this context that the work refers to the sacred
fires in a sanctuary.33 A second reading is VUKES instead
of FUKES, related to the Latin lucus, a sacred domain or
grove,34 which has a similar meaning. SESTINES refers to
Sestinum, today Sestino, a town quite close to Tifernium
Tiberinum, around 30km away. Both words in the
inscription are written in the genitive and mean ‘[object]
of the hearth of the Sestines’. Depending on whether the
text is interpreted as a genitivus subiectivus or obiectivus,
there are two possible meanings: the object is intended for
the hearth, or it is from the hearth.
It took over 100 years until the mistake of Haeberlin was
corrected. Crawford has recently noted that all the reports
of the find before Haeberlin’s compendium mentioned
both the inscription and the bars, but never together.30
Thus the connection between the bars and the inscription
no longer stands, and we should thus talk of the two
finds individually. But what is undisputed is that all three
objects come from the sanctuary of Velitrae, regardless of
the imprecision surrounding their publication. In terms of
chronology, both the inscription and the bars are roughly
contemporary. The inscription has been dated to c. 275 BC,
suggested by the letter forms, while Roman bars were not
created earlier than the beginning of the 3rd century BC.31
If the first interpretation is correct, we might see here the
preparation of a votive for the sanctuary of Sestinum. The
act of inscribing would convert the bar from a replaceable
and more general purpose piece of money to a personalised
votive offering intended for a certain destination,
thus giving it additional extrinsic value. If the second
translation is correct, we have here an example of an object
intentionally leaving a sanctuary and intentionally being
marked as such. A thief, for example, would not have
done this. In this case, an item of stored value was given
to someone, perhaps as a payment or gratuity, meaning
the object left the sanctuary to serve a monetary function.
Here the inscription would have worked in the same
manner that inscriptions work on coins. Just as on coins
the inscription or legend referred to where the coin was
struck, the inscription here might also refer to the origin
of the money. One might speculate that the removal of the
item from the sanctuary required a procedure similar to
The reason the bars were chosen for dedication was, as far
as we can reconstruct, because of their intrinsic value. The
inscription on the tablet suggests that this object was given
an extrinsic value through the act of inscribing, in addition
to its intrinsic worth, since it is a very large bronze object.
Crawford emphasised the fact that the three pieces were
imported ‘portable objects’, since the bars were cast in
Rome and a Volscian inscription would still have been
a surprise in Velitrae at this time.32 The tablet may have
been dedicated with other objects which have not survived
(e.g. the unknown erected object for Deklun[a/us]), which
may also have been imported and might thus have had
value as exotic items, indicating a high value. But another
Untermann 1956, 135
Mancini 1915
30
Crawford et al. 2011, 340-2
31
Crawford 1969, 11; Crawford 1974, 131-3
32
Crawford et al. 2011, 340
28
29
33
34
71
Haeberlin 1910, 143-4 no. 2
Untermann 2000, 439-40
Embodying Value? The Transformation of Objects in and from the Ancient World
that described in the inscription of Velitrae. Or it is also
possible that such decisions could be made more easily for
smaller objects. Additionally, this example tells us about
the area of influence of this sanctuary, especially when
we consider the topographical positions of Sestinum and
Tifernium Tiberinum. There is not only the distance of
30km between the sanctuary and the find spot, but in order
to travel from one location to the other one must cross the
Apennine Mountains.
as monetary material given as a dedication, replacing their
pre-monetary counterparts.
Graves
Turning now to the last category of contexts considered here,
graves, we again find interesting points of commonality.
For Sicily, Verger pointed out that the composition of some
votive deposits from Bitalemi were remarkably similar
to grave goods found in Greek female and child graves
in Sicily, particularly in the case of feminine objects like
spindle whorls or jewellery.39 The same observation might
be made for the votive pits and graves of Rome. The
similarities between the two contexts is so high that de
Rossi was unable to decide whether a deposit found in 1878
was a votive pit or a grave, eventually deciding in favour
of a human burial.40 Since the relatives of the deceased
were duty-bound to guarantee the deceased a successful
journey into the underworld with all the belongings that
were needed in his or her future (if the deceased had not
personally arranged his or her burial during their life), it
is understandable that the dedications in graves had a
significance similar to sanctuary votives given during a
person’s lifetime, which might explain this commonality.
The last example comes from a still later context. The
sanctuary of Gravisca lies on the coast near the village of
Lido di Tarquinia, about 75km north-west of Rome. This
Graeco-Etruscan complex consisted of several buildings
that were explored in the 1960s and 70s. The excavations
resulted in numerous publications.35
Building Gamma, which was constructed at the end of the
5th century BC, was identified as an area associated with
the cult of Aphrodite Turan and Uni.36 It was here that the
majority of coins arising from the sanctuary were found.
The majority of these coins were found in court I, which
was furnished with a series of altars. Together with the
coins, a piece of aes rude and a rich series of votives were
found, including pottery (e.g. bucchero, Corinthian ware,
Etruscan vases, black and red figured pottery, unguentaria,
coarse ware), terracotta (e.g. architectural remains, lamps,
figurines), metal (e.g. sheets of gold and bronze, hooks,
lances, bronze and iron slag), jewellery (e.g. silver rings),
and natural remains (e.g. animal bones, ostrich eggs).37
The coins are made of silver or bronze, and include both
struck and cast examples, for instance aes grave. They are
Campanian, Etruscan, Roman Republican or Punic issues
and range in date from the end of the 5th to the 2nd century
BC.38
In 1987, Bergonzi and Agostinetti published an article
in which they surveyed monetary finds in tombs in the
first millennium BC, surveying Italy, Central Europe and
the East (mainland Greece, Macedonia, Ionia, as well
as Pantikapeion).41 Graves which contained pieces of
aes rude, cast bars and coins were compared against the
location of hoards containing the same material. The main
area in which uncoined metal was used was demonstrated
to be the Po valley and Central Italy, whereas South Italy
largely used coins in both hoards and graves. In Etruria
and Latium a certain overlap between the two systems can
be observed, a consequence of the appearance of coins in
Rome and the circulation of coinage over time.
This find gives a good insight into the practice of
consecrating different objects from different regions in
one context. Items that are commonly considered money,
as well as votives of other materials, are again used for
comparable purposes, and were brought to the sanctuary
on multiple occasions over a period of about 300 years.
Once again dedications with intrinsic and extrinsic value
were used in similar ways. The reasons why certain objects
were chosen as dedications cannot be reconstructed from
the archaeological material. Due to the great variety of
votives it seems that the dedicants were quite free in their
individual decisions, which were likely dependent on the
occasion and personal prosperity. However, a change in
the use of the material considered money is visible here.
Whereas aes rude was present in significant quantities in
earlier sanctuaries, in this deposit there is only a single
piece. Instead coins appear and seem to adopt the function
Independent of the distinct regional preferences in terms of
the type and form of metal chosen, the observation can be
made that the offering of heavy metal was not uncommon
in graves. A special case that might demonstrate the
close similarities between dedications in both graves and
sanctuaries is the deposit at the lapis niger in the Roman
Forum. Here pottery was found, as well as an archaic
bronze figurine and objects of bronze and copper like
fibulae, circlets, rings, pendants and approximately 50
pieces of aes rude.42 The forum overall and particularly the
lapis niger were heavily loaded with mythical meaning;
for the lapis niger mythical associations were so strong
that the place was marked by black marble plates and was
never built on again.43 Under these plates, relics of a sacral
Fortunelli (ed.) (1993-), Gravisca. Scavi nel santuario greco. Bari.
Edipuglia. For a complete list of publications dating to 2001 and earlier
see Fiorini 2005a, 253 n. 2.
36
Fiorini 2005b, 39-92
37
Fiorini 2005b, 205-58
38
Visonà 1993; Gorini 2004
35
Verger 2011, 22
de Rossi 1878, 70-2
41
Bergonzi and Piana Agostinetti 1987
42
Savignoni 1900
43
Steinmann 2011, 81-2
39
40
72
A. M. Murgan, Heavy metal in hallowed contexts
construction have been found that were ascribed to the
early Roman Vulcanal. Additionally, according to myth, the
grave of either Romulus or his foster father Faustulus was
located here.44 Whether the reason for the deposit was the
sanctuary or the grave is unclear. Perhaps it was a sacrifice
for both, fulfilling a ritual function for the cult of Vulcan
and a grave ritual for the city founder at the same time.
divine sphere, these objects became something different to
common money, and were used like other votive items as
a medium for exchange with the divine, either as thanks
for divine benefactions received, or as an offering in hope
of such benefits.
This dichotomy between the sacred and profane
applications of money might be explained by models
deriving from anthropology, which identified this
phenomenon in research on the nature of money. Of interest
to our discussion is Bloch and Parry’s model that describes
the possibility for money to have different meanings, even
in the same society.48 Bloch and Parry recognised two
different spheres of exchange and transaction: a short-term
cycle for individual transactions and a long-term cycle
connected to the ‘social or cosmic order’.49 This model,
which Aarts applied to Roman culture,50 may clarify how
aes was used. In profane contexts, (pre-)monetary objects
belonged to the short-term sphere, where they were used
in individual cases and subjected to competition and trade.
By contrast, in hallowed contexts these same objects were
given to gods and thereby entered the long-term sphere.
‘Therefore money has to be converted form (sic.) the
short-term to the long-term cycle, and in most cases this
conversion is performed ritually’,51 as we can retrace in
all our cases. Aes (as well as other impersonalised votives
like wine or oil) functions here as a given sacrifice, as a
gift that ‘is based on an exchange of inalienable objects
between interdependent transactors’.52 But for (pre-)
monetary objects, their nature is alienable. It is the
long-term character of the donation (the given objects
do not return to the giver), that made it possible for
alienable objects to be ‘transacted between conceptually
interdependent persons.’53 The crucial point therefore was
the long-term relationship between the dedicator and the
receiving deity, whereas the sacrificed object could be of
reduced importance.
Conclusion
All these examples show that the offering of metal,
transferring it from the profane to a hallowed sphere, was
not an unusual phenomenon in Central Italy and Sicily. It is
impossible to reconstruct the details of particular religious
rituals from the archaeological record, nor is it possible
to wholly understand the reasons why an individual chose
one type of votive object over another. But from the
archaeological record similarities emerge in the region
stretching from Sicily to the Po valley. In this melting
pot of different indigenous and non-indigenous peoples,
one could say that a certain similitude becomes visible, a
homogeneity in the heterogeneity, where the Romans were
one group among many.
Understanding the metal material as money, one has to
consider the following possible monetary functions for
these objects: they functioned as a means to accumulate
wealth, as a store of value, a unit of calculation, a means
of exchange, or a means of payment. The discussion about
the functions of coins in different time periods is already
a rich one, but for aes rude and currency bars the situation
is more complicated. Often people feel safe using the term
‘pre-monetary material’ to describe these objects. Early
Roman leges like the Lex Tarpeia and the Lex Papiria
indicate the use of aes as a means of payment for fines.45
Pliny’s comment ‘Servius rex primus signavit aes, antea
rudi usos Romae’46 is well known, but this is far from
being an eyewitness report. In the archaeological record,
aes turns up in the profane sphere deposited in hoards,
where, in the majority of cases, it is chopped up in order
to achieve particular weights; in later contexts these aes
rude pieces are also deposited with coins.47 These contexts
reflect different functions of money.
The practice of ritually depositing valuable metal objects
persisted throughout the first millennium BC, although
there was some shift in the type of objects dedicated as
new items entered the region (e.g. coins appear alongside
aes rude). The archaeological record reveals an overall
persistence of ritual with some subtle developments and
alterations: continuity in change. Once sacrificed, some
objects had to remain in their new sacred context and could
not be touched, at least in the sanctuary of Deklun[a/us] at
Velitrae. To overcome this restriction, special procedures
may have had to be performed, including further sacrifices
or public decisions. Under what conditions and for which
material this took place must remain open, but it is likely
that purpose-related reuse of votives was permitted.54 In
Looking at the material in sacred contexts, aes is treated in
the same way as other votive material like tools, jewellery,
pottery, figurines or iron knives. Assuming that not
every votive automatically has a monetary function, here
these pieces of aes do not appear to function as a unit of
calculation, means of exchange or a means of payment in
a literal sense. In fact, the material appears to have been
used as a ‘holder’ of value in a broader sense than money,
in that it was an object which was difficult to obtain and
which cost its owner to sacrifice. But by being used in the
Bloch and Parry 1989, 22-3
Bloch and Parry 1989, 23-4
50
Aarts 2005, 12-4
51
Aarts 2005, 13
52
Bloch and Parry 1989, 8
53
Bloch and Parry 1989, 8
54
Aarts 2005, 20-1
48
49
Coarelli 1983, 161-78
See Thomsen 1957, 19-48
46
Pliny NH 33.43
47
Crawford 1969 passim
44
45
73
Embodying Value? The Transformation of Objects in and from the Ancient World
contrast to their entrance into the hallowed sphere through
sacrifice, valuable objects, like aes and coins, might have
regained their monetary functions once they had exited
this sphere, for instance to pay for repairs to the sanctuary.
The pre-monetary and monetary material was practically
predestined for such purposes. Both types of material
could easily be ‘spent’ because of their manageability and
because they were accepted outside the sanctuary, when the
votives returned to the sphere of short-term transactions. In
this regard, temples were the beneficiaries of the system.
The use of such votive materials for the benefit of the cult
may explain the flourishing of temples in the 6th and 5th
century BC, as Smith suggested in 2001.55
Bergonzi, G. and Piana Agostinetti, P. 1987. L’«obolo di
caronte». «Aes rude» e monete nelle tombe: la pianura
padana tra mondo classico e ambito transalpino nella
seconda età del ferro. Scienze dell’antichità. Storia,
archeologia, antropologia 1, 161-223.
Bloch, M. and Parry, J. 1989. Introduction: money and
the morality of exchange. In J. Parry and M. Bloch
(eds), Money and the Morality of Exchange, 1-32.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Coarelli, F. 1983. Il Foro Romano. Periodo arcaico. Rome,
Ed. Quasar.
Colini, A. M. 1927. Le recente scoperte sul Campidoglio.
Capitolium 3, 383-8.
Colini, A. M. 1940. Nuovi avanzi archeologici dei tempi
più antichi di Roma. In C. Galassi Paluzzi (ed.), Atti
del V congresso nazionale di studi romani. Volume
secondo, 205-12. Rome, Istituto di Studi Romani.
Crawford, M. H. 1969. Roman Republican Coin Hoards.
London, Royal Numismatic Society.
Crawford, M. H. 1974. Roman Republican Coinage I.
Introduction and Catalogue. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
Crawford, M. H. 2003. Thesauri, hoards and votive
deposits. In O. de Cazanove and J. Scheid (eds),
Sanctuaires et sources dans l’Antiquité. Les sources
documentaires et leurs limites dans la description
des lieux de culte. Actes de la table ronde. Naples, 30
novembre 2001, 69-84. Naples, Centre Jean Bérard.
Crawford, M. H. 2009. From aes signare to aes signatum.
Schweizerische numismatische Rundschau 88, 195-7.
Crawford, M. H. et al. 2011. Imagines Italicae. A Corpus
of Italic Inscriptions. London, Royal Numismatic
Society.
de Rossi, M. S. 1878. Intorno ad un copioso deposito di
stoviglie ed altri oggetti arcaici rinvenuto nel Viminale.
Bullettino della Commissione archeologica comunale
di Roma 6, 64-92.
Dressel, H. 1880. Di una antichissima iscrizione latina
graffita sopra vaso votivo rinvenuto in Roma. Annali
dell’Instituto di corrispondenza archeologica 52, 15895.
Fiorentini, G. 1993-1994. Attività di indagini archeologiche
della soprintendenza beni culturale e ambientali di
Agrigento. Kώκαλος. Studi pubblicati dall´Istituto di
storia antica dell´Università di Palermo 39/40, 71733.
Fiorini, L. 2005a. La nuova stipe votiva di Gravisca. In
A. Comella and S. Mele (eds), Depositi votivi e culti
dell’Italia antica dall’età arcaica a quella tardorepubblicana. Atti del Convegno di Studi. Perugia, 1-4
giuno 2000, 245-58. Bari, Edipuglia.
Fiorini, L. 2005b. Topografia generale e storia del
santuario. Analisi dei contesti e delle stratigrafie
(Gravisca. Scavi nel Santuario Greco 1.1). Bari,
Edipuglia.
Gjerstad, E. 1960. Early Rome III. Fortifications, Domestic
Architecture, Sanctuaries, Stratigraphic Excavations
(Skrifter Utgivna Av Svenska Institute i Rom (Acta
Instituti Romani Regni Sueciae) 17:3). Lund, Gleerup.
In addition to the continued use of metal, continuity can
also be seen in the topography of these areas, with sacred
places retaining their status over time. Christian churches
were later built over the deposits at Bitalemi, near the
votive pits from the Quirinal and the Capitoline, and over
the temple from Velitrae. These churches thus drew on and
transformed the spiritual meaning of these locations.
With the aid of context based analyses we can reveal
more information about ritual continuity and change in
Central Italy and Sicily, and perhaps build a more detailed
picture about the different inhabitants of these regions.
Good publications about this often visually unattractive
material are still very rare, but remain the foundation
of our knowledge. Hopefully future publications will
enhance this picture, and the so-called pre-monetary
material can be reintegrated into our understanding of the
material culture of the ancient world, to better understand
how objects gained and embodied different kinds of value,
and how these values were transformed through time and
space. This short study has underlined the benefits to be
gained from paying renewed attention to this oft forgotten
material.
Bibliography
Abbreviations
RRC Crawford, M. H. 1974. Roman
Republican Coinage I. Introduction and Catalogue. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Aarts, J. 2005. Coins, money and exchange in the
Roman world. A cultural-economic perspective.
Archaeological Dialogues 12, 1-28.
55
Smith 2001, 19-20
74
A. M. Murgan, Heavy metal in hallowed contexts
Gjerstad, E. 1966. Early Rome IV:2. Synthesis of
Archaeological Evidence (Skrifter Utgivna Av Svenska
Institute i Rom (Acta Instituti Romani Regni Sueciae)
17:4). Lund, Gleerup.
Gorini, G. 2004. Le monete. In I materiali minori
(Gravisca. Scavi nel Santuario Greco 16), 157-71,
Bari, Edipuglia.
Haeberlin, E. J. 1910. Aes Grave. Das Schwergeld Roms und
Mittelitaliens einschliesslich der ihm vorausgehenden
Rohbronzewährung. Frankfurt am Main, Joseph Baer.
Helbig, W. 1880. Adunanze dell‘instituto. Bullettino
dell’Instituto di corrispondenza archeologica 6, 12942.
Kron, U. 1992. Frauenfeste in Demeterheiligtümern: Das
Thesmophorion von Bitalemi. Eine archäologische
Fallstudie. Archäologischer Anzeiger, 611-50.
Mancini, G. 1915. Velletri — Saggi di scavo attorno e sotto
la chiesa di S. Maria delle Neve o delle Ss. Stimmate,
e scoperta di un tempio volsco. Notizie degli scavi di
antichità, 68-88.
Nawracala, R. 2011. Der Saturntempel. In B. Steinmann, R.
Nawracala and M. Boss (eds), Im Zentrum der Macht.
Das Forum Romanum im Modell, 45-7. Erlangen,
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg.
Orlandini, P. 1965-1967. Gela — Depositi votivi di bronzo
premonetale nel santuario di Demetra Thesmophoros a
Bitalemi. Annali. Istituto italiano di numismatica 1214, 1-20.
Orlandini, P. 1966. Lo scavo del thesmophorion di Bitalemi
e il culto delle divinità ctonie a Gela. Kώκαλος. Studi
pubblicati dall´Istituto di storia antica dell´Università
di Palermo 12, 8-35.
Orlandini, P. 1967. Gela: nuove scoperte nel Thesmophorion
di Bitalemi. Kώκαλος. Studi pubblicati dall´Istituto di
storia antica dell´Università di Palermo 13, 177-9.
Orlandini, P. 2003. Il thesmophorion di Bitalemi (Gela):
nuove scoperte e osservazioni. In G. Fiorentini, M.
Caltabiano and A. Calderone (eds), Archeologia
del mediterraneo. Studi in onore di Ernesto de Miro
(Bibliotheca Archaeologica 35), 507-13. Rome,
L’Erma di Bretschneider.
Orsi, P. 1907. Santuario suburbano a Bitalemi (Scavi
aprile–maggie 1901). Monumenti Antichi della Reale
Accademia dei Lincei 17, 575-730.
Savignoni, L. 1900. La suppellettile archeologica trovata
sotto il niger lapis del Foro Romano. Notizie degli
scavi di antichità, 143-6.
Smith, C. J. 2001. Ritualising the economy. In A. J.
Nijboer (ed.), Interpreting Deposits: Linking Ritual
with Economy (Papers on Mediterranean Archaeology.
Caeculus 4), 17-23. Groningen, Groningen Institute for
Archaeology.
Steinmann, B. 2011. Kleine Heiligtümer. In B. Steinmann,
R. Nawracala and M. Boss (eds), Im Zentrum der
Macht. Das Forum Romanum im Modell, 76-83.
Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität ErlangenNürnberg.
Thomsen, R. 1957. Early Roman Coinage. A Study of the
Chronology. I. The Evidence (Nationalmuseetsskrifter.
Arkaeologisk-historisk raekke V). Copenhagen,
Nationalmuseet.
Untermann, J. 1956. Die Bronzetafel von Velletri.
Indogermanische Forschungen 62, 123-35.
Untermann, J. 2000. Wörterbuch des Oskisch-Umbrischen.
(Handbuch der italischen Dialekte 3). Heidelberg,
Winter.
Verger, S. 2011. Dévotions féminines et bronzes de
l’extrême nord dans le thesmophorion de Géla. In F.
Quantin (ed.), Archéologie des religions antiques.
Contributions à l‘étude des sanctuaires et de la piété
en Méditerranée (Grèce, Italie, Sicile, Espagne)
(ARCHAIA 1), 15-76. Pau, Université de Pau et des
pays de l‘Adour.
Visonà, P. 1993. Gravisca e punta della Vipera: Le monete.
Numismatica e antichità classiche. Quaderni ticinesi
22, 41-60.
75