[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review]
This volume contains a series of papers presented at the workshop, “Representations of writing materials on Roman funerary monuments. Text, image, message,” held online in October 2021 (p. xi). Eight of the ten papers that were presented are published here. As Grüll states in the foreword, the workshop was associated with the “‘Scroll in Hand’ Research Project,” established in 2020 (p. x). The goal of the research project—and this book—is to “investigate where and for what reasons writing instruments and materials were depicted in a funerary context in the Roman Empire” (p. x). In addition to organizing the workshop and publishing this volume, the project also created a Hungarian and English online database that will eventually display all known depictions of writing materials on Roman funerary monuments. The research group plans to “analyze these depictions with the help of computer technology according to a unified set of criteria” (p. x). The address for the associated database is scrollinhand.hu, and not the address given in this volume, scrollinhand.com (p. x).
In the eight chapters, the authors consider various depictions of writing materials on funerary monuments. In some cases, such as Meyer’s chapter, the discussion extends well beyond the funerary sphere. The writing implements explored include the volumen or rotulus (scroll, open or closed), the tabula (writing tablet made of wax, wood, papyri, or parchments), the one-eared writing tablet, the diptych, the triptych, the polyptych, the bundle of writing tablets that looks like a box and is often carried on a handle or a strap, the codex, the codex with hinge and horn, the large wooden writing board with dovetail handles, the stylus, the calamus or harundo (ink-pen), the capsa or scrinium (scroll repository), the schedula (narrow, trapezoidal form used by Palmyrene workshops from the mid-2nd century CE to depict tablets and possibly squeezed papyri), the bone spatulate strip, the graphium (stylus-box), the mappa (tissue), the atramentarium (inkwell), the theca (writing equipment case), the spatula, and the scalprum (pen-knife). The funerary monuments date from the 1st to the 4th centuries CE, while other archaeological comparanda range in date from the 14th century BCE to the 4th century CE. The geographical scope of the funerary monuments includes Palmyra, Dülük Baba Tepesi, Solona, Roman Germania, Pannonia, Noricum, Phrygia, Upper Moesia, the lower Moselle valley, Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Palestine, and Syria. The range of funerary monuments includes funerary altars, funerary relief portrait sculptures, freestanding statues, funerary stelae (including Phrygian door stelae), sarcophagi, fresco paintings inside tombs, and more. As this brief summary shows, there is significant variety in the discussions. The broad range of topics and themes covered by the collection holds the reader’s interest and presents novel material. The contributions discuss the material in significant detail, and most are accompanied by good-sized color images of the funerary monuments and artifacts being discussed.
The first chapter, by the collective group of “Scroll in Hand” researchers, provides an overview of the types of writing materials found on funerary monuments. Its title claims it is an Introduction (p. 1), but it does not make any references to other parts of the volume. The discussion includes writing implements, the people depicted with them, and their gestures. It concludes by providing possible meanings of scrolls on funerary monuments: as sacred objects, markers of literacy, markers of a profession, and symbols of law and power. Its reference to work that should have been completed by the end of 2021 (p. 8) raises questions about progress made between the workshop and the volume’s publication.
Meyer’s chapter investigates why Clio often appears with a tablet and a stylus while Calliope often has a scroll. She argues that in the earliest depictions (early 6th century BCE) the Muses are undifferentiated and rarely labeled. She traces their pairing with various attributes throughout history and argues that in the late 1st or 2nd century CE the attributes, names, and areas of expertise for each Muse began to solidify. Clio holding a diptych was a popular Roman image because wax tablets were a famous simile for fixing things in memory. Although finished works of history and poetry both circulated on scrolls, “truth, authority, and ‘the final word’ were important to [historians]…, and a Muse who carried a tablet where such qualities could be fixed was…Clio” (p. 62). Meyer also argues that Clio’s presence on a sarcophagus conveyed the value of the deceased’s life, rather than commenting on his or her talents and vocations.
Luginbühl’s chapter discusses representations of women with writing materials. She notes that writing attributes in funerary reliefs are often interpreted differently depending on whether they are held by a man or a woman. She cites examples of depictions of women with writing materials, arguing that they serve the same purpose as depictions of men, namely, to display their actual or desired literacy. She argues that women could have had similar aspirations, standards, and virtues as men and funerary evidence shows that some of them successfully achieved those standards. It was difficult to see what the women were holding in the images in this chapter, but Luginbühl’s criticism of other publications suggests that good-quality photographs may not exist (p. 72).
Hartmann’s chapter investigates funerary monuments for Roman scribae. He argues that the presence of tabulae on their monuments both identified them in their professional roles and served as a marker of status and social identity, alluding to their professional relationships to the wax tablets that made up the tabulae publicae.
Grüll’s chapter explores writing tools depicted on Phrygian door stelae, stone burial markers that were carved to imitate a doorway and contained depictions of objects from everyday life carved on the panels. The everyday objects depicted on them symbolized the gender, profession, and status of the deceased. Although most doorstones have been removed from their original contexts, depictions of writing implements appear most frequently in rural areas. It is unclear, however, how accurately they reflect the levels of literacy and urbanization in the rural populations. Among the ten kinds of writing tools categorized by Grüll is a ‘codex with a hinge and horn’ that he argues has been incorrectly identified in previous research. He concludes that depictions of writing tools on the door stelae carried religious meanings and were connected with daily activities. Yet his discussion of whether depictions of scrolls could refer to the Bible contains several assumptions that seem difficult, if not impossible, to prove (pp. 103-106).
Sokołowski’s chapter is an update to his previous study. Because writing utensils are exclusively male attributes in Palmyrene funerary portraiture (apart from three exceptions), he argues that the reliefs depict numerous male social identities: schoolboys, citizens of a Greek polis, representatives of Roman civil and military administration, merchants, caravan owners, tomb owners, and priests. Rather than reflecting daily tasks, depictions of writing implements could demonstrate an aspiration to be perceived as literate. The interesting section on large wooden writing boards with dovetail handles cites the discovery of a wooden board inscribed in cursive Palmyrene script on the island of Socotra in the Indian Ocean between the southern coast of the Arabian Peninsula and the Horn of Africa that matches the relief depictions. It proves that these were original Palmyrene creations. He also argues that the schedula was an original depiction developed by Palmyrenes that “was probably the iconographic continuation of the older pattern used to depict the tabula” on funerary reliefs (p. 159).
Pilipović’s chapter investigates tombstones from upper Moesia to determine the meanings and contexts of scrolls and codices there. She believes they referred to the deceased’s occupation and served as markers of social status. Writing tools appear in the hands of men, women, and children from different social classes. It was difficult to see the iconographic elements discussed in many of the images in this chapter. Furthermore, a citation appears to be missing for the reference to epigraphic examples of strong relationships between people outside the family structure as alluding to soldiers’ concubines (p. 173).
Willi’s chapter looks at the four known depictions of bone spatulate strips in funerary reliefs. She hypothesizes about their functional roles in the archaeological record as well as their metaphorical roles on funerary monuments. Their association with writing kits, both in archaeological contexts and on reliefs, suggests that they belonged to such kits and perhaps were high-quality, multifunctional tools.
Unfortunately, the authors’ many interesting insights are sometimes overshadowed by the numerous grammatical and typographical errors that Archaeopress and its editors neglected to correct. The authors should be commended for writing in an easily-accessible language, while the press will hopefully fix the errors in future editions. There are also discrepancies between figure captions and discussions in the text. The caption of Figure 11 (p. 20) labels Domitilla and Priscilla, but the discussion (p. 19) identifies the figures as Veneranda and Petronilla. The caption for Figure 2 (p. 100) says Clemens made the stele for his grandmother, but the discussion (p. 99) identifies the recipient as his daughter. One discussion (p. 136) says the individual in Figure 21 holds a stylus in his left hand and a schedula in his right, but the hands are reversed in the second description (p. 145). Likewise, one discussion of Figure 8 (p. 172) says that Serenia Quarta holds a scroll in her left hand, while another (p. 173) puts it in her right.
Another aspect that could have been improved upon—but is also a factor of the material being studied—is the lack of firm conclusions throughout the volume. This is most visible in the absence of a conclusion chapter that could have highlighted some common themes running through multiple papers, discussed the current state of the research, and suggested future directions. Several individual chapters also lack formal conclusions. Instances of overlap are not highlighted between authors, despite their having participated in the workshop together. It would have been interesting, for example, to read Meyer’s thoughts about Luginbühl’s 3rd century CE sarcophagi depicting women as Muses with individual portraits who always hold scrolls and never wax tablets (p. 81-82). Instead, the only cross-reference is Willi’s citation of Grüll’s chapter as a reference with no further discussion (p. 187, footnote 28).
Certain threads run through multiple contributions and are proven through several examples. These include the observation that writing attributes that appear on funerary monuments speak first and foremost about the commissioners of those monuments. They could be used to reflect the actual daily tasks of the deceased, but often they could demonstrate an aspirational desire to be perceived as literate. They frequently point to the status and position of the deceased, rather than his or her actual literacy. Furthermore, the depiction of tablets on funerary monuments appears to reflect a more official and permanent object and role, while scrolls and papyrus were less official.
The overall value of this volume is its ability to call attention to a phenomenon that has sometimes been taken for granted in previous scholarship, but about which firm answers still elude us. The inclusion of many high-quality color images helps greatly in supporting the authors’ arguments. This book certainly fills a gap in the scholarship, but more than that, it demonstrates how much more work remains to be done on this and related topics. The lack of firm conclusions throughout the book supports this observation. Willi notes that “the difficulties in interpreting bone spatulate strips reveal just how little we still know about the practicalities of Roman everyday writing” (p. 192). She makes the case that we must study “written, iconographic and archaeological evidence and [consider] materiality, design and performance of the objects” (p. 192). This book and the many questions it raises echo this sentiment. In order to fully understand how the various writing implements discussed in this volume functioned on funerary monuments, we must understand better how they functioned in real life. From there, the many messages that were being sent and the gestures that accompany the messages can be better understood. This volume and its associated projects are a wonderful starting point, and I hope that the participants will continue exploring this interesting line of research.
Authors and Titles
Tibor Grüll, Foreword by the editor
Tibor Grüll, Nándor Agócs, János Jusztinger, Ernő Szabó, Representations of writing tools and materials on Roman funerary monuments
Elizabeth A. Meyer, Clio and Calliope: Why Diptych and Scroll?
Josy Luginbühl, Educated by the nine Muses?
Benjamin Hartmann, Tablet in Hand. Tabulae as markers of professional and social identity of Roman scribae, 84-95
Tibor Grüll, Representations of writing tools and materials on Phrygian door stelae
Łukasz Sokołowski, Broadening the view on literacy in Palmyra. Ten years after the first attempt
Sanja Pilipović, The scroll and codex on funerary steles in the Upper Moesian Limes
Anna Willi, Depictions of bone ‘spatulate’ strips and a few thoughts about their function