Reprint from “HEROM – volume 4.2, 2015” - ISBN 978 94 6165 174 7 - © Leuven University Press, 2015 HEROM Journal on Hellenistic and Roman Material Culture Volume 4 – Issue 2 – 2015 Edited by Jeroen Poblome Daniele Malitana John Lund Reprint from “HEROM – volume 4.2, 2015” - ISBN 978 94 6165 174 7 - © Leuven University Press, 2015 From 2015 onward HEROM appears biannually in May and November. Online ISSN: 2294-4281 Print ISSN: 2294-4273 Subscription options: * Institutional online only * Institutional online & print * Individual online only * Individual online & print Non-subscribers options: * Pay-per-view online article * Print copy Journal available online at www.ingentaconnect.com/content/LUP/HEROM © 2015 by Leuven University Press / Presses Universitaires de Louvain / Universitaire Pers Leuven. Minderbroedersstraat 4, B-3000 Leuven (Belgium). All rights reserved. Except in those cases expressly determined by law, no part of this publication may be multiplied, saved in an automated dataile or made public in any way whatsoever without the express prior written consent of the publishers. D/2015/1869/30 NUR: 682 Lay-out: Jurgen Leemans Cover: Friedemann Reprint from “HEROM – volume 4.2, 2015” - ISBN 978 94 6165 174 7 - © Leuven University Press, 2015 Contents Communal Dining in the eastern suburbium of Ancient sagalassos. the evidence of Animal Remains and Material Culture 173 Bea De Cupere Jeroen Poblome Sheila Hamilton-Dyer Sven Van Haelst A Tessera Lusoria from Gabii and the Afterlife of Roman Gaming 199 Laura M. Banducci Archeologia della Produzione Ceramica nella sicilia ellenistica e Romana. Primi Dati dal Quartiere Artigianale di siracusa 223 Daniele Malitana Giuseppe Cacciaguerra Instructions to authors 277 Reprint from “HEROM – volume 4.2, 2015” - ISBN 978 94 6165 174 7 - © Leuven University Press, 2015 A TESSERA LUSORIA FRoM GABII AnD tHe AFteRLIFe oF RoMAn GAMInG Laura M. Banducci CARLETON UNIVERSITY Introduction hrough the lens of object biography and life-history studies, this paper examines an inscribed bone token discovered at the site of Gabii. In 2010, excavators uncovered the token in a grave in a small necropolis (Fig. 1). he token is a rectangle with a small circular end measuring 5.5 cm long, 1 cm wide and 0.2 cm thick. On one side of the token the word “GVLO” is inscribed in Latin characters. On the other side, the number “IIII” is inscribed. he rectangular section of the token has lines incised at either end, creating a border detail. he circular “handle” of the token has incised concentric rings. he Fig. 1. GVLO token from Gabii (drawing by A. Crawford). HEROM. Journal on Hellenistic and Roman Material Culture, 4.2, 2015, 199-221 © Laura M. Banducci and Leuven University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.11116/HEROM.4.2.2 Reprint from “HEROM – volume 4.2, 2015” - ISBN 978 94 6165 174 7 - © Leuven University Press, 2015 200 Laura M. Banducci neck between the rectangular and the circular sections of the token is pierced through. Its recovery from a tomb is unsurprising given what we know about the deposition of objects of chance and gaming in graves throughout the Roman world; yet, considering this token as an object with a long and enchained life-history can suggest a great deal about the burial practices at the site and the movement of objects through time and space. the find context Gabii is located 18 kilometres south-east of Rome and was a large Latin town inhabited from at least the 10th century BC. he town was situated along the southern edge of a crater lake. A program of geophysical testing, core sampling, and excavation has revealed that the town was placed on an orthogonal street layout as early as the 5th century BC.1 Excavations under the auspices of the University of Michigan are currently taking place across three blocks of the town over an area of about 1 hectare. he Gabii GVLO token was recovered from a tomb in a zone of the excavation where a small necropolis was irst revealed in 2009. he burials, 26 in total at current count, include infants and adults, many of whom are buried in tombs a cappuccina. In its most standard form, a tomb a cappuccina has a rectangular shat in which a body is laid without a sarcophagus. he body may then have been covered by soil and terracotta roof tiles placed such that they lean against each other to form a gabled roof.2 hese are sometimes capped with curved pan tiles at the apex of the “roof.” he tiles are then covered with soil to seal the grave cut. his is a very common burial form in central Italy in the Roman period and is oten associated with poorer individuals due to its typical lack of rich grave goods or other markers of status.3 he GVLO token at Gabii was found in the soil ill, stratigraphic unit 1124, between the skeleton and the roof tiles (Fig. 2). he skeleton recovered from this grave is an adult female, about 40 to 50 years of age. She was about 160 cm in height, typical for her period and sex, and her skeleton had evidence of some tooth decay and a long-healed broken 1. 2. 3. Becker et al. 2009; Mogetta and Becker 2014. he amount of soil between the body and the tile covering has varied in tombs a cappuccina at Gabii. In some cases the grave seems to have been deliberately illed, in others, the soil seems to have iltered in between the tiles over time. Musco et al. 2008; Rebillard 2009. Reprint from “HEROM – volume 4.2, 2015” - ISBN 978 94 6165 174 7 - © Leuven University Press, 2015 A TESSERA LUSORIA FROM GABII AND THE AFTERLIFE OF ROMAN GAMING 201 forearm.4 he sequence of the necropolis at Gabii is still being reined; however, it is clear that it had two phases of use, one in probably about the late 1st century AD and the other about a century later. he tomb containing the GVLO token is part of the earlier phase. 1123 (roof tiles) 1124 (soil ill) 1125 (skeleton) 1154 (soil ill) 1155 (grave cut) 1016 (post-abandonment soil) Fig. 2. Harris Matrix of grave in Gabii necropolis. the GVLo token and its relatives he word gulo, gulonis appears rarely in Latin literature, but means gourmand or epicure, and is related to the more common adjective gulosus, -a, -um, meaning “fond of choice food.”5 he only other token with GVLO inscribed on it is in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale dell’Umbria in Perugia (Fig. 3. a-b). hat token was purchased in 1880 in Rome by Mariano Guardabassi and in 1881 it was donated to the museum in Guardabassi’s will. He believed it to be from Chiusi.6 he Perugia GVLO token is shorter than the Gabii example, being only 4.3 cm long, 0.8 cm wide, and 0.4 cm thick. It has the same decorations of incised concentric rings on its circular handle and borderlines on its rectangular ends. Like the token from Gabii, it has a hole drilled through its narrow neck. he hole is 0.2 cm wide and is slightly rough-hewn. he text 4. 5. 6. Killgrove 2011. OLD 1983 gulo and gulosus p. 778. Gulo gulo is also the scientiic name of the wolverine, appropriate to the sponsoring university of the Gabii Project, the University of Michigan. his information likely came from his antiquities dealer, G. Lovatti. Reprint from “HEROM – volume 4.2, 2015” - ISBN 978 94 6165 174 7 - © Leuven University Press, 2015 202 Laura M. Banducci GVLO and the number IIII on the Perugia token has very similar serif to that of the Gabii token; however, the incisions are slightly narrower on the Gabii text, suggesting slightly more care was taken in its inscription. Fig. 3a. Word on token of unknown provenience, now in Museo Archeologico Nazionale dell’Umbria, Perugia (photo: L. Banducci). Fig. 3b. Number on token of unknown provenience, now in Museo Archeologico Nazionale dell’Umbria, Perugia (photo: L. Banducci). hese tokens should be identiied as tesserae lusoriae, or gaming tokens, based on their morphology and inscriptions. Ivory and bone tokens of a similar scale, though diferent function, have been discovered at Roman period sites throughout the Mediterranean and have fascinated archaeologists and antiquarians for centuries. he details of their varying design and inscriptions indicate that bone tesserae served many diferent functions. Yet, a consistent understanding of their typology and their function has eluded scholars. Tesserae of diferent functions are oten conlated in museum displays and small-inds reports. A brief review of several bone and ivory tessera types is appropriate before we move on to consider the GVLO token and its presence at 1st century AD Gabii. he labels for the following tesserae are modern terms invented by scholars creating typologies, but they can be useful as an organizing principle and as guide to artefact function.7 Tesserae tribuum are very similar in form to the GVLO token. hey are inscribed on two sides, one with a word and the other with a number. he 7. I do not discuss ivory tesserae theatralis (Blanchet 1889; Graillot 1896) or contorniates, because their circular form is very diferent and thus less easily confused with the tokens herein. hey receive a very thorough treatment in Alföldi and Alföldi-Rosenbaum 1976. Reprint from “HEROM – volume 4.2, 2015” - ISBN 978 94 6165 174 7 - © Leuven University Press, 2015 A TESSERA LUSORIA FROM GABII AND THE AFTERLIFE OF ROMAN GAMING 203 word is an abbreviated form of the name of a Roman tribe (e.g. OUF for Oufentina) and the number corresponds to the order of the Roman tribes suggested by other written sources.8 hese tesserae are most thoroughly discussed by Michael Crawford who suggests that they were labels for the vessels used to contain the tribe’s votes.9 here are only seven known examples of such objects; all are in museum collections and have no known provenience.10 Tesserae gladiatoris are four-sided prisms of ivory or bone and are thus quite diferent in form from the two-sided GVLO token. Tesserae gladiatoris are inscribed lengthwise on all four faces with relatively formulaic inscriptions, such that forgeries have been suspected in several cases.11 It has been speculated that they were bestowed as an honour on gladiators. he four faces of the token are inscribed with: a name in the nominative case which refers to the gladiator; a name in the genitive case probably referring to the patron; the Roman date, perhaps when the token was given; the year in the form of consuls’ names.12 hese tokens tend not to have a pierced hole, though a few examples do.13 Like the GVLO token, there are at least 112 similar bone tesserae lusoriae, which have been recovered mostly in Italy.14 hese are made of bone and are rectangular in shape with a circular “handle” at one end. hey have one word inscribed on one side and a number (sometimes with an additional letter “A” and sometimes with a similar character like a lambda) on the other. When the token is word-side up and then lipped along the long edge, the number is always oriented so that it is also the right-way around. Most known examples also have a hole drilled, with varying degrees of care, on the circular end of the token.15 hus, if we imagine the tokens suspended on a string, they would hang lat with their inscribed sides visible. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Namely, an inscription elucidated by Lily Ross Taylor, passages in Festus, Cicero’s de Lege Agraria (2.29) and an unpublished manuscript in the Bodleian Library (Crawford 2002, p. 1126). Crawford 2002, p. 1130. Crawford 2002, p. 1135. here were at least ive suspected forgeries in the British Museum as of 1878 (Trustees 1878, p. 39). First suggested by Ritschl (1864), upheld by several others (Hübner 1867, pp. 751-752; Henzen 1871, 151; Trustees 1878, pp. 35-39). A single example from the Guardabassi collection in Perugia has what seems to be an original ancient hole at its circular end. In 1896, Christian Huelsen wrote the irst comprehensive epigraphic study of 84 of those known at the time, one of which should actually be counted as a tessera tribuum. Since his study, an additional 21 have been excavated at sites throughout Italy and 7 in Delos. Two examples at the British Museum which are from the Bay of Naples are not pierced (Crawford 2002, p. 1126 and ig. 1). Reprint from “HEROM – volume 4.2, 2015” - ISBN 978 94 6165 174 7 - © Leuven University Press, 2015 204 Laura M. Banducci Only a few other ind contexts of tokens have been documented, all of which date to the second century BC, and several of which are tombs.16 During the construction of a new cemetery in 1887, excavators outside Perugia unearthed a series of Hellenistic tombs.17 One tomb with a single square chamber and a probably male skeleton on a wooden bier yielded 16 bone tokens of the GVLO style, along with 816 glass paste globular tokens, thirty ovoid stones, 2 bronze axe heads, and a few fragments of a bronze vessel and decorative lamé.18 Fiteen of the tokens were legible while the surface of the last was completely destroyed (Fig. 4. a-b). hey are all of identical scale and decorative features, but difer from other tokens of this type including the Gabii GVLO token and the unprovenienced Perugia GVLO token, discussed above. he tokens from the tomb in Perugia are all about 5 cm long, 0.8 cm wide and 0.6 cm thick. he circular “handle” has concentric circles incised with a hemispheric dot in the centre, though the circular end is only preserved in 3 examples. hese are pierced at the neck. he rectangular section of the tokens have double border lines incised, 0.1 cm apart. We can compare the design of the Perugia set to a set of 17 tesserae lusoriae found in a cistern in Vaste, in Puglia, southern Italy (Fig. 5). his was a 3.5 m deep stone-walled cistern illed with ceramic fragments. he tesserae were recovered from the upper phase of the ill, upon the abandonment of the cistern in the second half of the second century BC.19 he Vaste tokens are all about 5.5 cm long and 1 cm wide. Again, they have a word inscribed on one side and a number on the other. heir circular “handle” has a concentric ring incised design, but they have no other incised decoration. he consistent size and decorative details of the Vaste token group and the Perugia token group indicates that these objects were produced in sets. hey were then purchased as a set, and used as a set. Yet the similarity of their general form (their shape and scale) suggests that the producer(s) of these sets knew that they were making a particular style of object. 16. 17. 18. 19. Bendinelli 1921, p. 229; Campagna 1995, p. 263; Casagrande 2012, p. 248. Brizio and Gamurrini 1887; Bellucci 1911. Brizio and Gamurrini 1887; Casagrande 2012. Campagna 1995, pp. 262-263. Reprint from “HEROM – volume 4.2, 2015” - ISBN 978 94 6165 174 7 - © Leuven University Press, 2015 A TESSERA LUSORIA FROM GABII AND THE AFTERLIFE OF ROMAN GAMING 205 Fig. 4a. Words on tokens from tomb outside of Perugia, Museo Archeologico Nazionale dell’Umbria, Perugia (photo: L. Banducci). Reprint from “HEROM – volume 4.2, 2015” - ISBN 978 94 6165 174 7 - © Leuven University Press, 2015 206 Laura M. Banducci Fig. 4b. Numbers on tokens from tomb outside of Perugia, Museo Archeologico Nazionale dell’Umbria, Perugia (photo: L. Banducci). Reprint from “HEROM – volume 4.2, 2015” - ISBN 978 94 6165 174 7 - © Leuven University Press, 2015 A TESSERA LUSORIA FROM GABII AND THE AFTERLIFE OF ROMAN GAMING 207 Fig. 5. Tokens from Vaste (ater Campagna 1995, Fig. 21). Reprint from “HEROM – volume 4.2, 2015” - ISBN 978 94 6165 174 7 - © Leuven University Press, 2015 208 Laura M. Banducci he use of such tokens for gaming was irst posited by G.F. Gamurrini in a commentary he wrote to accompany the excavation report of the 16 Perugia tokens. Gamurrini noted several linguistic distinctions. Firstly, the words inscribed on the tokens are all descriptions, frequently adjectives, of a person. Positive sounding words (e.g. felix, fortunatus, rex) inscribed on one side are associated with higher numbers inscribed on the other side, and likewise more negative words (e.g. drunkard, glutton) are paired with lower numbers. he favourable words are also typically in the nominative case, while the critical words are oten in the vocative. hus, criticisms are directed at someone, perhaps calling him or her to do something and evoking a taunting tone. Here, the inscribed object itself interacts with and elicits a response from its user in the course of the game play.20 Among the 112 examples of these tesserae there is signiicant repetition in the words used and their associated numbers, but there are also many inconsistencies and diferences. To take just one example, the number four, associated in the Gabii and unprovenienced Perugia token with the word “GVLO,” also appears on other tokens with the words “EBRIOSE” (ebriosus, addicted to drink), and “VAPIO” (perhaps related to the noun vappa, a worthless person).21 hough diferent, we can note that ebriose and vapio have a similar style of criticism to gulo. he lack of consistency of the words matched with numbers may suggest that these objects were made in several diferent workshops; it may also suggest an attempt on the part of the cratsman or purchaser to add a personal touch. Gamurrini suggested that the Perugia tokens may have been used to play a game similar to duodecim scripta, the game named by Cicero and Quintilian whose rules remain elusive.22 It seems to have been played with 15 pieces, similar to the Perugia tesserae; however, the fact that the highest number written on the tesserae is 70 lacks explanation.23 Gamurrini suggested alternatively that the tokens were placed in a container and drawn out as part of an unknown game.24 20. Robb 2004; Marshall 2008. 21. Huelsen 1896, p. 233. See Campagna 1995, p. 284; Casagrande 2012, pp. 250-251 for complete lists of the frequency of each word, its probable meaning, and the number of times each word matches with a particular number. Regarding VAPIO, the suggestion was heodore Mommsen’s (CIL 10.8069(3)). It seems reasonable to associate it with Latin words for lat, vapid, groundless. 22. Cicero de Oratore 1.217; Quintilian Institutio Oratoria 11.2.38. 23. On duodecim scripta, see Austin 1934, pp. 32-34 and Schädler 1995. 24. Brizio and Gamurrini 1887, p. 398. Reprint from “HEROM – volume 4.2, 2015” - ISBN 978 94 6165 174 7 - © Leuven University Press, 2015 A TESSERA LUSORIA FROM GABII AND THE AFTERLIFE OF ROMAN GAMING 209 In 1889, Christian Huelsen completed a study of several styles of bone token including the Perugia examples and many similar unprovenienced examples. Huelsen determined that a likely candidate for the game was ludus latrunculorum, the soldiers’ game.25 his was a board game that is most thoroughly explained in Laus Pisonis, a poem in praise of Piso, by an unknown author of the 1st century CE. he aim of the game was to remove the other player’s pieces from the board, in a similar style to the Japanese game, Go.26 Since the irst systematic discussion of the ludus latrunculorum’s rules by R.G. Austin, several sets of rules have been conjectured and a Google Android app has even been created for modern enthusiasts of ancient gaming.27 Although Huelsen’s association between the bone tesserae lusoriae and ludus latrunculorum has been accepted by some scholars,28 it has several problems. Most importantly, from the Laus Pisonis description, it seems that ludus latrunculorum had undiferentiated black and white counters.29 Similarly, from the Latin author Ovid we hear of coloured glass pieces.30 It is easy to imagine two diferent colours of counters, rather than strictly black and white being used for the same game; however a numbered series of 16 or 17 tokens with words inscribed on them does not seem compatible with such an explanation. Our inability to exactly match these tokens with any one game mentioned in ancient literature does not refute their interpretation as gaming tokens. In his early discussion of ancient board games R.G. Austin made the important observation that the rules and nature of board games change over time. his is suggested by many of the inconsistencies in the Greek and Roman literary sources for board games and is also demonstrated by the many changes that took place within the rules of other historical board games, like chess.31 It is not impossible to imagine, then, the function and meaning of the GVLO token, or other similar bone tokens, and how the game or games associated with these tokens may have varied by region or changed over time. It is possible to imagine their use for multiple games as a set or in smaller groups, rather than being strictly associated with a particular board or a single set of rules.32 25. Huelsen 1896, p. 236. 26. Austin 1934, pp. 25-30; Schädler 2007, p. 363. 27. See for example, Bell 1979. he Android app is called “Ludus Latrunculorum” and is by Tecnocchio, by Marizio Barbato. 28. Purcell 1995, p. 9, n.24; Crawford 2002, pp. 1126-1128. 29. Schädler 2007, p. 367. 30. Ars Amatoria ii, 208; Tristia ii, 477. 31. Austin 1935, p. 77. 32. his was irst very reasonably proposed by Lorenzo Campagna (1995, p. 285). Reprint from “HEROM – volume 4.2, 2015” - ISBN 978 94 6165 174 7 - © Leuven University Press, 2015 210 Laura M. Banducci Massimo Casagrande proposed that the 16 tokens found in the aforementioned tomb at Perugia might be sortes, or lots, fateful decision-making or fortune-telling objects. his interpretation was based on Casagrande’s identiication of the deceased as a magician, based solely on the presence of the various glass, fragmentary bronze, and bone objects in the tomb.33 His contextual interpretation of the tomb based on the whole assemblage is admirable; however, its weakness is belied by the circularity of his logic. Nevertheless, numbered sets of small tokens could have been used both as lots and as gaming tokens. Flipping a coin, drawing straws, or indeed rolling the die of a board game in order to decide which player will go irst are all examples of small objects employed as fortune-tellers.34 he close association between gaming tokens and divination has been noted in the study of knucklebones, or astragali, from the Greco-Roman world.35 Nicholas Purcell has previously emphasized the interconnection between diferent throwing games of chance. Whatever the shape of the objects used, he suggests, the underlying sensation is similar. he objects elicit a “cognitive intricacy”: as we watch the object tossed, there is a combination of mathematical, spatial, and supernatural concerns. One ponders the probability that the object will produce the wished-for response, its geometry as it rolls or lips, and the otherworldly favour of the gods or fates.36 he GVLO token from Gabii its within a vast series of objects associated with games, chance, and divination. he ind context of these objects and the Gabii token in particular, now bears further examination. 33. Casagrande 2012. 34. From the Etruscan period in central Italy, small lead and copper alloy disks and short batons have been labelled as sortes as part of archaic Etruscan cleromancy practices, some of which may have been re-purposed as votive oferings (Bagnasco Gianni 2001; Maras 2009, pp. 37-40). he heterogeneity of the form of these so-called sortes is indicative of the lexibility of the function of minor objects as well as relecting the diiculty in scholars’ identiication of them. Worth noting, however, is that Etruscan sortes oten have text inscribed as graito ater the object has been produced, and have been identiied as singular objects which tell fortunes based on their side like lipping a coin, rather than being numerous sets of purpose-made objects like these bone token groups. 35. Dandoy 2006; Carè 2010, p. 462; De Grossi Mazzorin and Minniti 2013. 36. Purcell 1995, p. 4. Reprint from “HEROM – volume 4.2, 2015” - ISBN 978 94 6165 174 7 - © Leuven University Press, 2015 A TESSERA LUSORIA FROM GABII AND THE AFTERLIFE OF ROMAN GAMING 211 Gaming tokens in the funerary context Despite a large body of evidence, we still know little about the preparation and ceremony surrounding Roman burial. he details in our possession are piecemeal and do not necessarily apply to all times and places, and certainly not to all classes of ancient society.37 Burial monuments, grave goods and the treatment of the body are useful indicators of the concerns attending death and burial, at least for the relatives of the deceased, if not for the deceased herself. he simple practice of covering a body with a pitched roof of recycled tiles without a sarcophagus suggests the relatively low-status of the a cappuccina tomb, used by “economically modest social classes.”38 Despite their low-cost construction, the care taken to make tombs a cappuccina suggest an attempt to provide not only a deinitive burial, but also at least a minimal protection of the body from disturbance.39 Tombs a cappuccina of the Roman Imperial period rarely contain grave goods, and when they do, this is typically undecorated pottery.40 At Gabii, none of the tombs from the Imperial period necropolis excavated thus far have yielded grave goods placed alongside the body of the deceased. he GVLO token, recovered within the soil above the body, was deposited in two possible ways. It was either deposited intentionally in the tomb while the body was being covered during the burial, or it was discarded in another part of site and appears accidently re-deposited in the soil of the tomb. he uniqueness of this object at Gabii (there are no other examples) suggests the former situation is quite plausible; moreover, comparison with other tesserae lusoriae and gaming objects lends further support to its intentional deposition. In the Italo-Greek sphere, knucklebones, which probably served as both gaming tokens and lots, are frequently found in tombs. In the Lucifero necropolis at Locri Epizeiri excavators recovered 8800 knucklebones in 149 tombs, datable between the 6th and 2nd centuries BC. hese were most oten associated with female burials, but only around half (53%) with adult burials.41 hese knucklebones were mostly found distributed around the body 37. 38. 39. 40. Graham 2006a, p. 57; Hope 2007, pp. 85-86. Killgrove 2010, p. 65. Graham 2006a, p. 64, 2006b, pp. 91-92. In the 1st to 2nd century AD necropolis at Casal Bertone, only 22% of cappuccina tombs had grave goods, while at Castellaccio Europarco, only a few ceramics were recovered (Killgrove 2010, pp. 78, 85). At the 1st to 3rd century AD necropolis at Vagnari, most of the a cappuccina tombs contain a lamp or a handful of ceramic or copper alloy vessels at the feet of the deceased. Prowse and Small 2009; Prowse 2012, p. 239. 41. Carè 2010, pp. 460-461. Reprint from “HEROM – volume 4.2, 2015” - ISBN 978 94 6165 174 7 - © Leuven University Press, 2015 212 Laura M. Banducci within the tomb, and found above the roof tiles covering the tomb, probably thrown in as the body was buried.42 he enormous quantity and ubiquity of these objects at Locri Epizeiri is unusual (dubbed “astragalomania”),43 but the presence of knucklebones in tombs is not unique to this site. hey are also found in tombs in smaller numbers from the 4th to the 2nd centuries BC at Populonia and Varranone.44 hus, there is early precedent in Italy for including small objects of chance in and around bodies in casual ways. When we turn to the corpus of tesserae lusoriae itself, two of the three other contexts in which they have been found were second century BC tombs in Italy. One is the already-discussed tomb outside Perugia containing 16 of these tesserae. he other, at Ferento, near Rome, is a large chamber tomb from the Hellenistic period containing stone sarcophagi stacked in two levels. From within the chamber tomb at Ferento, two tesserae lusoriae were recovered from inside the sarcophagus of a young man.45 hese were both bone rectangles with circular handles, pierced at the neck. On these two examples, the words FATVE and VAPIO are inscribed on one side, and the numbers XX A and IV A appear on the other side in serif text (Fig. 6). In Latin, fatuus is an adjective meaning foolish or silly, and here it appears in the vocative case, though it is associated with a relatively high number.46 Fig. 6. Tokens from Ferento (ater Zei 1921, Fig. 4-5). Gaming paraphernalia has also been recovered from tombs elsewhere in the Roman Empire in later periods. Well-known examples come from the so-called Warrior’s tomb and Doctor’s tomb in the Stanway necropolis at Colchester. Dating to the middle of the 1st century AD, both of these elite 42. Carè 2010, p. 460. 43. Term by Roland Hampe (1951, p. 16). he recovery of knucklebones is limited to funerary contexts at the site (Carè 2010, n. 9). 44. De Grossi Mazzorin and Minniti 2013, p. 373. 45. Zei 1921, p. 222. 46. fatuus, -a, um OLD 1983 p. 680. Reprint from “HEROM – volume 4.2, 2015” - ISBN 978 94 6165 174 7 - © Leuven University Press, 2015 A TESSERA LUSORIA FROM GABII AND THE AFTERLIFE OF ROMAN GAMING 213 male pit burials had very deliberately arranged grave goods. In addition to ceramic and metal vessels, both burials had wooden game boards and glass game pieces. In the Warrior’s tomb, named because of weapons recovered among the grave goods, the game board was made of maple wood and had brass ittings including hinges to fold the board in half. It had been placed in the corner of the grave together with a pile of eleven white and dark blue glass pieces of a standard rounded type.47 Fig. 7. Tomb of the Doctor, with gameboard and gaming pieces, Colchester, England (Crummy et al. 2007, Fig. 4.3, used with permission). he Doctor’s tomb, named because of metal medical instruments found inside, contained a large wooden box. he box housed a maple game board with leather decoration and brass ixtures and hinges. It was laid out with 26 glass pieces, 13 white and 13 blue arranged on the board (Fig. 7).48 he cremated remains of the deceased had been poured on top of the board. Although the wood of the board is poorly preserved, based on its overall size and the placement of the glass pieces, it appears to have been divided into either an 8 x 12 or 9 x 13 grid.49 Some of the tokens arranged on the board 47. Crummy et al. 2007, p. 186. 48. Crummy et al. 2007, p. 217. 49. Crummy 2007, pp. 352-356. Reprint from “HEROM – volume 4.2, 2015” - ISBN 978 94 6165 174 7 - © Leuven University Press, 2015 214 Laura M. Banducci may have been set to relect a game in the midst of play, though their placement may also be attributable to post-depositional decay or disturbance.50 he game being played is mostly likely ludus latrunculorum.51 Playing games with or without a game board seems to have been a public behaviour. his is suggested by the myriad makeshit game boards carved into pavements and the seats of entertainment venues throughout the Roman world.52 In the Forum Romanum, a recent survey identiied 77 game boards carved into stone surfaces.53 A few Latin texts reveal that some people may have owned their own game boards, made of wood or ivory, but these were likely limited to more wealthy individuals.54 he only Roman game board ever found in a house is at Ephesus where it was inscribed into a marble tabletop. his dates from before the middle of the 3rd century AD when the roof of the house collapsed.55 In order to use the many public game boards in ancient cities, people presumably brought their own game pieces – glass-paste, stone, or bone, improvised from pebbles or bought as ready-made items. It also seems reasonable that one would need diferent quantities of counters to play diferent types of games.56 Bone tesserae lusoriae, kept together with a string threaded through their hole, it well within this context. he variations in their numbering and decoration, but the similarity in their type and their presence as sets mean that they could have been purchased, used, and carried as part of an individual’s personal gaming paraphernalia. When a modern audience considers “he Roman Games” the focus is on public events in the form of gladiatorial or athletic competition. hese public spectacles are recognized as important venues for the engagement of the public with various political classes and with the divine through chance and lifeor-death spectacles.57 Yet gaming on a smaller scale, through street games of chance or strategy, also had similar elements of public social interaction and of risk. he value associated with Roman gaming among some Romans was 50. Crummy 2007, p. 356. 51. Crummy et al. 2007, p. 172. Ulrich Schädler (2007, p. 360) lists ive other tombs with game boards found in them in Britain and Germany. 52. Well-known examples include the seats at the stadium of Aphrodisias, the pavements of the Markets of Trajan at Rome, and on Hadrian’s Wall (on Hadrian’s wall and Richborough see Austin 1934, pp. 26-7). 53. Triilò 2012 54. Petronius, Satyricon 33 and Martial XII.1.8, xiv.17. 55. Schädler 2007, p. 360; Schädler forthcoming. his is a duodecim scripta or alea board. 56. Schädler 2007, p. 368. 57. Dodge 1999; Purcell 2013. Reprint from “HEROM – volume 4.2, 2015” - ISBN 978 94 6165 174 7 - © Leuven University Press, 2015 A TESSERA LUSORIA FROM GABII AND THE AFTERLIFE OF ROMAN GAMING 215 complex: was it part of otium, an innocent activity of leisure, or was it a vice, as one frittered away one’s livelihood?58 How an onlooker would have judged this seems to have depended in part on the status of the person playing the game (whether wealthy and educated or illiterate and poor). Whatever their status, however, players of street games may have experienced similar sensations. Roger Caillois, a theorist on the nature of play, emphasized the pleasure for the player despite, and in some cases because of, the risks involved in gaming.59 he risks involved in gaming make this tessera appropriate in a funerary setting, where it was ultimately deposited.60 he age of the object at deposition, however, complicates our interpretation of its meaning. Layered meanings of the GVLo token he limited number of bone tokens with known provenience, at Perugia, Vaste, and Ferento, demonstrate that tesserae of this particular style were being produced in the second century BC. he slight diferences in their decorative and textual details suggest that they were made in several locations or workshops. We do not know how widespread their production was, or how long it continued; however, their consistent overall form, small quantity (113 extant in total) and appearance in second century BC contexts may mean their production was quite limited. Since all the tokens of known provenience date to this same period, it is very possible that the GVLO token recovered at Gabii was also made in the second century BC. hus, it was at least 200 years old when it was deposited in its 1st century AD tomb. Although we have compared the Gabii token in its funerary context to other gaming paraphernalia in tombs, it is not clear that a 200 year old token, separated from its set of matching tokens, would have still had an association with gaming for the person who deposited it. We should consider the biography of this token in the context of theories of fragmentation, and enchainment or layered meaning. Objects accumulate history throughout their lifetime of production, use, and re-use.61 Portable objects changed owners and locations, circulating via trade and exchange.62 Particularly in the case of a small, inscribed object for gaming, we might 58. Purcell 1995, pp. 13-27. 59. Caillois (1961) would have identiied these tesserae as part of games of competition (agon) and chance (alea). 60. On risk, gaming, and the funerary context, see Banducci 2014. 61. Appadurai 1986, pp. 19-41; Joy 2009. 62. Peers 1999. Reprint from “HEROM – volume 4.2, 2015” - ISBN 978 94 6165 174 7 - © Leuven University Press, 2015 216 Laura M. Banducci imagine it having a personal connection with the individual who wore or carried it and then used it repeatedly. A tessera lusoria may have had a colourful career: wielded in the public square for multiple types of games in situations of friendly challenge or ierce competition. At some point in its life, the Gabii GVLO token was separated from what must have been its set of associated tokens. Would it have retained an association with its original assemblage – its meaning and function enchained with it as an individual object? John Chapman used examples from the Neolithic and Chacolithic Balkans to argue that objects which have been separated from the whole of which they were once part (whether a whole vessel or a whole assemblage) maintain some connection with their original whole and carry forward that meaning as a fragment.63 Whether the fragmentation of the assemblage was accidental or deliberate, Chapman notes that the deposition of the fragment in many cases was intentional and may be socially or culturally signiicant – perhaps as a representation of the whole.64 Beyond its fragmentation from its assemblage, the GVLO token was also removed from its temporal context, and also perhaps its class context. We can imagine that over 200 years the tessera may have changed owners: once belonging to a freeman merchant family in Rome, then given to a slave upon manumission, then buried with the former slave’s granddaughter as a special inscribed object in an otherwise modest tomb. Given what we have deduced about the tessera’s original function and its age, it potentially had several owners and several contexts of use. A network of potential meanings and associations would have accumulated.65 Likewise, we have to acknowledge that the tessera’s owner in the 1st century AD may have been wholly unaware of its original association with gaming, let alone with 16 or 17 other similar objects. he GVLO token is a tessera lusoria in form, but its physical similarity to bone tokens of other functions, alluded to at the beginning of this paper, may relect a melding or blending of its own understood function by someone who held it in the 1st century AD. he GVLO token had become an heirloom – a sense of its antiquity remained; its original function was perhaps not known.66 It is possible that its inal owner understood it to be something like a tribal designator, or a gladiatorial token, a simple lot, or something else entirely. Recent work on the complexity of 63. 64. 65. 66. Chapman 1996, 2000. Chapman 1996, p. 210. On layering and accumulation of meaning, see Knappett 2006, p. 240. Lillios 1999. Reprint from “HEROM – volume 4.2, 2015” - ISBN 978 94 6165 174 7 - © Leuven University Press, 2015 A TESSERA LUSORIA FROM GABII AND THE AFTERLIFE OF ROMAN GAMING 217 artefact biographies has emphasized that artefacts carry forward associations, functions, and meanings from when they were previously used, but they are also “always tied into ongoing transformations” of their meaning.67 he GVLO token may have taken on a new role in the lives of its inal owners and have been deposited with that meaning in mind. hat being said, we are let to wonder how literate whoever deposited this token in the tomb was. Its inscription, which seems to label or call someone a “glutton”, seems a questionable farewell git for the 40-something year old woman with whom it was buried; yet, the object’s status as an heirloom or simply as a valued personal possession may have outweighed any odd association with its inscription. Conclusions Inscribed bone tesserae have held a special place in museum and antiquarian collections both because of a scholarly fascination with text and artefact combined, and because of a sense that such portable objects had a personal connection with an ancient individual. hough the preceding paper began as an efort to identify the GVLO token as some kind of gaming token from a burial context, it has opened a broader appraisal of the potential uses and understandings of small objects with long lives. While this interpretation may seem rather grand for a single piece of disconnected tessera in a grave ill, it reveals the importance of small inds as indicative of larger societal processes. his discussion has also demonstrated the variation and richness aforded by an interpretation of object type and function that includes not just the identiication of the object as it was produced, but also allows for the shit in meanings and intention as the object moves through time and space. his object also suggests that burial practices in 1st century AD Gabii were part of a broader tradition throughout the Roman world involving the deposition of small chance-related objects in individual tombs. Further excavation of the Gabii necropolis and completion of the study, which is currently underway, of the skeletal remains from the necropolis will provide a broader context for this one artefact and its tomb. 67. Brittain and Harris 2010, p. 589. Reprint from “HEROM – volume 4.2, 2015” - ISBN 978 94 6165 174 7 - © Leuven University Press, 2015 218 Laura M. Banducci Acknowledgements hank you to Mafalda Cipollone at the Museo Archeologico Nazionale dell’Umbria, for providing access to the museum records of the Perugia tokens and for her generous insight into the 19th century excavations at Perugia. hank you also to Dr. Kristina Killgrove, bioarchaeologist for the Gabii Project, for providing the unpublished results of her study of the skeletal remains on site. Finally, thank you to my colleagues at the Gabii Project, especially Dr. Abigail Crawford and Dr. Rachel Opitz, for their encouragement and feedback. References OLD = P.G.W. Glare ed., Oxford Latin Dictionary, New York, 1983. Alföldi and Alföldi-Rosenbaum 1976 = A. Alföldi and E. Alföldi-Rosenbaum, Die Kontorniat-Medaillons. (Antike Münzen und geschnittene Steine 6:1-2). Berlin, 1976. Appadurai 1986 = A. Appadurai, Introduction: commodities and the politics of value, in, A. Appadurai, ed., he social life of things: commodities in cultural perspective, New York, 1986, pp. 3-63. Doi:10.1017/CBO9780511819582.003. Austin 1934 = R.G. Austin, Roman Board Games. I, “Greece & Rome”, 4/10, pp. 24-34. Doi:10.1017/S0017383500002941. Austin 1935 = R.G. Austin, Roman Board Games. II, “Greece & Rome”, 4/11, pp. 76-82. Doi:10.1017/S0017383500003119. Bagnasco Gianni 2001 = G. Bagnasco Gianni, Le sortes etrusche, in F. Cordano, C. Grottanelli, eds., Sorteggio pubblico e cleromanzia dall’antichità all’età moderna : atti della tavola rotonda, Milano, 2001, pp. 197-220. Banducci 2014 = L.M. Banducci, Mourning deaths and endangering lives: Etruscan chariot racing between symbol and reality, “Papers of the British School at Rome”, 82, pp. 1-39. Doi:10.1017/S0068246214000038. Becker et al. 2009 = J.A. Becker, M. Mogetta, and N. Terrenato, A new plan for an ancient Italian city: Gabii revealed, “American journal of archaeology”, 113/4, pp. 629642. doi:10.3764/aja.113.4.629. Bell 1979 = R.C. Bell, Board and table games from many civilizations, Rev. ed. New York, 1979. Bellucci 1911 = G. Bellucci, Ipogeo della famiglia etrusca ‘Ruia’ presso Perugia, “Bollettino della Deputazione di Storia Patria”, 17/1, pp. 123-194. Bendinelli 1921 = G. Bendinelli, Nota relativa alle iscrizioni sepolcrali ferentane, “Notizie degli scavi di antichità”, 18, pp. 228-229. Blanchet 1889 = J.-A. Blanchet, Tessères antiques théâtrales et autres, “Revue archéologique”, 13, pp. 226-242, 369-380. Brittain and Harris 2010 = M. Brittain, O. Harris, Enchaining arguments and fragmenting assumptions: reconsidering the fragmentation debate in archaeology, “World Archaeology”, 42/4, pp. 581-594. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1080/00438243.2010.518415 Reprint from “HEROM – volume 4.2, 2015” - ISBN 978 94 6165 174 7 - © Leuven University Press, 2015 A TESSERA LUSORIA FROM GABII AND THE AFTERLIFE OF ROMAN GAMING 219 Brizio and Gamurrini 1887 = E. Brizio, and G.F. Gamurrini, Regione VII. (Etruria). IV. Perugia. “Notizie degli scavi di antichità”, pp. 391-398. Caillois 1961 = R. Caillois (M. Barash, trans.), Man, play and games, Glencoe, IL, 1961. Campagna 1995 = Campagna, L. Cisterne e buca di scarico di età repubblicana a Vaste (Le), scavi di fondo S. Antonio, “Studi di Antichità”, 8/2, pp. 215-288. Carè 2010 = B. Carè, L’astragalo nel sepolcro ‘μειρακίων τε και παρθένων παίγνιον’? Rilessioni per la rilettura di un costume funerario: i casi di Locri e Caulonia, in L. Lepore, P. Turi, eds., Caulonia tra Crotone e Locri. Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Firenze 30 maggio-1 giugno 2007, Florence, 2010, pp. 459-469. Casagrande 2012 = M. Casagrande, Le Sortes di Perugia, in F.M. Simón, M. Piranomonte, eds., Contesti magici – Contextos mágicos, Rome, 2012, pp. 247-252. Chapman 1996 = J. Chapman, Enchainment Commodiication and Gender in the Balkan Copper Age, “Journal of European Archaeology”, 4/1, pp. 203-242. doi:10.1179/096576696800688114. Chapman 2000 = J. Chapman, Fragmentation in Archaeology: People, Places and Broken Objects in the Prehistory of South Eastern Europe, New York, 2000. Crawford 2002 = M.H. Crawford, Tribus, tessères et régions, “Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres”, 146/4, pp. 1125-1136. Doi:10.3406/ crai.2002.22505. Crummy 2007 = P. Crummy, he gaming board in CF47 the remains as found, possible reconstructions of post-depositional disturbances, in P. Crummy, S. Benield, N. Crummy, V. Rigby, D. Shimmin, Stanway: an élite burial site at Camulodunum, (Britannia Monographs 24), Oxford, 2007, pp. 352-359. Crummy et al. 2007 = P. Crummy, S. Benield, N. Crummy, V. Rigby, D. Shimmin, Stanway: an élite burial site at Camulodunum, (Britannia Monographs 24), Oxford, 2007. Dandoy 2006 = J.R. Dandoy, Astragali through Time, in M. Maltby, ed., Integrating Zooarchaeology. Proceedings of the 9th ICAZ Conference, Oxford, 2006, pp. 131-137. De Grossi Mazzorin and Minniti 2013 = J. De Grossi Mazzorin and C. Minniti, Ancient use of the knuckle-bone for rituals and gaming piece, “Anthropozoologica”, 48/2, pp. 371-380. Doi:10.5252/az2013n2a13. Dodge 1999 = H. Dodge, Amusing the masses: Buildings for entertainment and leisure in the Roman World, in D.S. Potter and D.J. Mattingly, eds, Life, Death, and Entertainment in the Roman Empire, Ann Arbor, MI, 1999, pp. 205-255. Graham 2006a = E.-J. Graham, Discarding the destitute: ancient and modern attitudes towards burial practices and memory preservation amongst the lower classes of Rome, in B. Croxford, H. Goodchild, J. Lucas, and R. Nick, eds., TRAC 2005: Proceedings of the Fiteenth Annual heoretical Roman Archaeology Conference. Birmingham 2005, Oxford, 2006, pp. 57-72. Graham 2006b = E.-J. Graham, he Burial of the Urban Poor in Italy in the Late Roman Republic and Early Empire, (British Archaeological Reports 1565), Oxford, 2006. Graillot 1896 = M.H. Graillot, Une collection de tessères, “Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire”, 16/1, pp. 299-314. doi:10.3406/mefr.1896.6170. Hampe 1951 = R. Hampe, Die Stele aus Pharsalos im Louvre, Berlin, 1951. Reprint from “HEROM – volume 4.2, 2015” - ISBN 978 94 6165 174 7 - © Leuven University Press, 2015 220 Laura M. Banducci Henzen 1871 = G. Henzen, Tessera gladiatoria, “Bullettino dell’Instituto di corrispondenza archeologica – Bulletin de l’Institut de correspondance archéologique”, pp. 151-152. Hope 2007 = V. Hope, Death in Ancient Rome: A Sourcebook. New York, 2007. Doi:10.4324/9780203392485. Hübner 1867 = E. Hübner, Gladiatorentesseren, “Monatsberichte der KöniglichPreussischen Akademie der Wissenschaten zu Berlin”, pp. 747-771. Huelsen 1896 = C. Huelsen, Miscellanea Epigraica: XXI. Tessere lusorie, “Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts, Roemische Abteilung”, XI, pp. 227-252. Joy 2009 = J. Joy, Reinvigorating object biography: reproducing the drama of object lives, “World Archaeology” 41/4, pp. 540-556. Doi:10.1080/00438240903345530. Killgrove 2010 = K. Killgrove, Migration and Mobility in Imperial Rome, (Ph.D. Dissertation), University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, 2010. Killgrove 2011 = K. Killgrove, Gabii Osteological Report 2009-2011 (Unpublished report for site directors), Chapel Hill, NC, March 2011. Knappett 2006 = C. Knappett, Beyond skin: layering and networking in art and archaeology, “Cambridge Archaeological Journal”, 16/2, pp. 239-251. Doi:10.1017/ S095977430600014X. Lillios 1999 = K.T. Lillios, Objects of Memory: he Ethnography and Archaeology of Heirlooms, “Journal of Archaeological Method and heory”, 6/3, pp. 235-262. Doi:10.1023/A:1021999319447. Maras 2009 = D.F. Maras, Il dono votivo: gli dei e il sacro nelle iscrizioni etrusche di culto. Pisa, 2009. Marshall 2008 = Y. Marshall, he social lives of lived and inscribed objects: a Lapita perspective, “Journal of the Polynesian Society”, 117/1, pp. 59-101. Mogetta and Becker 2014 = M. Mogetta and J.A. Becker, Archaeological Research at Gabii, Italy: he Gabii Project Excavations, 2009-2011, “American Journal of Archaeology”, 118/1, pp. 171-188. Doi:10.3764/aja.118.1.0171. Musco et al. 2008 = S. Musco, P. Catalano, A. Caspio, W. Pantano, and K. Killgrove. Le complexe archéologique de Casal Bertone, “Les Dossiers d’Archéologie”, 330, pp. 32-39. Peers 1999 = L. Peers, ‘Many tender ties’: he shiting contexts and meanings of the S BLACK bag, “World Archaeology”, 31/2, pp. 288-302. doi:10.1080/00438243.1999.9 980447. Prowse 2012 = T. Prowse, Archaeological Fieldwork Reports: Excavations at Vagnari, 2011, “Papers of the British School at Rome”, 80, pp. 378-380. doi:10.1017/ S0068246212000530. Prowse and Small 2009 = T. Prowse and A.M. Small, Excavations in the Roman cemetery at Vagnari, 2008 Preliminary report, “FOLD&R”, 131. Purcell 1995 = N. Purcell, Literate games: Roman urban society and the game of Alea, “Past & Present”, 147, pp. 3-37. doi:10.1093/past/147.1.3. Purcell 2013 = N. Purcell, ‘Romans, play on!’, in P. Erdkamp, ed., he Cambridge Companion to Ancient Rome, Cambridge, 2013, pp. 441-458. doi:10.1017/ CCO9781139025973.031. Rebillard 2009 = É. Rebillard, Musarna 3: la nécropole impériale, (Collection de l’École française de Rome 415), Rome, 2009. Ritschl 1864 = F.W. Ritschl, Die Tesserae gladiatoriae der Römer, Munich, 1864. Reprint from “HEROM – volume 4.2, 2015” - ISBN 978 94 6165 174 7 - © Leuven University Press, 2015 A TESSERA LUSORIA FROM GABII AND THE AFTERLIFE OF ROMAN GAMING 221 Robb 2004 = J. Robb, he extended artefact and the monumental economy. A methodology for material agency, in E. DeMarrais, C. Gosden, C. Renfrew, eds., Rethinking materiality: the engagement of the mind with the material world, (McDonald Institute Monographs),Cambridge, 2004, pp. 131-139. Schädler 1995 = U. Schädler, XII Scripta, Alea, Tabula: new evidence for the Roman history of ‘backgammon’, in A.J. de Voogt, ed., New Approaches to Board Games Research: Asian Origins and Future Perspectives, (Working Papers Series 3), Leiden, 1995, pp. 73-98. Schädler 2007 = U. Schädler, he doctor’s game – New light on the history of ancient board games, in P. Crummy et al., Stanway: an élite burial site at Camulodunum, (Britannia Monographs 24), London, 2007, pp. 359-375. Schädler Forthcoming = U. Schädler, Das Spielbrett am Spieltisch im Peristylhof 38b, in E. Rathmayr, ed., Hanghaus 2 in Ephesos: Die Wohneinheit 7, Vienna, Forthcoming. Triilò 2012 = F. Triilò, he Forum Romanum Games Project: Preliminary Project Report, Rome, March 20, 2012. Trustees 1878 = Trustees of the British Museum, Synopsis of the Contents of the British Museum: A Guide to the Second Vase Room in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, Part I, London, 1878. Zei 1921 = C. Zei, Ferento (Viterbo) – Scoperta di tombe di età repubblicana, “Notizie degli scavi di antichità”, 7-8-9, pp. 215-228. Reprint from “HEROM – volume 4.2, 2015” - ISBN 978 94 6165 174 7 - © Leuven University Press, 2015