Despite the superficiality of the survey, certain trends may be ob-
served. In terms of movement over time, we note the drop in frequency
of inscription on precious objects—a practice that seems to have charac-
terized aristocratic gift exchange in archaic Latium and Etruria.^17 We may
note as well the steady upturn in funerary and commemorative uses, the
latter instances for the most part recording the contributions of individ-
uals or corporations to the public good (repair of aqueducts, construction
of temples, etc.). Such changes, together with the use of writing by
soldiers (in the case of theglandes) and on lots may well testify to an
expansion of literacy.
More striking is the contrast between this chart and those provided for
Attica and Etruria. What seems to emerge is a distinctly Roman use of
writing for two purposes, one of which we might call proprietarial, as in
the marking of territory or indications of ownership and financial respon-
sibility (this is what most of thetesseraeseem to be about);
18
the other of
which speaks to a particular form of sociability—dedications overwhelm-
ingly to other people, not to the gods, commemorative inscriptions that
are, despite their boastfulness, concrete manifestations of social obliga-
tions and aspirations.
Table 6.2.Sources for Roman WritingBefore Third
Cent.B.C.Third/Second
Cent.B.C. First Cent.B.C.First Cent.B.C.
Incl. Tesserae
and GlandesPrecious objects
Incised 28% 1% 1% 1%
Dipinti 0 1% 0 0
Gravestones
Non elite 0 2% 9% 6%
Elite 0 16% 3% 2%
Dedications 38% 21% 30% 18%
Boundaries 22% 10% 5% 3%
Other legal 0 3% 2% 1.5%
Commemorative 11% 13% 34% 20%
Fasti 0 1% 1% >1%
Milestones 0 14% 1% 1%
Acta of collegia 1% 17% 12% 7%
Sortes 0 0 3% 2%
Tesserae 0 0 26 items 22%
Glandes 0 0 11 items 6%- See Cristofani 1984.
- See the discussion by Andreau 1999, 80 9, following the earlier interpretation of
R. Herzog.
Situating Literacy at Rome 119