Page 25 - Manual of Roman Everyday Writing Volume 2: Writing Equipment
P. 25

24| MANUAL OF ROMAN EVERYDAY WRITING  VOLUME 2:  WRITING EQUIMENT | 25

 expect on papyrus, parchment or wooden tablets, such as letters and
 reports, are sometimes found on pottery sherds – maybe because
 papyrus or wood was not available.

 In fact, Roman handwriting can be found on a plethora of surfaces,   4. Evidence for Roman
 including those not necessarily meant to be written on. Much as   writing equipment
 is the case today, some people in antiquity liked to doodle and
 scribble onto walls and pavements and marked various objects
 such as plates or bowls as their property.


               he most obvious kind of evidence for Roman writing equipment
           Tare archaeological finds, but both depictions and written
           descriptions of the act of writing and of writing paraphernalia are
           also preserved. Archaeological, iconographic and literary evidence all
           come with their own scope and limitations, which will be addressed
           briefly in this section.
           Finds of Roman writing equipment can be contextualised with
           associated objects and within a given site, and they can, to a
           certain extent, be analysed in terms of use/wear and production.
           As mentioned in the introduction, there are a number of problems
           with the identification and quantification of finds of Roman writing
           equipment. An overarching problem are biases of survival, excavation
           and publication of archaeological materials and the level of awareness
           of writing equipment which varies greatly from region to region,
           resulting in very patchy evidence. Nevertheless, a few general
           observations can be made.

           In general, archaeological finds of writing equipment are known in
           greater numbers from urban and military sites than from smaller
           settlements or rural sites. This corresponds to our traditional
           expectations of higher levels of literacy and more frequent use of
           writing in such environments. However, more recent research has
           stressed that, while rural sites do feature fewer finds, they might
           be more common than expected following Harris’ pessimistic view
           (Hanson and Conolly 2002), and also that the simplified categories
   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30