’The graffiti in the cryptoporticus of the Horti Sallustiani in the area of the Embassy of the...

SKRIFTER UTGIVNA AV SVENSKA INSTITUTET I ROM, 4

o

, LIX

ACTA INSTITUTI ROMANI REGNI SUECIAE, SERIES IN 4

o

, LIX

UNEXPECTED VOICES

THE GRAFFITI IN THE CRYPTOPORTICUS OF THE HORTI SALLUSTIANI

AND

PAPERS FROM A CONFERENCE ON GRAFFITI AT THE SWEDISH INSTITUTE IN ROME, 7 MARCH 2003

EDITED BY

OLOF BRANDT

_________________________________________

STOCKHOLM 2008

Opuscula Romana 27, 2002

Abstract

The graffiti in the Roman cryptoporticus in the area of the Embassyof the United States of America derive from two main phases, LateAntique and Late Medieval/Renaissance.

The Late Antique graffiti consist of literal graffiti, some Chris-tian monograms and a Jewish

menorah

. They all post-date the fres-coes, which were created in the early third century AD. The occur-rence of a two-stroke E in one of the literal graffiti is somewhat sur-prising, since this form usually is held to be out of use in the thirdcentury. Concerning the Christian monograms, the general chronol-ogy of these symbols would prevent a dating as early as the thirdcentury; however, given some parallels from the same time, a dat-ing in the late third century should not be seen as impossible. The

menorah

is dated to the third or fourth century AD.The literal graffiti from the second phase, mainly consisting of

so-called visitors’ graffiti, are dated to the mid-16th century or be-ginning of the 17th century. The figurative graffiti from the samephase—including a large representation of warriors with swords in-volved in a hostile action—are tentatively dated somewhat earlier,based on some iconographic observations.

*

PART I

1. Introduction

In 2001, Valeria Brunori, Fine Arts Curator of the Embassyof the United States of America at Rome, invited the Swe-dish Institute in Rome to engage in new research on the Ro-man cryptoporticus found on the area of the Embassy in the1950s. The aim of the project was to document and studythe numerous graffiti found on the frescoed walls of thecryptoporticus, and, in connection to this, examine the ar-chaeological structure once more. Olof Brandt of the Swe-dish Institute, who has undertaken the archaeological study,kindly invited me to take responsibility for the study of thegraffiti.

The work started in May, 2002. Soon, it became evidentthat the graffiti were in fact not exclusively Late Antique, aswas previously imagined,

1

but, for the most part, from theMiddle Ages and the Renaissance. Although not an experton palaeography from these periods, I have included thesegraffiti in my study, in order to achieve a more completehistory of the cryptoporticus and its phases.

2. Aim

The aim of this article is twofold. Firstly, to present a com-plete documentation of all of the graffiti, since the fragilityof graffiti as artefacts makes it most important to preservethem in copies as exact as possible. Secondly, to create, bymeans of study of the graffiti, a historical context for thecryptoporticus as a monument, and to let the archaeologicalcontext, in its turn, form a backdrop to the practice of wall-writing through the ages at this particular place in Rome.

It was not my intention, however, to attempt a definitiveinterpretation of each of the graffiti. Instead, I have chosento analyse in detail only a selection of the graffiti, givingpriority to those particularly interesting or of special impor-tance for the general chronology and history of the cryp-toporticus.

3. Previous research on the graffiti in the cryp-toporticus

The frescoed Roman cryptoporticus, the location of thegraffiti studied in this article, was found in 1949–1950.

2

D.Faccenna published an article on the discovery.

3

He men-tioned some of the graffiti, attributing them to the “rela-tively recent” period when the door to room D (which at thetime was unexcavated) was made. After the restoration ofthe frescoes in the same year, M. Cagiano de Azevedo pre-sented a short article on some of the graffiti.

4

In 1954, C.

*

The author would like to thank Valeria Brunori at the Embassy ofthe United States of America at Rome, Barbro Santillo Frizell, thedirector of the Swedish Institute in Rome, Olof Brandt at the Swe-dish Institute, Torsten och Ingrid Gihls fond for the financial sup-port, and last but not least the helpful staff at the Swedish Institute.

All illustrations and drawings are made by the author of thisarticle. All photographs are taken by Paolo Soriani, Courtesy of theEmbassy of the United States of America in Rome unless otherwisestated.

1

Cagiano de Azevedo 1952.

2

See Introduction by Brunori & Brandt in this publication.

3

Faccenna 1951. Faccenna kindly agreed to revisit the cryptoporti-cus in March 2003 for a valuable discussion.

4

Cagiano de Azevedo 1952.

The graffiti in the cryptoporticus of the Horti Sallustiani in the area of the Embassy of the United States of America in

Rome

by

Anna Holst Blennow

56

Anna Holst Blennow

Cecchelli briefly discussed the monogrammic cross in his

Iltrionfo della croce

.

5

Further excavations, restoration and research on the fres-

coes were made in the 1990s.

6

4. Documentation and edition of the graffiti

The graffiti were documented in May 2002, both throughthe method of rubbing

7

and through photographs,

8

by theauthor of this article with the assistance of Valeria Brunori.In some areas, where the plaster is relatively smooth, themethod of rubbing worked out very well; in other areas,where the plaster is rough and uneven, the result was un-satisfying, and a better result was produced in the photo-graphs. In some extreme cases, neither rubbing nor photo-graphs could make the graffito visible, and only carefulwork combining the two methods with an accurate study

insitu

finally gave the best result possible.Next, I developed a method of making the more success-

ful rubbings even clearer by scanning them, and then, bymeans of an image-processing program, increasing the con-trasts and filling in lines or damage which did not belong tothe graffito. In this way, a clear image of the graffito wascreated in white on a black background, which was thenconverted into black-on-white.

In addition, the photographer Paolo Soriani took digitalimages of the most important parts of the graffiti in Decem-ber 2002.

In part II of this article, each graffito is edited and illus-trated by a computerized image, photograph or by both, de-pending on which method provided the clearest picture. Thegraffiti are numbered in accordance with their location onthe walls A, B and in room D respectively. In part III, thereis also an overview of the most densely inscribed parts ofwall A and wall B.

The graffiti are tentatively divided into two mainphases, Period 1 (the Late Antique graffiti) and Period 2(graffiti from the later phases). In several cases, the datingand interpretation of the graffiti remain obscure. Thosegraffiti are collected under the heading

Descripta

at theend of part II.

The literal graffiti are edited in majuscule italics whenmajuscule letters are used in the graffito, and in minusculeitalics when minuscule letters are used. When a letter cannotbe read with certainty or is lost, this is expressed [·] whereone point stands for one letter (when the number of letterscannot be calculated with certainty, this is expressed [---]).A question-mark in parenthesis after the edition of a graffitosignifies that the reading is less certain. Single letters dis-cussed in the text are in italics.

PART II

1. Location of the graffiti

The graffiti in the cryptoporticus are situated on wall A,wall B and in Room D. The inscribed areas on walls A andB have their western termination where the frescoes start,

and their eastern termination about three metres further eastalong the walls, thus leaving the eastern part of both wallsuninscribed. The preserved writing area is about 50–60 cmhigh, and follows the inclination of the frescoes and theoriginal floor, starting circa 150 cm from the original floor-level where the frescoes originally met the marble slabs onthe lower part of the walls.

9

The only exceptions found out-side those rather regularly localized inscribed areas are agraffito on wall A (A15), situated in a cavity where this wallmeets the modern wall closing the cryptoporticus to theeast, and two graffiti on wall B (B39 and B40), at a level of2.69 metres and 3.14 metres respectively from the originalfloor-level. On the far right of the plaster of wall B, there isa black mark, with a maximum width of 0.59 metres andmaximum height of 0.48 metres, probably caused by atorch, which must have been fixed on to the wall during aspecific period of time. One graffito is situated in room D,on the plaster of the eastern wall at about 2.80 metres fromthe actual floor-level.

2. Period 1—the Late Antique phase

The structure of the cryptoporticus is dated to the secondhalf of the first century AD, and the frescoes on walls A andB are dated to AD 195–205.

10

The frescoes in Room D aredated to the first half of the first century AD, that is, the firstbuilding-phase of the cryptoporticus.

11

Hence, it is clear thatthe earliest graffiti on walls A and B must postdate

c

. AD200 (no Late Antique graffiti were found in Room D).

All of the preserved graffiti are situated at a height im-possible to reach from the original floor-level. A raisedfloor, which must have already existed before the restructur-ings of the Medieval/Renaissance period, has been proposedby Brandt in this publication.

12

This new floor-level has notbeen dated with certainty, although it must have been cre-ated some time between the date of the frescoes and the dateof the earliest preserved graffito.

2.1 Literal graffiti

A7. (

Fig. 1

)

Height of letters: 6–23 mm. Total width: 128 mm.

This graffito has not yet been satisfyingly read. Just belowit, there is a (supposedly) Christian monogram (graffitoA6). For the significance of the text in combination with themonogram, see below. The base-line of the word closelyfollows the margin of the fresco.

The script is clearly of a two-line sort (that is, majuscule),

5

Cecchelli 1954, 167.

6

See Introduction by Brunori & Brandt in this publication.

7

A French term for this technique is

frottis

, which I have translatedby the English

rubbing

. The practice is to place a tissue paper ontothe wall, then cover it with a carbon paper and rub on the surface,so that a negative image of the graffito appears on the tissue paper.

8

Those were made for work purpose only.

9

See Brandt in this publication.

10


11

See Ferrini & Festuccia 1999, 85–101.

12


The graffiti in the cryptoporticus of the Horti Sallustiani

57

although the letters tend to be smaller and smaller towardsthe end. This could indicate older Roman cursive and, giventhat none of the letters could be interpreted as a later Romancursive form, I have presupposed the older cursive whenmaking the analysis of the letters. The first letter could be avery typical

L

13

(the light diagonal line to the left is prob-ably damage and does not belong to the graffito). The sec-ond letter could be

A

or

R

14

and with this reading the thirdletter would be an

U

. Hence, we could read

LAU

… (ormaybe

CRU

…).In the middle of the word, the lines become more inse-

cure, and it is hard to discern which of them belong to-gether. The only possibility I have found, although not at allsatisfying, is an insecurely sketched three-stroke

M

, with an“inception” on the first stroke. At the end, the reading couldbe

I

,

C

,

I

,

15

U

and probably an

S

. If correct, this readingwould indicate a name ending in -

icius

.

A9. (

Fig. 2

)


AUREUS

This graffito is of the highest importance with regard to thedating of the earliest graffiti in the cryptoporticus. All the

letter-forms are typical for the older Roman cursive, and ofspecial interest is the two-stroke wax-tablet-type

E

,

16

whichis most surprising for a date post AD 200. For a detailedanalysis of the complexity of this question, see section 2.1.1below.

The name

Aureus

is previously known in only one epi-graphic instance, an inscription from

Salona

in

Dalmatia

,today Solin in Croatia,

17

dated by G. Alföldy to the lateprincipate, AD 160–285.

18

On a floor-mosaic found in Torrenuova and dated to thebeginning of the fourth century, preserved in the GalleriaBorghese in Rome, gladiator combats are represented, withthe names of the gladiators written next to each person.

19

One of the names is interpreted by Moreno and Viacava as

13

Maybe a

C

, but in that case it would rather tend upwards insteadof dropping below the base-line.

14

If we are to count the tiny stroke to the left as belonging to thegraffito and not being accidental damage.

15

There is a horizontal line above the

I

which is quite different instructure, and I view it as a piece of damage and not as the horizon-tal stroke of the letter

T

.

16

The term used by Bischoff 1990, 54–56.

17

CIL

III 8830.

18

Alföldy 1969, 368.

19

Moreno & Viacava 2003, 136–138, fig. 102c.

Fig. 1. Graffiti A6, A7 and A8. Scale 1:2.

58

Anna Holst Blennow

Aurius

in the publication. However, on the mosaic a hori-zontal mid-stroke appear on the stem of the

I

, and, from acomparison with other occurrences of

I

and of

E

in the mo-saic,

20

it is clear that the name in the mosaic should be read

Aureus

.

A10. (

Fig. 2

)


AUR

Below graffito A9, the name

Aureus

is repeated, but incom-plete, probably by someone of a lower writing skill. The di-agonal stroke crossing the leg of the

R

is probably a dam-age.

A11. (

Fig. 2

)


URE

(?)

Below graffito A10, another incomplete repetition of

Au-reus

. The two thick vertical strokes to the left are probablydamages.

A15. (

Fig. 3

)

Height: 80 mm. Width: 94 mm.

M

Important for the Late Antique phase of the graffiti is thissingle

M

located in a small cavity where the modern wall in-terrupts the cryptoporticus structure to the east. Though it isimpossible to date this

M

from the letter-shape only, its lo-cation suggests that it could be placed in the early graffitiphase, for which see section 2.1.1 below.

2.1.1 Discussion

The earliest datable palaeographical features of the graffitiseem to be those of graffito A9. In fact, none of the letters inthis graffito shows any characteristic of the later Romancursive, which appears gradually in the third century ADand solely dominates from the fourth century onwards.

21

Given that the date of graffito A9 must be post AD 200, weshould make a comparison with other graffiti and cursivescript from about the same time.

The third century is in fact the most crucial period in thedevelopment of the cursive script from the older Romancursive to the later Roman cursive. The transitional phaseremains yet to be satisfactorily explained, though manyscholars have made suggestions for the change in style ofthe single letter-forms. In

short, it can be said that all agreeon the fact that the forms of the later cursive cannot havedeveloped solely and directly from the older cursive. Vari-ous explanations have been formulated for the reasons be-hind the change. A very good overview on this subject is of-fered by Bowman and Thomas in their study on the graffitifrom Vindolanda,

22

with particular prominence given to thetheories of J. Mallon, G. Cencetti, R. Marichal and J.O.Tjäder. Also problematic is the shortage of material fromthis period, and hence the lack of possible clues to the de-velopment of the script.

Considering that script in ink on, for example, papyrusand script incised with a stylus on wax-tablets tend to differfor the sake of the writing material, we should seek a com-parison in the first place with other graffiti or wax-tablets.Since the two-stroke

E

proves to be the most problematic inthe chronological context, I have chosen to focus on thisform.

The invocatory Latin and Greek graffiti to St. Peter and St.Paul in the so-called

Triclia

at the

Memoria Apostolorum

beneath today’s church of San Sebastiano on the Via Appiaare held to have been executed roughly between the middleof the third century and the middle of the fourth century.

23

For the most part, majuscule letters are used, with sparse oc-currences of some elements of the later Roman cursive, es-pecially

A

,

R

,

B

,

D

and

S

. The two-stroke form of

A

is

20

E

in the mosaic always has very short top and bottom horizontalstrokes, easy to mistake for common serifs.

21

Bischoff 1990, 63–66.

22

Bowman & Thomas 1983, 53–60.

23

Styger 1915; Carletti 1997, 148–149;

ICUR

V, 12907–13096,tab. XVIII–XIX.

Fig. 2. Graffiti A9, A10 and A11. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 3. Graffito A15.Scale 1:2.

The graffiti in the cryptoporticus of the Horti Sallustiani

59

found, but no two-stroke

E

, which in this material is formedas a square capital letter or the rounded two-stroke cursivevariant (see

Fig. 4 a

).Should we believe from this, that the two-stroke E was

completely out of use in the middle of the third century? Inmy opinion, the graffiti of San Sebastiano do not wholly be-long to the category of cursive writing, even though somecursive letters appear, as shown above. The general impres-sion given is instead that of a rather classic majuscule script.C. Carletti proposes that this could indicate that the makersof the graffiti were of a low educational level with regard toreading and writing.24 But there is another aspect of the useof majuscule letters in graffiti. In several examples, the in-vocation to the saints is put inside a sketched tabellaansata.25 This layout, together with the palaeography, isvery reminiscent in style of the graffiti from the Cohort VIIof Vigiles in Trastevere, published in the 19th century byP.E. Visconti.26 These graffiti are dated to the first half ofthe third century, and are thus rather close in time to the Me-moria Apostolorum. They are votive tablets of a religiouscharacter, made by soldiers of the cohort in connection toimperial feasts. The text is neatly laid-out inside tabellaeansatae in a regular majuscule script, so as to look like“real” inscriptions.

I find this a very good parallel to the graffiti of the Memo-ria Apostolorum, where the aim of the graffiti writers is ofthe same character, while the religion, of course, is a differ-ent one. I do not, therefore, find the absence of two-stroke Ein those third-century graffiti problematic—we should notseek examples of an intact cursive script from among them.

If we extend the time-span of our survey of graffiti andwax-tablet script, the two-stroke E, which occurs frequentlyin Pompeian graffiti, is also known from the graffiti on pot-tery fragments from Condatomagos (first century AD)27 andthe writing tablets of Dacia (AD 131–167).28 In the Dacianmaterial, two-stroke E is predominant, while the E of thelater Roman cursive occurs less frequently. In the Con-datomagos graffiti, the two-stroke form of E is the only oneused. R. Marichal believes that this form originates from thewax-tablet script, which went out of use in the first centuryAD, but, importantly, continued to be used in graffiti, be-cause of its easily drawn shape, as late as in the fourth cen-tury.29 He refers to the graffiti on pottery from Germaniapublished by Galsterer-Kröll in 1975, which demonstratethat the two-stroke E still was used in the third and fourthcenturies, parallel with the majuscule, four-stroke E.30 TheGerman graffiti all have a very majuscule character, and theE is in fact the only evident form of the older cursive orwax-tablet type, apart from some occurrences of later cur-sive E dating from around AD 200.31

Among the tablets from Vindolanda, written in ink, forthe most part in older Roman cursive, and dated fromaround AD 100,32 an interesting fragment of text is found. Itis interpreted as a writing exercise, containing a line of Vir-gil.33 The letter-forms are in an elaborated capitalis rustica(almost the only example of capital script from Vindo-landa). The letter E occurs three times, and always in thetwo-stroke wax-tablet-type. This stands out from the defi-nitely capital character of the other letters.34 Bowman and

Thomas state that this form of E is typical of wax-tabletscript and graffiti, and that it does not occur in any otherknown papyrus or parchment text. In the Vindolanda mate-rial, however, E sometimes occurs as a different two-strokevariant, with two vertical strokes joined at the base-line (seeFig. 4 b). This E, according to Bowman and Thomas, iscommon in papyri of the second century.

One might surmise, on the basis of the facts describedabove, that, while professional writing soon adopted the useof the later Roman cursive forms, some older cursive letter-forms, as two-stroke E, could still be used, for example ingraffiti. In the third century sources of script, no two-strokeE is found; however, those sources are for the most part of-ficial writings.35 The wax tablet E could, then, have beenpreserved in private writing and graffiti, as is believed by R.Marichal (see above).

With regard to the transitional phase between the olderand the later Roman cursive, the “Vindolanda-E” deservesspecial attention. Bowman & Thomas explain the form as avariant of the older cursive E written in two strokes; the firsta vertical bow, the second a short cross-stroke in the mid ofthe bow (see Fig. 4 a).36 The “Vindolanda-E” should thenhave developed by joining the cross-stroke to the base of thedown-stroke. However, I am inclined to consider the possi-bility that this letter might derive from the wax-tablet E, andthat it then fell out of use after the third century, being, forsome reason, replaced by the later cursive form.

Given this theory on the form of the “Vindolanda-E”, itmight be possible that a wax-tablet-type E could occur alsoin the third century. Galsterer-Kröll has shown that this wasthe case in Germania, but of course, given the geographicaldistance, the German graffiti cannot prove its occurrence inRome at the same time. Still, they nevertheless point topreservation of the older cursive form, and, as is also indi-

24 Carletti 1997, 149.25 For example ICUR V, tab. XVIII, 31; tab. XIX, 14, 15, 18, 41.26 Visconti 1867.27 Marichal 1988, 29.28 CIL III (2) 921–960; Inscriptiones Daciae 165–256.29 Marichal 1988, 29.30 Bakker & Galsterer-Kröll 1975, 18–19.31 This could be compared to the graffiti of the Memoria Apostolo-rum. I am inclined to believe that in the Memoria, a “lapidary”character really was the scope, while the majuscule graffiti in Ger-mania are due to a lower grade of education or accustomedness towriting.32 Bowman & Thomas 1983.33 Bowman & Thomas 1994, 65–67, no. 118.34 Except for P, which has the early cursive form with the bow“opened” and almost horizontal, and A, which lacks the horizontalstroke, but this is common in capitalis rustica.35 See Marichal 1950 for an overview of the sources of pre-Carol-ingian palaeography.36 Bowman & Thomas 1983, 63, fig. 11.11.

Fig. 4. Two variants of E in the olderRoman cursive.

60 Anna Holst Blennow

cated in the Virgil line from Vindolanda, most likely in anotherwise capital script.

Apart from the palaeographical features of the graffiti, somefacts considering their location could contribute to the un-derstanding of the Late Antique phase. Both graffito A9 andgraffito A7 are located in a way that relates to the pattern ofthe frescoes, in that they obviously keep within the architec-tonic margins of the painting.37 This careful relation to the“frame” of a fresco is in fact characteristic of graffiti fromRoman antiquity, while, by contrast, graffiti from theRenaissance and early-modern times rather tend to locatethemselves in the very picture-field of the fresco. This couldsuggest important differences through the ages in the visualreception of wall decoration: the three-dimensional effectsought by wall decorators in antiquity, where the picturefield was seen as a trompe-l’oeil opening into an outsideview, was later reinterpreted as a framed “canvas”. The an-tique graffiti-writers carefully placed their writing on whatthey regarded as the firm and real element of the painting,while writers in later times focused on the “canvas”, which,in their eyes, was the most stable and natural backgroundfor the emphasizing of script.

Graffito A15 also gives us interesting indications by itslocation. O. Brandt has proposed, from the archaeologicalanalysis, that the cryptoporticus was a three-branched struc-ture in the shape of an U, and that the east branch turned c.3.5 metres from the spot where the modern wall breaks off;the corner of the west branch preserved in the opening into“room C”.38 The fact that all the preserved graffiti on wallsA and B begin at the west corner, then continuing for acouple of metres, seems to be characteristic of graffiti fromall times. Finding themselves in a corridor, graffiti-writerstend to keep to the beginning and end of it, rather than find-ing a writing spot in the insecure position in the middle.Writers who follow confirm this choice of spot by addingtheir graffiti close to those already existing, and so we get ascheme for graffiti accumulation. If we look at graffito A15in relation to the measurements of the supposed turn of thecorridor to the east, it fits well into the hypothetical group ofgraffiti related to that turn, now hidden behind the modernwall structure or lost.

2.2 Christian and Jewish symbolsA1. (Fig. 5)Height: 70 mm. Width: 20 mm.

Perhaps a crux monogrammatica, lightly sketched and bro-ken off at the lower part.

A2. (Fig. 6)Height: 60 mm. Width: 55 mm.

Crux decussata, inscribed in a rectangular box.


Crux monogrammatica, roughly scratched and slightlyslanted.


Chrismon located just below the unsolved graffito A6. Thediagonal stroke crossing the down left leg of the X, forminganother X, is probably the result of damage. If graffito A7 isa name, the chrismon could have either a symbolic value oflife in Christ, or (more probably, if a rather early dateshould be set for the graffito), serve as an abbreviation for(in) Chr(isto) or the like.

A14. (Figs. 8–9)Height: 75 mm. Width: 78 mm.

This graffito, representing a menorah, is clearly visible ifone looks directly at the wall (Fig. 9) while, on the rubbing(Fig. 8), the symbol is less evident, because the “arms” tothe right are not joined to those on the left, and the image isdisturbed by a number of irrelevant lines, probably damage.Examining the graffito more closely, small brownish lines,connecting the separated scratched lines, are visible. It isnot clear if those lines belong to the original graffito, or ifthey were added later.

37 This fact was underlined by C. Carletti. See Discussione finale inthis publication.38 See Brandt in this publication.

Fig. 5 (left). Graffito A1. Scale 1:2. – Fig. 6 (right). Graffito A2.Scale 1:2.

Fig. 7. Graffito A3. Scale1:2.

The graffiti in the cryptoporticus of the Horti Sallustiani 61

2.2.1 General chronology of Christian and JewishsymbolsThe chronology of Christian symbols furnishes matter formuch discussion and disagreement among scholars. Bothfor cross-symbols and Christian monograms, the commonview—although persistently opposed by some scholars—isthat they did not exist with a clearly Christian significancebefore the era of Constantine. The chrismon, for example,was used as an abbreviation in non-Christian contexts aswell.39 The fact that Christian monograms and crosses areabsent in pre-Constantinian contexts in the catacombs isusually held to further prove this point of view.40

The symbol of the cross is not an exclusively Christiansign. It has been used in various cultures and religions as anornament or a magic sign.41 The Hebrew letter taw (whichcould be spelled X or +) is mentioned in the Old Testament(Ezechiel 9.4) as a protective sign for those chosen byGod.42 Origen, in a third-century commentary on the pas-sage, mentions that the Christians made this sign on theforehead at the beginning of each action, especially prayersand readings.43

At a certain point of time during the first centuries ofChristianity, the symbolism of the cross was extended intoan abbreviating use, in connection with the Greek letter chi,spelled X or +, the first letter in the name of Christ.44 Manyvariants of the cross-symbol were developed after the signhad been firmly established as Christian: for example im-missa (latina), quadrata (graeca) and decussata (latercalled the cross of St. Andrew, a slanted cross-symbol in theform of an X).45 The Greek letter tau had also a religioussignificance and was likened to the cross.46

The chrismon is a monogram composed of the Greek let-ters chi and rho, the first letters of the name of Christ. Inepigraphy, it can be used both as a symbol and as an abbre-viation (compendium scripturae). The oldest securely datedspecimen is in a floor-mosaic in Aquileia from ante AD

319.47 In graffiti, the monograms on muro G in the Vaticanexcavations are considered to be the earliest, dated to latethird or beginning of fourth century.48

The crux monogrammatica, or monogrammic cross, con-sists, according to Cecchelli, of the Greek letters tau (repre-senting the cross) and rho.49 Dölger believes that the signrather derives from the chi-rho-monogram, the chi beingspelled +.50 The graffito found in an excavation beneath theLateran baptistery—an acclamation addressed to a certainOursos with the formula vivas, preceded by a monogram-mic cross—is regarded as the earliest specimen with aclearly Christian significance, and dated to the late third, orthe beginning of the fourth, century.51 Worth noting is thatthe monogrammic cross is almost exclusively used symboli-cally. After the fifth century, it becomes less common.52

Both the chrismon and the monogrammic cross are fre-quent in Roman funeral epigraphy mainly during the fourth,fifth and sixth centuries. They first occur in dated inscrip-tions around 320–340.53 Their symbolic, rather than abbre-viating, use seems to become more frequent in epigraphyduring the second half of the fourth century and during the

39 Mazzoleni 1997, 166.40 Mazzoleni 1997, 166–167; Carletti 1997, 154.41 Bruun 1963, 94–97.42 For a discussion on this, see Dölger 1959, 15–20.43 In Orig. Sel. in Ez. 9; for a discussion, see Dölger 1959, 16.44 Dölger 1960, 5.45 Bruun 1963, 94–97.46 Tertullian says that the sign in Ezekiel was littera GraecorumTau, nostra autem T, species crucis, Tert. Adv. Marc. 3.22; Dölger1959, 16–17.47 Mazzoleni 1997, 165–166; Carletti 1997, 153–154.48 Carletti 1997, 154.49 Cecchelli 1954, 65.50 Dölger 1960, 8.51 Guarducci 1978, 549–552, fig. 172; Giovenale 1929, 68–70, fig.35.52 Mazzoleni 1997, 166.53 Carletti 1997, 154.

Fig. 8 (left). Graffito A14. Scale 1:2. – Fig. 9 (right). Graffito A14. Scale 1:2.


fifth century, often enlarged and placed centrally in funeraryinscriptions.54

There are many Christian monograms in graffiti: accom-panying pilgrim-invocations to saints in the catacombs ofSan Callisto,55 crosses and monograms drawn in a multitudein the “baptistery” found in the catacomb of Priscilla,56 andin connection with invocations to Christ on muro G in theVatican.57 On one of the columns of the temple of Antoni-nus and Faustina in the Forum Romanum, there are also twospecimens of a chrismon,58 in addition to the above-men-tioned monogrammic cross beneath San Giovanni in Late-rano.

The fact that in the Memoria Apostolorum in San Sebas-tiano (mid-third century) there are no Christian mono-grams,59 whereas they appear on the muro G in the Vatican(end of third/beginning of fourth century) has been con-sidered as a dividing line in the chronology. I would like toraise the objection that this only points to the fact that in theMemoria, Christ actually is not mentioned at all. Except forSt. Peter and St. Paul, the only other religious presence isthat of Deus (in Deo nos omnes, nabiga felix in Deo). Bycontrast, on muro G, the invocations are made strictly toChrist, with the monograms as compendium scripturae: vi-vite in XR, vive in XR etc. St. Peter gets no mention, and nei-ther does Deus. In my opinion, this fact makes it impossibleto use the absence of monograms in the Memoria Apostolo-rum as chronological evidence.

If the common opinion argues for the impossibility of dat-ing or analysing with certainty specimens of Christian sym-bols antedating Constantine, the opposite opinion takes thepossibility of doing so as its starting point. N. Gudea hasperformed a brief but thorough study of cross-symbols andmonograms on pottery from contexts antedating Constan-tine, that is, the second and third centuries.60 R. du Mesnildu Buisson has published pottery from Dura-Europos,showing crosses and monograms antedating AD 256.61

There are also some even earlier examples, much disputed,however, and generally rejected.62

The menorah, the seven-branched chandelier, is by far themost common Jewish symbol,63 whose presence undoubt-edly marks the Jewish character of the object or the struc-ture in which it occurs. Its origins are not clear, apart fromthe famous menorah which stood in the temple in Jerusa-lem, and which was taken in booty by the Romans, depictedon the Arch of Titus in Rome. It is probable that the meno-rah was one of the cult instruments used not only in thetemple, but also in synagogues and at home. As a matter offact, it was originally forbidden to depict the seven-branched menorah, according to the Talmud, and there areno securely dated specimens to be found before the destruc-tion of the temple in the first century AD. The use of thesymbol grew very popular in the end of the second/begin-ning of the third century AD and, by then, the rabbinic pro-hibition against depiction of the menorah may have lost itsvalidity.

The menorah appears frequently in funerary inscriptionsand wall paintings from the Jewish catacombs in Rome.64

The use of the catacombs is dated mainly to the third and

fourth centuries AD, although not with total certainty due totheir lack of securely datable features. The symbolic mean-ing of the menorah is disputed,65 although the commonopinion considers it simply as the “hallmark of Judaism”,characterizing either a place where Judaism was practisedor the tomb of a Jew. But there is also, from antiquity on, anastral interpretation, in which the seven lights of the meno-rah represent the seven planets. E.R. Goodenough favoursthe view of the menorah as the icon of God, by virtue of itslights, which associates with Moses’ vision of God in theburning bush.

2.2.2 Dating and analysis of the symbols in the cryp-toporticusThe presence of the religious symbols in the cryptoporticusleads us to very interesting, but perhaps unsolvable, ques-tions of dating. As we have seen, there is an unwillingnessto date any Christian monogram to pre-Constantinian timesowing to the impossibility of proving a Christian symbolismin the possibly earlier examples that exist or assigning theseto definite dates. In the cryptoporticus, ironically enough,the same conditions apply. Given that the frescoes weremade in the beginning of the third century, there is a possi-bility that the monograms are pre-Constantinian, but thechronology of the cryptoporticus, as explained above,leaves the context totally open. Even though those mono-grams were common in funeral epigraphy and religiousgraffiti in the fourth and fifth centuries, it cannot be proventhat our specimens, too, must be dated to this period. An ex-treme theory could even consider the possibility that someinspired 16th or 17th century visitor, living in a period of re-discovery and exploration of the catacombs, scratched thesigns in the plaster, in a conscious act of falsification or justby inspiration.

The Christian symbols in the cryptoporticus made Cagi-ano de Azevedo assume that this had been an early Chris-

54 Carletti 1997, 154.55 de Rossi 1864, 381–390, tavv. XXIX–XXX, XXIII–XXXIV.56 Smiraglia 2001.57 Many examples of chrismons and one occurrence of a mono-grammic cross, Guarducci 1958, II, 91–93; Carletti 1997, 149.58 Lacour-Gayet 1881, 226–248; Kaufmann 1917, 298, fig. 195.59 Carletti 1997, 149. In fact, O. Marucchi mentions a graffito in thearea of the pozzo in the vicinity of the Triclia, where a chrismon ap-pears twice as compendium scripturae, together with an invocationto St. Peter and St. Paul. Marucchi dates the graffito, which showsregular majuscule letters, to the fourth century because of the pre-vailing chronology of Christian monograms (Marucchi 1923, 89,tav. XVIII).60 Gudea 1995.61 Mesnil du Buisson 1959.62 For a discussion on those examples, see Mazzoleni 1997, 166.63 The following information is gathered from Goodenough 1954,71–82.64 For the Jewish catacombs of Rome (Monteverde, Vigna Ran-danini, Vigna Cimarra, Via Casilina/Labicana, Villa Torlonia), seeMazzoleni 1975; Noy 1995, 1–9, 173–181, 332, 337–338, 341–346. The burial place of Via Appia Pignatelli is no longer con-sidered Jewish, see Noy 1995, 181. 65 Goodenough 1954, 77–82.


tian cult-place, and he dated the monogrammic cross to thethird century AD, probably because of the date of the fres-coes.66 With the help of the epigraphist M. Guarducci, heread graffito B10 as Adraste, vocative of the name Adras-tus, in Greek letters. In his opinion, this was the martyr onwhich the cult focused.67

Cecchelli, however, was in doubt regarding the cryp-toporticus as a cult-place for martyrs.68 He pointed out,nevertheless, that a group of persons from the staff of theHorti Sallustiani must surely have been Christians, and thatthey probably incised the symbol on the wall. Cecchelliconcluded with the remark that while, sadly, some forgeriesof graffiti had been found in Rome (without further definingthem), the graffiti in the cryptoporticus must be absolutelyauthentic, due to “the circumstances of the discovery”. Hedid not know, of course, that the cryptoporticus had beenaccessible for centuries after the Late Antique period.

Additionally, Cecchelli dated the monogrammic cross tothe third century only because, as he puts it, it seemed un-likely that the staff of the imperial Villa waited for at least acentury after the frescoes were made before using the wallsof the cryptoporticus as their “writing-table”.69 He obvi-ously did not imagine the possibility that several genera-tions could have been involved in the making of graffiti,starting their practice in the third century and continuingthrough the fourth century.

For the crux decussata (A2), inscribed in a rectangularbox, Gudea70 and Mesnil du Buisson71 give some parallellsderiving from marks on pottery. Gudea points out that thecrosses on pottery were often put inside a natural circle,such as, for example, the bottom of a vessel, and when nonatural delimitation was at hand, the cross-sign was sur-rounded by a scratched circle or square.72 I am aware thatthe Christian significance in those graffiti is disputed, yetfor our graffito—surrounded by the Christian monogramson wall A—a Christian interpretation is at least possible. Ifso, the specimens from Dura-Europos could perhaps sup-port a dating to the mid-third century.

Regarding the chronology of the Christian symbols, it isinteresting to note that a law of AD 427 prohibited carvingor painting the signa Christi, on stone or on marble.73 Themaking of graffiti is not mentioned in the law, but the mainmessage is clear enough: the church would not allow un-authorized use of the signa Christi. Thus, one could imaginethat the common use of the Christian symbols was verywidespread at the time. The law of 427 can by no means beseen as a terminus ante quem for the Christian monogramsin the cryptoporticus, but the frequency in the use of thosesymbols, which must have preceded the law, makes a datingante 427 thinkable.

The presence of the menorah (A14) in the cryptoporticus isnot noted in previous research. The dating of the Jewishcatacombs in Rome to the third and fourth centuries fitswell into the chronology of the earliest graffiti-makingphase in the cryptoporticus, but there is no possibility ofmaking a more precise dating. Furthermore, our specimen isunfortunately cut off at the base where the plaster is broken,thus preventing any possible identification with a specific

typology of the lampstand, that is, three-legged or pedestal,both forms being shown in the funerary inscriptions ofRome.74

The menorah is a most valuable addition to the previ-ously known Jewish presences in Rome.75 The Jewish popu-lation was settled mainly in Trastevere, Subura and CampusMartius. There were several synagogues (referring to con-gregations and not necessarily to buildings) in Rome, buttheir locations are not clear. However, a theory by Collonlocates a synagogue (Calcarienses) close to Porta Collina,and the Jewish community belonging to this synagogue inthe area between Porta Collina and Porta Esquilina.76 Thiswould have been the Jewish community closest to the HortiSallustiani and the cryptoporticus.

The question regarding the relationship between theChristian and Jewish symbols is interesting, but can benothing but mere speculation. We do not know if the sym-bols of the two different religions were executed in the samecontext or chronology, and it is fully possible that a centurycould have passed between the making of the menorah andthe making of the Christian symbols. Nevertheless, the vi-cinity of the symbols makes it probable that the “Christian”writer must have been conscious of the presence of the Jew-ish symbol or vice versa.

2.2.3 Use and function of religious symbols in epigra-phy and graffitiThe dating of the religious symbols, that is, the question ofwhen, is probably an impossibility: what about the questionof why? Why the presence of these symbols in an apparentlynon-religious context?

As seen above, the majority of the other existing Chris-tian monograms in graffiti are connected to a religious ac-tion: funerary use, baptism, invocation to Christ or prayerfor a person.77 E. Smiraglia, in her study of the graffiti-crosses and Christian monograms in the Catacomb of Pris-cilla, sees them as possible evidence that the area in ques-tion, the so-called baptistery, really was used as a baptistery,connecting the crosses to the ritual use of the cross-symbol

66 Cagiano de Azevedo 1952.67 As I will discuss below in section 3.2 of this article, I am inclinedto date graffito B10 rather to Period 2; neither do I believe in a cult-place since also graffito A12, which Cagiano de Azevedo readMARTYR, shows signs of being from this later period.68 Cecchelli 1954, 167, fig. 30 c.69 Cecchelli does not mention the chrismon, as he got his informa-tion from Cagiano de Azevedo (1952), who is not mentioning iteither.70 Gudea 1995, Abb. 6.71 Mesnil du Buisson 1959, pl. V.72 Gudea 1995, 841.73 Nemini licere signum Salvatoris Christi vel in silice vel in mar-more aut insculpere aut pingere. Cod. Iust. I. VIII.74 See Noy 1995, pls. VI and VII for examples.75 For which see Mazzoleni 1975 and Rutgers 1992.76 Collon 1940, 89–90.77 Exceptions to this practice are perhaps the chrismons on thetemple of Antoninus and Faustina and a graffito with an uncleardating from the palace of the Flavii on the Palatine, Cecchelli 1954,200, fig. 51, where a chrismon is sketched to the right of traces of afigure with a nimbus.


at baptism, when it was signed on the forehead of the bap-tized.78 She also refers to a chrismon found during the exca-vation of the baptistery of S. Marcello al Corso on a frag-ment of painted plaster in the filling material.79

For those reasons, it would seem probable that also thereligious symbols in the cryptoporticus were drawn from acertain religious aim. The tradition of various saints80 suf-fering martyrdom in the area of the Horti Sallustiani shouldperhaps not be overlooked—even if their passiones ofcourse cannot be considered historical sources, their legendsmight have been confirmed already in the third or fourthcenturies, when the first graffiti were made in the cryptopor-ticus.

However, the research of Gudea,81 together with the theo-ries of, among others, Carletti,82 makes it possible to ex-amine the use of the Christian symbols from a differentangle. Arguing that the cross-symbols and monograms, of-ten scratched on, for example, pottery from the first to thethird centuries AD, must be considered as Christian, Gudeasees a development of the various Christian symbols intopowerful protecting symbols often used in the privatesphere from the middle of the second century on. Dölger,referring to Tertullian’s description of the various momentsin private life when the cross sign should be made, describesthe Christian use of the cross sign as a ritual connected totransitional moments, as entering a house, eating, going tobed et cetera.83

Carletti comments on the use of multiple drawing ofChristian monograms, for example in the plaster aroundloculi, seemingly for protection. He mentions also a funer-ary inscription from AD 363 where the chrismon appears ina row of signs with a certain exorcising value.84 Gudea be-lieves that the use of cross-symbols on, for example, potteryderives from the intense use of the cross-symbol in theChristian rituals, for example, baptism. From the religious/ritual context, the use of the symbol could have spread toprivate areas in the Christian society, where one could eithermake the sign for oneself or for some other person, or alsoscratch it on an object to christen it, these being exactly thekind of exorcizing or protecting uses pointed out by Carletti.Reading Tertullian, it seems even more probable that thisuse of the Christian symbols did not spread from liturgicalusage, but rather existed as a strong, extra-literal tradition,85

showing parallelisms with behaviour connected with paganmagic.86

Most probably, the symbol of the menorah also had simi-lar apotropaic values. Goodenough sees its use in funeraryinscriptions as an example of precisely this function, andpoints out that the menorah frequently appears on amulets, afact which could support this theory.87 In the Jewish Cata-comb of Villa Torlonia, there are examples of several meno-rot scratched in the plaster around the loculi in a similarmanner as the one used by Christians, as described above.88

If we consider the Christian symbols as protecting or exor-cising symbols, often used in the private sphere, their use inan apparently non-religious context such as the cryptoporti-cus is less surprising. One possible theory would be that theuse of the crosses and monograms began in the private

sphere and in liturgy, (which, necessarily, before Constan-tine, had a rather private character) and, from Constantineon, found its way into publicity and funeral epigraphy. Per-haps the monograms should be seen as a further develop-ment of the simple cross-symbol of the rituals, gradually en-tering the symbolic equipment. P. Bruun might be right inhis theory stating that it was not until Constantine that thechrismon was filled with the symbolism of Christian vic-tory,89 but the Christian significance must have been therealso before then (which Bruun refutes). The transformationfrom abbreviation towards symbolism could support thistheory.

In the fourth century, the state’s attitude towards theChristian religion changed radically, and the widespread useof its symbols emanates from an atmosphere where it couldperhaps spread out into all parts of society from its earlierlimited contexts of meeting places in ordinary houses andrefrigeria at the tombs in the catacombs. It is the age of thegrand basilicas, adorned with frescoes and mosaics display-ing Christian imagery.

This general elevation and visualizing of religion musthave created a milieu where it seemed natural to put a per-sonal religious symbol on the wall. This explicitness couldbe the reason also for the sketching of the menorah symbolon the wall of the cryptoporticus, and it seems possible thatthe popularity of both the Jewish and Christian symbols de-veloped, so to speak, in relation to each other, forming apractice and function almost identical in both cases.

2.3 ConclusionThe date for the making of the graffiti from Period 1 in thecryptoporticus should be set after the beginning of the thirdcentury AD, when the frescoes were painted, but no moreprecise dating could be established. The palaeographicalevidence from graffito A9, showing older Roman cursivewith the interesting occurrence of the wax-tablet-type E,could possibly point to a date immediately after the execu-tion of the frescoes, but as shown above, graffiti from Ger-mania confirm that the use of this E continued even into thefourth century AD.

The reading of graffito A7 remains very insecure, and for

78 Smiraglia 2001, 998–999.79 Nestori 1982, 94, fig. 11.80 See Brunori; Brandt in this publication.81 Gudea 1995, 845–848.82 Carletti 1997, 154.83 Dölger 1958, 5–7; Tert. Cor. 3.4: Ad omnem progressum atquepromotum, ad omnem aditum et exitum, ad calciatum, ad lauacra,ad mensas, ad lumina, ad cubilia, ad sedilia, quaecumque nos con-versatio exercet, frontem crucis signaculo terimus.84 Carletti 1997, 154; ICUR I, 1426.85 Tert. Cor. 4.1: Harum et aliarum eiusmodi disciplinarum silegem expostules Scripturarum, nullam invenies; traditio tibi prae-tendetur auctrix, consuetudo confirmatrix, et fides obseruatrix. Ra-tionem traditioni, et consuetudini, et fidei patrocinaturam aut ipseperspicies, aut ab aliquo qui perspexerit disces.86 Dölger 1958, 7.87 Goodenough 1954, 77–79.88 Fasola 1976, 27, fig. 12; 35.89 Bruun 1963, 156–158; 1966, 61–64.


this reason even a tentative dating would be impossible. Themost probable dating of this graffito, given the seeminglymajuscule cursive character, is approximately the third cen-tury. However, the vicinity of the chi-rho monogram (A6)makes the chronology more complex. If graffito A6 and A7belong together and were executed at the same time, and if aChristian significance of A6 is assumed, this would eitherdate A7 to the beginning of the third century or later, in ac-cordance with the prevailing chronology of Christian mono-grams; or, since no minuscule elements seem to exist in A7,point to a surprisingly early specimen of a chrismon, that isthird century AD. A solution to the problems of graffito A7would surely further establish a relative chronology.

Finally, a possible terminus ante quem for Period 1 is theinvasion of the Goths in AD 410.

3. Period 2—the later phasesThe second period in the history of the cryptoporticus isconnected with a partial transformation of the building. It isgenerally assumed that with the attack of the Goths in 410,the area of the Horti Sallustiani was completely destroyed.Even if the destruction was not total in 410, it is still prob-able that the area was abandoned, all the more so becausethe population moved closer to the Tiber in the MiddleAges. The former Horti Sallustiani now became part of thedisabitato, the vast deserted area inside of the AurelianWall. The area was then gradually divided into lots, put intouse for cultivation, and was slowly repopulated in theRenaissance.90

The drainage built into the floor of the cryptoporticus haspreviously been dated through a few 14th-century ceramicfragments found inside it.91 Probably at the same time, asmall door was created, forming an opening in the wall thatclosed off room D, and a sculpted marble slab, with a geo-metrical pattern typical of early Christian church decora-tion, was used as an architrave.92 In the context of the vastremodelling and refurbishment of the churches in Rome inthe 12th and 13th centuries, a lot of older materials, like themarble slab, were made available, and this could suggest avague terminus post quem for the remodelling of the cryp-toporticus. Further considerations confirming this chronol-ogy can be inferred through the examination of the graffiti,as is shown in the discussion on the figurative graffiti (seesection 3.1.1 below).

If the period of new use of the cryptoporticus began in the13th or 14th centuries, it probably went on without interrup-tion until the Villa Ludovisi was constructed in the 17thcentury. The literal graffiti from this later period of use arenot easy to date with certainty, given my non-specializationin the palaeography of those times. In many cases, it is like-wise unclear to me how they should be read.

As Valeria Brunori shows in the historical notes of thearea, a building existed on top of the cryptoporticus at leastin the end of the 16th century.93 At this time, various power-ful families owned the cultivation-areas surrounding thecryptoporticus, and presumably, this had been the state ofthe area since the Middle Ages. In the second half of the

16th century, there were several vigne in the Horti Sallus-tiani, which, as is mentioned by K.J. Hartswick, were “notmerely cultivated vineyards [...] but properties containingusually a house or other buildings, sometimes used as resi-dences and/or for entertaining guests in a garden settingaway from the centre of the city”.94

It is also probable that, as long as the area was used forcultivation, the cryptoporticus was used in some way, forexample as a storage facility, stables, or human habitation;and that it gradually, or at some specific time, turned intothe building seen on the ancient maps of Rome, which fi-nally became the Galleria delle statue of Villa Ludovisi.95

We can assume that the ancient structure was continuallyvisited, starting from the period when the land around thecryptoporticus began to be used for cultivation.

Already in the 16th century, Francisco Albertino men-tions ancient frescoes in the area of the Horti Sallustiani.96

Of course, these comments could concern other frescoes,now lost; but with the flowering antiquarianism of the time,it is likely that the cryptoporticus, like so many other an-cient monuments, attracted visitors. Francisco Albertino,with other learned friends, explored the treasures hidden inthe various vineyards of Rome, having gained permission,and sometimes guidance, from the owner of the land.

In the 16th–18th centuries in Rome, the phenomenon ofso-called visitors’ graffiti becomes as characteristic as theantiquarian impulse, and closely connected to it. Whenvisiting an important monument of antiquity, it was com-mon to put one’s name on the wall, directly on to the ancientremains themselves, in order to commemorate the day of thevisit. Graffiti-traces of these visitors are visible for examplein the catacombs, in Hadrian’s Villa near Tivoli, in DomusAurea, the great attraction of the time, and, as described be-low, also in the cryptoporticus. Typical elements of visitors’graffiti are the grouping together of them with other names,the vicinity of an interesting feature in, for example, afresco, and at the same time, the searching out of a confined,private space, a centre to write in.

3.1 Figurative graffitiB1. (Fig. 10)Height: 185 mm. Width: 90 mm.

Two swords, pointed at the top. The rounded handles areequipped with guards, unlike the swords in graffito B16 (seebelow).

B16. (Fig. 11)Height: 470 mm. Width: 520 mm.

90 See Brunori in this publication.91 Ferrini & Festuccia 1999, 102.92 Ferrini & Festuccia 1999, 102; Brandt in this publication.93 See Brunori in this publication.94 Hartswick 2004, 20.95 See Brunori in this publication.96 Albertino 1519, 59: De picturis pauca scribam: nonnullae adhucapparent picturae in thermis & hortis Salustianis.


Dominating on wall B, although very hard to see clearly,due to the unevenness of the wall, is a large figurative graf-fito showing a structure interpreted as a ship or a toweringbuilding. Two figures are standing directly in or by thisstructure, facing left, holding long swords vertically beforethem. The right figure is more roughly sketched than the leftone, and seems to wear a helmet. To the left of those, a thirdperson is seen, also with a sword, but with a pointed head,interpreted as a helmet of a different type than the previousone. Further to the left is a figure of a somewhat differentexecution, more square and with a large head (or helmet?)in comparison with the other three figures with slenderbodies and smaller heads. In fact, this person is representedriding a horse:97 the tail and perhaps a leg of the horse canbe seen.

On top of the ship or building, another person might bevisible, perhaps a lookout. All persons except the one on thehorse are wearing tunics of knee-length and belts, whichseem to be patterned with diagonal lines.

The structure around and in which the figures are in ac-tion is delimited at the lower end of the graffito by two par-allel, slightly curved, lines, divided into smaller sections byvertical lines. Ladders seem to rise up to the little figure atthe top, and there is a criss-cross pattern in the middle,which could be a sail or masonry.

Obviously, some hostile action is going on, and the bor-der of aggression seems to lie between the two round-

headed sword-bearers to the right and the point-headedsword-bearer to the left. The horse-rider is facing awayfrom this scene, but the person to the far left, in graffitoB28, is kneeling towards it.


A figure of the same style as the persons in graffito B16, butwithout weapon, with slightly bent legs and with a largehead sketched very lightly. A belt, similar to those in B16,can be traced. There are some waved lines to the left of thefigure with unclear significance.


Human figure with phallus.


To the right of graffito B34, see Fig. 13. Drawing in blackcolour. Small human figure, holding a sword, which itseems to stick into the figure in graffito B34.

97 Faccenna 1951, 112, mentions soldiers on horses.

Fig. 10. Graffito B1.Scale 1:4. Fig. 11. Graffito B16. Scale 1:4.



A human figure, holding out one arm with the fingers point-ing upwards, the head slightly aslant. The fine lines of thelegs and feet make it tempting to hold the same person re-sponsible for this graffito as for graffito B16. As CarloMolle kindly pointed out to me, the graffito is probably an

imitation of the female figure in the fresco above (Fig. 15).To the left of the figure’s head, some rough lines are visible.It is not clear whether they belong to the graffito and per-haps represent hair, or if they are just damage due to thebreak in the plaster immediately to the left of the graffito.

Fig. 12. Graffito B28, B29 and B30. Scale1:2.

Fig. 13. Graffito B34 and B35. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 14. Graffito B38.Scale 1:4.


3.1.1 DiscussionThe dress of the figures in graffito B16 and B28, as well asthe shape of their swords, could indicate a medieval dating.Both the weapons and the dress fit well into the appearanceof a 12th–13th-century warrior, wearing a body-shaped coatof mail from head to feet, and a knee-long tunic to protect it,held together with a belt. (Later, towards the 14th century,the tunics were lengthened to the ankles.) Swords were longand thin, yet rustic, and often depicted as being held verti-cally in front of the body, as in our graffito.98

Most of the illustrations of warriors in these centuries re-fer to crusading themes. In fact, many scenes and figures arestructured and executed similarly to these in our graffito.There are the same clothes, the swords, the bows and theround or pointed helmets; and often a hostile event is repre-sented. In most pictures, a towering stronghold is capturedfrom outside with ladders; sometimes a ship with a turret isapproaching a castle.99

Of course, it is by no means sure that the graffito wasmeant to represent specifically a scene from the Crusades.But since it is known that heavy propaganda, by sermons,songs, liturgy and pictures, was used by the church all overEurope in the 12th and 13th centuries to promote crusadingcause,100 it seems fair to assume that this iconography pro-vided an inspiring source, vivid in common imagination.One of the few publications of medieval graffiti—mainlyfrom English churches—is one made by Violet Pritchard inthe 1960s. It shows a general preference in graffiti for thetheme of weapons, soldiers and ships in graffiti, suggestiveof the wars afflicting Europe in those centuries.101 It should,however, be underlined that the rather “amateurish” charac-ter of our graffiti might make them difficult to date by icon-ographic analysis.

An interesting parallel to graffito B16, with its elabora-tion and richness in details, are the unpublished Renaissance

graffiti found in the ruins of Palazzo Filangieri in Naples.102

It is assumed that the Palazzo served as accommodation forthe Spanish soldiers stationed in Naples at the time, and inseveral of the remaining rooms, figurative graffiti cover thewalls, mainly picturing in detail war-ships. Even though Iwould put the date of the cryptoporticus graffito B16 beforethe date of the Naples graffiti, for the reasons describedabove, it still serves as a valuable comparison because of theprolonged, residential use of a building, which was the mostimportant condition for the creation of those large and de-tailed graffiti.

In graffiti, the impulse to imitate is common in all ages.103

Graffito B28 in the cryptoporticus, imitating the frescoabove, is a valuable example of this tendency.

The condition of the figure represented in the fresco wasvery bad when B. Ferrini made her study, and even after therestoration it is possible to recognize only the outline of thefigure—all details are lost. At the time when the graffitowas made, the image in the fresco must have been muchclearer, and thus the importance of the graffito should not beunderestimated, showing us a variety of details, such as thelight dress swept around the body, the position of the head,and the graciously outstretched arm.

A theory as to a date for this graffito would be merespeculation, setting aside what has been said above aboutthe condition of the fresco. Schreiber, who briefly com-ments the frescoes in the late 19th century, does not mentiontheir condition.104 In the two photographs of wall A and wallB in 1950, when the cryptoporticus had recently been redis-covered, it is possible to see the very bad state of the fres-coes, as described by Faccenna (see Brandt in this volume,figs. 2 & 3).105 This condition was probably not the result oftheir remaining beneath the surface of the earth for aboutsixty years, but rather of the long-time use of the cryptopor-ticus as a damp cellar.

3.2 Literal graffitiA12. (Fig. 16)Height of letters: 25–150 mm. Total width: 150 mm.

The letters of this graffito are obviously drawn with a col-oured instrument, leaving brownish lines, which sometimesare scratched, sometimes just coloured. As Fleming shows,in the 16th–17th centuries so-called marking-stones were in

98 Blair 1958, 19–36.99 As in an illustration of the siege of Damietta, Riley-Smith 1995,59.100 Morris 1998, 195–209.101 Pritchard 1967, 141, for pictures of swords pointing upwards.102 I had the opportunity to visit the Palazzo Filangieri in February2004 thanks to the generosity of the architect Antonio Capurro andthe conservator Alessandra Cacace.103 The phenomenon of imitation in graffiti is excellently illustratedin the study of A. Varone on the graffiti of Villa San Marco in Sta-biae, where 18th-century excavators imitated the Roman graffitithey found on the walls (Varone 1999).104 Schreiber 1880, 9.105 Facenna 1951, 108.

Fig. 15. Female figure in the fresco above graffito B38.


use for writing, for example on a wall: they produced a red-brown colour, or, when made of lead, black.106 Many visi-tors’ graffiti in and around Rome at this time show the useof such materials.

Cagiano de Azevedo read this graffito MARTYR. Unfor-tunately, he does not supply much information on the waythis interpretation was made and which elements in the graf-fito it is based on. He says that the shape of the M makes anantique date certain, and that the letters ART are in ligature.

The letters are majuscule, and some of the strokes areprolonged and linked to one another. The reading of MAR…is well possible, although the reading …TYR brings moreproblems, in the difficulty of tracing an Y, if not in ligatureto the prolonged and sweeping T; and likewise for R, if notreduced to an abbreviation, consisting of only a smoothlybent stroke tending downwards. It should also be observedthat some of the connection lines of the letters form crosses,but whether this was intentional or not is impossible to state.

B9a. (Fig. 17)Height of numerals: 8–12 mm. Total width: 42 mm.

1614 (?)

This graffito could belong to B9b. In that case, the readingof 1614 could be the year in which B9b was made; other-wise, it might concern some calculation. The long stroketending upwards to the left is probably a damage. A single Xcan be seen above the numerals.

B9b. (Fig. 17)Height of letters: 5–12 mm. Total width: 102 mm.

A di [---] d(e) luie

“On the ... day of July”

The reading is not sure, and the middle part remains un-solved.

B10. (Fig. 17)Height of letters: 18–150 mm. Total width: 148 mm.

Below graffito B9b, but in a totally different style of writ-ing. The script is not slanted, as in B9b, but straight. Thisgraffito was read Adraste in Greek letters, vocative of thename Adrastus, by M. Guarducci and Cagiano deAzevedo.107 The reading of alpha, delta, rho and sigmacould be possible, but there are too many “extra” strokes notexplained by this reading, and the upper stroke of the sigmacould well be just damage. I have no further suggestions ex-cept to identify the initial and the third letter as an A. How-ever, I would like to point to the palaeographical similarity

106 Fleming 2001, 11. In antiquity also, red chalk or a soft metal sty-lus could be used to write in colour (Bischoff 1990, 18–19), so thecolour itself does not exclude a date earlier than the Renaissance.107 See above, section 2.2.2 and Cagiano de Azevedo 1952.

Fig. 16. Graffiti A12–A13. Scale 1:4.


of the initial A with some of the graffiti in Palazzo Altemps(for which see below): the rather narrow angle of the twolegs and the double horizontal stroke. This particular shape,as well as the location of the graffito in the midst of othervisitors’ graffiti from Period 2, makes it probable that thisgraffito belongs to the same period; it is interesting to note,additionally, the writer’s lower level of alphabetism.


A di [··] d(e) luio

“On the … day of July”

The X to the right of the text probably does not belong to thegraffito.


This graffito is hard to read due to the rough condition ofthe plaster, especially at the end, but it seems to begin withmajuscule P and minuscule E, followed by two letters moreor less in ligature; a minuscule S, a certain A in half-size ma-juscule, then maybe another P, or a half-size majuscule Dwith prolonged stem. Then, the reading is difficult; at theend, however, I would like to read luie (July), which per-haps would date the graffito to the same time of visit asgraffito B9.


LVCA

Large, square capitals, drawn with rather trembling lines.The regularity of the letter-forms suggests the same time asthe other visitor’s graffiti, although Luca does not seem tohave reached the same elegant minuscule writing skills asthe other visitors.


X

Important because located, together with graffito B40, highup compared to the other graffiti on wall B (see Overview inPart III of this article). It probably relates to some calcula-tion, perhaps in connection with some remodelling project.

B40. (Fig. 22)Height of numerals: 80 mm. Total width: 155 mm.

45

See B39 above.

D1. (Fig. 23)Height of letters: 42–160 mm. Total width: 325 mm.

(reading 1:) (Fig. 24)P de Coesena

(reading 2:) (Fig. 25)P de Coelens[---]

The two alternative readings (compare readings 1 and 2,Figs. 24 and 25) depend on the question of which strokes toinclude and which to exclude as damage. I find the readingCoesena somewhat safer, given the A in half-size minuscule

Fig. 17. Graffiti B4, B8, B9a,B9b and B10. Scale 1:2.


Fig.

18.

Gra

fitti

B13

, B14

, B15

and

B17

. Sca

le 1

:2.


Fig. 19. Graffito B19. Scale 1:2.


Fig. 21 (left). Graffito B39. Scale 1:4. – Fig. 22 (middle). Graffito B40. Scale 1:4. – Fig. 23(right). Graffito D1. Scale 1:4.


and the fact that the guiding lines seem to end where theplaster is broken, thus indicating that this was already thestate of the plaster when the signature was made. The simi-larity between the minuscule forms of S and L in Renais-sance handwriting should also be observed.

3.2.1 DiscussionThe characteristics of visitors’ graffiti mentioned above arefound in several of the cryptoporticus graffiti. The formulaof graffito B14, Adì ... de luio, “On the ... day of July”, isnot only standard to initially date various documents fromthe time, but also for indicating the day of one’s presence ata certain place, for example in the graffiti of the Domus Au-rea.108

The graffiti in Palazzo Altemps have been most valuable forthe palaeographical analysis of the Period 2 literal graffiti.109

The frescoes in the Sala delle prospettive dipinte arecovered with graffiti similar to those from the cryptoporti-cus.110 Sometimes, the date is accompanied by the name ofthe visitor; sometimes only the date is there to remember theevent. These visitor’s graffiti are more problematic: per-formed in a private palace, whether by guests or by other,sporadic visitors, the “graphic violence” is more direct thanin the case of an abandoned monument like the Domus Au-rea.

However, the attitude towards wall-writing may havebeen different in the past. Juliet Fleming, in her study ofgraffiti and writing in early-modern England, argues that inthose times, graffiti-writing was common, but also “unre-markable”. She means that it was almost “sanctioned”, andnot seen as a violation. In early-modern England “the vice[of graffiti-writing] was unknown … the activity was notdistinguished from other writing practices”.111 Although Iagree on the different attitude towards graffiti-writing, I alsobelieve that circumstances of power and social contextsmust have been as crucial as today with regard to what wassanctioned or not. There is also the important phenomenonof accumulation, which has been a characteristic for graffiti-writing in all times: when someone leaves a signature in asignificant place, and others follow, the very grouping ofnames can create a sanction for the addition of more names,forming a tradition outside regulations and laws.

The examples in Palazzo Altemps that are typical forvisitors’ graffiti, beginning Adì… and giving the date andyear, show striking palaeographical similarities to the graf-fiti in the cryptoporticus. They also, luckily enough, furnish

us with a chronology, since the year is mentioned in some ofthe graffiti, indicating the first decades of the 17th century.This gives an interesting parallel to the period in the historyof the cryptoporticus just before the creation of the VillaLudovisi in 1623.

But there are also graffiti in Rome that document a differentand clearly more violent form of visit, namely the graffitideriving from the Sack of Rome in 1527. They are found in,for example, the Stanze of Raphael in the Vatican, and men-tion the emperor Charles V and Martin Luther, variousnames and dates.112 Chastel imagines that the instrumentsused for the incision of the Sack-of-Rome-graffiti werepointed daggers, which is a plausible idea.113

The graffito that can be read in the salone of Villa Lanteon the Gianicolo (Institutum Romanum Finlandiae of to-day), reading A dì 6 de Magio 1527 fo la presa de Roma,114

“On the 6th of May 1527, the Sack of Rome took place”,provides us with another fruitful palaeographical compari-son (Fig. 26). I would not suppose that this graffito wasexecuted on that very day, in view of the turbulence inRome at that moment, as well as the use of passato re-moto, but rather at some later time in the 16th century. The

108 Dacos 1969, 139–160.109 The Altemps graffiti are as yet neither documented nor studied. Iam grateful to Valeria Brunori, who kindly took the time to takephotographs of the Altemps graffiti, and to M. de Angelis and M.Taviani at the Museo Nazionale Romano Palazzo Altemps for per-mission and generous help.110 Scoppola 1987, fig. 340.111 Fleming 2001, 29–38.112 Chastel 1983, 91.113 Chastel 1983, 92–93, figs. 55–56.114 Steinby 1954, 4, fig. 2; Chastel 1983, 91, fig. 54.

Fig. 24. Graffito D1, particular, read-ing 1. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 25. Graffito D1, particular, read-ing 2. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 26. Graffito in Villa Lante, Rome. Steinby 1954, fig. 2. Photo-graph by Studio del cav. S. Appetiti.


way of beginning A dì followed by date, month and year istypical, as we have seen above, as is the omission of thewriter’s name.

The initial A is majuscule, as well as the A inside the text,which is half-size compared to the initial A. The M is alsohalf-size majuscule. P reaches below the base-line, with thebow beginning a little bit down on the stem. The bow of mi-nuscule D is slightly open at the base, and the stem has ahook at the base turned up right. Minuscule E is sometimesmade by two lines, the left curved and the right diagonal andstraight, leaving the letter open at the top.

As for the visitors’ graffiti from the Domus Aurea andVilla Adriana, published by Nicole Dacos in the 1960s, thephotographical documentation is unfortunately not veryclear, which lessens its usefulness for palaeographical com-parison.115

Parenthetically, it should be noted that the charcoalsketch in room D, described by Brunori in this publicationand dated to the 16th century, also fits excellently into themilieu of antiquarian visits of the 16th and 17th centuries.Regarding the possible artist mentioned by Brunori, Gio-vanni Battista Naldini, I have studied some autographs ofhis handwriting, which, however, do not seem to suggestthat he is the author of any of the literal graffiti from Period2.116

In connection with the reading Adraste of graffito B10 andthe presence of the Christian symbols in the cryptoporticus,Cagiano de Azevedo focused on graffito A12, which heread as MARTYR. This brought him to believe, as has beendiscussed above, that the cryptoporticus had been a place ofcult for the early Christians, the martyr in question beingidentified with Adrastus. Some observations should bemade on this.

For the dating of graffito A12, the location of the graffitoat the centre of a white field, next to a frescoed motif, pointsto a dating to Period 2 rather than Period 1.117 On the basisof palaeography, I cannot agree with Cagiano de Azevedoon a Roman date for this graffito only because of the shapeof M, given that, in my opinion, a majuscule script from thethird or fourth century would not have displayed thosestraight and “modern” majuscule letters, such as the A andthe first R, but rather letters closer either to the classic capi-tals or to the Roman cursive alphabet. However, the factthat the visitors’ graffiti of the cryptoporticus display mi-nuscule letters after the initial majuscule, and that graffitoA12 does not, makes me unsure whether to put them in thesame phase. The difference could of course be due to differ-ent writers. If read MARTYR, and dated to the later phase ofthe cryptoporticus, one could imagine an exploratory visit inthe 16th or early 17th century, where the existence of theChristian symbols scratched on the wall could have led tofantasizing by an observant visitor about early Christianmartyrs. Interestingly for this theory, graffito A12 is locatedat the same height as graffito A9, AUREUS—maybe this,and not Cagiano de Azevedo’s Adrastus, was the imaginedcryptoporticus martyr at that time.

3.3 ConclusionThe graffiti of Period 2 are all situated in the graffiti-groupon wall B, with the possible exception of A12 and A13. It isby no means absolutely certain that all the graffiti on wall Bare post-antique, given the timelessness of some of thefigurative graffiti.

The evidence of the figurative graffiti of Period 2 issomehow different from the literal graffiti, in that they seemto indicate a more prolonged stay of the graffiti-makers. Theseemingly medieval character of graffito B16, together withthe partial rebuilding of the cryptoporticus with the drainageand the small door to room D, give us a hint of the changeduse of the building in the late Middle Ages or early Renais-sance. While the Late Antique graffiti show a passingthrough, a short stop in order to make a symbol on the wallor write a single word, the figurative graffiti of Period 2 tellabout a more prolonged stay.

The literal graffiti of Period 2, on the other hand, seem tobear witness to an even later period than the figurative graf-fiti: short visits by individuals, enough to scribble downsome words to commemorate the event and to immortalizetheir presence at the site. The palaeography, as we haveseen, makes a date in the 16th–17th centuries probable (withthe exception of graffito A12, which has a more insecuredate). The foundation of the Villa Ludovisi in the 1620smay have closed the context for graffiti of this kind. Al-though the cryptoporticus was still accessible, and the an-tique frescoes were known and mentioned in documents, theoverall accessibility of the Villa was very low.118 Only a se-lected few were permitted to visit the Galleria delle Statue,and even fewer can have entered its subterranean rooms, es-pecially as they were mainly used as a storage space.119 Atthat time, the condition of the frescoes cannot have beensuch that they could have been considered an attraction, andthis would have made a visit even more unusual. Of course,sporadic visitors could still have left some marks on thewalls, but the whole character of the cryptoporticus as aroom must have been such that the atmosphere no longer in-spired the creation of graffiti.

Marking of power, supremacy and territory seems to havebeen the greatest driving force for making graffiti in theRenaissance and early-modern times. Putting ones name onthe wall could crown the triumph of pillaging a house (likein Palazzo Altemps) or town (the Sack of Rome), or glori-ously perpetuate one’s presence in a monument of impor-tance (such as the Domus Aurea). D. Kraack, in his compre-hensive study of upper-class travelling in the Late MiddleAges, as documented in graffiti, underlines this: the travel-ler extended his presence at a symbolic level, gaining im-mortality through this exhibition of himself at places oflively social interaction.120

115 Dacos 1967; 1969, 139–160 (Domus Aurea); Dacos 1965 (VillaAdriana).116 Thiem 2002 publishes the Roman sketch-book by Naldini.117 Compare the discussion in section 2.1.1 of this article.118 See Brunori in this publication.119 After the cryptoporticus began to be used as storage rooms, theaccess for writers on the walls must have been reduced.120 Kraack 1997, 524.


4. Descripta (literal or figurative graffiti of un-known date and unclear interpretation)A4. (Fig. 27)Height: 530 mm. Width: 85 mm.

X X


W


Located just above graffiti A6–A7, these lines could per-haps be interpreted as a figurative graffito, but drawn withsuch light strokes that it could well be damage. The twocross-like symbols to the left are perhaps accidental, giventhat the strokes do not seem to have been done at the sametime or with the same instrument; the possibility that theywere deliberate should however not be excluded.


Drawing with unclear significance. The same writing instru-ment as in graffito A12 (see above, section 3.2) is used,leaving a brownish colour and very lightly sketched lines,and the vicinity of the two graffiti makes it probable thatthey had the same author, and belong to Period 2.


Signs with unclear significance.


A monogram with similar details to graffito B12 (below):clearly A, then perhaps M, D, and the same H-like pattern asin B12. Probably Period 2.


X M (?)


Signs with unclear significance, perhaps calculation. Prob-ably Period 2.


Perhaps an A at the beginning, then a sign maybe connectedto graffito B2 above.


A row of signs with unclear significance—numerals, lettersor drawing? Perhaps two A’s in the end, and above them aslanted X with a small attachment on the right upper arm.


Perhaps a calculation.


A symbol with unclear significance. A few more lines,seemingly figurative, and perhaps an A, are visible belowthe symbol, but it is not clear what they represent. ProbablyPeriod 2.


A monogram, perhaps based on the letters A and M. Com-pare graffito B3 above. Probably Period 2.

Fig. 27. Graffito A4. Scale 1:4. Fig. 28. Graffito A5. Scale 1:2.


Fig.

29.

Gra

ffiti

B2,

B5,

B6

and

B7.

Sca

le 1

:2.



A number of letters with unclear significance. Three occur-rences of A could be traced, and the last one, with a doublehorizontal stroke, could be compared to that of B10 (seesection 3.2). Probably Period 2.

B15. (Fig. 18)Height of letters: 5–23 mm. Total width: 35 mm

A die [---] (?)

This graffito is damaged and hard to read, although somekind of repetition of graffito B14, just above it (see section3.2), is possible. To the right of the graffito, there are somethin lines, perhaps forming an A, and to the left a multitudeof lines which do not seem to bear any meaning.


Perhaps an A, standing on top of a B with pointed bows,among other unintelligible lines.


A number of wavy lines with unclear significance.


Ama

The letters are similar to those of graffiti B22 and B29 (seebelow). Probably Period 2.


Below and to the right of graffito B20, there are severalmarks—letters or figurative signs—with unclear signifi-cance. There are three X’s to the right.


Am [---] Dio mon fabre

This graffito is damaged in the middle, and the condition ofthe plaster makes the quality of the letters very uneven. Thepalaeography makes a dating to Period 2 certain.

Fig. 30 (left). Graffito B3. Scale 1:2. – Fig. 31 (right). Graffiti B11and B12. Scale 1:4.




Text that seems to be destroyed. An A, maybe followed by aminuscule M, could be traced at the beginning. Probably Pe-riod 2.


Maybe a large M, an A, and a small P in the end.


AMA [---]

Fig. 33. Graffiti B20 and B21. Scale 1:2.




Fig.

36.

Gra

ffiti

B24

, B25

, B26

and

B27

. Sca

le 1

:2.


The initial three letters are clear, and recall the other graffitirepresenting A’s and M’s—B20, B22 and B29—althoughthe M is drawn in half-size majuscule instead of minuscule.The letters following are not clear. Probably Period 2.


A row of X’s, then, perhaps in a different hand, AM fol-lowed by another unclear letter. Below, perhaps a large A,and MA in ligature.


Broken to the left by damage and to the right where theplaster is cut off. Perhaps a large M at the end.


A AmAm

The first A is not certain. The two following A’s share thehorizontal stroke, which also serves as upper guiding linefor the M’s. Probably Period 2.


Lines with unclear significance.


Human figure?


Lines with unclear significance.


Perhaps a reversed R (compare below, B37) with unclearsignificance.


A reversed R (compare above, B33) with a star-shapesketched on the leg.

PART III

1. ConclusionThe cryptoporticus provides us with a picture of the life ofan area through centuries of vicissitudes. Beginning withthe few reminiscences of Late Antiquity and the religioussymbols of early Christianity, through years of abandon-ment, to the gradual revival of the city of Rome—when thearea of the disabitato were filled with cultivation areas andsmall houses, the properties being surrounded by walls—upto the dawn of enthusiastic antiquarianism and scientificstudy, and then the creation of the sublime Villa Ludovisi totake the place of all the small cultivation-lots in the area, aprocess which brought to light so many art treasures fromantiquity—and, at the end of the 19th century, the destruc-tion of the Villa, the rapid consigning of the undergroundrooms to oblivion, until finally, when the ground had passedinto American ownership, the building-workers brokethrough into the evocative construction of the cryptoporti-cus.

As we have seen, all of the graffiti from the Late Antiquephase are situated on wall A. The only eventually laterspecimens are graffiti A12 and A13. Also, the graffiti onwall B are mainly situated close to the torch-mark at the

Fig. 37. Graffiti B31,B32 and B33. Scale 1:4.

Fig. 38. Graffito B37. Scale1:4.


western end of the wall, and are assumed to have beenwithin the torch’s radius of light. This might give an indica-tion of the use of the building through the different phases.Considering that the windows at street level must have beenthe main light-source in the original construction of thecryptoporticus, it is not surprising that the Late Antiquespecimens of graffiti are found on wall A, which was prob-ably better-lit than wall B.

An interesting fact is also that all of the Christian sym-bols in the cryptoporticus are grouped together within arather limited space on wall A. This could point to twopossible interpretations: either, if we assume that the cryp-toporticus had some religious significance, this significancewas based on some presence in the vicinity of the corner ofwall A/room C, a presence now unknown to us; or thegrouping of the graffiti derives rather from the phenome-non, discussed above, of writing something close to the spotwhere someone else has written something similar before.

A matter of importance is the position of graffito A15 atthe east end of wall A, discussed above. This could confirmOlof Brandt’s suggestion of an original three-branchedstructure for the cryptoporticus.

Brandt further points out that the graffiti-level of the floorin the cryptoporticus should be considered as a sign of gen-eral decay—the elevation of the floor would be due to a fillof dirt.121 We could also, however, assume that the evennessof this level, reflected in the location of the graffiti at aroughly equal height along the walls, could also have beenderived from a planned elevation of the floor in accordancewith some remodelling of the buildings in the area. Ofcourse, there is a possibility that the fourth century, withConstantine’s move to Constantinople, could have set theformer imperial residence into a more abandoned state, butmore probable is that it continued to be used by some digni-tary or another, the general decay rather coming with theGoths in 410.

Consequently, it is likely that the Late Antique graffitiwere not made by sporadic visitors to an abandoned area,but by persons involved in daily business here, such asmembers of the household of the Villa. Even if the estate ofthe Horti Sallustiani became more open to the public in itslater stages, it is possible that, as B. Ferrini has indicated,122

the cryptoporticus formed part of the central, or one of thecentral, buildings, which could have been maintained as pri-vate property by wealthy citizens of Rome.

In the later phase, however, there was a change of plan,and of use of the cryptoporticus. Drainage is installed, andwe could suppose further building activity on top of thecryptoporticus as well, resulting in a typical example of amedieval building on top of an antique substructure. Per-haps in this period the windows were blocked off, and atorch fixed to the wall provided light (this also proves thesystematic use of the cryptoporticus for example as a cel-lar).

It is impossible to identify any reliable chronological lim-its for the later period of graffiti-making in the cryptoporti-cus, apart from the limit defined by the supposition that thevisitors’ graffiti preceded the construction of the Villa Lu-dovisi. It is important to notice the evenness in length of the

inscribed parts of wall A and B. Given that a building musthave existed on top of the cryptoporticus at least since theinstalling of the drainage, we could assume that the parts ofthe cryptoporticus that were reused were only those partsnow covered with graffiti, or that the specific use of the cel-lar confined the space possible to use for writing. In someinventory lists of the Villa Ludovisi period, two subterra-nean rooms are mentioned.123 Perhaps this description couldpoint to the use of room D and the main corridor in this laterbuilding, since graffiti from the later periods are found inthose areas. An open question is also the connection, poss-ibly by a stair or ramp, between the cryptoporticus and theupper building.

The fact that two of the graffiti are situated very high upon wall B (B39 and B40) might be interpreted as proof of aperiod in which the cryptoporticus was in a state of aban-donment, and earth or rubble had filled the corridor to alarge extent. I would, however, assume that they rather de-rive from some remodelling of the building in the 16th or17th centuries (given the shape of the letters 45 in graffitoB40), when scaffolding or the like was in place. These graf-fiti have a clearly practical character, which could confirmthe theory of building activity.

To sum up: for the later period of the cryptoporticus theexistence of two phases is attested: one of use, and one ofvisits. These phases would overlap, and we could imagine afirst phase of use in late Medieval or early Renaissancetimes, and then a phase of visits, while the practical use stillcontinued. The visits came to an end—or became morescarce—in the period after the building of the Villa Ludo-visi, and are replaced by a period of use.

We do not know the full extent of the cryptoporticus struc-ture. Hartswick, in the recent publication on the Horti Sal-lustiani, imagines a “network of underground passages” thatcould have linked the different parts of the buildings in thearea. Hartswick also raises the question whether the cryp-toporticus really was situated in the Horti Sallustiani, orwhether it was located outside their western confines.124

A certain fact, however, is the former existence of moregraffiti nearby, now lost. Notes by G. Gatti, documentingthe excavation preceeding the construction of the PalazzoINA (Istituto Nazionale delle Assicurazioni) close by, men-tion lots of graffiti “di epoca incerta”.125 We can only regretthat these graffiti were not properly documented before theclosing of the excavation-area. The theory by Brandt on thestructure of the cryptoporticus makes probable the existenceof several ancient frescoed walls on the other side of themodern wall today closing the cryptoporticus to the west.

The graffiti studied in this article provide an interesting andimportant addition to previous material known from Rome.The Christian and Jewish symbols deserve special attention,

121 See Brandt in this publication.122 Ferrini & Festuccia 1999, 89.123 See Brunori in this publication.124 Hartswick 2004, 61.125 Ferrini & Festuccia 1999, 87.


being among the very few found in graffiti in not obviouslyreligious contexts. Not only the study of the isolated speci-mens of graffiti, however, but also the consideration of thevarying multitude of the graffiti as a whole, so vividly il-lustrating the shifting fortune of this specific place, turns outto be an interesting and valuable addition to the history ofthe cryptoporticus. And so, the results of this project serveabove all to illustrate a phenomenon typical of Rome: therecycling, the remodelling, the alternation between aban-donment and reuse of the ancient monuments up until mod-ern times.

2. Overview (Figs. 39–40)

3. Concordance1S = Period 1, Christian and Jewish symbols1L = Period 1, literal graffiti2F = Period 2, figurative graffiti2L = Period 2, literal graffitiD = Descripta (literal and figurative graffiti of unknowndate and unclear significance)

1S: A1–A3, A6, A141L: A7, A9–A11, A152F: B1, B16, B28, B34, B35, B382L: A12, B9a, B9b, B10, B14, B19, B36, B39, B40, D1D: A4, A5, A8, B2–B8, B11–B13, B15, B17, B18, B20–B27, B29, B30, B32, B33, B37

A1 1S Fig. 5A2 1S Fig. 6A3 1S Fig. 7A4 D Fig. 27A5 D Fig. 28A6 1S Fig. 1A7 1L Fig. 1A8 D Fig. 1A9 1L Fig. 2A10 1L Fig. 2A11 1L Fig. 2A12 2L Fig. 16A13 D Fig. 16A14 1S Figs. 8–9A15 1L Fig. 3B1 2F Fig. 10B2 D Fig. 29B3 D Fig. 30B4 D Fig. 17B5 D Fig. 29B6 D Fig. 29B7 D Fig. 29B8 D Fig. 17B9a 2L Fig. 17B9b 2L Fig. 17B10 2L Fig. 17B11 D Fig. 31B12 D Fig. 31

Fig.

39.

Ove

rvie

w w

all A

. Sca

le 1

:15.


Fig.

40.

Ove

rvie

w w

all B

. Sca

le 1

:15


B13 D Fig. 18B14 2L Fig. 18B15 D Fig. 18B16 2F Fig. 11B17 D Fig. 18B18 D Fig. 32B19 2L Fig. 19B20 D Fig. 33B21 D Fig. 33B22 D Fig. 34B23 D Fig. 35B24 D Fig. 36B25 D Fig. 36B26 D Fig. 36B27 D Fig. 36B28 2F Fig. 12B29 D Fig. 12B30 D Fig. 12B31 D Fig. 37B32 D Fig. 37B33 D Fig. 37B34 2F Fig. 13B35 2F Fig. 13B36 2L Fig. 20B37 D Fig. 38B38 2F Fig. 14B39 2L Fig. 21B40 2L Fig. 22D1 2L Figs. 23–25

Anna Holst BlennowDepartment of Religious Studies, Theology and Classical PhilologyGöteborg UniversityBox 200SE–405 30 GÖTEBORG

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Albertino 1519 Opusculum de mirabilibus novae et veterisurbis Romae editum a Francisco Albertino,Roma 1519.

Alföldy 1969 G. Alföldy, Die Personennamen in der rö-mischen Provinz Dalmatia (Beiträge zur Na-menforschung, Beiheft, 4), Heidelberg 1969.

Bakker & Galsterer-Kröll 1975

L. Bakker & B. Galsterer-Kröll, Graffiti aufrömischer Keramik im Rheinischen Landes-museum Bonn (Epigraphische Studien, 10),Köln 1975.

Bischoff 1990 B. Bischoff, Latin palaeography. Antiquityand the Middle Ages, Cambridge 1990.

Blair 1958 C. Blair, European armour circa 1066 tocirca 1700, London 1958.

Bowman & Thomas 1983

A.K. Bowman & J.D. Thomas, Vindolanda:the Latin writing-tablets (Britannia Mono-graph Series, 4), London 1983.

Bowman & Thomas 1994

A.K. Bowman & J.D. Thomas, The Vindo-landa writing-tablets (Tabulae Vindolan-denses II), London 1994.

Bruun 1963 P.M. Bruun, ‘Symboles, signes et mono-grammes’, in Sylloge inscriptionum Chris-tianarum veterum Musei Vaticani 2 (Acta In-stituti Romani Finlandiae, I:2), ed. H. Zillia-cus, Helsinki 1963, 73–166.

Bruun 1966 P.M. Bruun, The Roman Imperial coinageVII. Constantine and Licinius, London 1966.

Cagiano de Azevedo 1952

M. Cagiano de Azevedo, ‘Roma. – Crip-toportico in Via Lucullo: iscrizioni dipinte egraffiti cristiani’, NSc ser. 8, 6, 1952, 253–256.

Carletti 1997 C. Carletti, ‘Nascita e sviluppo del formu-lario epigrafico cristiano: prassi e ideologia’,in I. di Stefano Manzella (ed.), Le iscrizionidei cristiani in Vaticano. Materiali e con-tributi scientifici per una mostra epigrafica,Città del Vaticano 1997, 143–164.

Cecchelli 1954 C. Cecchellli, Il trionfo della croce, Roma1954.

Chastel 1983 A. Chastel, The Sack of Rome 1527, Prince-ton 1983.

CIL Corpus inscriptionum latinarum III. Inscrip-tiones Asiae, provinciarum Europae Grae-carum, Illyrici Latinae, ed. Th. Mommsen,Berlin 1873.

Collon 1940 S. Collon, ‘Remarques sur les quartiers juifsde la Rome antique’, MÉFR 57, 1940, 72–94.

Dacos 1965 N. Dacos, ‘Visitatori di Villa Adriana’,Palatino 9, 1965, 9–12.

Dacos 1967 N. Dacos, ‘Graffiti de la Domus Aurea’,BIHBelge 38, 1967, 145–176.

Dacos 1969 N. Dacos, La découverte de la Domus Aureaet la formation des grotesques à la Renais-sance, Leiden 1969.

Dölger 1958–1960 F.J. Dölger, ‘Beiträge zur Geschichte desKreuzzeichens I–III’, JAC 1, 1958, 5–19; 2,1959, 15–29; 3, 1960, 5–16.

Faccenna 1951 D. Faccenna, ‘Roma (Via Lucullo). – Crip-toportico decorato con pitture nel giardinodella Villa Boncompagni–Ludovisi’, NScser. 8, 5, 1951, 107–114.

Fasola 1976 U.M. Fasola, ‘Le due catacombe ebraiche diVilla Torlonia’, RACrist 52, 1976, 7–62.

Ferrini & Festuccia 1999

B. Ferrini, ‘Quirinale. Horti Sallustiani. Ilcriptoportico di via Friuli; Campagna discavo 1996–1997’, Bollettino di Archeologia28–30, 1994 (pr. 1999), 85–108.

Fleming 2001 J. Fleming, Graffiti and the writing arts ofEarly Modern England, London 2001.

Frey 1936 J.-B. Frey, Corpus Inscriptionum Iudai-carum. Recueil des inscriptions juives quivont du IIIe siècle avant Jésus-Christ au VIIe

siècle de notre ère, I, Città del Vaticano1936.

Giovenale 1929 G.B. Giovenale, Il battistero Lateranensenelle recenti indagini della Pont. Commi-sione di archeologia sacra (Studi di antichitàcristiana, 1), Roma 1929.

Goodenough 1954 E.R. Goodenough, Jewish symbols in theGraeco-Roman period IV (Bollingen series,37), New York 1954.

Guarducci 1958 M. Guarducci, I graffiti sotto la Confessionedi San Pietro in Vaticano, I–III, Città delVaticano 1958.

Guarducci 1978 M. Guarducci, Epigrafia greca, IV. Epigrafisacre pagane e cristiane, Roma 1978.

Gudea 1995 N. Gudea, ‘Kreuzförmige Zeichen auf Ge-genständen des täglichen Gebrauchs ausvorkonstantinischer Zeit’, in Akten des XII.Internationalen Kongresses für christlicheArchäologie, Bonn 22.–28. September 1991,Teil 2 (JAC, Ergänzungsband, 20:2), Mün-ster 1995, 833–848.

ICUR Inscriptiones Christianae Urbis Romae sep-timo saeculo antiquiores, n. s. I–X, ed. A.Silvagni, Roma 1922–1992.

Inscriptiones Daciae Inscriptiones Daciae Romanae I, eds. D.M.Pippidi & I.I. Russu, Bucuresti 1975.

Kaufmann 1917 C.M. Kaufmann, Handbuch der altchristli-chen Epigraphik, Freiburg im Breisgau1917.


Kraack 1997 D. Kraack, Monumentale Zeugnisse derspätmittelalterliche Adelsreise. Inschriftenund Graffiti des 14.–16. Jahrhunderts (Abh-Gött, philolog.-hist. Kl., dritte Folge, 224),Göttingen 1997.

Lacour-Gayet 1881 G. Lacour-Gayet, ‘Graffiti figurés du templed’Antonin et Faustine, au Forum Romain’,MÉFR 1, 1881, 226–248.

Marichal 1950 R. Marichal, ‘L’écriture latine du Ier au VIIe

siècle: les sources’, Scriptorium 4, 1950,116–142.

Marichal 1988 R. Marichal, Les graffites de la Graufe-senque (Gallia, Suppl., 47), Paris 1988.

Marucchi 1923 O. Marucchi, ‘Nota sulle memorie cristianeesplorate nello scavo di S. Sebastiano dallaCommissione di archeologia sacra’, NSc ser.5, 20, 1923, 80–103.

Mazzoleni 1975 D. Mazzoleni, ‘Le catacombe ebraiche diRoma’, StRom 23, 1975, 289–302.

Mazzoleni 1997 D. Mazzoleni, ‘Origine e cronologia deimonogrammi: riflessi nelle iscrizioni deiMusei Vaticani’, in I. di Stefano Manzella(ed.), Le iscrizioni dei cristiani in Vaticano.Materiali e contributi scientifici per unamostra epigrafica, Città del Vaticano 1997,165–168.

Mesnil du Buisson 1959

R. du Mesnil du Buisson, ‘Inscriptions surjarres de Doura-Europos’, MélBeyrouth36:1, 1959, 1–49.

Moreno & Viacava 2003

P. Moreno & A. Viacava, I marmi antichidella Galleria Borghese, Roma 2003.

Morris 1998 C. Morris, ‘Picturing the Crusades: the usesof visual propaganda, c. 1095–1250’, in J.France & W.G. Zajac (eds.), The Crusadesand their sources. Essays presented to Ber-nard Hamilton, Aldershot 1998.

Nestori 1982 A. Nestori, ‘Il battistero paleocristiano di S.Marcello: nuove scoperte’, RACrist 78,1982, 81–119.

Noy 1995 D. Noy, Jewish inscriptions of Western Eu-rope, 2. The city of Rome, Cambridge 1995.

Petrucci 2002 A. Petrucci, Prima lezione di paleografia,Roma & Bari 2002.

Pritchard 1967 V. Pritchard, English Medieval graffiti,Cambridge 1967.

Riley-Smith 1995 The Oxford illustrated history of the Cru-sades, ed. J. Riley-Smith, Oxford 1995.

De Rossi 1864 G.B. de Rossi, La Roma sotterranea chris-tiana, I, Roma 1864.

Rutgers 1992 L.V. Rutgers, ‘Archaeological evidence forthe interaction of Jews and non-Jews in LateAntiquity’, AJA 96, 1992, 101–118.

Schreiber 1880 T. Schreiber, Die antiken Bildwerke derVilla Ludovisi in Rom, Leipzig 1880.

Scoppola 1987 Palazzo Altemps. Indagini per il restaurodella fabbrica Riario, Soderini, Altemps(LSA, 8), ed. F. Scoppola, Roma 1987.

Smiraglia 2001 E. Smiraglia, ‘Il cosiddetto battistero dellacatacomba di Priscilla a Roma. Le iscrizionia sgraffio’, in L’edificio battesimale in Italia.Aspetti e problemi (Istituto Internazionale diStudi Liguri. Atti dei convegni, 5), Bordi-ghera 2001, 989–1002.

Solin & Salomies 1994

Repertorium nominum gentilium et cognomi-num latinorum, curaverunt H. Solin et O.Salomies, Hildesheim, Zürich & New York1994.

Steinby 1954 A. Prandi, Villa Lante al Gianicolo. Prefa-zione e introduzione storica di TorstenSteinby, Roma 1954.

Styger 1915 P. Styger, ‘Scavi a San Sebastiano. Scopertadi una memoria degli apostoli Pietro e Paoloe del corpo di san Fabiano Papa e Martire’,RömQSchr 29, 1915, 73–107.

Thiem 2002 C. Thiem, Das römische Reiseskizzenbuchdes Florentiners Giovanni Battista Naldini1560/61, München 2002.

Varone 1999 A. Varone, ‘I graffiti’, in A. Barbet & P.Miniero (eds.), La villa San Marco a Stabia(Collection du Centre Jean Bérard, 18;CÉFR, 258), Napoli, Roma & Pompei 1999,345–362.

Visconti 1867 P.E. Visconti, La stazione della Coorte VIIdei vigili e i ricordi istorici segnati a graffitonelle pareti di essa, Roma 1867.

’The graffiti in the cryptoporticus of the Horti Sallustiani in the area of the Embassy of the...

Documents

Transcript of ’The graffiti in the cryptoporticus of the Horti Sallustiani in the area of the Embassy of the...