[Auto-generated transcript. Edits may have been applied for clarity.] So welcome everyone to the first meeting for this Hillary term.
And I'm really delighted that Lauren Morris has accepted an invitation to give us a kind of archaeological view on buried valuables.
Lauren Morris studied classical archaeology and ancient history at the University of Sydney in Australia,
and earned her PhD at Ludwig Maximilian University in 2017 with a dissertation Re-evaluating the famous Pilgrim Hoard from Afghanistan.
She was also a doctoral fellow at Munich's graduate school. Distant worlds between 2017 and 2023.
She was a postdoctoral researcher on the ELC project Beyond the Silk Road at Albert Ludwig Universitat Freiburg.
Since 2023, she's been a senior researcher at the Institute of Classical Archaeology at the Charles University in Prague.
Her specialisation is in the antique period of southern Central Asia, with particular interest in economic history.
The Kushan period, cultural change, interaction across Africa, Eurasia and the intellectual history of archaeology in Central and South Asia.
She has participated in fieldwork in Cyprus, Spain, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan,
Pakistan and Uzbekistan, has undertaken archival research in France and research in Afghanistan.
She is principal investigator of the project.
Rural life in a Changing World new light on economic development and inequality in Central Asia under the Christian Empire.
This project is funded through the Primus research program,
with fieldwork in Uzbekistan conducted under the auspices of the Czech Republic Archaeological Expedition.
So many thanks for coming. And over to you.
Okay. Can you hear me? Yep, yep.
Nothing should have changed since then, right? Yeah. Okay, great.
So good evening, and thank you so much for this kind introduction and the invitation to speak in your, um, seminar.
Um, so my brief, as I understand it, uh, was to say something about how treasure is dealt with archaeologically.
Um, so this will, of course, diverge a little bit, uh, from your usual purview in this series.
Um, but I do hope it will be stimulating or useful.
Uh, what I do present, because this series is also, um, certainly adjusted the way that I think about this topic.
And I'm sure your comments in the discussion will, too. So, uh, before I continue, um, and I should probably very good before I continue,
I should, uh, perhaps just give a brief disclaimer about what I'm trying to do here.
Um, and what I'm not trying to do. So this talk is a somewhat general explanation about some of the issues with interpreting treasure in archaeology,
uh, which can, among other things, refer to deposits of valuable objects.
And this is pivoting around what I learned as a result of my doctoral research on the background hoard.
Um, so I published a bit of this, um,
in more or more of this more specific topic in my dissertation and an article a couple of years ago in studio her senior,
which you're welcome to look up for more details. Um, but today I'm not attempting any kind of systematic, complete,
or fully up to date review of this topic because that would be an enormous undertaking indeed.
Uh, instead, my approach is rather deliberately eclectic, drawing from different contexts and periods,
and based on my experience working in a field of archaeology where these kinds of issues were not really ever so seriously,
um, and systematically interrogated. Um, so therefore my talk will progress in the following way.
Um, so I'm going to talk about, briefly a couple of working concepts.
Um, so, you know, in terms of the game, and then I'll talk a little bit more about the background,
um, and potential, some problems that arise from that material.
Um, and then I will switch gears to look at other approaches to deposits of valuables over time in archaeology and looking particularly,
um, at some of the scholarship on Bronze Age Europe and in numismatics.
So, um, the study of coin hoards. Uh, then we'll return to Bagram again and I'll add a few comments about, um,
how this literature, um, you know, encouraged me to see this material in a different way.
Um, of course, with closer analysis of it and then, um, thinking last of all,
just a brief comment on some possible universal insights that we can start to pull out of this,
um, body of literature and, um, possible compatibility with, um, treasure traditions.
Um, when we are lucky enough to have, uh, sources, um, telling us about these kinds of things.
So when I ask, uh, what does treasure mean in archaeology?
Uh, this is not an, um, exactly easy question to answer, because it is a, first of all, not a really beloved word I would say in academic circles.
Um, it seems to add the er of how to say generality, um, of spectacle, of, um, not so much academic focus, I must say,
um, when it is applied to, um, major finds and um, this is, um, you know, a ideas that are very well explored.
Far better than I could in this recent volume. And, um, on a conference about the public archaeology of treasure, which I encourage you to look at.
Um, so basically, as also explored in that book, um, when we think about treasure, we have varying reference.
Um, so when I Google, you know, Google images, archaeology treasure, you're going to be thinking usually of things like this.
Um, so we have, you know, spectacular finds of usually, uh, gold and silver often just found, uh,
something uh, you see, sort of decontextualised wholes perhaps, or arranged material in an aesthetic way.
Um, things like, uh, coin hoards and jaws. Um, this is, you know, quite, quite nice and typical.
But treasure can also mean all kinds of things, too. Um, so there are legal definition.
So when you think about treasure trove, uh, laws, uh, about the monetary value of this treasure.
So, um, people often talk about how much, uh, a treasure that was found by chance recently by a farmer has a value of £20,000 or so.
Um, treasure can have cultural and historical significance.
So we can talk about national treasures, for example.
Um, we can treasure things personally. They can be our own personal treasures.
Um, and we can also talk about treasure in a metaphorical sense as well.
Um, so not just, um, so in terms of like, uh, you say this, the treasures of the material, um, the treasures of the heritage of this country.
Things like this.
So treasure can refer to many different things that it usually takes to bring up a major image of these kinds of finds or valuable objects.
Um, so then briefly on the terms, and I won't go too much more into this.
Um, I'm mentioning sort of three kinds of terms today or bodies of terms.
Um, so we have first treasure. Um, the second is hoard and the third is special, etc. deposits.
Um, and I say etcetera, because there are many options. Um, for terminology we can use to talk about things that aren't really normal refuse.
They're not grave goods. Um, they're not material that's deposited, um, you know, as a result of a disaster like the eruption of Vesuvius, of Pompeii.
There's something that's, um, something intentional or interesting is going on.
That's not the. Not usual, basically. Um, so each of these sets of terms or terms has many reference.
But what is interesting about all of them is that here they can partly overlap in referring to the same phenomenon of deposits or valuable objects.
And we also see terminology in other languages doing this kind of, um, variable, um, referential, um,
uh, capacities as well as the trades or in French wards and shots in German and clad in Russian.
Some of the work that I had to read mostly, um, just like those examples.
So today I'm just going to consider these terms as vaguely equivalent, because I'm talking about deposits of valuable objects,
um, which would be the main thing that is, um, come to mind when we talk about treasure in archaeology, I would say.
So just a few more concepts that are relevant to this. Um, so we have, uh, these kinds of, um, um, deposits, treasures,
hoards that are coming into the archaeological record through various depositional processes.
So what I just mentioned before, but, um, emphatically, for example, not related to refuse.
So these are, you know, quite distinguishable from rubbish at the very least.
Um, and usually they concealed in some way. So but when you start splitting hairs about definitions, all kinds of problems occur.
But that's just a very basic perspective. Um, another point is that value is obviously very much culturally contingent.
Um, it can be personal, it can be dynamic, changing over time.
Um, but again, um, what we're dealing with, um, you know,
we have we can define them as valuable because they're usually things that are, um, not discarded or perceived as refuse.
And. Okay, that's, um, a good base point to start from. Um, and then we're also going to talk about intentionality, um, versus the accidental loss.
So an element of intentionality is perceived as important in talking about these deposits of, uh, of valuables.
Um, and so often we talk about hoards, um, or treasures having more than one object because, um, seeing two objects, uh,
is a more reliable way of trying to determine intentionality in the deposit rather than just one which could be deposit intentional.
Um, intentionally, but we kind of are lacking epistemological access to that in many cases, unless it's very big and very obvious.
Yeah.
Another point is that, um, if recovery was presumably intended, um, for a certain kind of hoard, um, perhaps some deposited for safekeeping purposes,
um, and non recovery of that hoard may in fact be intentional or unintentional so people can abandon the things that they buried for various reasons.
Coins that are deposited in a hoard, for example, might become monetarily worthless after a coinage reform.
Or the classic unintentional example is, uh, people depositing their values having to an abandoned the city because of external pressures,
um, warfare, any kinds of threats like this, um, so they never get to return to recover them or they simply lose them to.
It's also possible. So yeah, we're covering lots of different things here.
And so then we might ask, well, what why is this something really worth interrogating?
Because this seems like a topic that is, in fact, potentially so large that it might be, um, questionable whether it's, it's worth,
uh, um, not splitting it down into smaller into smaller subjects or if we're really talking about a coherent unit of analysis.
Um, but I would say that something about having having worked on treasure, um, for some time, um, I, I felt, um,
it was something that, again, had a sort of, um, air of, um, spectacle in the generality, um, in, in archaeology.
But actually treasures are important for these kind of reasons.
First, um, they are often just a source of incredible finds that really don't usually survive.
Typical object biographies of use recycling and find discard.
So like the classic example of um metal hoards for example, of um, precious metals like silver and gold, um,
metal doesn't really survive through the archaeological record terribly well because people like to recycle it,
for example, and melt it down and make new things.
And so this is sort of a typical, um, thing that sort of, you know, uh, disrupts the flow of objects into the archaeological record.
And with hoards, we somehow have different access to this kind of material.
And so when we look more closely, it finds that it deposited usually sometimes in relatively good condition, with important exceptions.
Uh, we can benefit from closer analysis of these finds in many ways.
So we can do more technical analysis like so argument track, uh, kinds of analysis.
Um, look at manufacturing provenance.
We can also have more sources for compreender for doing, uh, classification or typological art historical studies.
So, you know, hoards a providing some of the good material for us.
Um, what's also in treasure to say, um, can also inform us about various social, racial and economic and historical phenomena.
So just to be very brief, for example, they can tell us about practices of safekeeping.
They can tell us about forms of ritual activity. They can tell us about patterns of monetary circulation.
When you look at coin hoard, so which coins are circulating around the same time and when?
Um, we can think about possible relations between unrecovered deposits of valuables and periods of unrest, although that's a controversial topic.
Um, but what's important is that while we have these great benefits of looking at this material, realising this capacity.
Um, it implies the necessity to interpret the context and the nature of these deposits, which in turn then depends on what data we have available.
So the problem is that many famous treasures, yeah, so to speak, are chance finds.
Um, so the classic thing that you will find in the news on the BBC, um, you know, um, uh,
or detectorists have found something like this, you know, um, a result of illicit excavation.
Sometimes treasures are often chance finds and or a relatively poorly documented.
And so that's kind of one of the main challenges that we have with this kind of material.
So this brings me actually relatively nicely into our next sort of historical context we're going to think about,
which is, um, the Kushan Empire, which is, uh, depicted here on this map.
Um, it's rough, uh, boundaries at its greatest extent in the second century C.E. and this is, um,
briefly put a post nomadic empire in southern Central Asia and North and South Asia, uh, so stretching for about three centuries,
um, uh, you know, from the very beginning to the end of it and really, this was in many ways sort of a capture an empire that,
um, sat on top of, you know, pre-existing structures and administration and society.
And so it's, uh, um, I think there's not so much more I need to explain now about that, but it's just, uh, this is the historical context.
And if we look more closely, Bagram, you would say it was located right here in the middle,
uh, in the region part of Miss Die or Kapisa in the smaller region.
And this became an important city in the Kushan Empire, as we would understand it.
Um, so this area, as you can see, um, it had rich agricultural, pastoral and mineral resources.
It was in this, uh, uh, plain, relatively fertile, um, in this sort of Piedmont zone.
Uh, it perhaps it hosted the royal court and some, um, it's a long story,
but perhaps also then politically and ceremonial important, um, was also the seat of a local governor.
And it was also the location of the main copper, one of the main copper mines of the Kushan Empire, one of the most active ones.
So, um, this is, uh, really sort of important area for many reasons.
And it's been also investigated, um, intermittently, but for rather a long time.
So relatively early in the 19th century, for example, um,
the we know there was early antiquarian activity there, picking up some 80,000 coins on the plain here.
So quite densely settled, lots of things going on, a wealthy, prosperous place.
So the reason Bagram is so famous in archaeological, uh, literature is because of its work, um, at the site by the delegation,
um, the French archaeological delegation, Afghanistan, uh, who did um, excavations there between the 30s and 40s,
but is especially famous for the, uh, the excavations led by, uh, um, under the directorship of Joseph Aitken, uh,
especially the so-called a side of shanty or two, uh, this so-called new royal city, this southern tapa here at Bagram.
And so here are the excavators to, um, what is very unfortunate is that, um,
all three of the lead excavators, in fact, uh, died in 1941 after the conclusion of the excavation.
So, uh, there's very problematic data surrounding it, but I can talk more about that in a minute.
So essentially, um, this is the culprit. We have a very, uh, large, um, earliest structure, um, at this, um, at this, uh, you know, working site two.
And what we've got here is, um, you can see a plan that collapses and includes sort of multiple phases of, um, construction.
This is a later colour. We don't need to talk about this. Um, this is, you know, uh, later rebuilding on top of it, which complicates the picture.
But what we're really focusing on in here, um, you can see the middle part here.
So, um, we have room ten, room 13, and a room T, and this is also another view of the site and what was, um, significant here.
I think you can probably just say, um, is that these doorways, when needed to be blocked off,
um, with mud bricks and, um, also doubling walls here, um, indicated on the plan.
Um, but the documentation of these actual blockages is extremely limited in date, but they did exist in some form.
Um, so room ten and 13 was sealed, apparently in these various ways.
There was a corridor here, and apparently room T was unsealed. So.
Okay. That's interesting.
Um, so the main material from back from the so-called background here derives from famously these two rooms here in the middle, so ten and 13.
And, um, it had really sort of exceptional material, uh, from all over the world at the time between the first of all centuries A.D.
So we've famously got, you know, Roman glass and bronzes, uh, we've got these large, uh, brass, uh, dishes as well.
Um, we have a word. Ostrich edge in the form of cups.
We've got, um, um, this, um, mobile aquarium which has moving fins, you know,
a very unique object that was probably imported from the the Roman Mediterranean world.
Uh, we have alabaster vessels and porphyry in the next room, and famously, this ivory, uh, furniture,
um, that is presumably, uh, from around the, I would say central to West India produce there.
Originally we have footstools, as you can see here, indicated in this rough plan, which, uh, looks more accurate than in fact, it is.
Uh, but it's kind of a reconstruction. Okay. You can see that dispersed around this room, and they should be the blockages.
And these were published in this excavation volume here very rapidly in date.
Then we have in room 13, uh, excavated, uh, just a scant two years later.
Uh, all these, uh, plaster casts again from the, um, Roman world.
Um, we have, uh, lack aware vessels from Han China, which are really exceptional, um, and relatively poorly preserved.
We have porphyry vessels, again, more ivory furniture, rock crystal, perhaps locally made vessels,
um, more, uh, Roman, um bronze statue rises, um, and Greco Egyptian god.
And we have also detached elements from pieces of um composite articles of metal wear and also,
um, quite, you know, exceptional pieces of um, ceramic production, probably from northern India.
So this is already a lot of really, um, significant material.
Um, and of course, extremely exciting, a completely unique, uh, when it was discovered.
Um, so it was a huge deal.
And then in this last room, which is sort of less, um, well studied or acknowledged, we also do actually have a large number of similar objects.
So, um, but more restricted in content. So like detached elements from metalwork and some statuettes, things like this also found in room tea.
Um, and they were also excavated a little bit later by Roman Gershman to.
But I'll come back to that in a minute. So essentially, as I just said, what we have here at Bagram, um,
immediately appearing is incredible objects demonstrating the vast connectivity of the world in the early centuries of the common era.
Um, but the main problem is that we have very, very serious limitations in these data.
So to again, say very briefly, these were not modern excavations.
Um, by any standards, I don't think they were really even particularly methodologically, uh, groundbreaking for the 1930s.
But that being said, they are idiosyncratic, but do follow their own sort of logical consistency.
So it's possible to do something with them, but you just sort of have to know how they're working.
As I mentioned before, we also have the death of the main excavators in 1941, which impacted the publication of this material in many ways.
Uh, we also have limited provided information about the flying context specifically of this material.
Uh, we have also these final plans were only drawn later dispersed for the publication, as there was no final synthesis until I,
uh, really brought it together in my dissertation out of, um, with, which took a lot of energy.
Uh, the fines were also split between Paris and Kabul, which makes, um,
studying the material in a holistic way also more difficult, but understandable.
Um, and there are also some serious mistakes in the actual publication record.
Um, so, for example, I noticed, um, during my archive research them during the publication,
all the fine spots for fines from 1940 were shifted and nobody ever noticed.
So indications in the catalogue. So then very briefly, um, so what do people have, what have they been debating about the background hoard.
So the main questions are really um two.
So the first one is date and the date of the hoard when it was deposited.
And it refers to two dominant positions, um, that have been in the literature.
And so this is mostly said in reference to the compreender for the hoard objects.
Um, which is problematic because many of them are extremely unusual.
Uh, it usually don't pay much attention to context because we don't have much data, although we don't have none for sure.
And also, the debate often just ignores, uh, gosh. Months later, proposed date for the end of the relevant archaeological phase.
So it's a little bit of a mess.
Um, but essentially the two positions, uh, the late date, like the late long date or the earlier, shorter date in various iterations.
And, uh, this is the one that I actually do think is correct. But this is interesting because this early date was very dominant in recent scholarship.
And, um, you'd often find arguments that, well, these, uh, you know, deposited in the same, uh, find as this other thing which is relatively datable.
And therefore we can date the unusual thing by virtue of this thing.
And actually, it just really doesn't seem that they can really fall into a narrow chronological frame.
So. Okay. Um. The other thing about the background horde is the question of its nature.
So what is it? And I will say that it's been called, variously, a treasure rich resource since the 1930s by various people.
Um, and that's why we also find it in English called the background hoard to a background treasure.
But we, interestingly, have only a few very brief explanations as to what was really happening at this site and what led to this, um, situation.
So the first, uh, the main two interpretations, again, uh, either it was a glacial treasure, uh,
that was deposited in anticipation of a putative Sassanian invasion in the mid third century, say, or another moment of crisis.
And it was never recovered. So meant for safekeeping associated with the palace.
Um, and, you know, never recovered. Okay. So the other ideas that it could be a by-product of transit trade through Bagram.
Um, so, for example, representing customs duties, um, extracted in kind from luxury trade passing through the site.
Um, the idea was already mooted by Wheeler in the mid 20th century.
Um, also more recently, a popular interpretation was that it was a merchant's cache of goods intended for distribution along the so-called Silk Road.
And then for some reason, abandoned or compounded or something like this.
It's not really ever explained. And, uh, one thing that was used to support that, um, that argument by Mandalay was, uh,
the lack of precious metal objects, um, to be a point against a palatial interpretation.
So I'll come back to that, like shortly.
But basically, I will note that this has been very influential in the last decades, and I'm afraid that I also do think it's wrong.
So anyway, I'll come back to that shortly. Um, just briefly for now, um, we can see some of the kind of main implications arising from this.
So number one, um, we have to ask, what does this fine, then tell us about if we don't know what the nature of this deposit is.
Does it tell us about transit trade patterns? Does it tell us about the taste of local elites, or does it tell us about something else also?
Or does it tell us about some of those ways and overlapping some of those matters and in overlapping ways?
Um, the other question is, are these interpretations actually convincing?
Um, did anyone really put any effort into, uh, to arguing them in a serious way?
And I would say, in fact, not really. Um, and we'll see this as a similar pattern, um, somewhat later.
And then the third question related to that is how have others dealt with similar problems,
um, in archaeological research, because it was clear to me that,
you know, um, these kinds of questions weren't being raised, um, very often in this field, um, in Central Asian archaeology.
Um, even though we have a very sophisticated work that talks about coin hoards and things like this,
background is I think it was seen as something unique and, um, something that wasn't really that didn't really need to be explained in some way.
And so then I was very happy to learn, um, throughout my studies, that, in fact,
people in other fields of archaeology have thought about the topic of treasure and hoards and things like this a great deal,
and so I can benefit from them instead. Um, so the two main sort of fields I kept coming back to for various reasons, uh,
but probably because then and then feel most relevant their findings to what I was thinking about with background,
but also, um, because they kind of had some interesting, like, similar trajectories but also diverged.
Um, I'm talking about Bronze Age, um, hoards in Bronze Age or prehistoric Europe.
So often they talked about together a little bit separately and also coin hoards and numismatics.
So in the Bronze Age, um, this just refers to the ubiquitous deposits of bronze artefacts.
We find, um, very, very much everywhere ubiquitous.
Right. Um, and this can, uh, refer to a variety of, um, certain kinds of objects.
So it can be, um, whole objects can be fragmented objects.
We can include also uncaused, uh, metal, waste metal.
And these can be found deposited in various, um, very, um, different kinds of contexts, including many non retrievable locations like bodies of water.
Um, so what's good about that, um, body of scholarship is that it has a very strong theoretical basis.
It's developed over more than 150 years. And, uh, it navigates often also pretty poor quality data.
Um, because of the nature of these chance finds. Um, and the second point, um, point is about coin hoards.
Um, there are various kinds of these are known as found in pots, bags, holes, things like this, but not exclusively.
And I'll just come back to that shortly because, um, that will make more sense, so to speak,
briefly about how scholarship on classifications of hoards from the Bronze Age and study, um, these holds in the framework of prehistoric Europe.
Um classification attempts basically start since around the mid 19th century already.
And uh, the traditionally looking towards ritual versus utilitarian um interpretations according to the contents and so in place.
Um, so this is the main sort of thing that permeates uh, through, um, much of this scholarship for decades, um, throughout the 20th century.
Uh, we then have further classifications developed so people start to pass apart more, uh, what these, uh, items could mean.
So we have now talking about, uh, votive offerings, uh, personal valuables, even in times of danger,
traders hoards for convenient and safe storage of wares and the remnants of smithing activity, for example.
So these are some categories that start to be more defined based on, uh, interpret.
Rotation of the content of this material. Unfortunately, sometimes these seem to have depended very much on faulty assumptions.
So I thinking of an article written by Hanson 2016, which talked about these, uh, so-called projects.
What uh, um, they were earlier alleged to be related to, uh,
smoothing activity rather than voting vote of activity, and now they're seen as more vote of activity.
So. Okay.
Um, and another thing that, um, is clear is that there are also very interesting regional divergences in scholarship in class victory schemes.
Um, despite dealing with rather similar evidence, that was a problem in the 20th century, too.
Um, another point that I'd like to add is that it was also a frequent assumption in the literature of hoards containing contemporaneous objects.
Um, and therefore they would be useful for dating these objects and creating a typology.
Right. So this reminds of the issue with the background hoarding dating back to on the basis of its material.
Uh, the problem is that this is definitely not a rule of thumb.
Um, especially when people are depositing objects in, uh, in hoards or treasures, according to, um, you know, divergent selective criteria.
Uh, for example, you can deposit an heirloom that might be hundreds of years old.
And so this kind of, uh, thing is being hard to prove.
Um, uh, well, in many ways, um, without strong typological basis, but our key metric analysis or scientific analysis, um, uh,
compositional analysis, um, uh, archaeological dating, um, so scientific dating is a useful for intervening in these kinds of problems.
And we can find many examples where points include objects that are much older than the final sort of date of the deposition.
So, uh, then we have more even, um, perhaps useful or applicable frameworks begin to be developed with from a more regional perspective.
So they seem to be more successful when, um, you're thinking sort of more specifically,
uh, so for example, um, that, uh, I remember Janet Levy's book,
um, had this sort of useful approach for distinguishing between ritual and non ritual hoards in the framework of Bronze Age Denmark.
Um, and so she observed, uh, polarities in the following categories.
So location, the types of objects, the condition and arrangement of objects.
And so um, under location, um, we can think about some things as ritual and some things looked more non ritual.
So ritual might be things um, with uh places, um deposits in places with limited retrieve ability.
Um, non ritual um, might be dry or marked, places we might seen ritual deposit um objects like ornaments, weapons and ceremonial objects.
In non ritual we might see a broader range of types, tools and raw materials.
Uh, and for the condition arrangement objects for ritual, we might see complete or near complete objects formally arranged.
Um, and non rich, we might say fragmented, damaged and broken objects.
But again this is not a prescriptive rule of thumb. Uh, it was contextually developed, uh, for certain region.
And then indeed, uh, in, um, this uh, landmark work by Richard Bradley, 1990.
Uh, contextual approaches, um, became really, um, fully advocated to exploring this phenomenon, um, as well as,
um, the beginning to more seriously problematise ritual versus utilitarian classifications of a strict dichotomy.
Um, so, um, in Bradley's work, he tracks the distribution patterns of these similar kinds of holds over land and water scapes.
And he problematise is dry and wet versus utilitarian and ritual dichotomies.
Um, later. Also, um, is it a more general perspective on hoards in ancient Europe?
He also, um, I found, amusingly, he noted, uh, typical anecdotal explanations of hoards.
Um, so this is when you read, for example, um, somebodys, um, three sentence speculation about a treasure that, oh,
it would probably belong to a wealthy Roman landowner, um, or, uh, and then there was an invasion and it was buried, and he never came back.
So things like this, um, that don't really offer much more, uh, sort of substantive detail.
And these anecdotal explanations can become, you know, very, um, um, uh, very colourful sometimes too.
And it's sort of a funny quirk of this scholarship. Um, otherwise, uh, um, the, um, book challenges also purely practical explanations of hoards now.
So, um, really the wonder of, um, whether these really are utilitarian in many ways at all or practical, um,
pointing to the predictable locations of their deposition and as combined with their, uh, frequency of survival.
So I had some data on that which I think is productive.
Um, and then essentially, what seems to emerge in literature is a strong association with ritual activity.
But again, the ritual utilitarian dichotomy also continues to be broken down.
In the meantime, some more recent approaches include, uh, these kinds of work.
So we have, um, some more turns to, uh, um, more theoretical approaches to the formation of hoards,
um, as entire assemblages and biographical approaches, for example, have been quite popular.
Um, thinking about the context arrangement formations of these hoards, looking at things like use,
wear, repairs and fragmentation of objects to tell a story about their accumulation in the deposition.
Um, and then also even more recently, we seem to find more approaches attempting to um, sort of theoretically, actually also technically blend both.
Actual and utilitarian aspects of this. Uh. Um, you know, of, of this, uh, interpretation in this discourse.
So, um, for example, Fontaine's uh, book um, explores that.
So quantum is a distraction, explores the role of value, um,
in these practices more broadly and argues that practice creates cultural value by transforming economic
value and maintaining a balance between short term individual actions and long term social and moral order.
So also kind of a response to crisis.
Um, and it can be, you know, this is um, pointing to, of course, a ritualised kind of behaviour, but it could also have, um, utilitarian aspects too.
I mean, this is uh, um, and sort of encompassing definition or approach.
Um, and then we have also more recently kind of a socio technological study, um, considering communities of practice via geometric analyses.
And then finally, in playing um, this article in nature that just came out relatively recently.
So that's kind of the landscape. Um, otherwise thinking about treasure in other fields, uh, we can think about coin hoards too.
Um, so I will note that coin hoards often aren't actually just knockoff and sometimes aren't just coin hoards.
They also can contain other objects too. Um, but that's, um, you know, something that's, uh, worth seeing on a case by case basis.
And of course, there is a large volume of scholarship from the, uh, 20th century onwards that explores how to, um, interpret coin hoards.
But I must say there is a very strong tendency towards utilitarian interpretations, because,
of course, uh, these are usually viewed from a monetary perspective, uh, by numismatists.
Uh, so classifications were developed in the 20th century and then usually based on the content, because coin holds very much,
often do not have, uh, a real reported archaeological context or documented in any meaningful way.
Um, of course, they discovered during excavations, but, uh, very commonly, um, as a result of,
you know, uh, digging in your backyard, um, illicit excavations, metal detecting, things like this.
So a lot of coin hoards don't really have meaningful context. So people look at a lot of contents.
Um, so Grierson, for example, um, divided hallways between accidental light losses of hoards.
So, uh, emergency one, savings ones, um, and then abandoned ones, uh, Casey and 96 are struck the the context of abandoned.
Um, and then we have, for example in um Richard racist work in 1987, uh, who thoroughly criticised the whole enterprise and principle.
Um, but um, of the of the validity of these kinds of classifications based on contents.
And for example, one issue that was raised was that, uh epistemologically, um,
distinguishing between so-called emergency and personal IDs, uh, via content relatively impossible.
Uh, at the same time, we also have, um, attempts to correlate the known recovery of coin hoards,
uh, with, uh, known instances of historical wars or to,
um, or to assume them from, uh, the distribution of, like a large number of, uh, known recovered coin hoards.
Um, but the validity of this approach has been sort of debated. Um, yes and no.
And, uh, it seems like it may well be, but it's sort of an open question in case by case basis and requires pretty good data.
Um, and will briefly note about depositional behaviour, about the practice of actually,
um, uh, how to say, um, depositing uh, things like coin hoards in the ground.
Uh, the classic example that is cited for this, um, is the dyer Samuel Pepys.
Um, so, um, if of course, um, what happens in this, in this text is that, um,
when the Dutch fleet is advancing up the Thames to extract gold coins from his wealth in London,
and he has it sent back to his, um, for his wife to bury on the family estate in Northamptonshire.
Um, but later it was recovered with some difficulty, um, because the bag had rotted and he couldn't really find out where his wife buried it, so.
Well, um, so easily. Um, so that is sort of a classic example that people point to when they talk about the practice of,
of like concealing your wealth for later recovery in times of crisis.
Uh, but I will note that, um, uh, Aitchison, for example, considers the analogy invalid for antiquity.
Um, considering the specific social and economic context of Restoration England.
So we'll come back to that, um, a little bit later. Um, of course, clean water can also be associated very strongly with ritual activity.
So in the 80s onwards, we see an increasing acknowledgement of the ritual associations of coin hoards.
Uh, so, for example, all that picture is gone a bit too large. Well, here we go.
Uh, we have, uh, you know, everyone can think of examples of, um, people throwing coins into wells as some kind of a ritual practice.
Um, broadly staters, um, we also see, uh, coins deposited into springs, too.
So, um, this is some kind of, um, uh, this is a practice that is, uh, not, um, in fact, so remarkable.
Uh, the Frome Hoard as well was also, um, determined to be, uh, how to say, um, a product of, uh, ritual activity for many reasons.
And I recall that, um, one reason was that it was, uh, far too heavy to ever retrieve,
uh, without, um, having, um, without breaking the jar and destroying it.
And so you can say this is when we have,
like an excavated context for to some degree and they've done a micro excavation of the coin layers to try and understand the process of,
um, deposition, which is fantastic, a very high quality, uh, standard of data.
Um. And so, um, there's also, um, etchings work about, um, deposits in hoards, um, in, you know, various funerary and, uh, ritualistic, uh, context.
Um, and it's interesting because they show selectivity, but not always according to monetary criteria.
So this is sort of interesting, acknowledging the fact that coin hoards can very much have ritual functions to,
um, which has implications that, I must admit, don't really seem usually.
Uh, uh, so, um, openly noted, um, in classic studies of coin hoards by numismatists.
Um, so, okay, um, so to turn back to Bagram, um, to make some brief comments about, um, like, you know,
what I was thinking about, like, reflecting on this literature and, uh, one thing I did know, for example,
was that, uh, many of the objects in the hoard, despite the, uh, sort of imperfect side of the documentation,
it was very clear that they were deposited in relatively poor, fragmented and incomplete condition.
Um, so, for example, parts of this, uh, ivory chair back out, this back rest, um, seems to have been stored elsewhere somewhere.
First, um, had some plaques fallen out of it, and then they were deposited in the other room.
You know, so first we have action going on in here,
and then we have this being a sort of whether the residue is put or something like this, um, while the door was still unblocked.
So we also have, um, notably missing ships of, um, entire of a otherwise very well preserved vessels like this rock crystal.
Uh, can Ross this cup, um, as well. So just some examples of that.
Um, I also noted, um, the very high diversity of finds, um, in these rooms.
Uh, 1013 and so besides the very well known objects, we also have, uh, numerous fragmented and detached elements from metal.
Works are also highlighted than before. Um, we have some strange glaze pottery.
Um, just a couple of nice examples. Uh, we have some raw materials that carpet, um, coral and a small piece of lapis,
some copper alloy coinage to which, um, turns out was very, very important for,
um, confirming that the deposition date, uh, in fact, occurred after the mid third century A.D., which is rather later than most people believed.
Um, so I was, uh, you know, involved with re identifying those and sort of republishing them.
Uh, we also had some locally made copy vessels and some utensils like, uh, tools in pot and incense burner.
So there are a lot of things going on. Also arrowheads and dagger force and and fitting.
So these are things that already do not fit very well into the model of pristine trade goods that are,
uh, you know, being concealed, um, on, on their way to future destinations.
This is very clear. Yeah. Um, the question of the function of the use of this building and its main phase also, um,
became interesting to me, although it was very hard to reconstruct on the basis of the data.
But we actually do have objects outside of these rooms as well.
Um, so also in the corridor, for example, this bronze element and this, uh, interesting little bronze shrine as well,
that seems to be detached from the larger composite objects that were deposited in here.
And also you read, um, throughout the reports, we have clusters of material throughout other parts of this structure,
including many copper coins, uh, ceramics, and especially goblets, apparently in pretty good condition, um, some spindle halls and loom weights.
So, um, nothing really specific.
It could be, uh, ritual or, um, um, or domestic context, but loom I it's not a big deal because also you can kind of find everywhere,
but we also had, uh, two gold pendants, um, that are mentioned in the literature.
Um, one was probably found around here. Uh, this candelabrum element here I pointed to.
It's a miniature shrine. So things are turning up outside also, uh, these blocked off doors, which is interesting.
So why? Um, I also mentioned before we have different phases of, uh, renovation visible here.
So I would just also note that, uh, you can see, for example, with this plan, uh, we have, um, uh, you know, building additions added on.
And, um, you know, you can say the, the orientation of the walls are different and slightly smaller.
So that's useful for understanding more the history of this, uh, this um,
structure over time and also floor levels that indicated in the archaeological data.
So we seem to have some kind of pseudo stratigraphy and occupation over time happening in this area.
I would also note that in room 13, it was rather special room, because we have at least two layers of wall paintings.
And this earlier motive with the colonnade was, um, reported in here.
And you can see one of these pictures and we can see also a second layer up here with some remains of figure figural imagery, which is very exciting.
Um, and then we may ask if this is really actually a domestic context at all.
Um, so I thought for a long time, um, because also nobody else ever really challenged it, um, that, well, it could be read as a domestic context.
And I think you really can if you you can if you want to really insist upon it.
Um, so room ten and 13, for example, could be central reception rooms.
Um, and again,
the size of the structure and its position in the city sort of suggests an important and important function as well as all these objects here.
But then we might start to wonder, but does this really make sense?
Uh, so we have rather indirect access to these rooms, for example,
which would be rather strange for reception rooms just to begin with without mentioning all the other issues.
And we might also ask if the ceiling of these certain doors and passages actually make sense from a safekeeping perspective.
So I don't think, uh, anyone. Really ever asked that so much?
Uh, but, uh, you see, we have the doubled up.
Uh, well, here we have this strange feature here, uh, not further down the corridor than it blocked off this much.
This part is blocked off.
It sort of doesn't seem to follow, um, something that you would expect if you were trying to hide reasonably, uh, some material.
Uh, so the question emerged as whether this site two structure could actually refer to a sacred space.
And so, um, it was brought to my attention, a possible parallel from that,
which was a, um, an important, uh, urban site in the Swat Valley, um, in Gandara.
So not so far away, as you can see on the map.
And, uh, it was also originally interpreted as, uh, you know, actually formerly was in fact, uh, residential context.
Uh, but these get transformed in the later part of the city into urban Buddhist cult spaces.
Uh, so including the shrines in the courts with long structures, um, and the back rooms as well, um, comparable perhaps to, uh, the background ones.
Uh, these could be similar back rooms. And uh, one, for example, was even found with deposits of valuables in this kind of room.
So this is actually an extremely promising avenue of inquiry.
Um, already on that basis, even though, um, the situations aren't entirely perfectly parallel.
And I would note also that, I mean, of course, if there was material in this body like this assemblage that,
you know, screamed unquestionably that we're looking at a ritual context, then people would have noticed already.
So there isn't. And that's that's pretty clear. But some could be right in this way.
And so we can think, for example, um, about some material suggesting possible rituals.
Um, for example, uh, we I was inspired by um, uh, and I feel against article on non Buddhist customs of Buddhist people who talked about,
uh, uh, drinking practices, um, and uh, religious festivals were related to wine consumption, um, and drinking in Gandhara.
And so I wonder if, um, you know, if this is really, truly referring to a sacred context,
then, um, this kind of the some of the material background, the high quantity of, uh,
luxury drinking vessels, chairs, footstools, that elaborate furniture, uh,
it recalls kind of similar things to me in this way, not necessarily implying that we're looking at exactly the same thing.
Um, so put very briefly, I would just say, so how would I interpret the background would reflect doing all these things?
Um, I would say, look, we're probably dealing most plausibly with a temple context.
Um, although I think it's a really quite ambiguous material and sort of difficult to be very certain,
but I think that's the most plausible explanation.
And what we're looking at is the series, um, the result of a series of decisions around the abandonment of the city after a long decline.
Um, so this wasn't a sudden abandonment. Um, you know, in the face of the Sassanian army, uh, this is a longer process.
And it was also probably a bit later than everyone expected. Um, except for Gershman, who already predicated that.
But anyway, um, we see the gathering and sorting of, uh, properties and probably offerings.
I would say if this is truly, uh, a temple, it could refer to the material in its treasury or past offerings that had been kept and, uh, stored.
Uh, then we could see the possible removal of items and elements representing a high value, portable, easily convertible.
Well, so, for example, we don't see any precious metal coinage, jewellery plate.
Um, you know, anything much like that, except a few small fragments of, um,
items with gold and silver in this whole assemblage and also outside the area.
So they had access to gold and silver and things like this, but it seems to have been removed.
Moreover, um, then we have the deposition of most of the remaining goods in room 13.
Um, so the selection of this material and then room um, ten and these seem to be carefully and systematically sealed in these two rooms,
uh, following a specific logic and then subsequently abandoned.
And my, my, uh, interpretation of this activity is that we are probably dealing with both in these,
in these respects, ritual and utilitarian considerations, uh, in these series of events.
So I'm just going to wrap up as briefly as I can.
Um, so I started to wonder if they were able to eventually access some universal insights for approaching, uh, treasure archaeologically.
And I think reaching those insights would require a great deal more work.
But, um, here some sort of a kind of a starting point, right.
Um, so I first point, uh, for approaching church archaeologically is that a thorough examination of content and context is absolutely critical.
No question. Uh, second, high quality data. Uh, definitely ideal.
Um, and quite important to be able to say something, um, that seems, uh, robust.
And the more the better. And when you're looking at larger phenomena, uh, archaeology, um, is also growing in importance.
So the scientific study of, you know, composition of objects or their dating things like this,
I think this will only grow more in importance with studies of hoards in the future and treasures.
Um, we also dealing, um, uh, when we deal with hoards,
they clearly can't be treated as simplistic data sets for, uh, approaching chronology or classification.
So again, it was the same issue with background, the same issue identified in the Bronze Age in Europe that,
uh, these things really aren't necessarily even roughly coeval.
It's deposited in the same deposit. Right. So.
Uh, those who wish to date material based on other material and treasures and don't know much about the,
uh, the ideology forming, um, their deposition.
So beware. Right. Uh, we should also be careful.
It seems, uh, to not impose our values onto, um, the material that we're looking at.
So, uh, one note that I picked out of the literature, too, is that we, um, there is a sort of, um, critique that somehow, uh,
we shouldn't impose rational, modern economic behaviour and mindsets, especially Western ones, onto ideas about interpreting these words.
So, for example, for safekeeping and, uh, uh, from a utilitarian perspective,
because the logic they may follow may be different to ours, uh, even in those terms.
Value, of course, is also contextual, um, and needs to be examined on a case by case basis.
And sort of one of the main themes is this, uh, ritual utilitarian dichotomy does not seem very stable at all.
Um, and this relates to this point above, of course, that classification is often arbitrary,
contextual related to this, and may indeed be a futile enterprise in many, uh, in many regards.
Um, but conceptualising a spectrum activity between, you know,
ritual and utilitarian behaviour might be better in the sense that all of our behaviour is not,
you know, strictly rational or strictly or strictly ritual, you know, um, in these terms.
Right. And so one of these kind of conclusions as well is that treasure also does seem still a little bit like,
um, again, not a beloved word, uh, in academic literature.
And so one sort of should probably try not to use the word treasure.
I've also seen reticence and even referring to hoards as well, although I don't necessarily think it, um, impedes the discussion.
Uh, however, I do wonder actually if we could probably be a little bit more lenient about this.
And this is because of the realities of finding treasure in ancient and early medieval normative texts and legal codes.
And by this I mean, uh, deposited, uh, burials, for example, of, uh, you know, goods that were presumably kept for safekeeping.
Then somebody forgot about where they are. And, uh, now somebody um, now we the rediscovery of it, uh, has all kinds of implications for property law.
Um, so this is already, um, a well known phenomenon in the Roman world, for example, with treasure trove law.
So I won't get more into that. Um, but clearly it actually is a more widespread phenomenon.
So I noticed, for example, that, um, we also see, you know, the, The Book of Manu.
Well, I might mention Smriti. So, um, you know, the Sanskrit text.
Um, uh huh. Well, uh, so, uh, the dating of this, I mean, somebody else in the audience can probably explain this better than I do, but, you know, so,
I mean, major first millennium, say, and, uh, we see here the prescriptions for what happens when you do find a treasure trove and who owns it.
Right. And interestingly, also, um, it's using the word um,
Sanskrit nowadays are a very polyvalent and complex term as, uh, I think you are more well aware than I am.
Uh, the other one I noticed also was, uh, for example, from the perspective of China,
we have the time codes or 17th century again, um, normative legal texts.
Um, and I mentioned also just briefly here, we also have requirements for buried treasure as well.
What is happening? Like, uh, what is required, um, to do in terms of property law when something like this is found.
And this is interesting because it just shows, uh, pretty clearly, uh, that these kind of situations where, uh,
frequent enough that there were even ideas and legal frameworks about how to deal with them,
uh, with, uh, you know, hidden, concealed, uh, recovery of valuables were recovered again.
So, um, I didn't want to just briefly say then some conclusions about treasure.
Um, what can I say? It's a fraught term in archaeological practice, which is polyvalent.
Uh, but as I also I hope to have just pointed to briefly now, it's also a real concept in,
uh, many historical context, which just, um, just deserves more exploration.
And I think this is why the work of your, your seminar and the presentations are interesting because they,
uh, explore in indeed this very treasure tradition.
And, uh, there's also, you know, folklore about treasures, um, buried treasures, um, recovered treasures from, uh, all over the world.
And, uh, this kind of thing, uh, deserves, you know, more exploration, of course.
And I was wondering that, um, at one point, a cross-cultural examination of, uh,
treasure traditions and folklore and comparison with archaeological approaches will be quite fruitful because I do perceive some overlap.
For example, in, um, need, for example, um can refer in Sanskrit to uh, treasures deposited or um, in sacred contexts, uh, things like this.
But also it clearly can refer to, uh, relatively profane ones as well.
Um, so hoards perhaps for safekeeping.
And I was thinking of this, um, parallel between, um, our eventual realisation that this dichotomy between ritual and utilitarian motives,
um, that, you know, perhaps, um, these are blended together in human activity,
but this may also be reflected, um, in the, in the textual traditions,
when we're lucky enough to be dealing with a society that, in fact has documented these beliefs for us, uh, so explicitly.
So I think that's it for me. I've just gone a bit over time.
My apologies. And, uh, thank you for your attention and I look forward to your comments.