How to use this workbook
Use this workbook in class or at home, in any order that helps your inquiry.
For each lamp, distinguish what you can see from what you think it means. Explain how confident you are in your suggestions. An answer can be tentative, provided it says what evidence would strengthen or weaken it.
- Observation: what you can see or describe.
- Inference: a reasoned suggestion about use, how the object was made, date, meaning, or ownership.
- Question: something the object cannot answer by itself.
- Analogy: evidence from another period or technology that may suggest a possibility, but cannot prove what happened in Roman antiquity.
Let a small object open larger questions
One small piece of evidence can open a whole world of exploration. Let a detail that catches your attention lead to questions about the people, practices, and ideas around it. What might this object help us ask about Roman civilization and its continuing influence?
- Images and stories: why do some images endure for centuries? How do myths shape a community’s sense of its origins, and how might the same image acquire new meanings?
- Homes and bodies: how might lighting affect work, rest, smells, smoke, soot, decoration, and health? Whose living conditions might differ, and how could we investigate experiences that leave few visible traces?
- Work and connections: who supplied the materials and fuel, made the objects, maintained them, and cleaned the rooms? What journeys and labour made an ordinary activity possible?
- Travel and collecting: why might someone want to carry an image of Rome home? How do education, wealth, travel, and collecting shape which versions of the past remain familiar?
These prompts are invitations to develop questions of your own. For a wider question you find compelling, identify the observation that prompted it, explain why it matters, and suggest what other objects, texts, comparisons, or scientific research could help you pursue it. You can record it in the question spaces throughout the workbook.
1 · First encounter: Lamp 1
What do you notice about the lamp? Describe it in your own words, distinguishing visible details from your suggestions about their meaning.
What can you see?
What do you infer?
What remains uncertain?
When was Lamp 1 made?
Propose a date or range of dates. What supports your suggestion, and how confident are you? What would help you narrow it down?
Object
What features suggest a lamp rather than another vessel?
Image
What clues make a narrative identification possible?
History
What would the image prove, and what would it not prove?
2 · Two Roman comparators
These two lamps have been identified as Roman. How do they resemble Lamp 1, and how do they differ? Distinguish your observations from your interpretations.
Lamp 2 · a simpler lamp
| Prompt | Your notes | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| Visible features | ||
| What might the visible features have been used for? | ||
| What does the back add? |
When was Lamp 2 made?
Propose a date or range of dates. What supports your suggestion, and how confident are you? What would help you narrow it down?
Lamp 3 · a lamp with a religious image
| Prompt | Your notes | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| What is visible on the lamp’s flat upper surface? | ||
| What are three possible identifications? | ||
| What evidence would distinguish them? |
When was Lamp 3 made?
Propose a date or range of dates. What supports your suggestion, and how confident are you? What would help you narrow it down?
3 · Comparing the lamps
What similarities and differences matter for understanding these objects? “Evidence” means a feature you can point to. “Interpretation” means the historical claim you build from it.
| Feature | Lamp 1 | Lamp 2 | Lamp 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shape and visible features | |||
| Decoration or lack of decoration | |||
| Evidence of use, wear, soot, or repair | |||
| Most defensible historical claim |
Did Roman lighting change over the centuries?
What might these three objects help you investigate about change over time? What other evidence would you need to distinguish changes over time from differences between places or households?
4 · Lamp, myth, religion, and everyday life
Myth
What can Lamp 1 tell us about the circulation or later reception of an origin story? Cards L–N offer evidence about the myth, ancient lamps, and later collecting.
Religion
What can Lamp 3 tell us about religious imagery in ordinary settings? What can it not tell us about belief?
Daily life
What can Lamp 2 tell us about daily routines even though it carries no obvious narrative?
The underside of Lamp 1
What can you see on the underside? Record your own reading of the mark, including anything you are unsure about.
| Question | Your response |
|---|---|
| What does the mark appear to say? | |
| What would make the reading secure? | |
| Could a later object copy an ancient mark? What other evidence would you compare? |
5 · Lighting a Roman room
Imagine a household room after sunset. Do not assume that “a lamp” means bright, even, modern light. Think about flame, distance, surfaces, fuel, air, and the work required to keep the light going.
Plan the room
Where would you place one lamp? Where would you place several? Mark the likely direction of light and movement of air.
What changes with six lamps?
Fuel: what burns?
How would fuel reach a household that could not produce its own? Card F connects olive growing, trade, and the cost of lighting.
| Possible fuel | Why might it be available? | What evidence could test it? |
|---|---|---|
| Olive oil | ||
| Animal fat | ||
| Other plant oil or recycled oil |
How did lamps make a Roman home smell?
How might the fuel, the number of lamps, and the movement of air affect the smell of a room? How could we investigate smells that have not survived? Evidence cards G–K offer examples. What other activities might contribute to the room’s smell?
Smoke, soot (black powder), air, and health
Choose two factors above and explain how each could affect the room, identifying what is direct evidence and what remains an informed analogy.
| Factor | Likely effect | Evidence / limitation |
|---|---|---|
6 · Evidence cards
Read the short evidence cards below. For each one, decide what kind of evidence it provides and what it cannot establish.
What was in a Roman lamp?
Analysis of material left inside late Roman lamps found predominantly olive oil, together with traces of animal fat. This is chemical evidence from particular lamps, not a rule that every lamp everywhere used the same fuel.
Kimpe, Jacobs, and Waelkens, “Analysis of oil used in late Roman oil lamps”
One object can have several lives
A study of a Roman bronze lamp combined comparison of its shape and type, analysis of the metal, chemical analysis of oily material left inside it, carbon measurements that can help identify plant or animal sources, and radiocarbon dating (using a very sensitive method for measuring carbon). The lamp’s manufacture, use, later reuse, and burial did not necessarily occur at the same time or place.
Smoke and decoration
Vitruvius advises against delicate decoration in rooms used for winter dining because it is damaged by fire smoke and “constant soot from the lamps.” This is valuable evidence for an ancient concern, but it is an architect’s recommendation rather than a measurement of every Roman room.
Lamp smoke, particles, and health
Modern studies of simple kerosene wick lamps measure substantial amounts of fine particulate matter—very small airborne particles—and black carbon, a soot-like material. These results show what poorly ventilated lamp smoke can do, but they do not directly measure Roman olive-oil lamps. Use them as an analogy and state the limitation.
Apple et al., “Characterization of particulate matter … from kerosene and diesel lamps”
How many lamps, and where?
Recent work on rooms inside Roman buildings combines the places where lamp fragments were found, room plans, doors and windows, and what artificial light may have looked and felt like. Finds can suggest where light was needed, but a fragment count does not automatically tell us how many lamps were burning at the same time.
From olive grove to city lamp
Oil required more than an olive tree: people harvested the fruit, crushed and pressed it, and separated the oil from the watery liquid. Emlyn Dodd’s recent study of Italy describes production ranging from simple rural installations to farms and large villas. Small-scale production was possible, but access to trees, labour, and equipment mattered. Living in a village did not automatically mean producing all your own oil.
Cities could draw on surrounding farms and distant producing regions. Rome imported large quantities from Baetica, in what is now southern Spain. Oil travelled in amphorae, large pottery transport jars. At Monte Testaccio, near Rome’s river port and warehouses, discarded containers accumulated into a hill. Stamps and painted labels preserve information about producers, exporters, contents, checks, and dates. These fragments let researchers trace supply on a scale that a single lamp cannot reveal.
Think of the work between grove and household: harvesting, processing, making containers, shipping, unloading, storing, and selling. Oil also served food preparation, body care, and other purposes; lower-quality oil could be used for lighting. Imported quantities therefore cannot simply be counted as lamp fuel. Owning a lamp still meant finding a continuing supply of fuel, and abundant imports do not tell us what every poor household could afford.
Consider: how might access to oil differ between a farming household and a poor city resident? How could price or a disrupted supply affect the number of lamps lit and the hours of light available? What evidence about prices, earnings, shops, or household spending would help you investigate?
Emlyn Dodd, “The Archaeology of Olive Oil Production in Roman and Pre-Roman Italy,” American Journal of Archaeology 130.1 (2026); Jarrett A. Lobell, “Trash Talk,” Archaeology (2009). Published by the Archaeological Institute of America, Lobell’s illustrated magazine account introduces Monte Testaccio through a visit to the excavations and interviews with researchers. It is an accessible introduction in English, rather than a peer-reviewed excavation report.
Investigating the smells of Roman life
Olfactory archaeology means studying smells in the past. Researchers combine chemical traces, objects and their findspots, written accounts, and experiments. Identifying an ingredient does not recover the exact smell of a whole room, or tell us whether its occupants liked it. Introduction to this research from the Max Planck Institute, discussing Huber and colleagues’ 2022 study.
Does a lamp smell the same throughout its use?
Writing in the first century BCE, Lucretius describes the sharp, unpleasant smell of a lamp just extinguished. His poem connects this smell with an ancient explanation of illness; that explanation is not a modern medical finding. The passage records a sensory experience familiar enough to use as an example, but supplies neither the fuel’s identity nor a measurement of the air.
Consider: would evidence about putting out a lamp also describe a lamp burning steadily?
Lucretius, On the Nature of Things 6.791–794, translated by William Ellery Leonard.
Fragrance at a household shrine
A 2026 study examined burnt material in two incense burners from Pompeii and a nearby villa, buried in the eruption of 79 CE. In the burner from a household shrine at Boscoreale, chemical traces indicated a fragrant tree resin, probably elemi. The researchers also identified signs that the resin had been heated. Uncertain histories of storage and handling require caution about some other traces.
This supports the presence of fragrant burning in domestic worship. It does not establish that scented oil fuelled a lamp, how often incense was burnt, or how strongly it scented surrounding rooms.
Consider: how might the location of the shrine and nearby openings affect who experienced its smell?
Scented oil: what does the container tell us?
A sealed crystal container from a first-century CE Roman tomb at Carmona, Spain, preserved material analysed in 2023. Researchers identified vegetable oil and compounds suggesting patchouli, an aromatic plant. The exact vegetable oil could not be securely identified. This is evidence for an oil-based perfume placed in a burial; the vessel was not a lamp.
Consider: what additional evidence would connect such a perfume with lighting in a home? Does one costly container tell us what most households could obtain?
Cosano and colleagues, “Archaeometric Identification of a Perfume from Roman Times” (2023).
Perfumed oil used for lighting
The Book of Pontiffs, compiled in the sixth century CE, describes nard oil—a fragrant plant-based preparation—burning in lighting fixtures at Rome’s Lateran church. It attributes these gifts to the fourth-century emperor Constantine. Here a text explicitly connects scented oil with lighting, but the account was compiled later than the gifts it describes, and its historical reliability needs examination.
Consider: what can this account establish about scented lighting? What further evidence would you need to extend the claim to an ordinary home in first-century Pompeii?
Book of Pontiffs, Life of Sylvester, translated by Louise Ropes Loomis, printed p. 49 (PDF); Béatrice Caseau, “Incense and Fragrances: from House to Church,” pp. 87–89 (PDF).
Aeneas: an older story, a later Roman epic
Aeneas is a Trojan hero. In the familiar escape scene, he carries his father Anchises and leads his son Ascanius away from Troy. Virgil did not invent the story of his father’s rescue: a Greek painted vase in the British Museum, dated about 490–480 BCE, already depicts Aeneas carrying Anchises, centuries before Virgil wrote.
This shows that the episode was known earlier; it does not mean that every detail of the later Roman story was already present. We will return to Aeneas and Virgil’s Aeneid fully in our later class on the Age of Augustus.
Consider: what can an image establish about the age of a story, and what can it establish about whether the events happened?
The same scene on ancient lamps
Two museum collections catalogue Roman lamps showing Aeneas carrying Anchises and leading Ascanius. These are ancient examples of the scene, rather than modern souvenirs:
- Australian National University Classics Museum, 2012.09: approximately second–third century CE; purchased in Syria. A place of purchase is not necessarily a documented excavation site.
- British Museum, 1978,0603.1: approximately 25–75 CE. Its record supplies a description, date, acquisition history, and scholarly catalogue reference.
Compare: which details recur, and which differ from Lamp 1? A similar image alone cannot date an object or prove that it is ancient. These two lamps also postdate Virgil: they show the story’s later circulation, not its earliest appearance.
Check the claim: The Archaeologist’s article about a lamp reported from Tenea asks what it “proves” about the city’s connection with Troy. This is a popular web article, not a peer-reviewed excavation report. Treat it as a lead: seek the excavators’ publication, the lamp’s date and find context, and peer-reviewed scholarship—research assessed by other specialists before publication. Check the evidence and argument as well as the publication’s credentials. A Trojan image cannot by itself prove Trojan ancestry.
The ANU bibliography provides a route into scholarship: Josephine Shaya, “The Public Life of Monuments,” American Journal of Archaeology 117 (2013), 83–110. This concerns Augustan monuments and their reception, not the Tenea excavation. Museum catalogues, excavation reports, and journal articles serve different purposes. Popular web summaries can help locate research, but cannot replace checking it.
Taking Rome home: the Grand Tour
The Grand Tour was an extended educational journey through Europe, especially Italy, popular among wealthy travellers in the eighteenth century. Many arrived with an education in Greek and Latin literature and collected souvenirs. The Metropolitan Museum’s account of the Grand Tour explains this connection between education, travel, and collecting.
Travellers bought both antiquities and recognizable modern copies. The Ashmolean’s Britain and Italy gallery includes bronze and plaster reproductions and portable, book-shaped collections of impressions from engraved gems. Copies could be valued as copies. Other objects deceived buyers: a lamp bought in Rome in 1872, now in Toledo, was believed to be early Christian but is now identified as a nineteenth-century forgery made for this market.
Literature also shaped destinations. The site known as Virgil’s tomb near Naples attracted visitors and appears in Joseph Wright’s 1779 painting. A souvenir could connect travel with stories already encountered in books.
Consider: why might a reader of Virgil’s Aeneid want a recognizable myth on a souvenir? What might displaying it communicate about its owner? Would its appeal depend on being ancient?
These examples establish a market for copies and imitations. Connecting Lamp 1 specifically to a Grand Tourist remains a hypothesis requiring evidence of its manufacture and ownership. A reproduction is not necessarily a forgery: deception depends on how it was presented or sold.
| Card | Direct evidence, analogy, or interpretation? | What can it support? | What can it not establish? |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | |||
| B | |||
| C | |||
| D | |||
| E | |||
| F | |||
| G | |||
| H | |||
| I | |||
| J | |||
| K | |||
| L | |||
| M | |||
| N |
7 · From three lamps to Roman Civilization
Use the three lamps to write a short evidence-based response. You may use the sentence starters or write your own.
Sentence starters: “The object shows …”; “This suggests … because …”; “The comparison matters because …”; “We should not conclude …”; “To test this, we would need …”
Questions and conclusions
| One claim I can make with high confidence | |
| One claim that requires comparison or scientific testing | |
| One question I want to explore further |