Revisiting the valuation of bronze items recovered from Pompeii houses

 by Mary Harrsch © 2025

I received a very thoughtful reply to my post about my attempts to value bronze items recovered from Pompeii houses in my Pompeii wealth status calculation project. Vladimir Stissi, a member of another Facebook Group I belong to observed:

"The whole evaluation of bronze items seems to forget that bronze was a rather expensive material. The material of a bronze vessel alone would have cost 10-20 times the price of a pottery version. This implies that bronze utilitarian vessels were not widely affordable and should not be disregarded when measuring wealth. On the other hand, source material about pricing (and the fact that labour was cheap) suggests that many metal items were not worth very much more than the cost of the metal they were made of. Silver and gold items were simply worth their metal price (once their first owner had paid for their making).

This also seems to apply to much of what we see as works of art. There was a premium to be paid for the very best art and artists, and collectable old stuff, but most of the decorative items at Pompeii do not fall in these categories. In other words, the financial value of ten kilo of bronze cooking pots may have been about the same as that of a ten kilo bronze statue. This does not mean they were seen in the same way, but we have to realize that the way we look at these things may be very different than the way Romans looked at them."

I was so grateful to receive his thoughtful post and asked for his suggestion as to point value he would assign to bronze cookware discovered in an excavation. ChatGPT had originally suggested 1 - 2 points depending on the quantity and quality of cookware recovered. I was afraid the template was becoming too granular. I look forward to Vladimir's response.

The PAH often includes bronze coins in the bronze category, too, but usually only a few of medium to small size. My personal thoughts would be to ignore them as an indicator of wealth unless there is a substantial hoard as most would have been of relatively small denomination such as asses, semis, or quadrans. Once in a while, though, the excavators mention a large coin in the bronze category and I thought they may not have recognized a dupondius or sestertius that were made of orichalcum, a kind of brass, not bronze.

A resin reproduction of a cast of the body of a man found along with two women, and a young girl, in Pompeii's "Skeleton Alley" that I photographed at an exhibit of Pompeii artifacts at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry in Portland, Oregon back in 2017. Jewelry or coins found with remains like these from adjacent alleyways pose a problem when trying to assess wealth of nearby residences.

I asked ChatGPT, "Would the early excavators of Pompeii have distinguished a sestertius from smaller bronze coins?"

ChatGPT replied:

"Early excavators of Pompeii in the 18th and 19th centuries likely had varying levels of knowledge about ancient Roman coinage. Their ability to distinguish a sestertius from smaller bronze coins (e.g., asses, semisses, and quadrantes) would have depended on their familiarity with Roman numismatics and the condition of the coins they uncovered. Here are some factors to consider:

1. Size and Weight: The sestertius was significantly larger and heavier than smaller bronze coins:

Sestertius: Around 25–30 grams, 32–34 mm in diameter.
As: Around 10–12 grams, 27–29 mm in diameter.
Semis: Smaller than the as, roughly half its size.
Quadrans: The smallest coin, typically 15–16 mm in diameter.

Excavators could have distinguished sestertii from smaller coins based on size alone.

2. Material and Color: Sestertii were made of orichalcum (brass), which had a golden-yellow hue when new or lightly corroded, making them visually distinct from the darker bronze used for smaller coins. However, heavy corrosion over centuries could obscure these differences, making it harder to identify the metal.

3. Inscription and Iconography: Sestertii often had detailed inscriptions and imagery, which, if legible, could be compared to known coin types in numismatic studies of the time. Smaller coins also had inscriptions, but the details were less prominent due to their size.

4. Numismatic Knowledge of the Time: The early excavators, influenced by Enlightenment curiosity, often focused more on art and architecture than small artifacts like coins. Unless they had numismatic training or consulted experts, their ability to distinguish coin types may have been limited.

Early excavators sometimes classified coins broadly as “bronze” or “gold” without recognizing specific denominations. Coins were often treated as generic curiosities rather than systematically studied.

What are your thoughts about coin finds?

I also realized when reviewing my point categories, I forgot to include jewelry made of precious metals and high-value gemstones. (Hey, sometimes we become so focused on details, we overlook the obvious!) Of course, we have no way to really know if such finds are from the house or dropped by looters or someone fleeing the disaster who sought shelter within the confines of the residence. When I was reviewing the excavation report for the House of the (Bronze) Bull, it mentioned skeletal remains wearing a gold ring found next to the exterior wall of the home. I guess I would count it even though the individual's relationship to the home would be tenuous. I welcome any suggestions!

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!