Recently we’ve been at Salisbury Museum studying the Bowerchalke hoard which is currently on display. It was found by metal-detectorists about twenty-five years ago. The hoard mostly consists of silver coins, though there is also a gold solidus of Valentinian II (388-392). The latest coins were minted in the last decade of the fourth century (388-395) at Trier. There are also four gold finger-rings and it is these components of the hoard that provide some insights into its life history.
Collectively, the rings would have been worth more than all the silver coins put together and represent a substantial investment of wealth. The decoration on two of the rings, a motif of clasped hands, is known to relate to betrothal and marriage in the Roman period, and we can estimate their original diameters would have suited a female and a male wearer respectively, so they may have been made specifically for a couple to celebrate their union. Given these motifs, some of the rings in the hoard, and perhaps the coins as well, could originally have formed a dowry given by the woman’s family. There is much evidence from surviving Roman documents, especially from Egypt, that jewellery was an important dowry component. Textual evidence also illustrates that part of a woman’s dowry was owned by her outright and so was important for her security and independence within a marriage.
Was the hoard buried by the family who originally wore the rings? Although we can’t be certain, there is some circumstantial evidence that suggests this is possible.
The four rings are all different but have stylistic features that suggest a later fourth-century date. This is consistent with the mint date of the latest coins in the hoard, in 393-5 CE. So, it appears the finger-rings have not circulated over long periods, during which they would likely have become separated from one another, lost their original meanings, and acquired others.
All the rings are distorted, with the hoops pushed sideways and slightly squashed out of shape. The similarities in the damage suggest this is probably plough damage that occurred after deposition. Many of the coins also display evidence of plough damage too. Some of the gemstones originally set into two of the rings are missing, but there is no evidence of deliberate removal, and they probably became dislodged at a similar time. So the objects were likely intact when buried and could have been used and valued for their original purpose immediately before burial.
