Early Christian amulets preserved the Roman tradition in defiance of the bishops’ prohibitions

Patricia Kret, a historian at Leiden University, analysed around 300 amulets to trace the evolution of this practice in the Roman world from 100 BC to 600 AD. Her work shows that the spread of Christianity did not supplant amulets. People continued to wear them on their bodies and place them where they expected protection or help, but the content of the inscriptions and some of the forms gradually took on a Christian character.

The focus is on the beliefs and actions of ancient people, rather than on the proven properties of the objects themselves. Kret’s research is historical: it explains what the owners expected from the amulets and how they used them, but does not confirm that they actually protected against illness, danger or misfortune.

Details

In the Roman Empire, an amulet was defined not only by its image or material, but also by where it was used. Objects were worn on the body, hung near the home, or left by the fields. According to the beliefs of their owners, an amulet was meant to be kept close to a person or a place in need of protection, healing or some other form of supernatural aid.

This spatial logic survived religious changes. Even in the Christian era, amulets worn on the body often took the form of short texts on a metal plate, papyrus or parchment, which were folded, placed in a case or hung round the neck. Some objects took the form of a cross, though the manner of wearing them and their intended function remained the same.

The main changes occurred in the inscriptions and symbols. These increasingly featured Christian elements, including biblical quotations. At the same time, the old practices did not disappear immediately. On some amulets, the word ‘abracadabra’ was inscribed, with the first and last letters of each subsequent line omitted: according to the maker’s intention, as the word was shortened, the fever was supposed to subside. Other inscriptions directly named the illness or specified the distance within which the object was believed to be effective. Such formulas indicate the amulet’s purpose but do not prove its effectiveness.

The contradiction within the Church itself is particularly striking. Bishops condemned amulets in their sermons and threatened users with excommunication. Yet in the very same texts, they demanded that priests cease making such objects. Kret also draws attention to the frequent biblical quotations: in an era when manuscripts of the Scriptures were accessible to few, clergymen were among those who could copy out the relevant passages. This evidence points to the involvement of some members of the clergy, although it is impossible to identify the author of every surviving amulet.

Therefore, the dividing line did not simply run between the ‘Church’ and the laity. Official disapproval came primarily from the hierarchy, whilst at the level of everyday religiosity, the practice could be supported by both ordinary believers and members of the lower clergy. For a person, an amulet bearing a few lines from the Bible sometimes became the only fragment of Scripture that could be taken home and kept close at hand at all times. In this sense, it made the new religion tangible, much like the veneration of relics that was spreading during the same era.

Amulets were also reused. Sometimes an object was passed down as a family heirloom; sometimes it was brought back into use centuries later, and the reasons for its reuse can no longer be reconstructed. Kret’s favourite example is a small metal plate inscribed with a remedy for migraines. It was found in the same grave as three other amulets, but it was noticeably older than the rest. The researcher suggests that the plate may have been passed on to relatives who suffered from the same health problem, though this remains a hypothesis.

Why this is important

Amulets reveal early Christianity not only through the decisions of councils and the sermons of bishops, but also through people’s everyday choices. These small objects reveal a fear of illness and danger, concern for the home and the harvest, family memory, the custom of wearing sacred text on one’s body, and a desire for a tangible connection with religion.

The study demonstrates not a sharp break with the Roman past, but a gradual reinterpretation of established practices. Old forms and methods of placement were retained, whilst names, quotations and symbols were adapted to the Christian context. The bishops’ prohibitions are significant not only as an expression of the official position: their repeated nature and the fact that they were addressed to priests indirectly indicate that amulets continued to be widespread within Christian communities.

This study has its limitations. Only a fraction of the objects have survived to the present day: amulets made from plants, fabrics and animal parts are almost entirely absent from the archaeological record, whilst papyrus survives only under favourable conditions. Ancient texts rarely explain in detail exactly how people used such objects, so the researcher has to compare inscriptions, form, material and place of discovery. A sample of around 300 objects does not allow us to reconstruct the experiences of all early Christians, and the reuse of artefacts often makes it difficult to date a specific episode. The conclusions relate to the history of beliefs and practices, rather than to the reality of the claimed protective or healing properties.

Source

The primary source is an official document from Leiden University dated 29 September 2026 on the findings of Patricia Kret’s thesis ‘Amulets, materiality and experience: demarcating space in the Roman world’. The university’s webpage does not provide a DOI or a publicly available full text of the thesis.

The researcher’s context and wording have been further cross-checked against a transcript of a discussion on amulets published by the Open University’s Centre for the Study of Ancient Material Religion.