Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T18:28:55.147Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Broken Deities: The Pipe-Clay Figurines from Roman London

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2015

Matthew G. Fittock*
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Readingm.g.fittock@pgr.reading.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pipe-clay figurines are an important but under-examined category of Roman material culture in Britain. This paper presents the first typological catalogue of the 168 deity, animal and human figures imported to Roman London from Gaul during the first and second centuries a.d. As in many other collections Venus figurines are the most common type, although there is considerable diversity in form. Comparison with continental collections highlights distinctive patterns of consumption between London, the rest of Britain and Gaul, with the city displaying relatively high numbers of exotic/unusual types, as appears to be typical of Londinium in general. The spatial distribution of the figurines is mapped across the settlement, while their contexts and social distribution on habitation, trade and religious sites throughout the city are explored. Whole specimens from burials and subtle patterns of fragmentation also provide a direct insight into the religious beliefs and symbolic practices of the people of Roman London.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2015. Published by The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies 

INTRODUCTION

Pipe-clay figurines have been a matter of scholarly interest since the first focused studies cataloguing the artefacts from Gaul were conducted during the nineteenth century.Footnote 1 Since then the systematic application of typological and contextual methodologies has provided a particularly detailed impression of the circulation and consumption of pipe-clay figurines, as well as the potential religious function and social significance of these objects, throughout various provincial regions of Western Europe.Footnote 2 However, the investigation of pipe-clay figurines remains comparatively under-developed in Britain where, other than their occasional mention as noteworthy religious objects in site reportsFootnote 3 and important grave goods from interesting burials,Footnote 4 the most significant contribution to the subject is an unpublished PhD thesis which catalogued 390 artefacts recovered by the 1970s.Footnote 5

The aim of this paper is to conduct a study of pipe-clay figurines recovered from Roman London, including finds from Southwark and extramural cemeteries.Footnote 6 Modelled using two-piece moulds by craftsmen (plastes) working from terracotta-production centres (officinae) in the Allier-Valley, France,Footnote 7 this collection is particularly significant in that it probably constitutes one of the largest and most diverse assemblages of these first- to second-century statuettes thus far recovered from Britain, providing a very useful snapshot of the wider under-researched and unpublished material now available from the province. After formulating a typological catalogue quantifying the different types of deity, human and animal figurines, the composition of the assemblage will be compared with that of continental collections to explore the nature of regional consumption of pipe-clay figurines in London, Britain, Gaul and the Rhineland. The subsequent spatial and social distribution analyses will assess the contexts of the material to explore the diverse social and temporal character of consumption throughout Londinium. A preliminary fragmentation assessment will also begin to explore whether subtle breakage patterns reflect religious beliefs and ritual practices. As such, this paper hopes to provide a nuanced impression of the consumption of such figurines while exploring the function and social significance of these objects to better understand the religious lives of those who inhabited Roman London and Britain.

TYPOLOGICAL CATALOGUE AND QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS

A total of 168 pipe-clay figurines have been recovered from Roman London. This number includes 109 deities (64 per cent), 28 birds or other animals (17 per cent), and four humans (2 per cent). The remaining 27 unidentifiable artefacts include three circular bases, three square-plinth bases and 21 figurine fragments. The 141 identified deities, animals and humans have been classified into groups of depictions and, where possible, types and sub-types based on morphological and/or stylistic variation. This analysis has been conducted according to the typological categories established by Rouvier-JeanlinFootnote 8 which have been traditionally adopted to classify other assemblages from Britain and Europe.Footnote 9 In certain instances identifying figurine types can be difficult as incomplete artefacts are often missing diagnostic body parts and/or stylistic features, while different figurine types can sometimes exhibit similar stylistic features. However, the large proportion of identifiable figurine types from the settlement provides a relatively detailed impression of their consumption in Roman London.

The assemblage of 109 deity figurines includes depictions of Venus, Dea Nutrix, Minerva, Luna/Diana Lucifera and Juno. Venus is the most common, with the 85 examples comprising four different types (Types 1–4) constituting the most extensive and typologically diverse group of figurines recovered from the entire settlement. Nine of these are Type 1 figurines which are defined by the garment draped over the left wrist of the goddess (fig. 1a), whereas 26 are of Type 2 which portrays the garment being held by the fingertips (fig. 1b). Of these 35 figurines, 33 depict garment designs which are conducive to sub-typological classification (fig. 2), with the range of motifs including elongated concentric ovals (Garment A), regularly spaced diagonal incisions (Garment B), crescent-shaped divisions with vertical folds (Garment C), plain folded drapery (Garment D), and chevrons (Garment E). Garment E is the most common, while it is also clear that specific garment motifs are associated with particular types of Venus. For example, Garments A, B and C are exclusive to figurines of Type 1 while Garments D and E are only depicted on statuettes of Type 2, a trend that has also been observed among continental assemblages.Footnote 10 Ten additional finds depicting alternative garment designs are probably also of Venus figurines of Types 1 or 2.

Fig. 1. (a) Type 1 Venus figurine from Upper Thames Street; (b) Type 2 Venus figurine from Mansell Street. (Reproduced courtesy of Museum of London)

Fig. 2. Venus figurine garment designs.

Seven of the 35 figurines of Types 1 and 2, as well as a further five unclassified Venus figurines, can be grouped into further sub-categories by hairstyle (fig. 3). In total eight frontal and two reverse hairstyles have been identified, but the blurring of mould-copying and the wear on some figurines could account for a degree of this variation. Table 1 highlights the greater variety of front as opposed to back hairstyle designs which feature among the assemblage, although this limited dataset does not elucidate any particularly strong typological relationships between hairstyles, garments and/or particular types of Venus. Elsewhere, the remaining group of 35 Venus figurines recovered from the city includes two statuettes of Type 3 which depict the garment around the waist, 11 aedicule fragments of Type 4, and 22 fragmented remains which depict the stylistic attributes of the goddess but lack distinctive typological traits.

Fig. 3. Venus figurine hairstyle designs.

TABLE 1 VENUS FIGURINE HAIRSTYLE SUB-GROUPS FROM ROMAN LONDON

Of the other deities, figurines of Dea Nutrix are much less common, with only 18 examples. Three are of Type 1 representing the goddess nursing two small infants, while three of Type 2 depict a single infant feeding at the breast (fig. 4a). However, 12 other fragments, including three heads, and nine pieces displaying stylistic attributes which are commonly associated with figurines of Dea Nutrix, are unclassifiable. The remaining deity figurines include three depictions of Minerva (fig. 4b), two of Luna and/or Diana Lucifera (fig. 4c) and a single representation of Juno (fig. 4d). The latter two goddesses are often associated with childbirth and the family and, therefore, possibly share in the wider connotations of fertility more commonly connected with the imagery of Venus and Dea Nutrix.Footnote 11

Fig. 4. (a) Type 2 Dea Nutrix figurine from Throgmorton Street; (b) Minerva figurine from Newgate Street; (c) Luna/Diana Lucifera figurine from Leadenhall Street; (d) Juno figurine from Mansell Street. (Reproduced courtesy of Museum of London)

The 28 animal and bird figurines include a range of typological forms. The most common of the birds are cockerels (fig. 5a), with two figurines, each of different type, present alongside a single cockerel fragment. Two pigeons, each of the same type, and single depictions of a hen (fig. 5b) and dove also feature; five other indistinct bird fragments have been identified, two of which are bases that probably come from another type of cockerel. Indeed, some of these birds are closely associated with deities: doves and pigeons with Venus and cockerels with Mercury for example.Footnote 12 Horses are the most common of the animal figurines with ten examples, although these fragmented remains do not permit refined classification. Other animal figurines include a bull, a single lizard, a dolphin and one depiction of a panther. The animal and bird assemblage is accompanied by a small group of four human figurines which includes a single Risus figurine (fig. 5c), a gladiator (fig. 5d) and two circular plinth bases featuring round discs which come from busts of women or children.

Fig. 5. (a) Cockerel figurine from Bishopsgate; (b) Hen figurine from King William Street; (c) Risus figurine from Liverpool Street; (d) Gladiator figurine from Queen Street. (Reproduced courtesy of Museum of London)

Comparing the composition of this assemblage with other collections highlights the distinctive character of the consumption of pipe-clay figurines in Roman London as opposed to Britain as a whole and other regions of continental Europe. In doing so two factors must be taken into consideration. The first is the greater size and wider typological variation of the continental assemblages. The second is the fact that the London assemblage represents the finds from a single settlement, while many of the continental publications are concerned with museum collections and regional surveys which are strongly affected by selection and curatorial biases. As such like is not being compared with like, although an analysis of the available material still provides a number of interesting observations.

In general the high frequency of deity as opposed to the lower proportion of both animal and human figurines from London corresponds with a broader trend identified among other collections from the Western provinces (Table 2). The only exception is Rouvier-Jeanlin's collection of material recovered from central Gaul where human forms are more common than animal figurines.Footnote 13 Yet closer inspection reveals numerous distinctive typological similarities and differences between the various collections. For example, although the assemblage from London includes a rather limited range of deity types, depictions of Venus are still the most common figurine type in each collection. However, figurines of Type 1 are more frequent than those of Type 2 on the Continent, while a greater proportion of examples of Type 2 are found in London and Britain. It is unclear when each Venus type arrived in Britain, but the recovery of figurines of Type 1 from mid-first-century deposits and those of Type 2 from early second-century contexts on the Continent could indicate that the former were the first to be imported from continental Europe.Footnote 14

Table 2 QUANTITIES OF DEITY, ANIMAL AND HUMAN FIGURINES FROM BRITISH AND CONTINENTAL ASSEMBLAGES

Of the other deities, figurines of Dea Nutrix and Minerva feature notably amid every collection, yet the latter are more common on the Continent than in Britain.Footnote 15 However, perhaps the most striking observation about the assemblage from London in particular, is the notable absence of pipe-clay figurines depicting male gods from the settlement, while deities such as Apollo and Mercury occur more frequently on the Continent and rare gods such as Mars, Genii and Bacchus in Britain.Footnote 16 At the same time, bird and horse statuettes comprise significant proportions of each collection, yet with continental assemblages generally featuring a much more extensive range of animal types than that recovered from Britain.Footnote 17 The relatively low quantity of human depictions from London and Britain is also notable considering the greater proportion of these figurine types recovered across central-southern and eastern Gaul.Footnote 18

The assemblage of figurines from Roman London contains a number of distinctly rare deity, animal and human types. For instance, the two depictions of Luna/Diana Lucifera from Leadenhall Street and Bond Court are unique among the material retrieved from Britain and Europe, with only one other comparable yet non-identical figurine recovered from a cemetery near Nijmegen, Holland.Footnote 19 The single Juno figurine recovered from Mansell StreetFootnote 20 is also unique, with only broadly comparable depictions recovered from Gaul,Footnote 21 while the dolphin from One PoultryFootnote 22 and panther from Borough High Street are the first examples of these types recovered from Britain and supplement only a small collection of similar figurines from Clermont-Ferrand and Toulon-sur-Allier in central France.Footnote 23 Similarly, the gladiator recovered from Queen Street remains only the third known example of this particular type identified among the European material, the first coming from the Roman fort of VindonissaFootnote 24 and the second from a nearby tomb in Windisch, Brugg, Switzerland.Footnote 25 However, perhaps the most notable example is the lizard from Leadenhall CourtFootnote 26 which represents a completely new type of figurine never before documented in Britain or Europe; the only broadly comparable artefact comes from Vichy in the Allier Valley region of central France.Footnote 27

The typological composition of the figurine assemblage from London reveals a rather distinctive pattern of consumption within the settlement compared with the remainder of Roman Britain and continental Europe. However, it is still extremely difficult to evaluate the significance of these patterns and determine whether they reflect anything about the inhabitants who used these objects or, rather, trade and supply patterns. In general terms the recovery of a number of uncommon and unique figurine types could reflect the particular social character of Londinium. For example, the presence of the lizard figurine, with its associations with the eastern god Sabazius,Footnote 28 may mirror the cosmopolitan nature of the ancient city much like other objects, such as hairpins,Footnote 29 which also depict eastern and exotic deities. In her recent study of bronze figurines from the settlement Durham argues that such rare and exotic depictions could reflect the presence and social identities of the élite who governed this culturally diverse centre of provincial administration,Footnote 30 while merchants and carriers regularly visiting the settlement may have been involved as well.

SPATIAL AND SOCIAL DISTRIBUTION

Out of 168 figurines, 163 can be plotted on a map of Roman London showing that they are found throughout the settlement (fig. 6). The only finds not represented are the two unprovenanced finds and three other antiquarian discoveries vaguely associated with ‘London Wall’. As with all such maps, the patterns to some extent reflect the extent of excavation in the city, with this perhaps most evident in Southwark where the topography has only been clarified recently.Footnote 31 However, comparison with bronze figurines,Footnote 32 samian potteryFootnote 33 and Firmalampen lampsFootnote 34 that were also imported during the first and second centuries, reveals the distinctive circulation of pipe-clay figurines in the settlement. On the north side of the Thames the greatest concentration lies throughout the Walbrook Valley, while a smaller, yet denser, cluster of figurines occurs immediately south of the forum and along the northern bank of the river where the Roman port once stood.Footnote 35 A number of finds are also distributed throughout the north-east, south, west and north-west, with a few discoveries located outside of the city walls in the northern, western and eastern cemeteries. The relatively high proportion of Venus figurines (mainly Types 1 and 2) around the Walbrook stream is particularly interesting (fig. 7). Although there was some degree of general dumping in the area and not all of these finds come from the stream itself, it is possible that these statuettes could have been deposited as part of a water-orientated healing ritual or votive practiceFootnote 36 similar to that associated with comparable figurines recovered from sacred spring sites at Springhead in Kent and Vichy in Gaul.Footnote 37

Fig. 6. Spatial distribution of pipe-clay figurines in Roman London (total = 163 figurines). (Base map adapted from Rowsome Reference Rowsome, Clark, Cotton, Hall, Sherris and Swain2008, 31, fig. 1.3.7; © MoLA)

Fig. 7. Spatial distribution of Venus figurines in Roman London (total = 81 figurines). (Base map adapted from Rowsome Reference Rowsome, Clark, Cotton, Hall, Sherris and Swain2008, 31, fig. 1.3.7; © MoLA)

The distribution of figurines north of the Thames contrasts starkly to the picture south of the river in and around Southwark, where the relatively few finds are located in the north and north-east, close to the main road and along the southern bank of the Thames. Another interesting observation is the complete absence of discoveries made near military structures throughout the settlement, with the only two examples possibly associated with the Cripplegate fort in fact pre- and post-dating that structure. However, perhaps the most surprising aspect is that very few finds have been found within the vicinity of known temple sites despite the religious iconography of these objects, a factor which could indicate an association with private rather than public religious practices.

An analysis of the types of site and deposit from which pipe-clay figurines are recovered elucidates the varied social character of their consumption throughout Roman London, though the lack of available data in some instances highlights the poor quality of antiquarian records and the value of publishing accessible modern information. Adopting a modified version of Eckardt's methodology,Footnote 38 the 115 figurines from known site types have been divided into three categories: habitation, trade and religious sites. Habitation sites are those where archaeological evidence indicates domestic and/or industrial human activity, while the trade group comprises sites connected with the infrastructure and buildings of the settlement's port. The religious category includes finds from burial and ritual locations.

Pipe-clay figurines are most commonly found on habitation sites (76 finds), with these distributed mainly throughout the north, north-east and north-west, close to roads and away from the Thames. A smaller cluster of habitation sites also features along the main road and the southern bank of the river in Southwark, where archaeological investigation indicates that they were probably industrial in character.Footnote 39 The majority of figurines from habitation sites come from pit, ditch and landfill contexts associated with refuse disposal, although another small group derives from deposits associated with construction activity. A small number of finds from Austin Friars, One PoultryFootnote 40 and Noble StreetFootnote 41 were recovered with objects reflective of habitation activity, with these three figurines, for example, accompanied by items including ceramic, metal and bone household objects and personal items of adornment comprising assemblages distinctly domestic in social character. In the majority of cases these deposits most probably do not reflect anything other than discarded rubbish. However, it is possible that some deposits might have some ritual significance. For instance, the composition of object assemblages recovered alongside some figurines is very similar to that of other collections recovered from analogous contexts across London and Britain which have recently been re-interpreted as ‘structured’ ritual deposits.Footnote 42 It has also been suggested that the figurines recovered from drains could have been water-orientated votive offerings, while those recovered from construction deposits could have been votive offerings associated with ritual regeneration practices.Footnote 43

The 30 figurines from trade sites associated with the settlement's port are densely distributed along the north-eastern bank of the Thames. The 28 finds with contextual information show that figurines mainly come from infill and levelling deposits connected with the wooden quayside revetment structure and nearby buildings. A number of other finds are from poorly recorded and unspecified deposits situated close to the revetment which are most likely also associated with the quayside structure, while two residual finds come from Saxon contexts. Seven finds were recovered with other objects indicative of trade activity. The figurines from Custom House, New Fresh Wharf and Three Quays House, for instance, were accompanied by broken pottery, fragments of wood and ceramic tile, and wooden beams, woodchips, charcoal and samian pottery dated to the first and second centuries.Footnote 44 In most instances these deposits probably represent the unfit, unsold and/or uncollected goods and refuse of a busy maritime trading centre which were deposited as levelling fills during the development of the port area and expansion of the quayside revetments.Footnote 45 However, a rare deposit containing three figurines and a number of complete samian vessels could indicate a degree of ritual significance.Footnote 46 The organic ‘peaty’ revetment fill from Waterfront 4 Upper Thames Street is also an interesting deposit in that it contained an object assemblage distinctly domestic in character, which could reflect either the wider range of imported goods discarded near the port or a localised habitation site.Footnote 47

All nine finds from religious sites come with contextual information. Two were recovered from deposits which could be considered ritual in character. The first comes from a pit within the vicinity of a public shrine area at Courage's Brewery,Footnote 48 while the second was recovered from a poorly recorded context overlying an external timber drain located near the south-west corner of the city's Mithraeum.Footnote 49 The latter find displays no stratigraphic relationship with the temple itself but the late third- to early fourth-century date of the deposit does correspond with the known use of the temple from a.d. 240.Footnote 50

The other seven figurines from religious sites come from various types of deposit in the northern and eastern cemeteries. The first is a burnt and residual Venus figurine from an irregular truncated double inhumation containing disarticulated human bone at Tower HamletsFootnote 51 which may have been burnt on a pyre at some stage.Footnote 52 On the other hand, two other finds — a horse figurine from a probable rubbish dump at Tower HamletsFootnote 53 and the rare depiction of Juno from an unstratified or disturbed deposit at Mansell StreetFootnote 54 — show signs of sooting. It is difficult to determine whether this residue represents deliberate scorching as part of some funerary ritual or accidental accumulation caused by close proximity to heat sources, such as lamps, within domestic shrines. However, their recovery from a cemetery suggests that these two figurines could have been either discarded ritual objects which did not make it into the burial, or ritual grave goods which were disturbed and redeposited as a result of later grave cutting and cemetery activity.Footnote 55

Finally, four figurines come from burial deposits. The first is the depiction of Risus recovered from a disturbed mass cremation in the northern cemetery.Footnote 56 Figurines of this type are relatively common from graves and shrines across Gaul where images of infants are also often associated with healing sanctuaries. With this in mind, it is possible that the Risus figurine from London may have been placed in the grave as a dedicatory representation of the deceased and a companion accompanying the dead to the underworld.Footnote 57 The other three finds, all Venus figurines, come from a mid-third- to mid-fourth-century child inhumation located in the city's eastern cemetery (B392). This burial comprised a single lead coffin decorated with beads, encased within an exterior wooden structure, while the figurines were accompanied by a rich assemblage of grave goods that included whole and fragmented glass bowls and vessels, glass bottles, a pair of gold earrings, a bone pyxis, an ivory figurine and a coin dated to the Hadrianic–Antonine period.Footnote 58 As depictions of Venus in this form are often associated with health, protection and fertility,Footnote 59 the figurines from London could well have been deposited in the grave to protect the deceased infant in the underworld and/or as offerings made by the parents of the child with the aim of encouraging the conception and good health of any future offspring. The lack of wear on these three Venus figurines also indicates that they may have been curated, adding to their significance as grave goods.

Although common among graves, shrines and tombs in Gaul,Footnote 60 pipe-clay figurines are very rarely recovered from burial contexts in Britain, with the handful of known instances from the province coming mainly from the graves of children.Footnote 61 One example is the Claudio-Neronian child cremation in Colchester, Essex, which included a large collection of figurines featuring depictions of a child, Hercules and ten comic figures.Footnote 62 Another instance derives from a second-century inhumation at Ermine Street in Arrington, Cambs., where a smaller collection of eight figurines, including a ‘bonnet-style’ mother-goddess, bald-headed infant, seated and cloaked human figures, a ram or ox and two sheep, recovered alongside the remains of a child who died from hydrocephalus (water on the brain),Footnote 63 has been closely associated with the maternal and paternal protection of the infant in the afterlife.Footnote 64 Discoveries such as this might promote the suggestion that pipe-clay figurines could have had a particular association with the healing and protection of ill, sick and diseased infants and children across the south-east of Roman Britain.Footnote 65 Unfortunately the poorly preserved skeletal remains from other burials containing pipe-clay figurines in this region have not been conducive to pathological analysis. However, confirmation that the inhumed child from burial B392 suffered from rickets further supports this particular hypothesis.Footnote 66

Identifying more about the social character of the London burial with its pipe-clay figurines is a rather difficult task considering the lack of comparable finds from the settlement and the contradictory information provided by burial B392. The problem here is that the overall quality of the grave-good assemblage is above the normative patterns encountered throughout the cemetery despite the fact that the stunted skeletal remains equally indicate nutritional and environmental stress commonly associated with inhabitants of a lower social standing;Footnote 67 although this could also reflect poor medical practice by parents unaware of the value of sunshine and vitamin D. Yet comparing burial B392 with similar graves containing pipe-clay figurines across the province provides a more informed indication as to the social character of the deposit. The first particularly useful example comes from Baldock, Herts., where a single figurine of Dea Nutrix was not only unique among the 1,800 burials from the cemetery, but was also carefully positioned upon the chest of a young child in an overly large grave perhaps designed for public viewing prior to interment.Footnote 68 The other significant factor regards the broadly similar composition of the grave-good assemblages from London, Colchester and Godmanchester, each of which included a varied assortment of pottery vessels, metal objects and exotic goods indicative of wealth.Footnote 69 This is not to mention the grave from Arrington which featured an almost identical lined lead coffin to that recovered from burial B392, containing extremely rare aromatic resins which were most probably expensive and luxurious imports.Footnote 70 As such, the wider corpus of evidence from the province indicates that pipe-clay figurines recovered from burial contexts were probably important objects associated with high-status child funerary practices conducted by the more prosperous inhabitants of south-east Roman Britain.

The grave goods and dating of burials containing pipe-clay figurines offer an insight into the changing character of this practice. For example, the burials from Arrington, Baldock, Colchester, Godmanchester and LondonFootnote 71 demonstrate that cremations containing relatively opulent grave-good assemblages, including pipe-clay figurines, featured until the mid-second century, during which time inhumations involving the placement of grave goods outside coffins commenced. By the fourth century, grave-good assemblages not only comprised fewer luxurious items but were alternatively being placed inside coffin structures.Footnote 72 It is, of course, extremely difficult to account for these changes in practice. One hypothesis is that such adaptations symbolise the introduction of various newcomers to the province,Footnote 73 an idea that would certainly account for the presence of the rare incense and ‘bonnet-style’ mother-goddess figurine from Arrington, sourced from the Rhineland, which may have been associated with the presence of immigrant groups travelling through and/or residing in the region.Footnote 74 However, it is notable that these developments were not confined to the child burials with pipe-clay figurines of the South-East, as a similar general pattern is found among the wider corpus of Roman burials from Britain.Footnote 75 Thus, as one of the latest opulent inhumations, burial B392 not only potentially represents a transitional phase of the practice of child burials containing pipe-clay figurines in the South-East, but also further evidences the changing character of the broader complex and temporally varied burial rites that developed throughout Roman Britain.

FRAGMENTATION ANALYSIS

Fragmentation analysis is a relatively recent avenue of archaeological enquiry.Footnote 76 Derived from Chapman's studies of Mesolithic to Copper-Age material culture from the Balkans,Footnote 77 this innovative approach has since been instrumental in re-evaluating the function and cultural significance of fragmented artefact assemblages, such as broken terracotta figurines, within some prehistoric societies of Britain and Europe.Footnote 78 Nanoglou, for instance, argues that the treatment of anthropomorphic terracotta figurines from Neolithic Greece symbolises differences in the complex social practices associated with the conceptualisation of the human body.Footnote 79 In a similar manner, Chapman and Gaydarska's investigations of Hamangia figurines from settlements such as Durankulak in north-east Bulgaria have highlighted the high number of worn head, torso, lower body and leg fragments from habitation contexts, compared with the much lower proportion of less-fragmented and whole specimens from other settlement deposits and burials. It is argued that the associations between certain types of deposit and different fragment types reflect engendered notions of identity, personhood and enchainment, and the androgynous character of death, within communities of the Eastern Balkans during the Neolithic.Footnote 80

The application of fragmentation methodologies to Roman material has been comparatively limited, but there has been initial progress. For example, Ferris has recently re-evaluated evidence from France, Italy and Britain to suggest that fragmented bronze, stone and ceramic figurines may be customised ex-voto objects associated with ritualised healing practices.Footnote 81 Croxford has also observed that fragmented statuary from temples at Uley, Caerleon, Colchester and London could be associated with Romano-British magical practices rather than Christian iconoclastic attacks that took place during the fifth and sixth centuries.Footnote 82 Merrifield has equally suggested that such broken figurines are probably associated with the broader practice of ritual or magic-orientated statuary fragmentation which has already been observed throughout settlements such as Roman London.Footnote 83 With this in mind, the remainder of this paper assesses whether the pipe-clay figurines recovered from Roman London were similarly subjected to processes of fragmentation by identifying the extent of any patterning among the surviving material before briefly exploring the potential functional and cultural significance of these broken objects within the settlement.

Fragmentation patterns are recognisable by identifying different fragment types among figurine assemblages,Footnote 84 but the methodology is not without problems. The first regards the limited number of animal and human statuettes, so that only the larger collection of deity figurines is likely to reveal any distinctive trends of activity. Of these 109 deity figurines, 26 insubstantial fragments have also been excluded from the analysis as they most probably represent discarded rubbish rather than any deliberately broken and deposited pieces. The remaining 83 substantial fragments and whole specimens are categorised into nine groups defined by surviving anatomical parts (fig. 8): the head (5 figurines); head and torso (3); torso and body (4); torso, body and legs (26); legs (13); feet and base (17); torso, body, legs, feet and base (6); head, torso, body and legs (5); and whole figurines (4). The second concern regards the predominance of the 68 Venus figurines that undoubtedly bias the validity of general trends identifiable among the deity group. To combat this an exclusive assessment of Venus figurines has additionally been conducted to highlight refined fragmentation patterns among this assemblage, with figurines categorised into similar anatomical groups: the head (2 figurines); head and torso (2); torso and body (2); torso, body and legs (25); legs (13); feet and base (14); torso, body, legs, feet and base (1); head, torso, body and legs (5); and whole Venus figurines (4).

Fig. 8. Pipe-clay figurine fragmentation types.

fig. 9 demonstrates that torso/body/leg fragments, or those figurines missing the head and feet, and thus broken in areas considered the weakest anatomical points most susceptible to deliberate and/or accidental breakage, are commonly associated with Venus figurines. Other prominent categories include leg and feet/base fragments, while the head, head/torso, torso/body and torso/body/legs/feet/base fragment groups are relatively uncommon. Grouping fragment types into broader categories also highlights some additional trends. For instance, mid-to-lower body fragments are the most numerous compared with those upper body and almost complete specimens, the latter of which may have continued to circulate and/or were deposited elsewhere, particularly in burials. It is possible that mid-to-lower body parts are more common because they were important objects associated with fertility which were curated and carefully deposited. On the other hand, perhaps upper body parts and heads were more important and were thus not discarded as rubbish. Although it is difficult to tell, the majority of fragments recovered from rubbish contexts in London indicate that the latter scenario was more likely the case. Thus, this analysis demonstrates that Venus figurines were used more than any other deity figurine for fragmentation practices (although this is, of course, also a reflection of the numerical dominance of this type) and were one of the few figurine types maintained as whole specimens for use during burial practices; the only other example is the complete Risus figurine from the disturbed mass cremation burial at Liverpool Street. The other interesting observation is that all the near-complete figurines of Dea Nutrix are broken at the neck (the most fragile/breakable part of this type), perhaps indicating that their heads remained in circulation and/or were deposited for an alternative purpose.

Fig. 9. (a) Fragmentation profile of deity figurine assemblage (total = 83 figurines); (b) Fragmentation profile of Venus figurine assemblage (total = 68 figurines).

The fragmentation profile of Venus figurines from London can be compared with similar patterns identifiable among other collections to further explore the nature of this social practice throughout Western Europe (fig. 10). Unfortunately a study of the wider material from Britain is not yet possible due to the very limited collection of illustrated evidence provided by Jenkins.Footnote 85 However, continental collections are much more informative. It is important to note at this point that the usefulness of such an approach is limited by two factors. The first regards the fact that the continental assemblages are primarily museum collections which tend to have a bias towards complete rather than fragmented artefacts. The second is the relative lack of illustrated examples available from which to assess continental material, with this including only 145 of the 275 finds from central-southern, and 81 of the 136 figurines recovered from eastern, Gaul.Footnote 86 Nevertheless, analysis of the available material still provides a number of interesting observations. For instance, the figurines from central-southern Gaul include a much higher proportion of upper-to-mid body fragments than the eastern collection, as well as a lower proportion of mid-to-lower fragments and a higher quantity of almost-complete, whole figurines than the material from London. Conversely, Gonzenbach's eastern collection features far fewer mid-to-lower fragments and a much higher proportion of almost-complete, whole figurines than the other assemblages, as well as a distinctly larger proportion of upper-to-mid fragments than the London collection. Although requiring verification from a survey of additional material, these patterns possibly indicate that fragmentation practices varied between different provincial regions.

Fig. 10. Fragmentation profiles of London and continental figurine assemblages.

It is very difficult to determine the precise function and social significance of the fragmented figurines from Roman London, yet similar material recovered from elsewhere in Britain highlights the potential importance of the practice. For example, a small assemblage of 16 similarly broken pipe-clay figurines from the canabae at Caerleon has recently been interpreted as ex votos possibly linked with ritual healing and medicinal practices.Footnote 87 With this in mind, it is possible that the prominence of mid-to-lower Venus figurine fragments from London could be inherently connected with the iconography of the goddess and reflect a healing or fertility ritual whereby the broken parts represent areas of the body requiring the care of the gods, or some alternative practice associated with encouraging the economic and social prosperity of the settlement. Indeed, perhaps they are the more humble reflections of those deliberately made body parts sometimes recovered from shrines and temples.Footnote 88 However, when considering these options it is important to remember that the fragmentation of stone and bronze statuary, with selection of their individual limbs, often contrasts with the character of pipe-clay figurines, where arms are attached to the torso and legs are held together as a single piece, which could reflect a completely different type of ritual activity or at least some variation of the ex-voto practice, potentially by those inhabitants who were unable to afford figurines made of more expensive materials. At the same time, the distinctive lack of heads from the collection could well be associated with the cult of the Head that was prevalent in the city throughout the first and second centuries.Footnote 89 If heads were retained for such a purpose it is difficult to account for their relative scarcity, although it is possible that they were deposited somewhere not accessible archaeologically, such as in the Thames, where they eroded and/or were washed away. Whatever the case it is still worth recording these interesting proportions.

There is now clearly a need to assess fragmentation practices across Roman Britain and the North-Western provinces to further test these tentative patterns.

CONCLUSION

This study presents the first typological catalogue of 168 pipe-clay figurines recovered from Roman London. Categorising the assemblage from the settlement reveals interesting patterns of consumption, demonstrating that deities are the most common figurine type. Of these, Venus figurines are the most common, with those of Type 2 being the most numerous of the four types identified, whereas depictions of other deities such as Dea Nutrix, Minerva, Diana/Luna and Juno and other animal and human figurines are less common. Comparing this assemblage with continental collections shows that this higher proportion of deities and the lower proportion of animal and human figurines corresponds with the wider trend throughout Europe, although the continental assemblages generally feature a greater variety of animal and human types than the British material. On the other hand, the recovery of extremely rare figurine types such as Juno, Diana/Luna, the gladiator, panther and lizard indicates a unique pattern of consumption within Roman London compared with broader patterns identified throughout the remainder of Britain and mainland Europe.

The study of the spatial and social distribution of pipe-clay figurine usage throughout Roman London identifies that these objects are associated with particular types of site and deposit. The 76 finds from habitation sites are widely distributed across the settlement and come from pit, ditch and landfill rubbish and construction deposits, a number of which could be ritually significant; while the 28 figurines from levelling and/or natural fill deposits on trade sites located within the port area probably represent discarded imported goods rather than overtly ritual practices. On the other hand, the nine finds from religious contexts indicate that a small proportion of figurines were being incorporated into ritual practices and/or deposited as special grave goods, perhaps even heirlooms, associated with children during high-status funerary rituals from the third century.

Finally, a fragmentation analysis identifies that, other than in burial contexts, pipe-clay figurines are often only partially preserved. This may be the result of ‘natural’ breakage at structurally weak points but detailed analysis shows some subtle patterns which may provide new and important information about religious belief and the nature of ritual practices conducted in the settlement. This initial study indicates that figurines were intentionally broken into fragments resembling particular morphological body parts prior to their deposition and that other fragments remained in circulation and/or were discarded or deposited elsewhere, possibly as part of an alternative practice. A detailed study of Venus figurines also highlights the prominent mid-to-lower body fragmentation profile of this particular group and the notable absence of head fragments, while a comparison with the fragmentation profiles of continental assemblages reveals varied patterns and the possible suggestion of different cultural practices.

Future work on pipe-clay figurines in Britain should further help our understanding of the complex character of religious life in the province and provide important information about British-Romano cultural identities.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would especially like to thank my PhD supervisor Dr Hella Eckardt for first directing me towards this material, her comments on this article and her continuing support. Thanks are also due to Professor Michael Fulford for reading an earlier version of this paper. I would like to thank Caroline McDonald and Richard Dabb from the Museum of London who granted me access to the collection of figurines and gave permission to reproduce images, as well as Michael Marshall of Museum of London Archaeology and Dan Nesbitt from the Museum of London Archaeological Archive and Research Centre who provided further collections and additional materials. Gratitude is also extended to Peter Rowsome and David Bowsher (MoLA) for granting permission to reproduce the maps and the two anonymous referees whose comments and recommendations undoubtedly improved the final piece.

Footnotes

3 e.g. Bidwell Reference Bidwell1980, 81, figs 45–6; Green Reference Green1998, 145–8, nos 1–3d, fig. 17; Fulford and Timby Reference Fulford and Timby2000, 134, figs 185–186.3; Wilson Reference Wilson2002, 200, nos 2–6, fig. 237; Rushworth Reference Rushworth2009, 475–6, nos 531–3; Crummy Reference Crummy and Fulford2012, 115, fig. 7.10.1.

5 Jenkins Reference Jenkins1977; but also see Jenkins Reference Jenkins1957; Reference Jenkins1958; Green Reference Green1976, 264–5, pl. IIe, 268–9, pl. IVh, 272–3, pl. VIb, 274–5, pl. VIIg, 286–91, pls XIIIf–h, XIVf and XVa, 298–9, pl. XIXa, 302–3, pl. XXIe and g, 318–19, pl. XXIXg; and Green Reference Green1978, pls 36–44 for catalogues of pipe-clay figurines recovered from urban and military sites in Britain by the late 1970s.

6 This study is based on the author's MA dissertation conducted at the University of Reading from 2012–13.

7 Higgins Reference Higgins, Strong and Brown1976, 105–9; Jenkins Reference Jenkins1977, 13–17; Bailey Reference Bailey and Henig1983, 191–9; but without conducting clay analysis it is difficult to attribute specific figurines to particular workshops: e.g. Bémont et al. Reference Bémont, Rouvier-Jeanlin and Lahanier1993, 16–93; Eckardt Reference Eckardt1999, 60.

8 Rouvier-Jeanlin Reference Rouvier-Jeanlin1972, 91–405.

9 Jenkins Reference Jenkins1977, 280–416; Gonzenbach Reference Gonzenbach1986, 15–82; Reference Gonzenbach1995, 85–285; Beenhouwer Reference Beenhouwer2005, 337–803.

10 Rouvier-Jeanlin Reference Rouvier-Jeanlin1972, 91–120; Gonzenbach Reference Gonzenbach1995, 101–13.

11 Green Reference Green1986, 88–9, 94–5.

12 Green Reference Green1986, 186.

13 Rouvier-Jeanlin Reference Rouvier-Jeanlin1972, 225–400.

14 Gonzenbach Reference Gonzenbach1995, 101–13; Beenhouwer Reference Beenhouwer2005, 426–82.

15 Rouvier-Jeanlin Reference Rouvier-Jeanlin1972, 192–201; Jenkins Reference Jenkins1977, 356–9; Gonzenbach Reference Gonzenbach1995, 94–5; Beenhouwer Reference Beenhouwer2005, 402–4.

16 Rouvier-Jeanlin Reference Rouvier-Jeanlin1972, 206–21; Jenkins Reference Jenkins1977, 369, 485; Gonzenbach Reference Gonzenbach1995, 133–4, 137–42.

17 Rouvier-Jeanlin Reference Rouvier-Jeanlin1972, 325–400; Jenkins Reference Jenkins1977, 395–409; Gonzenbach Reference Gonzenbach1995, 222–68.

18 Rouvier-Jeanlin Reference Rouvier-Jeanlin1972, 225–323; Jenkins Reference Jenkins1977, 371–394; Gonzenbach Reference Gonzenbach1995, 143–88.

19 Jenkins Reference Jenkins1977, 213.

21 Beenhouwer Reference Beenhouwer2005, 396–9.

23 Rouvier-Jeanlin Reference Rouvier-Jeanlin1972, 358, 363.

24 Gonzenbach Reference Gonzenbach1995, 174–5.

25 Beenhouwer Reference Beenhouwer2005, 631.

26 Milne and Wardle Reference Milne and Wardle1993, 89.

27 Rouvier-Jeanlin Reference Rouvier-Jeanlin1972, 362.

28 Bird Reference Bird1996, 121–2.

29 Hall and Wardle Reference Hall, Wardle and Crummy2005, 176, no. 13, fig. 3, 177, nos 14–16, fig. 5.

30 Durham Reference Durham2010, 305–37; see also Durham Reference Durham2012 and Reference Durham2014 for further discussion of metal figurines.

32 Durham Reference Durham2010, 329, fig. 115.

34 Eckardt Reference Eckardt2002, 91–2, fig. 41b.

36 Merrifield Reference Merrifield1995, 38.

37 Penn Reference Penn1964, 172, 187, fig. 5, no. 12, 188, no. 1; Green Reference Green1986, 95, 165.

40 Hill and Rowsome Reference Hill and Rowsome2011, 152; Rayner et al. Reference Rayner, Wardle and Seeley2011, 407; Wardle Reference Wardle2011, 347.

41 Howe and Lakin Reference Howe and Lakin2004, 44, 121.

42 Clarke and Jones Reference Clarke and Jones1994; Cool and Philo Reference Cool and Philo1998, 362; Ferris et al. Reference Ferris, Bevan and Cuttler2000; Murphy et al. Reference Murphy, Albarella, Germany and Locker2000. Also see Hill Reference Hill1995 for a general theoretical discussion.

43 Drummond-Murray et al. Reference Drummond-Murray, Thompson and Cowan2002, 217; Hammer Reference Hammer2003, 113–14.

44 Tatton-Brown Reference Tatton-Brown1974, 189; Miller et al. Reference Miller, Schofield and Rhodes1986, 32, 49–50.

47 Brigham and Woodger Reference Brigham and Woodger2001, 27; Wardle Reference Wardle2001, 97.

48 Hammer Reference Hammer2003, 114–15; Wardle Reference Wardle2003, 174.

49 Shepherd Reference Shepherd1998, 111.

50 Perring Reference Perring1991, 104–5; Shepherd Reference Shepherd1998, 221–2.

52 e.g. Cool Reference Cool2004, 400–1.

56 Richmond Reference Richmond1962, 62.

57 Green Reference Green1993, 196; Crummy Reference Crummy2010, 51.

59 Green Reference Green1986, 94–5; Crummy Reference Crummy2010, 69.

61 e.g. Jenkins Reference Jenkins1957, 44; Rook Reference Rook1968; Reference Rook1973, 3; Stead and Rigby Reference Stead and Rigby1986, 169; Taylor Reference Taylor1997; Burleigh et al. Reference Burleigh, Fitzpatrick-Matthews and Aldhouse-Green2006; although see Alcock Reference Alcock1981, 50–1 for instances of adult pipe-clay figurine burials in Britain.

62 Eckardt Reference Eckardt1999, 60–6.

63 Duhig Reference Duhig1993, 201–2; Green Reference Green1993, 194–201.

64 Crummy Reference Crummy2010, 65.

65 Following the general distributional bias of figurines identified by Green Reference Green1976, fig. 14 and Burleigh et al. Reference Burleigh, Fitzpatrick-Matthews and Aldhouse-Green2006, 286.

66 Conheeney Reference Conheeney2000, 277–97.

67 Barber and Bowsher Reference Barber and Bowsher2000, 325.

69 Taylor Reference Taylor1997, 386–7, 393; Eckardt Reference Eckardt1999, 66–78.

70 Taylor Reference Taylor1993, 207–8.

71 Arrington: Taylor Reference Taylor1993, 193–4, 203–8; Baldock: Burleigh et al. Reference Burleigh, Fitzpatrick-Matthews and Aldhouse-Green2006, 278–83; Colchester: Eckardt Reference Eckardt1999, 66–78; Godmanchester: Taylor Reference Taylor1997, 386–8; London: Wardle et al. Reference Barber and Bowsher2000, 186–9.

72 Barber and Bowsher Reference Barber and Bowsher2000, 310.

73 Barber and Bowsher Reference Barber and Bowsher2000, 316.

74 Taylor Reference Taylor1993, 208.

75 Alcock Reference Alcock1981, 59, 61–2, 64–5; Philpott Reference Philpott1991, 53–7, 99; Pearce Reference Pearce2013, 147–50.

76 Brittain and Harris Reference Brittain and Harris2010, 581.

78 Differentiating deliberate and accidental fragmentation practices from the archaeological record remains a topic of considerable debate. Bailey Reference Bailey2001, Reference Bailey2005, Milisauskas Reference Milisauskas2002, Brúck Reference Brúck2006 and Chapman and Gaydarska Reference Chapman and Gaydarska2007, 4–8 provide general overviews of theoretical research in this field, while Hamilton et al. Reference Hamilton, Marcus, Bailey, Haaland, Haaland and Ucko1996, Marangou Reference Marangou and Papathanassopoulos1996, Nanoglou Reference Nanoglou2005, Gheorghiu Reference Gheorghiu, Monah, Dumitroaia, Chapman and Weller2006 and Chapman and Priestman 2007 (in Chapman and Gaydarska Reference Chapman and Gaydarska2007, 7–8) have conducted supplementary studies concentrating on terracotta figurines in particular.

79 Nanoglou Reference Nanoglou2006, 173.

80 Chapman and Gaydarska Reference Chapman and Gaydarska2007, 57–70.

81 Ferris Reference Ferris2012, 61–4.

84 e.g. Chapman and Gaydarska Reference Chapman and Gaydarska2007, 62–4.

87 Evans Reference Evans2000, 299–302; Ferris Reference Ferris2012, 121.

88 e.g. Penn Reference Penn1964, 185, nos 7 and 14, pl. IA and IB; Woodward and Leach Reference Woodward and Leach1993, 100, nos 7–9, 101, fig. 88, nos 7–9, 107, no. 1, 108, fig. 94, no. 1.

89 Cotton Reference Cotton1996, 87–91.

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alcock, J.P. 1981: ‘Classical religious belief and burial practice in Roman Britain’, Archaeological Journal 137, 5085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allain, J., Fauduet, I., and Tuffreau-Libre, M. (eds) 1992: La nécropole gallo-romaine du “Champs de l'Image” à Argentomagus (Saint-Marcel, Indre), Mémoire du Musée d'Argentomagus 1, Revue Archéologique Centre France supplément 3, Saint-MarcelGoogle Scholar
Bailey, D. 1983: ‘Terracotta revetments, figurines and lamps’, in Henig, M. (ed.), A Handbook of Roman Art: A Survey of the Visual Arts of the Roman World, London, 191204Google Scholar
Bailey, D. 2001: ‘Review of J. Chapman: Fragmentation in archaeology: people, places and broken objects in the prehistory of South-Eastern Europe’, American Anthropologist 103, 1181–2Google Scholar
Bailey, D. 2005: Prehistoric Figurines. Representation and Corporeality in the Neolithic, London/New YorkGoogle Scholar
Barber, B., and Bowsher, D. 2000: The Eastern Cemetery of Roman London: Excavations 1983–90, MoL Monograph 4, LondonGoogle Scholar
Barber, B., Bowsher, D., and Whittaker, K. 1990: ‘Recent excavations of a cemetery of Londinium’, Britannia 21, 112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beenhouwer, J. 2005: De Gallo-Romeinse Terracottastatuetten van Belgische Vindplaatsen in het Ruimer Kader van de Noordwest-Europese Terracotta-Industrie, LeuvenGoogle Scholar
Bémont, C., Rouvier-Jeanlin, M., and Lahanier, C. (eds) 1993: Les Figurines en terre cuite gallo-romaines, Documents d'Archéologie Française 38, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertrand, A. 1863: ‘Les découvertes de Vichy’, Bulletin de la Société d'Emulation du Département de l'Allier VIII, 321–2Google Scholar
Bertrand, A. 1865: ‘Exploration archéologique de la rive droite de l'Allier’, Bulletin de la Société d'Emulation du Département de l'Allier IX, 321–59Google Scholar
Bertrand, A. 1895: ‘Découverte de ruines antiques à Moulins’, Bulletin de la Société d'Emulation et des Beaux-Arts du Département du Bourbonnais III, 146Google Scholar
Bidwell, P.T. 1980: Roman Exeter Fortress and Town, ExeterGoogle Scholar
Bird, J. 1996: ‘Frogs from the Walbrook: a cult pot and its attribution’, in Bird et al. 1996, 119–27Google Scholar
Bird, J., Hassall, J., and Sheldon, H. (eds) 1996: Interpreting Roman London, Oxbow Monograph 58, OxfordGoogle Scholar
Blanchet, A. 1891: ‘Etude sur les figurines en terre-cuite de la Gaule romaine’, Mémoires de la Société Nationale des Antiquaires de France 41, 65224Google Scholar
Boekel, G.M.E.C. van 1983: ‘Roman terracotta figurines and masks from the Netherlands’, Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 33, 197359Google Scholar
Boekel, G.M.E.C. van 1984: ‘Provincial-Romeinse terracottabeeldjes in Noordwest-Europa’, Westerheem 33, 103–15Google Scholar
Boekel, G.M.E.C. van 1985: ‘Roman terracotta figurines and masks from the Netherlands’, Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 35, 15230Google Scholar
Boekel, G.M.E.C. van 1986: ‘Roman terracotta figurines and masks from the Netherlands’, Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 36, 25404Google Scholar
Boekel, G.M.E.C. van 1993: ‘Terres cuites du Centre dans les Pays-Bas, le Luxembourg et la Grande-Bretagne’, in Bémont et al. 1993, 240–52Google Scholar
Brigham, T. 1990: ‘The late Roman waterfront in London’, Britannia 21, 99183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brigham, T. 1998: ‘The port of Roman London’, in Watson 1998, 23–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brigham, T., and Woodger, A. 2001: Roman and Medieval Townhouses on the London Waterfront: Excavations at Governor's House, City of London, MoL Archaeology Service Series 9, LondonGoogle Scholar
Brittain, M., and Harris, O. 2010: ‘Enchaining arguments and fragmenting assumptions: reconsidering the fragmentation debate in archaeology’, World Archaeology 42, 581–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brúck, J. 2006: ‘Fragmentation, personhood and the social construction of technology in Middle and Late Bronze Age Britain’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 16, 297315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burleigh, G., Fitzpatrick-Matthews, K., and Aldhouse-Green, M.J. 2006: ‘A Dea Nutrix figurine from a Romano-British cemetery at Baldock, Hertfordshire’, Britannia 37, 273–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, J. 2000: Fragmentation in Archaeology: People, Places and Broken Objects in the Prehistory of South-Eastern Europe, LondonGoogle Scholar
Chapman, J. 2007: ‘Integrating fragmentation into landscape archaeology’, in Popova, L.M., Hartley, C.W. and Smith, A.T. (eds), Social Orders and Social Landscapes, Newcastle, 5594Google Scholar
Chapman, J. 2008: ‘Object fragmentation and past landscapes’, in David, B. and Thomas, J. (eds), Handbook of Landscape Archaeology, Walnut Creek, CA, 187201Google Scholar
Chapman, J., and Gaydarska, B. 2007: Parts and Wholes: Fragmentation in Prehistoric Context, OxfordGoogle Scholar
Clarke, S., and Jones, R.F.J. 1994: ‘The Newstead pits’, Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 5, 109–24Google Scholar
Conheeney, J. 2000: ‘Inhumation burials’, in Barber and Bowsher 2000, 277–97Google Scholar
Cool, H. 2004: The Roman Cemetery at Brougham, Cumbria; Excavations 1966–67, Britannia Monograph 21, LondonGoogle Scholar
Cool, H., and Philo, C. 1998: Roman Castleford Excavations 1974–85. Volume I: The Small Finds, WakefieldGoogle Scholar
Cotton, J. 1996: ‘A miniature chalk head from the Thames at Battersea and the “Cult of the Head” in Roman London’, in Bird et al. 1996, 85–96Google Scholar
Cowan, C. 2003: Urban Development in North-West Southwark: Excavations 1974–90, MoL Archaeology Service Series 16, LondonGoogle Scholar
Croxford, B. 2003: ‘Iconoclasm in Roman Britain?Britannia 34, 8195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crummy, N. 2010: ‘The iconography of protection in late Roman infant burials’, Britannia 41, 3793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crummy, N. 2012: ‘The small finds assemblage from Silchester's Insula IX’, in Fulford, M. (ed.), Silchester and the Study of Romano-British Urbanism, JRA Supplementary Series 90, Portsmouth, RI, 105–26Google Scholar
Drummond-Murray, J., Thompson, P., and Cowan, C. 2002: Settlement in Roman Southwark: Archaeological Excavations 1991–8 for the London Underground Limited Jubilee Line Extension Project, MoL Archaeology Service Series 12, LondonGoogle Scholar
Duhig, D. 1993: ‘The skeleton’, in Taylor 1993, 201–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durham, E. 2010: Metal Figurines in Roman Britain Volumes 1 & 2, unpub. PhD thesis, University of ReadingGoogle Scholar
Durham, E. 2012: ‘Depicting the gods: metal figurines in Roman Britain’, Internet Archaeology 31, http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue31/durham_index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Durham, E. 2014: ‘Style and substance: some metal figurines from South-West Britain’, Britannia 45, 195221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckardt, H. 1999: ‘The Colchester child's grave’, Britannia 30, 5790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckardt, H. 2002: Illuminating Roman Britain, Monographies Instrumentum 23, MontagnacGoogle Scholar
Eckardt, H. 2005: ‘The social distribution of Roman artefacts: the case of nail-cleaners and brooches in Britain’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 18, 139–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esmonnot, L. 1856–58: ‘Rapport sur les objets trouvés dans les fouilles à Toulon-sur-Allier’, Allier 6, 3347Google Scholar
Evans, E. 2000: The Caerleon Canabae: Excavations in the Civil Settlement 1984–1990, Britannia Monograph 16, LondonGoogle Scholar
Ferris, I. 2012: Roman Britain Through Its Objects, StroudGoogle Scholar
Ferris, I., Bevan, L., and Cuttler, R. 2000: The Excavation of a British-Romano Shrine at Orton's Pasture, Rocester, Staffordshire, BAR British Series 314, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulford, M., and Timby, J. 2000: Late Iron Age and Roman Silchester: Excavations on the Site of the Forum-Basilica, 1977, 1980–86, Britannia Monograph 15, LondonGoogle Scholar
Gheorghiu, D. 2006: ‘The controlled fragmentation of anthropomorphic figurines’, in Monah, D., Dumitroaia, Gh., Chapman, J. and Weller, O. (eds), Cucuteni. 120 de ani Ceretâri, Piatra Neamt, 137–44Google Scholar
Gonzenbach, V. von 1986: Die römischen Terracotten in der Schweiz: Untersuchungen zu Zeitstellung,Typologie und Ursprung der mittelgallischen Tonstatuetten, Band B, BernGoogle Scholar
Gonzenbach, V. von 1995: Die römischen Terracotten in der Schweiz: Untersuchungen zu Zeitstellung,Typologie und Ursprung der mittelgallischen Tonstatuetten, Band A, BernGoogle Scholar
Green, M. 1976: A Corpus of Religious Material from the Civilian Areas of Roman Britain, BAR British Series 24, OxfordGoogle Scholar
Green, M. 1978: Small Cult-Objects from the Military Areas of Roman Britain, BAR British Series 52, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, M. 1986: The Gods of the Celts, StroudGoogle Scholar
Green, M. 1993: ‘The pipe-clay figurines’, in Taylor 1993, 194–201Google Scholar
Green, M. 1998: ‘The pipe-clay figurines,’ in P.J. Casey and B. Hoffmann, ‘Rescue excavations in the “Vicus” of the fort at Greta Bridge, Co. Durham 1972–4’, Britannia 29, 145–8Google Scholar
Hall, J., and Wardle, A. 2005: ‘Dedicated followers of fashion? Decorative bone hairpins from Roman London’, in Crummy, N. (ed.), Image, Craft and the Classical World: Essays in Honor of Donald Bailey and Catherine Johns, Monographies Instrumentum 29, Montagnac, 173–9Google Scholar
Hamilton, N., Marcus, J., Bailey, D., Haaland, G., Haaland, R., and Ucko, P. 1996: ‘Can we interpret figurines?Cambridge Archaeological Journal 6, 285–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammer, F. 2003: Industry in North-West Roman Southwark: Excavations 1984–8, MoL Archaeology Service Monograph 17, LondonGoogle Scholar
Higgins, R. 1976: ‘Terracottas’, in Strong, D. and Brown, D. (eds), Roman Crafts, London, 105–9Google Scholar
Hill, J.D. 1995: Ritual and Rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex: A Study on the Formation of a Specific Archaeological Record, OxfordGoogle Scholar
Hill, J., and Rowsome, P. 2011: Roman London and the Walbrook Stream Crossing: Excavations at 1 Poultry and Vicinity, City of London Parts 1/2, MoL Archaeology Service Monograph 37, LondonGoogle Scholar
Howe, E., and Lakin, D. 2004: Roman and Medieval Cripplegate, City of London: Archaeological Excavations 1992–8, MoL Archaeology Service Monograph 21, LondonGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, F. 1957: ‘The cult of the Dea Nutrix in Kent’, Archaeologia Cantiana 71, 3846Google Scholar
Jenkins, F. 1958: ‘The cult of the “Pseudo-Venus” in Kent’, Archaeologia Cantiana 72, 6076Google Scholar
Jenkins, F. 1977: Clay Statuettes of the Roman Western Provinces, unpub. PhD thesis, University of KentGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, F. 1978: ‘Some interesting types of clay statuettes of the Roman period found in London’, in Bird, J., Chapman, H. and Clark, J. (eds), Collectanea Londiniensia: Studies in London Archaeology and History Presented to Ralph Merrifield, London, 149–62Google Scholar
Marangou, C. 1996: ‘Figurines and models’, in Papathanassopoulos, G. (ed.), Neolithic Culture in Greece, Athens, 146–51Google Scholar
McIsaac, W. 1974: ‘Roman coarse pottery’, in Tatton-Brown 1974, 155–79Google Scholar
Merrifield, R. 1977: ‘Art and religion in Roman London – an inquest on the sculptures of Londinium’, in Munby, J. and Henig, M. (eds), Roman Life and Art in Britain: A Celebration in Honour of the Eightieth Birthday of Joycelyn Toynbee, BAR Series 41, Oxford, 375406Google Scholar
Merrifield, R. 1987: The Archaeology of Ritual and Magic, LondonGoogle Scholar
Merrifield, R. 1995: ‘Roman metalwork from the Walbrook – rubbish, ritual or redundancy?Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society 46, 2744Google Scholar
Milisauskas, S. 2002: ‘Interpretations and narratives of the Neolithic of southeast Europe’, Antiquity 76, 887–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, M., Schofield, J., and Rhodes, M. 1986: The Roman Quay at St. Magnus House, London: Excavations at New Fresh Wharf, Lower Thames Street, London 1974–78, London and Middlesex Archaeological Society Special Paper 8, LondonGoogle Scholar
Milne, G. 1985: The Port of Roman London, LondonGoogle Scholar
Milne, G., and Wardle, A. 1993: ‘Early Roman development at Leadenhall Court, London, and related research’, Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society 44, 23172Google Scholar
Monteil, G. 2004: ‘Samian and consumer choice in Roman London’, in Croxford, B., Eckardt, H., Meade, J. and Weekes, J. (eds), TRAC: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference Leicester 2003, Oxford, 115Google Scholar
Murphy, P., Albarella, U., Germany, M., and Locker, A. 2000: ‘Production, imports and status: biological remains from a late Roman farm at Great Holts Farm, Essex’, Environmental Archaeology 5, 3548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nanoglou, S. 2005: ‘Subjectivity and material culture in Thessaly, Greece: the case of Neolithic anthropomorphic imagery’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 15, 141–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nanoglou, S. 2006: ‘Regional perspectives on the Neolithic anthropomorphic imagery of northern Greece’, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 19.2, 155–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, J. 2013: Contextual Archaeology of Burial Practice: Case Studies from Roman Britain, BAR British Series 588, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penn, W.S. 1964: ‘Springhead: the temple ditch site’, Archaeologia Cantiana 79, 170–89Google Scholar
Perring, D. 1991: Roman London, GuildfordGoogle Scholar
Philpott, R. 1991: Burial Practices in Roman Britain: A Survey of Grave Treatment and Furnishing A.D. 43–410, BAR British Series 219, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Planson, E. (ed.) 1982: La Nécropole gallo-romaine les Bolards, Nuit-Saint-Georges, Editions du Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique, ParisGoogle Scholar
Rayner, L., Wardle, A., and Seeley, F. 2011: ‘Ritual and religion’, in Hill and Rowsome 2011, 404–8Google Scholar
Rever, M.F.G. 1826: ‘Extrait d'un mémoire sur quelques figurines antiques découvertes à Baux, département de l'Eure’, Société des Antiquaires de Normandi 3, 189205Google Scholar
Richardson, B. 1986: ‘Pottery’, in Miller et al. 1986, 96–9Google Scholar
Richmond, I.A. 1962: An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the City of York, I Eburacum, Roman York, British Archaeological Association 28, LondonGoogle Scholar
Rook, A.G. 1968: ‘The Romano-British cemetery at Welwyn; obit 1967’, Hertfordshire Past & Present 8, 32–7Google Scholar
Rook, A.G. 1973: ‘Excavations at the Grange Romano-British cemetery, Welwyn, 1967’, Hertfordshire Archaeology 3, 130Google Scholar
Rouvier-Jeanlin, M. 1972: Les Figurines gallo-romaines en terre cuite au Musée des Antiquités Nationales, Supplément à Gallia 24, ParisGoogle Scholar
Rowsome, P. 2008: ‘Mapping Roman London: identifying its urban patterns and interpreting their meaning’, in Clark, J., Cotton, J., Hall, J., Sherris, R. and Swain, H. (eds.), Londinium and Beyond: Essays on Roman London and its Hinterland for Harvey Sheldon, York, 2532Google Scholar
Rushworth, A. 2009: Housesteads Roman Fort – The Grandest Station: Volume 2: The Material Assemblages, SwindonGoogle Scholar
Sheldon, H. 2000: ‘Roman Southwark’, in Haynes, I., Sheldon, H. and Hannigan, L. (eds), London Under Ground: The Archaeology of a City, Oxford, 121–50Google Scholar
Shepherd, J.D. 1998: The Temple of Mithras, London: Excavations by W.F. Grimes and A. Williams at the Walbrook, English Heritage Archaeological Report 12, LondonGoogle Scholar
Stead, I.M., and Rigby, V. 1986: Baldock: the Excavation of a Roman and Pre-Roman Settlement, Britannia Monograph 7, LondonGoogle Scholar
Tatton-Brown, T. 1974: ‘Excavations at the Custom House site, City of London 1973’, Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society 25, 117219Google Scholar
Taylor, A. 1993: ‘A Roman lead coffin with pipeclay figurines from Arrington, Cambridgeshire’, Britannia 24, 191225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, A. 1997: ‘A Roman child burial with animal figurines and pottery, from Godmanchester, Cambridgeshire’, Britannia 28, 386–93Google Scholar
Tudot, E. 1860: Collection de figurines en argile: œuvres premières de l'art gaulois, avec les noms des céramistes qui les ont executes, ParisGoogle Scholar
Wardle, A. 2000: ‘Non-ceramic finds’, in Barber and Bowsher 2000, 348–55Google Scholar
Wardle, A. 2001: ‘The Roman finds’, in Brigham and Woodger 2001, 92–8Google Scholar
Wardle, A. 2003: ‘The accessioned finds’, in Cowan 2003, 150–93Google Scholar
Wardle, A. 2011: ‘Finds from the Walbrook deposits’, in Hill and Rowsome 2011, 329–49Google Scholar
Wardle, A., Shepherd, J., Symonds, R., Riddler, I., Lloyd-Morgan, G., and Hammerson, M. 2000: ‘Catalogue’, in Barber and Bowsher 2000, 142–263Google Scholar
Watson, B. (ed.) 1998: Roman London: Recent Archaeological Work Including Papers Given at a Seminar held at the Museum of London on 16 November 1996, JRA Supplementary Series 24, Portsmouth, RIGoogle Scholar
Westman, A. 1998: ‘Publishing Roman Southwark: new evidence from the archive’, in Watson 1998, 61–6Google Scholar
Wilson, P.R. 2002: Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its Hinterland: Excavations and Research 1958–1997, CBA Research Report 12, YorkGoogle Scholar
Woodward, A., and Leach, P.J. 1993: The Uley Shrines: Excavations of a Ritual Complex on West Hill, Uley, Gloucestershire 1977–1979, LondonGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. (a) Type 1 Venus figurine from Upper Thames Street; (b) Type 2 Venus figurine from Mansell Street. (Reproduced courtesy of Museum of London)

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Venus figurine garment designs.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Venus figurine hairstyle designs.

Figure 3

TABLE 1 VENUS FIGURINE HAIRSTYLE SUB-GROUPS FROM ROMAN LONDON

Figure 4

Fig. 4. (a) Type 2 Dea Nutrix figurine from Throgmorton Street; (b) Minerva figurine from Newgate Street; (c) Luna/Diana Lucifera figurine from Leadenhall Street; (d) Juno figurine from Mansell Street. (Reproduced courtesy of Museum of London)

Figure 5

Fig. 5. (a) Cockerel figurine from Bishopsgate; (b) Hen figurine from King William Street; (c) Risus figurine from Liverpool Street; (d) Gladiator figurine from Queen Street. (Reproduced courtesy of Museum of London)

Figure 6

Table 2 QUANTITIES OF DEITY, ANIMAL AND HUMAN FIGURINES FROM BRITISH AND CONTINENTAL ASSEMBLAGES

Figure 7

Fig. 6. Spatial distribution of pipe-clay figurines in Roman London (total = 163 figurines). (Base map adapted from Rowsome2008, 31, fig. 1.3.7; © MoLA)

Figure 8

Fig. 7. Spatial distribution of Venus figurines in Roman London (total = 81 figurines). (Base map adapted from Rowsome2008, 31, fig. 1.3.7; © MoLA)

Figure 9

Fig. 8. Pipe-clay figurine fragmentation types.

Figure 10

Fig. 9. (a) Fragmentation profile of deity figurine assemblage (total = 83 figurines); (b) Fragmentation profile of Venus figurine assemblage (total = 68 figurines).

Figure 11

Fig. 10. Fragmentation profiles of London and continental figurine assemblages.