No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Four Bronze Figurines from the Trinovantian Civitas
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 November 2011
Extract
In 1973, during excavation of the probable mansio (TL 709 062) by one of the writers (PJD), a small cast-bronze cockerel (ht 38 mm; PL. XVIII 1) was found in a context sealed by a rubble layer, laid down c. A.D. 150.
The bird is naturalistically rendered and well executed, with the detailed decoration, particularly pecking to indicate plumage, added after casting. The dome-shaped base retains part of a projection, indicating that the object was either fixed to a stand, or formed part of a larger composition.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © P. J. Drury and N. P. Wickenden 1982. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies
References
1 Full publication of the site is forthcoming in P. J. Drury, Chelmsford Excavation Committee Report III: The mansio and other sites in the south-eastern sector of Caesaromagus. For an interim publication of the figurine, see Pitts, L. F., Roman Bronze Figurines of the Catuvellauni and Trinovantes, BAR 60 (1979), 112, no. 293 and pl. 12. The figurine, with the other artefacts from the site, is now deposited in Chelmsford and Essex Museum (Acc. no.: 1978: 425)Google Scholar.
2 By Mr Tony Webber. The area around Fitzjohns has previously yielded much Romano-British material (for which see VCH, Essex iii (1963), 61), although the nature of the site is uncertain.
3 Acc. no.: 1979: 513. We are grateful to the Curator, Mr D. L. Jones, for bringing the object to our attention, and for permission to publish it here.
4 For another similarly executed example, recently discovered at Aston, Herts, see A. Rook and M. Henig, Antiq. Journ. forthcoming.
5 See, for example, Henig, M., ‘Fragments of a Stone Cult-Statue of Mercury from West Hill, Uley: An Interim Note’, in Temples, Churches and Religion: Recent Research in Roman Britain (ed. Rodwell, W. J.), BAR 77 i (1980), 321–5Google Scholar.
6 Wilson, D. R. in ‘Roman Britain in 1971’, Britannia 3 (1972), 329–30 and pl. xxvb, cGoogle Scholar.
7 Henig, M., Antiq. Journ. 58 (1978), 369 and pl. lxxiiGoogle Scholar.
8 A. Ellison in Rodwell (ed.), op. cit. (note 5), 305-20.
9 See, for example, a figure from the Thames at London Bridge, illustrated by M. Green, Theriomorphism and the Role of Divine Animals in Romano-British Cult Art’ in Roman Life and Art in Britain, eds. J. Munby and M. Henig, BAR 41, ii (1977), 297-326, pl. 12.1a and p. 301.
10 A. Ross, Pagan Celtic Britain (1967), 274-5.
11 Caesar, B.G. v. 12.
12 J. M. C. Toynbee, Animals in Roman Life and Art (1973), 257.
13 Green, M. J., Britannia 5 (1974), 381–3, p. 382CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14 M. Henig, A Corpus of Roman Engraved Gemstones from British Sites, BAR 8 (2nd edn., 1978), 268, nos. 677-84, and 315, nos. App. 182-5.
15 Green, M. J., The Religions of Civilian Roman Britain, BAR 24 (1976), 164–225Google Scholar.
16 Green, M. J., Small Cult Objects from the Military Areas of Roman Britain, BAR 52 (1978), 45–76, 86Google Scholar.
17 Hawkes, C. F. C. and Hull, M. R., Camulodunum, Soc. Antiq. Res. Rep. 14 (1947), 333 and pl. CGoogle Scholar.
18 Frere, S. S., Verulamium Excavations I, Soc. Antiq. Res. Rep. 28 (1972), 144 and fig. 49. 159Google Scholar.
19 We are very grateful to Mr Cuddeford for permission to include the object in this note, and to Mr D. L. Jones for bringing it to our attention.
20 See W. J. Rodwell in The Small Towns of Roman Britain, eds. W. J. Rodwell and R. T. Rowley, BAR 15 (1975), 85-101, esp. fig. 2; also Proc. Suffolk Inst. Arch. 27 (1958), 46.
21 We are grateful to B. T. Clarke of the Reptile Section of the British Museum (Natural History) for these comments.
22 For an example from Avenches, see Toynbee 1973, (op. cit. in note 12), 216-7 and pl. 114.
23 Frere 1972 (op. cit. in note 18), 122-3 and fig. 34.65; B. W. Cunliffe (ed.), Fifth Report of the Excavation of the Roman Fort at Richborough, Kent, Soc. Antiq. Res. Rep. 23 (1968), 101 and pl. 44.184.
24 Thouvenot, R., Catalogue des Figurines et objects de Bronze du Musee archeologique de Madrid: I, Bronzes Grecs et Romains (Paris, 1927), nos. 387–8Google Scholar.
25 Boucher, S., Bronzes Romains: Figurés du Musee des Beaux-Arts de Lyon (Lyon, 1973), no. 267Google Scholar.
26 Rolland, H., Bronzes Antiques de Haute Provence, 18th Supplement to Gallia (1965), no. 266.
27 ibid., no. 267, now lost.
28 Toynbee 1973, op. cit. in note 12, 216-17.
29 Pitts 1979, op. cit. in note I, 12-13.
30 R. E. M. and T. V. Wheeler, The Excavation of the Prehistoric, Roman and Post-Roman site in Lydney Park, Gloucestershire, Soc. Antiq. Res. Rep 9 (1932), 88 and pl. xxv.
31 cf. Pitts 1979, op. cit. in note 1, esp. 14-25.
32 ibid., 22.
33 For example, about a hundred figurines depicting a pseudo-Venus deity are listed by Green (op. cit. in note 15, esp. 20-1) from Britain alone: illustrations of a representative group (ibid., pls. xiii-xiv) demonstrate the close stylistic similarity of all of them.
34 For other material from the site, see Drury, P. J., Rodwell, W. J., and Wickenden, N. P., ‘Finds from the probable site of a Roman Villa at Dawes Heath, Thundersley, Essex’, Essex Arch. Hist., xiii (1981)Google Scholar. No coherent layout has emerged from the scatter of building debris encountered on the ground, or from air photography, but extensive masonry buildings seem to be indicated. The samian list begins in the pre-Flavian period, whilst among the later finds is a sherd of a Mayen ware jar (Fulford, M. and Bird, J., Britannia 6 (1975), 171–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar, fabric 1, type 4). The area is largely devoid of villas-for a distribution map and comments see P. J. Drury and W. J. Rodwell in Archaeology in Essex to A.D. 1500 (ed. D. G. Buckley), CBA Res. Rep. 34 (1980), 59-75, esp. p. 64 and fig. 61. We are grateful to Mrs Elizabeth Sorrell, in whose possession the object remains, for permission to publish it.
35 As on a plaque from Moorgate Street; see J. M. C. Toynbee in Collectanea Londiniensia, Essays presented to Ralph Merrifield (1978), 128-47. A recent spot-test of the metal has shown it to be a tin-lead alloy (information from Mrs Jenny Hall, Department of Prehistoric and Roman Antiquities, Museum of London).
36 T. Blagg, in C. Hill, M. Millett, and T. Blagg, The Roman Riverside Wall and Monumental Arch in London, LAMAS Special Paper 3 (1980), 169-71, fig. 93, pls. 50-2.
37 Merrifield, R. in Roman Life and Art in Britain (eds. Munby, J. and Henig, M.), BAR 41 (1977), 375–406Google Scholar, esp. 383-6. For another view, see Toynbee, J. M. C. in Current Archaeology 58 (1977), 350Google Scholar.
38 op. cit. in note 36, p. 171.
39 op. cit. in note 37, p. 384. For Cirencester, J. M. C. Toynbee, Art in Roman Britain (1962), 154-5, cat. 72 and pl. 76; Ancaster, Frere, S. S., Antiq. Journ. 41 (1961), 230–1 , pl. 41; Cologne, H. Schoppa, Römische Götterdenkmäler in Köln (1959), pl. 78; Trier, E. Espérandieu, Recueil des Bas-Reliefs, Statues et Bustes de la Gaule Romaine, vi, 4944, 5066; Luxembourg, ibid. v. 4270 (not 4720, pace Merrifield). Tim Ambrose, Gods and Goddesses of Roman Ancaster, Lincolnshire Museums information sheet, Archaeology Series no. 8 (Lincoln 1979), P. 2, has suggested that the animal on the Ancaster relief is ‘perhaps a piglet or a lamb’ rather than a dog (we owe this reference to T. F. C. Blagg)Google Scholar.
40 Espérandieu, op. cit. in note 39, xiv, 8403, very battered: found near the amphitheatre in 1938, and dated c. A.D. 50-75.
41 As does the position of the dog on her lap, rather than seated to one side: Hondius-Crone, A., The Temple of Nehalennia at Domburg (Amsterdam, 1955), esp. p. 102Google Scholar.
42 See note 39 above.
43 We are grateful to T. F. C. Blagg and M. Henig for their comments on a draft of this paper, although this does not necessarily imply their agreement with our conclusions.