A Scene of Damnatio Ad Bestias on a Key Handle from Leicester

Britannia 2021, page 1 of 16

Shorter Contributions

At Death’s Door: A Scene of Damnatio ad Bestias on a Key Handle from Leicester

By JOHN PEARCE, GAVIN SPEED and NICHOLAS J. COOPER

ABSTRACT

A decorated copper-alloy key handle was recovered during excavation of a town house in Roman Leicester (Ratae Corieltavorum). The decoration comprises two groups of figures modelled in high relief: a bearded, unarmed man fighting with a lion, arranged above four naked male youths embracing one another in a protective manner. This decoration cannot be paralleled among other similarly elaborate Roman key handles and is best interpreted as a scene of damnatio ad bestias, although it does not directly replicate other known scenes of this punishment and spectacle. Other readings of the image are possible, depending on the context and perspective of the viewer as they handled the object.

Keywords: Roman Leicester; key; lion; barbarian; damnatio ad bestias; amphitheatre; spectacle

INTRODUCTION

uring 2016–17, the largest archaeological excavation in Roman Leicester (Ratae Corieltavorum) for over a decade took place on the site of the former Stibbe and Maxim Building north of Friars Causeway, off Highcross Street (National Grid Reference SK 5826 0473), encompassing parts of D 1 three insulae in the northern part of the city (FIG.1). Undertaken by University of Leicester Archaeological Services (ULAS), the excavation revealed a complex of Roman town houses in insulae IXa and IXb, and part of the Roman theatre in insula XVI, to the south. Within a room of a large town house, beneath a later Roman floor surface, an unusually decorated, cast copper-alloy key handle (FIG.2) was excavated. The discovery extends the known types of elaborate Roman key handles bearing figural decoration and offers, we argue, a significant addition to the corpus of representations of damnatio ad bestias: the killing of captives and criminals as punishment and spectacle. It is novel both in terms of its composition and participants, and in its exploitation of a three-dimensional medium to enhance the drama and pathos of the scene. It is also one of a very small number of Roman key handles found in situ, within a documented stratigraphic context.

1 Lyons 2019, 432.

FIG. 1. Location of the Friars Causeway site within Leicester (G. Speed). (© ULAS)

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

The key handle comes from a room in the southern wing of a large town house. This high-status dwelling, built in the later second century, was over 40 m in length, and the main reception room contained the finest mosaic to be uncovered in Leicester in over 150 years (FIG.3).2 At the western end of the southern wing was a large square room adjacent to the street, which, during the fourth century, probably became a workshop. The

2 Lyons 2019, 432. SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS 3

FIG. 2. The Friars Causeway key handle after conservation (length 120 mm) (G. Speed). (© ULAS) earlier tessellated floor had become worn and was replaced by one of compacted mortar; the key handle was inserted into the top of the make-up layer in between (FIG.4). This layer contained fourth-century pottery, including Lower Nene Valley colour-coated ware bead-and-flange bowls and plain-rimmed dishes, and an Oxford red colour-coated ware mortarium; the latter tends not to occur in Leicester assemblages before the mid-fourth century.3 A coin of Constantine dated A.D. 330–35 was recovered from the layer overlying the mortar floor.

3 Young 1977, type C97; Howe et al. 1980, nos 79, 87. 4 SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS

FIG. 3. Mosaic pavement in main reception room of the town house (G. Speed). (© ULAS)

FIG. 4. The Friars Causeway key handle in situ (G. Speed). (© ULAS)

The handle was found in two (joining) pieces, with the hilt, with its calyx moulding, having been separated from the rest of the object (FIG.5). The iron shank of the key itself appears to have been deliberately sheared off before the object was placed in the ground, leaving the stub of a substantial SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS 5 square-sectioned tang emerging from the handle and continuing for perhaps about 50 mm into it. The main part of the handle lay on its side, whilst the hilt was found, nearly vertical, next to it, suggesting that the complete object was set upright in the substrate but then broke when the floor subsided.

FIG. 5. Pie-crust moulding forming the hilt of the key handle and showing sheared end of square shank (G. Speed). (© ULAS)

DESCRIPTION

When the two pieces are joined, the handle has a complete length of 120 mm and weighs 304 g. It tapers in width from the hilt to the tip and is slightly curved, so that it sits well in the palm of the hand; the rear of the figural composition is slightly flattened. The figures on the handle are cast in high relief and form two groups. Towards the tip, an adult human male, half naked and wide eyed, grapples with a male lion (FIG.6); below, four naked youths are arranged around the base of the handle, staring outwards but embracing one another in a protective manner (FIG.7). The following paragraphs first describe each group in turn and then consider how the scene may be interpreted. In the upper pair of man and lion, the former wears trousers and sandals but appears naked above the waist, although the creases on his left elbow, created by the pressure of the lion’s left foot above, may be suggestive of clothing rather than muscle (FIG.6). He stands with legs bent at the knee, one more than the other, and his outsized head turns to his right, away from the lion’s mouth. He sports a full beard and moustache, with individual strands differentiated, and his projecting eyeballs, with indented pupils, as well as his broad nose, are clearly rendered. His ‘leonine’ hair sweeps in corrugated ridges down to the back of his neck. Little of the torso detail is visible, whilst, at the waist, a broad leather belt or band of cloth supports the trousers, the existence of which is indicated by creases in the fabric across the thighs and buttocks. The trousers appear to extend to below the knee, but the lower shin and ankle on the right foot are exposed, the latter defined by the thick leather strap of the sandals curving below it. Regarding the sandals, the straps over the top of the right foot and behind the heel are most clearly distinguishable. The feet rest on the heads of two of the youths in the group beneath. Dress and facial features clearly identify the figure as a barbarian, though not of an easily recognisable ethnic type (see below). The lion’s upper body presses against the chest of the barbarian, while its lower body curves around his left side. Its head reaches upwards, a ridge extending from the brow to the tip of the nose, with eyes and ears clearly rendered. Teeth are just visible in the jaws, which open to bite the left side of the human’s head. The 6 SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS

FIG. 6. Upper half of the key handle showing rear and front of man and lion (G. Speed). (© ULAS)

tufted fur of the mane, arranged in rows of curving locks, spreads in high relief halfway down the creature’s back and down its left front leg. This leg reaches for the barbarian’s upper-right arm and ends in a rather hand-like paw. The thin front right leg crosses the human’s upper-left arm. On its lower back, the lion’s haunches are clearly modelled; its left back leg extends into the space beneath the barbarian, whilst the right leg claws upwards to find a purchase on the waistband or belt. The left haunch rests on the head of the right-hand youth (4) below, whilst the tail curls around the base of the human’s left leg and obscures his foot. The group below comprises four overlapping young, naked males (Youths 1–4) standing on a hemisphere above the devolved calyx moulding at the junction between the shank and handle; they stare outwards to the front and sides (FIG.7). The figures share clean-shaven youthful features, with disproportionately large heads, hands and feet, and relatively small torsos with limited indication of musculature. Their facial features are precisely modelled, with large eyeballs projecting from their sockets and pupils indented, prominent brows, broad noses, closed mouths with pursed lips and full cheeks. In all cases their abundant hair stands proud in separate large, loose curls; this is especially visible in the case of Youth 4. The hairstyle of Youth 3 differs a little from that of the others, since at the apex of the brow a top-knot-like curl seems to rise. The two youths (1 and 4) who flank the central, front-facing pair appear older, with larger heads and torsos; the right-hand one (Youth 4) extends a protective arm around the midriff of his younger neighbour (3). The left leg of Youth 3 is bent awkwardly to his right across Youth 2, with the foot resting on the lap of the seated Youth 1, who holds it in his hands. This suggests an arrangement of linked protective gestures afforded by the outer to the inner members of the group. SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS 7

FIG. 7. Lower half of the key handle: youths 1–4 from left to right (G. Speed). (© ULAS)

The description of individual figures begins with the seated Youth 1, on whose head rests the left foot of the man above him, and then proceeds to his left. Beneath Youth 1 is an arched moulding that is difficult to interpret (FIG.8) but is most logically read as the legs of a chair on which the youth sits. The seat of the chair is defined by a row of oblique, wavy incisions above the arch, probably representing wickerwork (FIG.7, left). Within the arch formed by the legs there is an arc of oblique slashes, perhaps again indicating wicker, framing a faintly incised central motif that resembles foliage. On this reading, only one leg of the chair is fully visible, the outer edge of which is straight and the inner one curved. This curve continues to form an arch that supports the seat and defines the inner edge of one of the rear legs of the chair. Alternatively, this feature might be read as an architectural detail, such as external arcading or the entrance to a public building. Only the right leg of Youth 1 is visible, his foot resting on a hemisphere which emerges from the calyx moulding at the joint with the shank. The left leg is hidden and may provide support for Youth 2, whose small feet appear to emerge below Youth 3 and dangle slightly above the hemisphere. Youth 2 stands, holding his right arm across his upper chest; on his head rests the right foot of the man fighting the lion above. The left side of his body is covered by Youth 3, who is the most prominent figure in the composition. His head is tilted to his right and his right hand holds a spherical object against his chest, perhaps a stone for defence. His right leg stands on the hemisphere below. Youth 4 emerges from behind Youth 3, with his extended protecting left arm parallel to and below Youth 3’s right arm, which holds the spherical object. The lower body of Youth 4 is twisted unnaturally to the left to expose his genitals and both legs, the right foot resting on the hemisphere and against the chair on which Youth 1 sits. The left buttock and lower back of Youth 4 press against the shoulder and back of seated Youth 1 as they stare in opposite directions, thus completing the circle. Stylistically, the composition echoes that of many bronze objects from Britain in its rather simplified and schematised modelling of human and animal anatomies.4

4 Durham 2012, 1.3. 8 SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS

FIG. 8. Hilt of handle showing (left) arched moulding forming legs of seat for Youth 1 and (right) detail of seat for Youth 1 (R. Small). (© ULAS)

PARALLELS AND INTERPRETATIONS

Lions are among the most common zoomorphic motifs to decorate Roman furniture and objects. The preference stems from the opportunities for textural difference offered by the mane and body, the striking modelling offered by the head and, above all, the apotropaic potential of the head or protome, which lent its prophylactic power to the object it decorated and to the activity during which it was used. Some objects with lion decoration are documented in recurring types, such as the fittings in lion-head form for the wooden caskets placed in some cremation burials in south-east England.5 Lion (-head) symbolism seems to have been especially favoured for decorating fittings for locks and doors; the finely modelled example recently excavated at Châteaumeillant (Cher), either a door or vehicle fitting, represents a spectacular instance of a wider phenomenon.6 Such fittings may exemplify the translation of leonine and related images onto smaller objects from larger media, for example the burial monuments on which stone lions may be paired as stele acroteria, perch on precinct corners or crown larger mausolea, or the sarcophagi where the lion’s aggression serves to counterpoint the virtus of its hunters.7 Whether large or small, the visible ferocity of the lion serves a usefully ambivalent purpose, being an apotropaic motif par excellence for protecting the integrity of the object or monument from which it glares as well as an embodiment of death’s unyielding embrace. The large key handles with complex decoration of the type exemplified by the Friars Causeway object are found in small numbers across Rome’s northern provinces. Stratified examples suggest a second- to third-century date, though most instances lack detailed contextual information, including several reported through the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS).8 Zoomorphic decoration on these handles is common and mostly comprises the heads and sometimes also the bodies of aggressive animals, including lions, wolves and horses. Sometimes these are the sole decoration, bursting from a calyx at the junction between the

5 Atkins and Popescu 2014, 245. 6 Krausz and Coulon 2015. 7 Monuments: Hunter 2003; sarcophagi: Birk 2013, 107–13. 8 Worrell 2010, 443–4; Crummy and Lodwick 2015. SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS 9 handle and the shank. Sometimes the composition also involves a subordinate figure, most often pairing a lion with a human or animal head in its mouth.9 Where these handles were made is not known; the variety of styles and motifs suggests the existence of more than one manufacturing centre, perhaps mainly concentrated in northern Gaul and the Rhineland.10 The stylistic affinities of the figures on the Leicester key handle might point (weakly) towards its having been made in Britain.11 The Leicester handle is significantly different from most examples carrying zoomorphic decoration, however, because of the form and complexity of its iconography, which shows a combat between a human and a lion rather than a lion with dismembered prey and comprises two discrete groups of figures rather than a single principal figure. Two key handles from Switzerland represent slightly closer parallels. On a 17.7 cm-long handle from Venthône, canton Valais, one of several bronzes in a likely structured deposit, a lion’s mouth envelops the head of a standing naked youth as it rests its paws on his shoulders. Unlike the Leicester figure the human has his back to the lion.12 On the second handle, from nearby Sierre, a panther holds an animal’s head in its jaws while a naked youth, facing away from the animal and having no direct connection with it, holds his hands above his head.13 Although the Leicester find shares the spirit of these handles, pairing an aggressive animal with a (vulnerable) human, its decoration lacks clearly analogous pieces. To make sense of the composition, it is necessary to compare it with images in other media (see below), although even then no single image provides the key to unlocking a single and unambiguous meaning for our object’s iconography. Nina Crummy and Mark Lodwick suggest that the combination of predatory animal and human on many key handles might have prompted their identification by a viewer as scenes of damnatio ad bestias: the execution of criminals and captives in the arena through mauling by wild animals.14 This seems especially apposite in this case, where such a scenario may be more directly evoked, with one such execution perhaps in progress and another anticipated. The most famous surviving representations of damnationes are those on mosaics from North Africa. These include well-known arena scenes on the borders of a pavement at Zliten in Libya, the panel showing the mise à mort by a bull of three victims at nearby Silin and the two surviving corners of an arena scene originally extending across an entire mosaic at the domus Sollertiana in El Djem/Thysdrus (Tunisia).15 A further partially published spectacle mosaic discovered at Wadi Lebda, Leptis Magna, includes the mauling by bears of naked humans who are seemingly fenced in with the animals and tied to posts.16 In these, and other scenes, attendants push or drag bound victims towards the animals who act as their executioners. In one instance from Zliten, and in both domus Sollertiana examples, the feline has already sprung on to its standing victim’s torso, as it has on the key handle. The apparent specificity of the victims’ features in some scenes, as well as the presence at Thysdrus of bears, discarded weapons from a hunt and a square podium or scaffold (catasta) in the middle of the mosaic with a trophy in each corner, have prompted Katherine Dunbabin and others cautiously to interpret the domus Sollertiana and Zliten scenes as showing the destruction of captives, perhaps of northern European origin in the former case and Saharan or sub-Saharan origin in the latter.17 One of the arena scenes in the cryptoporticus mosaic from the villa at Torrenuova on the via Casilina outside Rome, found in 1834 and now in the Galleria Borghese, also appears to show a heap of dead or dying damnati; they are distinguished from nearby fighting venatores by their uniform drab tunics and exposed postures. Their lifelessness is in keeping with the unrelenting emphasis of this mosaic on the deaths of spectacle participants in a likely munus sine missione.18 In similar fashion to the Zliten and Torrenuova mosaics, stone reliefs from Asia Minor portray execution by animals as components of wider

9 Worrell 2006, 439–40; 2010, 443–4, examples documented respectively from Winthorpe, Nottinghamshire, and Southwark, with references to earlier PAS finds; Crummy and Lodwick 2015, 123–4. 10 Crummy and Lodwick 2015, 122. 11 cf. Stewart 2010; Durham 2012, 1.3. 12 Leibundgut 1980, 123, no. 164, Taf. 154–5. 13 Leibundgut 1980, 126, no. 165, Taf. 155. 14 Vismara 1987; 1990 for an extensive collection of images; Wiedemann 1992,69–92; Epplett 2013b, 522–4; Crummy and Lodwick 2015, 124. 15 Dunbabin 2016, 189–92. 16 Musso et al. 2015, 308; Dunbabin 2016, 192–4. 17 Wiedemann 1992, 16, 82; Dunbabin 2016, 191, 201. 18 Dunbabin 2016, 205–17. 10 SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS spectacle scenes.19 The commonest damnatio scenes are, however, reproduced on portable media, particularly relief-moulded terra sigillata and African Red Slip Ware, as well as on the ceramic appliques made in the Rhône valley. In the ceramic scenes, the captives are typically tied to posts while one or more animals advance on them; the hand-carts on which they were wheeled towards their unmaking also occasionally feature, as on the mosaics.20 In other cases, the victims have been thrown by a bull or are in the act of being tossed.21 Unlike most of these damnatio scenes, however, the adult male assaulted by the lion on the Leicester key handle does not have bound hands and thus is able to fight the lion, which, perhaps deliberately, is rendered at less than life-size. In the first respect, a small figurine from Clifton Campville (Staffordshire), a PAS find, shows a pairing more similar in spirit to the Leicester find, though the human’s head is fully in the beast’s mouth.22 The belt of the Leicester adult figure, if rightly interpreted as such, also echoes the dress of some protagonists of beast combats, such as the armed figure, naked above the waist, on a Campana plaque from Rome who is under attack from both sides by big cats; another naked figure has already fallen victim to one of them in the same scene, as part of a group of figures whose status as performers or damnati is ambiguous.23 On a late antique marble relief from Serdica, animals fight a range of active combatants, some of whom appear unarmed.24 However, the absence of protective padding from the Leicester figure, and of weapons, speaks against it representing a skilled venator; instead, it seems more plausible to identify him as an execution victim with some limited capacity to fight back, due to the apparent lack of restraints.25 Some parallels to this can be noted. In this respect, for example, he resembles one of the Zliten mosaic figures, who is depicted naked save for a loincloth with his right hand across his abdomen and his left raised at the onrushing lion, towards whom he is propelled by a tunic-clad figure with a whip, or the unarmed figures among the combatants on a stone relief from Nysa.26 The Leicester figure also perhaps echoes the Part(h)u(s) on a second-century terra sigillata cup from Gaul, who is shown being attacked by two lions in one of several scenes likely showing Trajan’s victory games; his counterpart is ‘Decibalus’, who prepares to kill himself with a sword as animals approach.27 On the key handle the fearful state of the youthful figures, anticipating a violent demise, is signalled by their gestures and tangled poses. This grouping is very difficult to parallel, but it does display an echo in spirit, perhaps, with the tunic-clad figures on a stone relief from Sestinum, Umbria, who hold their hands raised in apparent terror at the emergence of a beast from a trapdoor or similar.28 The most striking characteristic of all the human participants is their likely barbarity. In particular, the adult male figure who fights the lion shows ‘barbarian’ traits seen on other portable objects from the northern provinces: for example, his bare torso, belted waist (or trousers rolled at the waist), trousers and sandals.29 Most of these take the form of ‘bound-captive’ objects: tiny, perforated figurines bound around the neck, hands and feet, and linked by Ralph Jackson to slave dealing. Twenty examples of these are now documented, including four from the PAS.30 On one sub-type (III), the ‘leonine’ features of the Leicester adult figure are also reproduced, as they are intermittently in other media. Examples include the tombstone for the eques Longinus Sdapeze from Colchester, on which a barbarian cowers beneath the trooper’s horse, and the Hutcheson Hill distance slabs from the Antonine Wall, where kneeling figures of this same kind frame a standard.31 The features of the victims on the domus Sollertiana mosaic, likely northern barbarians, also somewhat resemble those of this ‘leonine’ type.32 In the Leicester case, however, the barbarity, even quasi-bestiality, of the victim seems more significant than the indication of a specific

19 Vismara 1987, 136–7, A1–A4; 2001; Dunbabin 2016, 181–4. 20 For example, Oswald 1936, pls LIV–LV; Vismara 1987, 137–8, B5–B7; 1990,45–6. 21 For example, Bird 2008, 139; Kazek 2012, 45, 338, S53, S54. 22 Worrell 2008, 359–60, no. 9. 23 McClintock 2015,7. 24 Lehmann 1990, 140–4. 25 Epplett 2013a, 514. 26 Vismara 1987, 139, 143–4, B17, D3. 27 Vismara 1990,53–4, fig. 29. 28 Vismara 1987, 143, D1. 29 Walter 1993. 30 Jackson 2005; Pearce and Worrell 2016, 364–5. 31 Colchester: RIB 201; Hutcheson Hill: CSIR 1.4, no. 149, 53–4, pl. 37. 32 Dunbabin 1978, 66, pls 50–1. SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS 11 ethnic type. The difficulty of confident ethnic attribution for such small-scale figures has been noted elsewhere.33 Other barbarian figures on triumphal and related monuments share the beardless nudity of the younger figures on the Leicester handle: for example, that beneath the Roman cavalryman on the left panel of another Antonine Wall slab from Bridgeness.34 The curls of the Leicester figures are quite pronounced, especially on Youth 4, but the coiffure is difficult to parallel specifically. For example, it does not closely match the African hairstyles seen on human figures on small bronzes from Britain and other provinces, where the hair is much more tightly curled and sometimes rendered in layered, corkscrew curls.35 Thus there is not a clear departure here from Roman art’s ‘somatic norm’, and so we cannot be confident that representation of African individuals is intended.36 Some participants of African origin have been identified in spectacle scenes in other media, with varying degrees of confidence, but the Leicester figures do not easily parallel these.37 A stronger affinity with the youths on the key handle, regarding both their physiques and dishevelled coiffure, can be seen in the Cupids and wingless boys who hunt, harvest and fish their way across mosaics and sarcophagi, sometimes as embodiments of the youthful Dionysus or of the Seasons.38 However, the Leicester figures otherwise lack any specific attributes that might link them to the Seasons or other quadripartite groupings. In this case, what seems most important is the clear differentiation of the four youths from the adult made by the striking difference in their hair; the latter has a carefully contrived, albeit alien, coiffure, whilst the former are ungroomed. A frequently used visual type (i.e. Amor) has been adapted to represent youths whose destruction is anticipated; perhaps this is a parallel in spirit to the enslavement of the children of defeated enemies seen in triumphal imagery, especially as presented on the column of Marcus Aurelius.39 By these means, a barbarian group is denied its posterity and, in this context, the nudity of the group emphasises its humiliation as an object for the gaze of the viewer, like that of other noxii.40 In contrast with some scenes involving naked barbarians and Roman violence, there does not, however, seem to be an obvious sexualised component to the nudity in this case.41 The fear that can be read from the protective gestures of the youths and their chaotic interweaving of limbs, one perhaps with an improvised weapon (a stone), recalls the disordered anguish of Rome’s opponents manifested in some monumental depictions of warfare, again as represented on the column of Marcus Aurelius.42 Their terror echoes, perhaps, that of Frankish captives described by the panegyricist as they anticipated their slaughter in the arena at Trier on Constantine’s orders: the ‘ungrateful and faithless men experienced no less suffering from the sport made of them than from death itself’–a source of joyful reassurance for the emperor’s subjects according to the Panegyrici Latini.43 The nearby theatre in Leicester offers one potential context in which such a spectacle (albeit necessarily on a much smaller scale) might have been performed, given the adaptations to theatres that sometimes allowed them to house violent spectacle, as recurrently documented in the eastern Mediterranean, at least.44 The arch on which Youth 1 sits might be read pars pro toto as a reference to the arcading that typically formed the outer face of spectacle buildings, but on balance, however, it seems more likely to indicate an item of furniture (see above). Other elements of the Leicester handle, however, qualify its affinity to damnationes in other media. Indeed, the parallels are not so direct or straightforward that other possible interpretations of the key handle images do not deserve brief exploration. Naked young athletes figure, for example, on mosaic pavements in North Africa and Italy, and young acrobats and mimes pirouette above the victims of ursine

33 Fleischer 1967, 148–50. 34 CSIR 1.4, no. 68, 27–8, pl. 21. 35 Britain: Worrell 2007, 331, no. 36; Eckardt 2015,83–7, with references; other provinces: e.g. Snowden 1976, 236–7. 36 Ako-Adounvo 1999,18–19. 37 Ako-Adounvo 1999, 149–87. 38 Parrish 1984, 23, 43–4; Dunbabin 1999. 39 Pirson 1996, 167–9; Ferris 2009, 119–27. 40 Fagan 2011, 257. 41 cf. Pirson 2009, 249–55. 42 Pirson 1996, 155. 43 Pan. Lat. 23.3. 44 Dodge 2013, 572–3. 12 SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS mauling on the Wadi Lebda mosaic.45 However, the Leicester figures lack the physiques, coiffures and sporting gear of these performers.46 Furthermore, their youth and nudity do not make them plausible candidates for the spectators occasionally included in spectacle scenes, such as a third-century mosaic from Thelepte.47 Another genre that offers more fruitful opportunities for comparison may be the Nilotic scenes mainly preserved on mosaics and wall-paintings which feature combats between exotic fauna and naked humans, with caricatured rather than realistic body types, commonly referenced as dwarves or pygmies.48 Here and there on these scenes, the participants are also differentiated as bearded (mature) and beardless (immature) figures. Examples include the outer panels on a late second-century black-and-white mosaic from Italica (House of Neptune), a three-colour mosaic from a bath-house at Collemancio, Cannara, Umbria, the likely site of Urvinum Hortense, and a third-century polychrome mosaic from the Dubroff Collection displayed as a loan in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, said to be from North Africa.49 In the latter case, both bearded and beardless humans fight the attacking animals, but, in the former, the bearded figures more commonly fight the crocodiles, cranes and hippos, while one terrified youth climbs a palm tree to escape a crocodile and others dance. Similarly, on the Collemancio mosaic a beardless figure flees by sailing away on an amphora. The conversion of this human-animal encounter into drama has been used to explain the subject of a fourth-century mosaic in a multi-apsed room of a southern Spanish villa (Fuente Álamo, Puente Genil, Andalusia). The centre of the mosaic shows the Nile personified, with attendant cranes, crocodile and hippopotamus. Two apsidal scenes are preserved: in one, an older male human is attacked by a crane while his son comes to the rescue and his wife is in comic disarray; in the other, a (the same?) bird’s corpse is dragged away. The panicked speech of the participants, presented in captions, suggests the scene’s likely derivation from a mime.50 The human figures’ light skin and the apparent references to myth with an Iberian location in the captions may show this, additionally, to be a version adapted to local taste.51 Might the Leicester key handle, with its age-differentiated reactions to encountering a wild animal, its representation of at least one individual of exotic appearance and its heightened emotions, be inspired by a performance of similar type, in the adjacent theatre? This is difficult to assess, given how little is known of performances in provincial spectacle buildings and the absence of common conventions for visual representations of mimes.52 The confrontation specifically with a lion is also not a characteristic of Nilotic scenes. On balance, therefore, the parallels with execution scenes seem strongest. The last aspect for discussion concerns the context of the deposition of the handle. It appears to have been broken deliberately and then placed into a make-up layer, prior to the laying of a new floor of a room within the late Roman town house (see above). The deliberate deposition of complete, or near-complete, single or multiple objects, sometimes deliberately damaged, as ‘structured’ or ‘placed’ deposits on Roman sites is now a widely recognised phenomenon. Such deposits have been explained as the products of actions linked to the life cycles of the structures within which they were placed. They might, for example, be foundation deposits, made auspiciously to initiate a new or changed use of a given space, or termination deposits, placed to close symbolically an episode of human activity.53 Was the object recognisable as a key and thus a symbol of security against an uncertain future, or did its significance lie more in the lion as a protective symbol (see above)? It would appear that the house, or part of it, was past its heyday by the time of the handle’s deposition during the fourth century, and that it was being refloored for a more utilitarian purpose. Was the handle an heirloom, by now of some age (given the conventional dating of

45 Musso et al. 2015, 309; Dunbabin 2016,39–46. 46 For example, Newby 2006,76–87. 47 Dunbabin 1978, 70. 48 Versluys 2002, 283–4, 289–90. 49 Italica (House of Neptune): Dunbabin 1999, 146–7; Versluys 2002, 204–5, no. 104; Collemancio (Cannara, Umbria): Versluys 2002, 173–4, Italy 81; Dubroff Collection, Metropolitan Museum loan number L.2005.13.6, https://www.flickr.com/photos/mharrsch/543137841 (Mary Harrsch, pers. comm.). 50 Dunbabin 2016, 133–4. 51 Daviault 1990. 52 Spectacle buildings: Wilmott 2008; representations of mime: Dunbabin 2016, 120. 53 For example, Fulford 2001; Roskams et al. 2013. SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS 13 these handles to the second to third century), and thus an appropriate symbol of continuity with past occupation, an apotropaic object directed at future preservation of the space and those within it? Alternatively, the breaking and burying may have been directed at neutralising the agency of an object that resonated with unacceptable memories of past episodes (real or perceived) of violence in the adjacent theatre, which was already abandoned at the time of deposition as investment in public entertainment ended and spectacles linked to pagan cult were perhaps marginalised.54

CONCLUSION

Before offering some final thoughts on the significance of the handle and its decoration it is essential to emphasise our caveats. Whilst the object is of a recognised type, the scenes it carries lack direct and straightforward parallels in any one medium. Our uncertainty over how to interpret them may have been shared by Roman viewers, whose readings will have been conditioned by their lived experience and familiarity with visual media. It is quite possible that the translation of scenes into a new medium, by a maker located in a province on the margins of the Empire (if our suggestion of its manufacture in Britain is correct) and perhaps responding to localised and particular circumstances (a commission for a specific event, perhaps), brought into being an idiosyncratic representation that is difficult to classify with certainty. Nonetheless, while aspects of the scene do not lend themselves to easy classification, the composition seems most likely to represent a damnatio, perhaps as part of a show celebrating imperial victory, which did not necessarily need the presence in person of an imperial sponsor.55 In the general absence of epigraphic (or literary) evidence for munera in Roman Britain, scholars have turned to visual representations to understand the spectacles put on in arenas and theatres. Folding knife handles, figurines, glass vessels and relief-decorated terra sigillata and colour-coated ware vessels show varied performers;56 representations in sculpture, mosaic and painted plaster are rarer.57 However, such images are mostly generic and give little sense of the specificity of provincial spectacle culture, occasional exceptions notwithstanding.58 A cautious reading of the handle would see it as a similarly generic representation of damnatio, albeit an unusually vivid one. However, recent osteological studies give grounds for suggesting that spectacles of this kind involving lethal violence were familiar to British audiences. In particular, the analyses of fragmentary human skeletal material from London Wall and of skeletons from graves in the cemetery south-west of Roman York have linked them plausibly to arena violence. In both cases the remains are those of adult males of geographically diverse origins and show signs of frequent violent trauma, both over their lifetimes and as the cause of their deaths.59 One York individual’s pelvis bears possible puncture wounds from an as yet unidentified animal, and so takes us a little closer to a likely spectacle context in which humans met their deaths through violent contact with animals.60 Taking this evidence into account, and noting the evidence described above for destruction of captives in the provinces as well as in the metropolis, it is not impossible that the handle’s creation was inspired directly by a spectacle located in Britain, even perhaps in the adjacent theatre. Whether or not this is the case, more generally the handle reflects the likely identification of some provincials with the Roman perspective of contempt for, and fear of, archetypal barbarian ‘Others’, the ‘enemies of civilisation’.61 For those who had witnessed damnatio scenes the key may have recalled the psychologically intense experiences crucial to the ingraining of such dispositions.62 In its complementary victims, a mature figure engaged in a doomed struggle and the youths destined for death, the handle presents a spectacular obliteration of a present and future threat through physical annihilation. One symbolic enemy of order from the margins of the Empire, the lion, serves as the

54 cf. Wilmott 2008, 183. 55 Picard 1985, 238–40. 56 Webster 1989; Pearce 2020. 57 Wilmott 2008, 161–82. 58 For example, Bird 2008, 135–40. 59 Hunter-Mann 2006; Redfern and Bonney 2014. 60 Caffell and Holst 2012, 74. 61 Pirson 2009, 231. 62 Fagan 2011. 14 SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS agent of destruction of another.63 The handle adds a further frisson of uncertainty regarding the outcome of the encounter, a ‘sporting’ element to enhance the spectacle.64 Its focus on the youths’ fear of violent death, as embodied in their contorted poses, echoes the emphasis of Christian martyrdom narratives on the moments before an animal encounter when the victims’ expected terror contributed as much to the crowd’s satisfaction as the killing itself.65 The Leicester key handle exploits its three-dimensional form and its mimetic possibilities to engage the viewer with the scene through touch as well as sight. The arrangement of the figures privileges the view of one face: i.e. that from which both the younger figures and the older bearded figure all gaze, the latter turning away from the lion’s bite. These parts are in the highest relief (leaving the flatter face in the palm), and the figures’ outward gazes enhance the scene’s pathos, connecting to the spectator of the scene. Turning the key exposes the fear-driven intertwining of the lower group and follows the movements of human and lion above with the man flinching as the animal twists to secure its prey.66 How the handle might have been read would have depended, as noted above, on familiarity with visual conventions and spectacle culture. For many, the key would have been simply a highly decorated and richly textured object that carried a motif familiar from other furniture fittings and related pieces. As Fraser Hunter notes of funerary lions, there are also non-classical perspectives from which this decoration might be read.67 Perhaps for some it recalled the anthropophagous creatures of Iron Age origin whose forms are sometimes echoed in monstrous images on Roman media. Crummy and Lodwick suggest, for example, that the triple heads on other similar key handles may depict the indigenous deities of north-western Europe.68 However, the resonances in detail and in spirit of damnatio scenes suggest a commission executed with specific knowledge of Roman spectacle.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The archaeological investigation at Stibbe, Friars Causeway, Leicester (Leicester City Museum Service Accession No: A.12.2016) was undertaken as part of a planning condition, in advance of redevelopment of the land. The project is currently undergoing extensive post-excavation analysis, the full results of which will be published in due course. The University of Leicester Archaeological Services would like to thank Charles Street Buildings Group for funding the project. The initial cleaning of the object was undertaken by Heidi Addison and latterly by Graham Morgan. John Pearce would like to thank Gavin and Nick for the opportunity to collaborate in research on the Friars Causeway handle. He is indebted to Sinclair Bell for many helpful observations and bibliographic pointers on executions and related scenes of violence and to Sally Worrell for comments on key handles; neither is responsible for misunderstandings or omissions. Mary Harrsch and Riyana Khiroya are likewise thanked for practical help obtaining references to the Dubroff Collection and Wadi Lebda mosaics. Finally, we are grateful to the referee for their helpful suggestions.

Department of Classics, King’s College London (J.P.) [email protected]

University of Leicester Archaeological Services (G.S. and N.J.C.) [email protected] [email protected] doi:10.1017/S0068113X21000118

63 Wiedemann 1992. 64 cf. Vismara 2001, 217. 65 Fagan 2011, 253–7. 66 The complexity of the handle’s intertwined figures may echo the likely complexity of the key bit, as illustrated, for example, by a complete surviving key with a horse-head handle in the Getty Collection (96.AC.197, http://www. getty.edu/art/collection/objects/29674/unknown-maker-rotary-key-with-horse-head-handle-roman-2nd-century-ad/?dz= 0.2678,0.2678,0.31). We owe this suggestion to a referee. 67 Hunter 2003. 68 Crummy and Lodwick 2015. SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS 15

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ako-Adounvo, G.N. 1999: Studies in the Iconography of Blacks in Roman Art, unpub. PhD thesis, McMaster University Atkins, R., and Popescu, E. 2014: ‘Discussion: the cremation cemeteries’, in R. Atkins, E. Popescu, G. Rees and D. Stansbie, Broughton, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire: The Evolution of a South Midlands Landscape, Bar Hill, 232–48 Bird, J. 2008: ‘The decorated samian’, in N. Bateman, C. Cowan and R. Wroe-Brown, London’s Roman Amphitheatre: Guildhall Yard, City of London, London, 135–40 Birk, S. 2013: Depicting the Dead: Self-Representation and Commemoration on Roman Sarcophagi with Portraits, Aarhus Caffell, A., and Holst, M. 2012: Osteological Analysis: 3 and 6 Driffield Terrace, York, North Yorkshire, York Crummy, N., and Lodwick, M. 2015: ‘Keeping watch: a key handle from Font-y-Gary, Vale of Glamorgan’, in R. Collins and F. Macintosh (eds), Life in the Limes: Studies of the People and Objects of the Roman Frontiers, Oxford, 121–30 Daviault, A. 1990: ‘Quelques problèmes de traduction de textes de théâtre latin’, TTR: traduction, terminologie, rédaction 3.1, 49–61 Dodge, H. 2013: ‘Venues for spectacle and sport (other than amphitheatres) in the Roman world’,in P. Christesen and D. Kyle (eds), A Companion to Sport and Spectacle in Greek and Roman Antiquity, Chichester, 561–77 Dunbabin, K.M. 1978: The Mosaics of Roman North Africa, Oxford Dunbabin, K.M. 1999: Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World, Cambridge Dunbabin, K.M. 2016: Theatre and Spectacle in the Art of the Roman Empire, Ithaca NY Durham, E. 2012: ‘Depicting the gods: metal figurines in Roman Britain’, Internet Archaeology 31, https:// doi.org/10.11141/ia.31.2 (accessed June 2021) Eckardt, H. 2015: Objects and Identities, Oxford Epplett, C. 2013a: ‘Roman beast hunts’, in P. Christesen and D. Kyle (eds), A Companion to Sport and Spectacle in Greek and Roman Antiquity, Chichester, 505–19 Epplett, C. 2013b: ‘Spectacular executions in the Roman world’, in P. Christesen and D. Kyle (eds), A Companion to Sport and Spectacle in Greek and Roman Antiquity, Chichester, 520–32 Fagan, G. 2011: The Lure of the Arena: Social Psychology and the Crowd at the Roman Games, Cambridge Ferris, I.M. 2009: Hate and War: The Column of Marcus Aurelius, Stroud Fleischer, R. 1967: Die römischen Bronzen aus Österreich, Mainz Fulford, M. 2001: ‘Links with the past: pervasive “ritual” behaviour in Roman Britain’, Britannia 32, 199–218 Howe, M.D., Perrin, J.R., and Mackreth, D.F. 1980: Roman Pottery from the Nene Valley: A Guide, Peterborough City Museum Occasional Paper 2, Peterborough Hunter, F. 2003: ‘Funerary lions in Roman provincial art’, in P. Noelke (ed.), Romanisation und Resistenz in Plastik, Architektur und Inschriften der Provinzen des Imperium Romanum: neue Funde und Forschungen, Mainz, 59–65 Hunter-Mann, K. 2006: Romans Lose their Heads: An Unusual Cemetery at The Mount, York, The Archaeology of York Web Series 6, https://www.yorkarchaeology.co.uk/web-publications (accessed June 2021) Jackson, R. 2005: ‘Roman bound captives: symbols of slavery’, in N. Crummy (ed.), Image, Craft and the Classical World: Essays in Honour of Donald Bailey and Catherine Johns, Monographies instrumentum 29, Montagnac, 143–56 Kazek, K.A. 2012: Gladiateurs et chasseurs en Gaule: au temps de l’arène triomphante: Ier–IIIe siècle après J.-C., Rennes Krausz, S., and Coulon, G. 2015: ‘Hercule, le lion et le cheval: les bronzes romains du puits 269 de Châteaumeillant/Mediolanum (Cher)’, Gallia 72.2, 301–20 Lehmann, S. 1990: ‘Ein spätantikes Relief mit Zirkusspielen aus Serdica in Thrakien’, Bonner Jahrbücher 190, 139–74 Leibundgut, A. 1980: Die römischen Bronzen der Schweiz 3: Westschweiz, Bern und Wallis, Mainz Lyons, A. 2019: ‘Roman Britain in 2018 I: sites explored 5: the Midlands’, Britannia 49, 428–42 McClintock, A. 2015: ‘Per un’iconologia dei supplizi’, Rivista Diritto Romano 15, https://www.ledonline.it/ rivistadirittoromano/allegati/dirittoromano15McClintock-Iconologia.pdf (accessed June 2021) 16 SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS

Musso, L., Matug, G., and Sandri, S. 2015: ‘Leptis Magna, il mosaico delle terme dell’Uadi Lebda: contesto, iconografía, valorizzazione’, in A. Bertoni and G. Trovabene (eds), XII Colloquio AIEMA: Venezia, 11–15 settembre 2012: atti, Verona, 305–18 Newby, Z. 2006: Greek Athletics in the Roman World, Cambridge Oswald, F. 1936: Images of Figure Types on Terra Sigillata, Liverpool Parrish, D. 1984: Season Mosaics of Roman North Africa, Rome Pearce, J. 2020: ‘On a knife-edge: an image of sex and spectacle from Roman north-west Europe’, in T. Ivleva and R. Collins (eds), Un-Roman Sex: Gender, Sexuality, and Lovemaking in the Roman Provinces and Frontiers, London, 25–53 Pearce, J., and Worrell, S. 2016: ‘Roman Britain in 2015 II: finds reported under the Portable Antiquities Scheme’, Britannia 47, 361–88 Picard, G. 1985: ‘La villa du Taureau à Silin (Tripolitaine)’, Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 129.1, 227–41 Pirson, F. 1996: ‘Style and message on the Column of Marcus Aurelius’, Papers of the British School at Rome 64, 39–177 Pirson, F. 2009: ‘Zur Funktion extremer Gewalt in Kampfdarstellungen der hellenistischen Sepulkralkunst Etruriens’, in M. Zimmermann (ed.), Extreme Formen von Gewalt in Bild und Text des Altertums, Münchner Studien zur Alten Welt 5, Munich, 231–56 Redfern, R., and Bonney, H. 2014: ‘Headhunting and amphitheatre combat in Roman London, England: new evidence from the Walbrook Valley’, Journal of Archaeological Science 43, 214–26 Roskams, S., Neal, C., Richardson, J., and Leary, R. 2013:‘A late Roman well at Heslington East, York: ritual or routine practices?’, Internet Archaeology 34, https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.34.5 Snowden, F. 1976: ‘Iconographical evidence on the black population in Greco-Roman antiquity’, in H. Gates and D. Bindman (eds), The Image of the Black in Western Art 1: From the Pharaohs to the Fall of the Roman Empire, Cambridge MA, 141–249 Stewart, P. 2010: ‘Geographies of provincialism in Roman sculpture’, RIHA Journal, https://doi.org/10. 11588/riha.2010.0.68533 (accessed June 2021) Versluys, M.J. 2002: Aegyptiaca Romana: Nilotic Scenes and the Roman Views of Egypt, Leiden Vismara, C. 1987: ‘Sangue e arena: iconografie di supplizi in margine a: du châtiment dans la cité’, Dialoghi di Archeologia 5.2, 135–55 Vismara, C. 1990: Il supplizio come spettacolo,Rome Vismara, C. 2001: ‘La giornata di spettacoli’, in A. La Regina (ed.), Sangue e Arena, Rome, 199–222 Walter, H. 1993: Les barbares de l’Occident romain, Besançon Webster, G. 1989: ‘Deities and religious scenes on Romano-British pottery’, Journal of Roman Pottery Studies 2, 1–28 Wiedemann, T. 1992: Emperors and Gladiators, London Wilmott, T. 2008: The Roman Amphitheatre in Britain, Stroud Worrell, S. 2006: ‘Roman Britain in 2005 II: finds reported under the Portable Antiquities Scheme’, Britannia 37, 429–66 Worrell, S. 2007: ‘Roman Britain in 2006 II: finds reported under the Portable Antiquities Scheme’, Britannia 38, 303–44 Worrell, S. 2008: ‘Roman Britain in 2007 II: finds reported under the Portable Antiquities Scheme’, Britannia 39, 337–67 Worrell, S. 2010: ‘Roman Britain in 2009 II: finds reported under the Portable Antiquities Scheme’, Britannia 41, 409–39 Young, C.J. 1977: Oxfordshire Roman Pottery, British Archaeological Reports British Series 43, Oxford