Fragile Gods: Ceramic Figurines in Roman Britain Volume 1 Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Archaeology, University of Reading Matthew G. Fittock December 2017 Declaration I certify that this is my own work and that use of material from other sources has been properly and fully acknowledged in the text. I have read the University’s definition of plagiarism and the department’s advice on good academic practice. I understand that the consequence of committing plagiarism, if proven and in the absence of mitigating circumstances, may include failure in the Year or Part or removal from the membership of the University. I also certify that neither this piece of work, nor any part of it, has been submitted in connection with another assessment. Signature: Date: i Abstract As small portable forms of statuary, pipeclay objects provide a valuable insight into the religious beliefs and practices of the culturally mixed populations of the Roman provinces. This thesis provides a complete catalogue of the nearly 1000 published and unpublished pipeclay objects found in Britain, including figurines, busts, shrines, animal vessels and masks. This research is the first study of this material conducted since the late 1970s. Pipeclay objects were made in Gaul and the Rhine-Moselle region but not in Britain. Attention thus focuses on where and how the British finds were made by analysing their styles, types, fabrics and any makers’ marks. This reveals how the pipeclay market in Britain was supplied and how these objects were traded, and suggests that cultural rather than production and trade factors were more influential on pipeclay consumption in Britain. A typological, chronological and distributional analysis of this material is conducted to highlight pipeclay consumption in Britannia. As in many other provinces, deities are the most common depiction and Venus figurines the most common type. Comparison with Continental collections highlights distinctive regional consumption patterns, with Britain having several rare and exotic types, especially in London. The social distribution and contexts of the British finds shows that pipeclay objects were mainly used by civilians - probably in domestic shrines and occasionally in temples and in the graves of often sick children. Rare types (both in terms of origin and fabric) probably belonged to higher status foreigners. This thesis identifies previously unidentified subtle differences between the use of pipeclay and metal figurines. While ostensibly the same function, significant differences in style and iconography show ceramic figurines overwhelmingly depicting goddesses while metal figurines tend to depict male deities. Similar numbers of each mean that both are rare in Britain, but subtle differences in their social distribution suggests different groups used ‘higher- status’ metal and ‘lower-status’ ceramic figurines in the province. Fragmentation experiments suggest that deliberately breaking figurine heads was an important ritual practice. ii Acknowledgements This project would not have been completed were it not for the help of many people along the way. Greatest thanks, of course, goes to my supervisors; firstly, Dr Hella Eckardt who not only introduced me to pipeclay figurines in the first place, but has also guided and supported my efforts, and secondly, Dr Martin Pitts, who has given invaluable advice. Thanks are also due to the AHRC South, West and Wales Doctoral Partnership Scheme for funding this project over the past three years, and especially the selection panel back in 2014 who gave me the opportunity. Special thanks goes to Professor Mike Fulford and Professor Maureen Carroll who both provided valuable comments on the text; Professor Fulford also kindly gifted me Rouvier- Jeanlin’s 1972 catalogue – as well as Dr Emma Durham who gave me access to her database of metal figurines from Britain, and Graham Webster (Potted History) who made the replica ceramic figurines of Venus and Dea Nutrix used in the breakage experiments. It would not have been possible to carry out the research in this thesis without the help of the staff and curators in museums across the country who helped find objects and/or gave me access to them. In no particular order: Chris Evans and Grahame Appleby (Cambridge Archaeological Unit), Paul Booth and Dan Poore (Oxford Archaeology), Alan Lupton and Chris Howard-Davis (Oxford Archaeology North), Alistair Barclay (Wessex Archaeology), Nick Cooper (ULAS), Dan Nesbitt (LAARC), Keith Wade (Ipswich Archaeological Trust), Dot Boughton (PAS), Rebecca Sillwood (NPS), Ges Moody (Trust for Thanet Archaeology), Richard Hoggett and Jude Plouviez (Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service), Hilary Cool (Barbican Research Associates), Nienke Van Doorn (Yorkshire Archaeological Trust), Frances McIntosh (English Heritage at Corbridge), Michael Marshall and Angela Wardle (MoLA), Caroline Macdonald and Richard Dabb (both then MoL), Glynn Davis (Colchester Museum), Catriona Smellie (Guildford Museum), Imogen Gunn (Cambridge Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology), David Allen (Hampshire Cultural Trust), Stuart Kennedy (Reading Museum), Laura Hadland (Leicester Museum), Claire Burton (Ashmolean Museum), Lisa Brown (Wilshire Museum), Alex Croom (Tyne and Wear Museum), Evan Chapman (National Museum of Wales), Mark Lewis (National Roman Legion Museum), Steven Yates (Colchester and Ipswich Museum Service), Andrew Peachy (Archaeological Solutions), Tim Padley (Tullie House Museum and Art Gallery Trust), David Rice (Gloucester City Museum and Art Gallery), Gail Boyle (Bristol Museum), Trevor Wallace (Battle Museum), Craig Brown (Canterbury Museum), Eleanor Baumber (Welwyn Hatfield Museum Service), Pamela Greenwood (Museum of Wimbledon/Wandsworth Historical Society), Keith Fitzpatrick- Matthews (North Hertfordshire District Council), Morag Clement (Kendal Museum), Nick Wickenden (Chelmsford Museum) , Liz Pieksma (Higgins Bedford Museum), Nina Crummy (Colchester Archaeological Trust), Richard Hobbs (British Museum), Mike Still (Dartford District Archaeological Group), Portia Tremlett (The Novium), Jenny Durrant (Exeter RAMM), Judy Stevenson (Hereford Museum Service), Oliver Blackmore (Newport Museum and Art Gallery), Sylvia Cox (St. Edmundsbury Heritage Service), Greg Speed (Northern Archaeological Associates), Paula Gentil (Hull and East Riding Museum), Neil Holbrook and Ed McSloy (Cotswold Archaeology), Sally Worrell (PAS), Stephen Greep (RFG), Karen Wardley (Southampton Museum), Peter Robinson (Doncaster Museum and Art Gallery), Pernille Richards (Maidstone Museum), Ann Olszak (Harlow Museum), Fraser Hunter (National Museums Scotland) and Philippa Walton (The Piercebridge Project Co-Investigator) who kindly agreed to a placement working on PAS finds from Piercebridge. Apologies to anyone who is not listed here but know that your help was and is very much appreciated. Finally, I thank my family for their support, and especially my wife, not least for her encouragement, but also her ability to endure several years of pipeclay-related conversations. iii Volume 1 Table of Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................................. ii Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. iii List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. x Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 Summary and Structure Outline ............................................................................................ 8 Chapter 1. Roman Pipeclay Figurines. The Story So Far… ................................................... 15 Continental Approaches to the Study of Pipeclay Objects .................................................. 16 British Approaches to the Study of Pipeclay Objects .......................................................... 31 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 38 Chapter 2. Material Culture and Identity ................................................................................ 40 Identity as a Concept ........................................................................................................... 40 Identity and Material Culture Studies .................................................................................. 42 Identity and Social Practice ................................................................................................. 46 Identity and Contextual Approaches to Material Culture Studies ....................................... 54 Overview - Identity and the Study of Pipeclay Objects in Britain ...................................... 56 Chapter 3. Methodology .......................................................................................................... 58 Published and Unpublished Material ................................................................................... 58 Contextual Analysis ............................................................................................................. 64