Furlonger, 'The Art of Roman Britain', Bryn Mawr Classical Review 9512
URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/bmcr/bmcr-9512-furlonger-the

@@@@95.12.10, Henig, Art of Roman Britain

Martin Henig, <i>The Art of Roman Britain</i>. Ann Arbor: The
University of Michigan Press, 1995. Pp. 224. $64.50. ISBN
047210813.
  Reviewed by Tracy Furlonger -- Elizabeth College 
     (Hobart, Tasmania)  
  tfurl@eliz.tased.edu.au

  Martin Henig has already contibuted greatly to the study of
Roman Britain.  His latest book, <i>The Art of Roman Britain</i>,
deals in eight chapters with Romano-British art and its
influences on society, as well as the significance of Celtic and
Romano-Celtic art in general (the introduction and first chapter
have a short overview of Celtic art prior to the conquest of
Britain).  H. reinforces the importance of art as a social
determinant, and his declaration that 'Roman art has for too long
been underrated and that the art of Roman Britain ... [reached]
surprising heights of excellence' (p. 10) reflects the importance
he places, correctly so, on art as part of the social fabric of
Roman Britain.  H.'s book, then, may be seen as an important and
much-needed addition to Romano-British studies, and his intention
that it 'will occasion debate and encourage visitors to museums
to use their eyes and aesthetic senses in the same way in the
archaeology gallery as they do when confronted by paintings' (p.
11) will probably remain true.

  However, I have some criticisms, mostly concerning the book's
style and content.  The bulk of the narrative presupposes a
detailed level of knowledge by the reader, which may make it
inaccessible to general readers, and at the same time it is
repetitious--particularly in chapters 6, 7 and 8.  Also, though
the book has an admirable selection of colour and black and white
plates, greater use and critical analysis could have been made of
the illustrations in the text.  Another drawback is that H. often
offers hypotheses on the significance of art in Roman Britain
without really giving evidence in support of his claims (e.g.
chapter 3, the role of art on the army, and chapter 4, the use of
art in Roman Britain).

  I now consider each chapter individually.  The first, 'The Art
of the Celts', considers the role of Celtic art in pre-conquest
Britain.  H.'s strong point here lies in his ascribing the
importance of Celtic art chiefly to the influence of patterning
and design rather than production, given that the Celts of
Britain had no need for large scale casting or sculpture. 
Mention is also made of Celtic metal work (sword scabbards,
armour, mirrors) in grave and other votive contexts, reinforcing
the fact that such objects had both practical and non-practical
functions.  That Celtic art influenced later artistic development
both in the province and further afield is not disputed. 
However, H.'s comment that Celtic art offered little beyond
aesthetic influence (e.g. p. 22: 'It would be surprising if such
a tribal and pre-urban society had given birth to a major art'),
though a widely accepted viewpoint, is perhaps going too far.  As
H. himself comments, we are still unable to interpret the
religious (or otherwise) significance of Celtic art (cf. pp. 21, 23).

  In chapter 2, 'Art in the Era of the Conquest', H. begins his
discussion of art in Roman Britain proper with an analysis of the
use and purposes of art in the Roman world, correctly stating
that art was more than aesthetics but was used as a social
determinant, propagandising values and social norms and was
representative of the standard of living of wealthy patrons and
individual communities.  H. begins his investigation with the
realisation that art, naturally imported from the Mediterranean,
was representative of Romanisation in Roman Britain and the
blending of native influences, as shown by the bucket from
Aylesford in Kent (plate 7, p. 22).  However, it is when H.
begins to discuss the nature and extent of smaller, portable,
evidence of Romanisation that the true nature of this merging
becomes obvious.  Using the examples of gold and jewellery
working which existed in native form prior to the conquest, H.
shows that the development of such art forms was more than the
copying of ideas or styles but a genuine merging of Roman and
Celtic natures, blending method and decoration (p. 34).

  The third chapter, 'Art and the Roman Army', discusses a topic
which more than deserves a chapter by itself.  H. makes the point
(p. 44) that Celtic motifs and techniques were used alongside
Roman, and he highlights the link between the location of nearby
settlements or sources of material and legionary forts such as at
Caerleon and the nearby limestone belt.  The correlation between
availability of material and artists, as at Caerleon and York, is
contrasted with the lack of both at Chester, which led to more
provincial sculpture, characterised by ill-proportioned figures
and a lack of extensive decoration (pp. 47-49). 

  Especially good in this chapter is the discussion of art from
Hadrian's Wall.  Here, auxiliary and cavalry units, particularly
from Housesteads, produced an interesting range of sculpture,
although H. questions whether this was only because of the
'temporary presence of a trained sculptor or two' (p. 117) at
Housesteads.  This chapter is ably supported by a number of
plates of significant sculptures which reinforce the quality (or
lack thereof) of art produced in the Wall area, and the role of
religious piety demonstrated by the highly skilled and probably
expensive Mithraic sculpture commissioned by the officer class. 
H. gives justice to the use of smaller art by the army in the
form of studs, belt buckles and belt plates with repousee
decoration and niello inlay, quintessentially Celtic enamel work
(pp. 55-57 and 72).  This topic is again raised at the end of
chapter 5 where H. uses the example of enamel work to show the
co-existence of Celtic methodology and Roman content (p. 104),
and is further mentioned in the context of a possible Celtic
revival and jewellery work in the fourth century in chapter 7 (p.
172), despite H.'s own questioning in chapter 8 of there being a
revival or mere survival of native art forms (p. 174).  Although
cross-referencing is expected and essential in a book of this
nature, such large scale repetition detracts from the book.

  In chapter 4, 'The Uses of Art in Roman Britain', H. makes the
important point that art in Roman Britain tended to be
commissioned rather than mass-produced and of possible importance
or significance to the purchaser or patron (p. 59). 
Comparatively, one may note the relationship between art and
decoration and the expression of community attitudes as reflected
by Christian iconography at Lullingstone and Hinton St Mary
villas (also discussed in chapter 7).  H. also highlights the
role of art as a form of self-gratification and competition in an
effort to prove one's house as more successful than another by
way of extensive mosaics and other forms of decoration in public
areas such as dining rooms or baths (p. 63), or through funerary
sculpture where individuals were honoured with impressive armour
and clothes and the recording of occupations or achievements (p.
65).  However, while only the most wealthy could afford mosaic
floors, extensive frescoes or impressive stone or bronze
statuary, jewellery such as rings, mirrors and brooches, as well
as glassware and other ornamental and portable objects, reflect
the effect of <i>romanitas</i> throughout the province.  Clearly,
while Celtic influences such as scroll work on bronze mirrors and
enamelled brooches (see p. 72) and vegetal decoration on wall
paintings and mosaics as at Verulamium (p. 68) remained,
<i>romanitas</i> was a strong influence in Britain.  Here,
therefore lies a very important point in H.'s book: while Roman
influences are easily recognised in Romano-British art, art and
native culture did not die with it as Haverfield suggests, but
continued to develop in conjunction with Roman (cf. pp. 9 ff.,
104).

  H. ends his discussion of chapter 4 with a brief commentary on
the role played by religion in art from Roman Britain.  He
questions the existence of religious art as being a true
reflection of the patron's faith or a passing fad, although the
cost involved in producing some of the larger
religious/mythological pieces could suggest a stronger
correlation between ownership and faith (cf. pp. 120, 122-124,
126).  H. finishes with a discussion of the role of temples and
other votives and public sponsorship of art in Roman Britain,
especially in the case of Bath and Cirencester where patrons'
health and well-being were promoted (p. 77).

  The fifth chapter, 'Natives and Strangers in Roman Britain',
questions the origin of the art discussed in the previous
chapters.  H. discusses the role of native and immigrant artists
in terms of the development of art in the province, arguing that
the Roman conquest of Britain did not, and could not, have
resulted in the immediate demise of native artists, or their
methods and designs.  He offers a re-classification of art in
Roman Britain, away from that given by Toynbee (p. 80), but then
he qualifies these categories by admitting that the closely
linked nature of all but the first and last means in reality that
one should really consider only two categories, Roman and
Romano-Celtic art.  Although H. explains that the remainder of
the chapter deals with categories two, three and four, one
wonders why he should go to the trouble of re-definition, if only
to refute his earlier observations concerning art in the province
and Romano-Celtic decoration and production.

  H. freely admits that the nature of highly portable and easily
copied work such as coins, rings and gemstones could be evidence
for immigrant artists whose tools were equally as portable,
claiming that such craftsmen could well have come from Aquileia,
a leading gem centre in northern Italy (p. 80).  However, he
offers little conclusive proof of the origin of such artists,
whether sons of skilled Gauls resident in Roman Britain,
illiterate natives, or immigrants themselves.  It is highly
probable that native artists did not have the skill necessary to
produce high quality work so soon after the conquest, although
there is nothing to say whether these artists were natives who
had been taught these skills or immigrants who already possessed
them.

  Clearly, however, some art work was imported, such as better
quality marble and high quality silver (cf. p. 116), and H. makes
use of bronze statuettes and figurines to indicate both native
and imported production by comparing quality and materials (p.
81).  While the fact that native artists, though skilled in the
use of bronze and metalwork, did not have experience in large
scale casting and lacked a classical training, suggests that
small and ill-proportioned figurines such as the Apollo from
London (figure 51) were made in Britain, it still does not assign
production to a native artist or an immigrant of poor skill.  H.
himself realises the uncertainty of this area by admitting the
difficulty of ascribing nationality, although in chapter 6 he
does spend some time discussing the stylistic traits of a
Palmyrene sculptor (p. 117), something which really would have
been better suited to this chapter.

  This chapter is one of the weakest in the book as H. labours
to provide the evidence for some of his conclusions.  He
repeatedly attempts to prove a point without offering valid
conclusions; for example, on p. 84 he says that 'despite the
close reliance on a Roman model, the head of Hadrian found in the
Thames at London (see 35) seems to me to exhibit local features
and thus was most certainly made in Britain' without any evidence
why this was so.  Moreover, in his discussion of the use of wall
painting and mosaics as further evidence of foreign artists'
work, one cannot help but wonder at the extent of local workshop
based training, especially in the second and third centuries. 
Surely, H. cannot realistically hold that native and
second-generation artists would have been removed totally from
the influences of Romanisation and the development of
Romano-Celtic art?  Indeed, H. alludes to this problem of
identification on p. 91 when he says that generally there was
some sign 'such as the influence of local Gaulish or British
style which differentiates provincial Roman from the products of
continental craftsmen', but he fails to offer any explanation of
the signs referred to here.

  Chapter 6, 'Artists and their Patrons', is overly repetitious:
the 'human' relationship between artists and their work and the
patrons who requested such work, and the role of wealthy
individual patrons and larger scale art and dedications, were
already addressed in chapters 3 and 4.  By p. 116 things are
improving: H. offers a good discussion of the continental
influences on Romano-British art and the likelihood of immigrant
artists from Belgica and the Trier region, together with a
discussion of the existence of high quality art in rural settings
and the use of artists from different areas in the larger studios
such as at London (pp. 115-116).  H. reinforces this relationship
with the point that artists would have carved larger work <i>in
situ</i> and more portable work could have been produced closer
to the patron's residence to allow for consultation by way of
local offices or offinae (cf. p. 45).  After sculpture, H. moves
to wall-painting and mosaics (repetition again from chapters 3
and 4 where he already established the role of wealth in
commissioned art of this nature and the existence of workshops). 
What H. does reinforce in this chapter, however, is the nature of
such art as reflecting the implied or real interests and status
of British gentry, given the extent of Romanisation and the use
of larger scale art for self-glorification and promotion of the
individual and/or the community.  Still, H. would have been
better to incorporate the bulk of this chapter in chapter 4 when
he discussed the uses of art in Roman Britain.

  In chapter 7, 'Art in Late Roman Britain', H. discusses
Romano-British art in its own right.  Given the problems
associated with dating individual artwork, as well as the
prevalence of mosaic art and the general rebirth of
Romano-British culture and society in the fourth century, this
chapter by nature offers the hope of a thorough discussion.  The
chapter's focus lies entirely on discussing the symbolism of
mosaics, silver plate and wall-paintings of the fourth century
which served to reinforce the power and strength of the Roman
Empire and <i>romanitas</i> (p. 141).  H. goes on to use the
example of mosaics and wall-paintings as being the permanent
reinforcers, while the silver-plate and high quality glassware
are the 'movable components' (p. 143), particularly in the case
of religious/mythological presentations.  Of course, the degree
to which such art was pagan or traditional in the form of
mythological scenes is one which H. remains aware.  He is correct
in stating that pagan influence remained quite strong in Roman
Britain and was 'publicised' in mosaics and wall-paintings of the
time.  Although Christianity was a sustantial influence in the
fourth century in the Roman world, H. rightly believes that most
Christian art in Roman Britain was small and portable in nature
(excluding larger art such as at Lullingstone villa) and private
in purpose (p. 148).  Indeed, H. quite categorically states that
'as far as the art of Late Roman Britain is concerned, and with a
few major exceptions (Lullingstone; Hinton St Mary), its history
could be written without mentioning the State religion of the
Empire' (p. 157).

  The latter part of this chapter is also repetitious when H.
begins discussing literary references to Late Roman
Britain--deluxe editions of Ovid and the like on illuminated
manuscripts, for example, were mentioned in chapter 6 (cf. pp.
157 ff.).  Another example of H.'s unsubstantiated conclusions is
found in this chapter when he says, with reference to the
Lullingstone villa mosaics, that because Bellerophon/Chimera are
literary themes rather than religious, 'it certainly should not
be assumed that these pavements are of the same date or executed
for the same owner as the Christian frescoes of the house-church
upstairs' (p. 157).  Again, the reader is left asking: why not?

  H. concludes the book (chapter 8, 'Attitudes to the Art of
Roman Britain') with a discussion of the overall importance of,
and attitudes towards, art in Roman Britain by reflecting on the
viewpoints and work of 'historians' over the last three
centuries.  While these have given way to a new understanding of
Roman Britain (p. 189), it is unfortunate that this chapter does
not have a summation of the material which preceded it (and which
one would expect in a final chapter), and indeed much of the
material on the course of this scholarship would have been better
collapsed and included in an introduction.

  Clearly there has been a renewal of interest in Roman Britain,
particularly given the demise of theories such as those advanced
by Collingwood and Haverfield, something that H. also has sought
to amend in his book.  While it is inevitable that some topics
and information be repeated and/or cross-referenced in the text,
I feel there is too much of this and that this detracts from the
overall effectiveness of the book.  Even so, H.'s treatment of
the important topic of art in Roman Britain, drawing as it does
on iconographic, numismatic and archaeological evidence, means
that students and scholars of Roman Britain will need to use this
book.