The Cult of the "Pseudo-Venus" in Kent

THE CULT OF THE " PSEUDO-VENUS " IN KENT By FRANK JENKINS, F.S.A. IN studying the series of Romano-Gauhsh clay figurines found in Britain it is interestmg that the predominant type represents a freestanding, nude or semi-draped female. Several examples have been found in Kent, hence the reason for writing this paper. In this it is our intention to examine the evidence in the hope that some hght wiU be shed on the significance of these objects, as also on the identity of the personage they were intended to represent. AU figurines of this class found in Kent are of white clay of varying degrees, of quahty. None is complete, in fact a few are represented by smaU fragments, but in most cases enough has survived to enable us to determine the types. Of these, there are apparently two in this county. The first to be described consists now of five pieces which join. These were found together in the recently excavated celia of the Romano-Celtic temple at Springhead (Vagniacae).1 Enough of the figure remains to show that the personage is standing, nude above the hips, and wears a bracelet on her left arm. In her left hand she holds her garment which has slipped down to cover her legs. A tress of hair hangs over her shoulder and although the right side of the figure is lacking it is fairly certain that she was originally portrayed arranging her hair with the right hand. Close paraUels to this figurine are known in the Rhine region where they are attributed to the flourishing industry which had its main centre at Cologne from the end of the first century A.D.2 (Pis. IA and IB.) Most of the other figurines in Kent are of a type very common in the Western Empire including Britain. The personage in this case is completely nude and stands on a smaU hemispherical base. In her left hand she supports some kind of drapery or garment which hangs down in folds by her left leg. She is caught in the act of arranging her hair, holding a tress in her right hand. Another tress hangs over her left shoulder, and as usual with this type, two more hang down her back on each shoulder respectively. The more complete examples in this group have occurred at Chart Sutton, Richborough and Springhead. AU are probably products of an industry estabhshed in the 1 The author is indebted to our member Mr. W. S. Penn for allowing him to examine the figurine and for information concerning its discovery. 2 F. Eremersdorf, Saalburg Jahrbuch, IX (1939), p. 11, Taf. 6, Abbs, 1-3 inclusive, from Stockstadt, Zugmantel and Cologne, respectively. Another close parallel is now in the Rheinisches Landesmuseum, Bonn, Inv. No. A.1199. 60 THE CULT OE THE "PSEUDO-VENUS" IN KENT Samian factories in France, particularly at Toulon-sur-Allier, and may date from the mid-first century onwards.1 We have already noted elsewhere that other clay figurines found in Kent, namely, the dea matrix? the genius cucullatus3 and matron with dog types,4 certainly seemed to have had some rehgious significance by reason of the fact that many have been found on the sites of temples in Gaul and Roman Germany. The same is the case with the figurines we are at present discussing, and as so many have been found in Britain, there seems every reason for thinking that they were put to the same use in this country, that is, they were ex votoes. It is therefore necessary to examine the evidence in order to determine the cult with which they were associated, and to find to what extent it had entered into the religious life of the native population in this country. In seeking this information, perhaps the best approach, is first to identify the type of divinity these figurines were intended to represent. In order to do this we must consider the art-type. This is evidently that of Roman Venus which stemmed from the earher Greek Aphrodite. Hence we could assume that the personage is Venus, but can we be absolutely certain of this? Perhaps not, for continental scholars have put forward cogent arguments in favour of the hypothesis that she was a native deity in classical guise, who originaUy was venerated in Gaul in pre-Roman times. Renel, however, does not agree that this was so, and thinks that the cult of Venus was not firmly estabhshed in Gaul, neither was a Celtic deity assimUated with the Roman goddess.5 In view of the large number of clay figurines, the first part of his statement is very curious, and their presence must be explained if the Roman origin of the deity is rejected, for in that event she must have been a native goddess. Furthermore, if the art-type is actuaUy that of Venus, then it would seem that under the influence of the interpretatio Romanothe two must have been assimUated. In approaching the problem from a different angle, VUlefosse expressed the opinion that it was very certain that aU the clay figurines, that for convenience are recognized as Venus, actuaUy represent a deity, wanton and fertUe in character, who occupied an important place in the religion of the Gauls, but whose name today, is unknown.6 Of the two opinions, the latter seems the most attractive, but before reaching our own conclusions it is as weU 1 E. Tudot, Collection de figurines en argile, oeuvres premieres de Vart gaulois (Paris, 1860), pi. 20-23 inclusive. 2 E. Jenkins, Arch. Cant., LXXI, p. 38 ff. 3 P. Jenkins, Arch. Cant., LXVI, p. 86 ff. 4 F. Jenkins, Arch. Cant., LXX, p. 192 ff. 6 C. Renel, Les religions de la Qaule avant le christianisme (Paris, 1906), p. 322; hence G. Drioux, Oultes indigenes des Lingones (Paris, 1934), p. 59. • H. de Villefosse, Revue archdologique, I (1888), p. 154; also A. Blanchet, Elude sur les figurines en terre-cuite de la Qaule romaine in Mdmoires de la Sociiti des antiquaires de la France (1890), p. 126. 61 THE CULT OF THE "PSEUDO-VENUS" IN KENT to consider the type of divinity VUlefosse had in mind when expounding his theory. First, then, what of the wanton side of her character? Now the absence of a goddess of love from Celtic religion has exercised the minds of a number of scholars. Some of these have sought to identify one on very slender evidence, while others have rejected the idea altogether. In drawing attention to these arguments, MUe Sjoestedt has remarked that although a number of novel suggestions have been put forward to explain the absence of a divinity of that type, for example, the inherent chastity of the Gauls, and the predominance of the maternal over the amorous, in her opinion it was an Ulusion. In fact she affirmed that most of the Gauhsh mother-goddesses display sexual characteristics in varying degrees, hence one need not expect to encounter a goddess exclusively engaged in amorous pursuits in the field of Gauhsh rehgion. In fact, in her view, such an idea was alien to Celtic rehgious thought, and was based upon foreign conceptions imported into Gaul after it had lost its independance.1 This could mean that the deity was Roman in origin, and to aU intents and purposes was Venus, which does not help us in our quest of a native deity. But now let us consider the other quahty the goddess was supposed to possess, namely, fecundity. If she was concerned with fertility, whether it be that of the crops or of animals, particularly that of human beings, it is a fair assumption that she was a member of the circle of female deities who displayed all the manifestations of the universal mother-goddess. In discussing this possibility, Thevenot has suggested that aU the clay figurines of the so-caUed Venus type, whether they represent the deity alone, or with attendant chUdren, may weU be images of a deity of the mother-goddess type, once venerated in Gaul in pre-Roman times.2 Another scholar, Lambrechts, shares the same view, and in expanding his argument, has drawn attention to the apparent rarity of stone images of the same goddess.8 Schleiermacher suggested, that this comparative lack of stone monuments was the result of the activities of the early Christian iconoclasts.4 Lambrechts, in reply to this, affirms that the marked difference between the numbers of clay figurines and the stone monuments existed in Roman times, and was due to some other reason.5 If the latter view is correct, then one of the most obvious reasons was that the cult was confined to the poorer classes who could not afford 1 M. L. Sjoestedt, Qods and Heroes of the Celts (Methuen, London, 1949), p. 37. 2 E. Thevenot, Le culte des deises-m&res a la station gallo-romaines des Bolards in Revue archdologique de VEst de la France, I I (1951), p. 166 ff. 3 P. Lambrechts, Contributions & Vitude des divinitis celtiques (Bruges, 1942), pp. 170-71. 1 W. Schleiermacher, Studien, p. 122, quoted by Lambrechts, loe. cit., footnote 3. B P. Lambrechts, loe. cit. 62 THE CULT OF THE "PSEUDO-VENUS" IN KENT the more expensive materials. Thus as the cult gained in popularity, a demand was created for cheap images of the deity, which resulted in the setting up of a flourishing industry to meet it. If this is true, then why was the art-type of Roman Venus adopted? In posing this question we are back to the possibility that the native deity was equated with her classical counterpart, presumably because of the simUarity of her functions. In the present writer's view, it is not necessary to assume that spiritual identity played any part in the selection of the art-type, for it is possible that the physical appearance of the personage represented by the clay figures, displayed aU the sexual and maternal qualities which the Gauls believed their own goddess possessed. At this stage in our inquiry, it seems then that there may be some justification for casting doubts on the Roman origin of this goddess. For that reason, the name given by continental scholars to the deity represented by the clay figurines, seems singularly appropriate, namely, the " pseudo-Venus". Henceforth for the purposes of the present paper, we shaU refer to the deity by this title. The evidence relating to the cult associations of the figurines of the " pseudo-Venus " in Gaul, is weU authenticated, but in Britain, what evidence we possess of individual discoveries, leaves much to be desired. Of one thing we can be certain, there was a popular demand for her figurines in this country, but it is very difficult to differentiate between those which served as cult objects and. the ones which were regarded as good-luck charms, if of course there was such a distinction in Roman times. Bearing this in mind, we may turn again to the Gauhsh evidence for guidance. A remarkable number of Romano-Celtic temples as weU as others of more classical type have yielded many clay figurines of the " pseudo- Venus." The concentration of temples of the former type in Normandy,1 particularly around the lower reaches of the Seine, suggests that it was from that region this style of temple architecture spread to Britain,2 but it is a curious fact that although quite a number of these buUdings have been examined in this country, only one has yielded a clay figurine of the " pseudo-Venus". It is the one at Springhead, and as it lay in close association with an uninscribed altar, actuaUy in the celia of the buUding, there can be no doubt that it belonged to the cult at that place. One reason for the comparative rarity of the figurines in the British series of Romano-Celtic temples may be that the buUdings were erected rather late in the Roman period. Many of their number seem to have been buUt in the late third or fourth century,3 and that being so, they 1 L. de Vesly, Le Fana ou petit temples gallo-romaines de la region normande (Rouen, 1909) in which this series of temples is described. 2 R. E. M. Wheeler, Antiquaries Journal, VIII (1928), pp. 300-26. 8 R. E. M. Wheeler, loe. cit. 63 THE CULT OF THE "PSEUDO-VENUS" IN KENT date from the time after the disastrous Germanic invasions which ravaged Gaul in the second half of the third century. At that time the Samian industry suffered a blow from which it never recovered, and as the figurines were products of the same workshops it is possible that no further supplies of figurines were exported to Britain. On the other hand, the absence of this type of cult object from the British temples may indicate different rehgious ideas which may have existed between the two regions. There for the present the matter stands, but before abandoning the problem it may be useful to mention a few figurines which from their associations seem to have had some connections with temple sites. One example from Richborough lay in the remains of a smaU buUding resembling in its ground-plan, a temple buUt in the classical style.1 It is of interest that a fragment of the same figurine was found just outside the same buUding. At Canterbury, the base of a simUar figurine was found in the vicinity of a buUding which may have been a temple, and it is significant that one of the dea nutrix was found in the close vicinity.2 Several figurines of the " pseudo-Venus " were found at Wroxeter with others which usuaUy occur in a rehgious context. It is therefore very significant that the group was found in the vicinity of a buUding which was certainly a temple 3 This yielded at least one rehef in stone, the subject of which is connected with a fertility cult.4 The buUding was not buUt in the Romano-Celtic style, and if the others at Richborough and Canterbury have been correctly identified, it is clear that they also do not conform to it either. UntU more evidence is avaUable we must then accept the fact that clay figurines of the type we are discussing were not in such common use as ex votoes as they were in Gaul. The frequent occurrence of clay figurines of the " pseudo-Venus " at the sites of sacred springs and spring sanctuaries in Gaul is weU attested, and strongly indicates that in some way, the goddess was connected with a water-cult. In Britain such evidence is highly circumstantial. One figurine has aheady been mentioned, that is the one found in the temple at Vagniacae, modern Springhead, the latter is perhaps a significant place-name, and may provide a clue to the character of the cult. The temple stood on the bank of a creek which opened out into the Thames Estuary. The excavations proved that 1 Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London, No. X, Richborough, III, pp. 32-33. 2 The writer is indebted to Mr. John Boyle, F.S.A., for information concerning the discovery of this figurine; also to Mr. Sheppard Frere, F.S.A., for details of the dea nutrix; cf. Arch. Cant., LXXI, p. 44, pi. II. for the latter. The building was described in Arch. Cant., LX, p. 68 ff. 3 Reports of the Research Gomm. of the Soc. Ant. London, No. II, Wroxeter, IT, p. 2ff. 4 I. A. Richmond, Roman Britain (Penguin Books, 1955), p. 191. 64 PLATE I U'fiolo : Fisk Moore IM., Canterbury) (A) Vagniacae (Springhead) Kent. Height 17 cms. (B) Horperath, Krs. Mayen, Germany. Height IS-2 cms. liheinisches Landesmuseum, Bonn. With acknowledgements. PLATE II MAIDSTONE MUSEUM 2 I N « . (Photo: Ronald White, A.I.li.i: Maidstone) (A) Chart Sutton, Kent. Maidstone Museum. With acknowledgements. (B) Canterbury, King's Street. Height 6 • 5 cms. With acknowledgements to Mr. Sheppard Frere, F.S.A. THE CULT OF THE "PSEUDO-VENUS" IN KENT the temple had been buUt on marshy ground, and perhaps it was to the surroundings that the temple owed, its origin. The Gauls tended to buUd temples over the sites of springs which they held sacred, and it is not too rash to suppose that the temple at Vagniacae was dedicated to a local deity who presided over the sacred waters which flowed into the creek at that place. It is also of interest, that prior to the discovery of the temple, another figurine of the " pseudo-Venus " was found on a nearby site, which provides further proof of the veneration of the goddess at Vagniacae.1 A further hint of similar associations with the water-cults is provided by a figurine found in the filling of the Great Bath at Aquae Sulis (Bath).2 Unfortunately there are no precise detaUs concerning its discovery, but it may be significant that the image of the " pseudo- Venus " should appear in such surroundings. The rehgious character of the site is beyond question, for the Great Bath undoubtedly formed part of the temple complex erected over the site of the medicinal springs over which the native deity, Sulis, presided. It is therefore tempting to think that the " pseudo-Venus " as represented by the clay figurine, was connected in some way with the cult of the springs at Aquae Sulis. In fact it is very difficult to ignore the combination, viz., a native British water-goddess, and her temple erected over the sacred springs, with the " pseudo-Venus " also present, for in this environment the latter would be quite at home. There is much evidence that in Gaul the goddess had simUar associations, hence if we may hazard a guess at this stage in our investigation, it is that at Vagniacae and Aquae Sulis, clay figurines of the " pseudo-Venus " were proffered for the restoration of good health, the bestowal of the same including the main virtue, fertility. At all events the symbolism of the sacred springs is in complete agreement with this behef, for as they weUed up from the depths of Earth, the great mother-goddess of the Gauls, they brought hfe, fertility and good health to aU hving things. This theory is very attractive for the deity could certainly be regarded as a mother-goddess, but was classical Venus in the same category? According to Lucretius she was, for he certainly regarded her as the personification of aU creative forces.3 As the ancestress of the Julian famUy she may well have been venerated as a goddess of that kind. The cult of Venus Genetrix was certainly very important from the time of Augustus. Rose, however, has suggested that the name, Venus, is curious, and ought to signify " dehghtful appearance," not of human beings, but that of a piece of weU-tUled ground. Her festival was celebrated by 1 Cf. Appendix to the present paper Nos. 12 and 13. Henceforth referred to as the Appendix. 2 Cf. Appendix No. 71. 3 Lucretius, De natura rerum, I, 2-21. 65 THE CULT OF THE "PSEUDO-VENUS" IN KENT the dealers in pot-herbs and vegetables, who may have regarded her as the numen, whose power made the vegetable gardens beautiful and fertile looking.1 Having digressed we must now return to our discussion of the role of the deity in the water-cults. In Greek and Roman mythology the Nymphs were personifications of local topographical features, such as the woods, streams and springs. As water was the natural environment of the water-nymphs, they are usuaUy represented in Roman art as beautiful women caught either in the act of bathing or emerging from the water. When this art-type is compared with the clay figurines of the " pseudo-Venus " it is clear that there is a strong likeness, which could mean that the latter was also a water-nymph. Of this we cannot be too certain, but in view of the many figurines of this type which have been found on the sites of sacred springs in Gaul, the possibility that we are dealing with a divinity of that kind cannot be entirely disregarded. Here it is appropriate to mention a statue found many years ago at Dover on a site which seems to have been a pubhc buUding in Roman times, perhaps the baths.2 The statue is of oohte, and is an undraped female, about three-quarter life size. Although the face, arms and legs are mutUated, the restraint in modelling reveals that it is characteristic of provincial art. The figure stands leaning shghtly forward with legs crossed and arms apparently stretched out. The head is encircled by a wreath and drapery hangs around the left leg. When first published, it was suggested that the figure might have been the tutelary goddess of the Dour, the smah stream which flows through Dover and reached the sea near the spot where the statue was found. This theory is attractive, but although a number of streams and rivers were supposed to have presiding deities in Roman times, there is not the shghtest evidence to suggest that one was venerated in Roman Dover. On the other hand this possibility should be borne in mind, for the name of the stream is apparently Celtic in origin.3 Perhaps the clay figurine of the " pseudo-Venus ", which was recovered from the bed of the River Eden near Stanwix was an offering to a simUar nymph who protected the waters.4 The recent discovery of a mural painting in a niche at Lulhngstone Roman vUla is certainly highly relevant to our study, for it portrays a group of water-nymphs.5 Can it be that they presided over the Darent? The river-name is apparently Celtic in origin.6 1 H. J. Rose, Ancient Roman Religion (Hutchinson, 1948), pp. 92-3. 2 Arch. Cant., XVIII, p. 202, fig.; hence Victoria County History, Kent, III, pp. 43-44, pi. IX, 3. 3 E. Ekwall, English River-Names (1928). 4 Of. Appendix No. 83. 6 Briefly reported by Lt.-Col. Meates, F.S.A. 0 E. Ekwall, op oit. 66 THE CULT OF THE " PSEUDO-VENUS" IN KENT Clay figurines of this type were not used exclusively as ex votoes at temples for a considerable number of Romano-Gauhsh graves have yielded single examples. This curious custom of placing such objects with the dead was not unusual in Gaul, but as yet we possess very httle evidence of a simUar usage in Roman Britain. This may reflect different ideas on the mode of burial, but the lack of evidence may be entirely due to the accidents of excavation. One day, perhaps, such evidence wfll be found to show that the custom was more prevalent in Britain than one would at first suppose. The discovery of a clay figurine of this type in a grave with cremated human remains near Verulamium, shows that the custom was not entirely unknown in this country.1 To a lesser degree in this respect is the discovery of a simUar clay figurine on the site of an extensive Roman cemetery at Carhsle close to the road to Plumpton WaU.2 At the time it was found, two complete pots were also unearthed, but by the time it was pubhshed, the evidence that the group came from a single grave, could not be confirmed. Other examples found at York came from Roman cemetery areas, but no further detaUs are known.3 Perhaps more convincing is the record of the discovery of an amphora near Hawkedon in Suffolk.4 This contained the heads of two figurines of the " pseudo-Venus " type as also " about a score of naUs " according to the report. But unfortunately the find was pubhshed in the year 1880, apparently at second-hand, so one can hardly expect further evidence to be forthcoming. Perhaps the group was from a grave, and any scraps of human bones may have been cast away by the workman in the excitement of the moment of discovery. At St. Paul's Cray in Kent, a smaU fragment of a simUar figurine turned up on the site of a Roman cemetery and may have come from a disturbed grave, but the evidence for this is highly circumstantial .5 Sometimes clay figurines of the goddess have been found in the ruins of Roman vUlas, as was the case at Chart Sutton in Kent.6 If they were not used as charms to ward off evU influences, then it is possible that they were placed in household shrines set apart for domestic worship. The lack of direct evidence again hampers us in our investigation, and until we have more conclusive information it would be unwise for us to be too dogmatic. In the foregoing paper we have only mentioned certain clay figurines which seem to provide us with information concerning the cult of the goddess in this country. Of the many others found in Britain httle 1 Cf. Appendix No. 52. 2 Of. Appendix, No. 81. a Of. Appendix Nos. 73, 74, 76. 1 Cf. Appendix Nos. 64, 66. B The author is indebted to our member Mr. A. J. Parsons for information. 6 Cf. Appendix No. 7. 67 THE CULT OF THE "PSEUDO-VENUS" IN KENT can be said, for precise detaUs concerning the actual associations, are lacking for various reasons. Hence it would be futile to embark upon any wUd surmises regarding their true significance. We must therefore content ourselves with the fact that at least the find-spots are known, so that they do serve one useful purpose in providing us with information concerning the geographical distribution in this country. In discussing the distribution in the Cambridge region, Heiohelheim noted the rarity of objects connected with the cult, in the surrounding 'counties.1 Only at Colchester did he find, what he termed " a remarkable number " of these, the majority being clay figurines of the " pseudo-Venus " type. Erom this, he concluded, that the figurines from Blyford, Hawkedon and Verulamium, as also a stone torso from Hinxworth, and possibly a stone cupid from Suffolk, could aU be regarded as outliers of the cult which had its centre at Colchester. In the present writer's view, this theory is not entirely convincing for the evidence upon which it is based is confined to objects distributed over a comparatively smaU area, whereas when the distribution for the whole of Roman Britain is taken into consideration, a completely different picture emerges. A glance at the distribution map of nearly one hundred examples of the clay figurines confirms that, if a cult centre did exist, it was not at Colchester, as Heiohelheim proposed, but elsewhere. In fact the distribution favours London as the place most likely to have been the cult centre, for no other site in Britain has produced so many figurines of the " pseudo-Venus." Another fact which emerges is that although the figurines are found throughout Roman Britain, the greatest incidence lies to the south-east of the hne of the Fosse Way, that is, in the civilian area of the province. In interpreting the distribution it is very necessary to bear in mind that a few figurines have been found along Hadrian's WaU, and this may mean that the comparatively small number in the north is due to the fact that archaeological excavations have been directed towards sites of a military nature whUe the civilian quarters which grew up in the shadow of these places are virtuaUy untouched. On the other hand, as the cult seems to have been favoured by the womenfolk, it could be that they formed a smah part of the population in those areas, and this may be the reason for the small number of figurines. Another factor which no doubt affected the distribution in the south-eastern area is its close proximity to Gaul. The region of Normandy is rich in clay figurines of this type, but as the distribution is traced northwards beyond Boulogne they become rarer.2 In 1 F. M. Heiohelheim, Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, XXXVII, pp. 61-3. 2 The lists compiled by A. Blanchet although now out of date are invaluable for the study of the continental distribution. A. Blanchet, op cit. 68 THE CULT OF THE "PSEUDO-VENUS" IN KENT Einistere they are very numerous, and judging by the many found in the old province of Armorica and around the estuary of the Seine, it is very obvious that Venus or her native counterpart was very popular. It is also of interest that temples of the Romano-Celtic type are concentrated around that estuary, and these have yielded a remarkable » • • • *« •• «. « & •>*£ e ea *JLQ a* «• Map of Roman Britain to illustrate distribution of clay figurines of the " pseudo- Venus" (see Appendix). All types. The large number from London shown by a single symbol. number of clay figurines of this type.1 In discussing the distribution of this style of temple architecture, Sir Mortimer Wheeler has suggested that it was from Normandy and the lower Seine that it spread to Britain.2 Erom what we have learned from the distribution of the x L. de Vesly, op cit. 2 B. E. M. Wheeler, Ant. Journal, VIII (1928), pp. 300-26. 69 THE CULT OF THE "PSEUDO-VENUS" IN KENT clay figurines of the " pseudo-Venus " it seems that there is good reason for assuming that the cult with which they were associated, crossed the Channel from the same region. Erom the evidence set forth in this paper it wUl be apparent that the clay figurmes had some significance in Romano-Gauhsh rehgion, and there seems httle reason for doubting that this also apphed to Britain. We have seen that in Gaul, the frequent occurrence of these objects at the sacred springs, indicates fairly conclusively that they were closely connected with the water-cults, whUe the custom of placing them in graves suggests that they had a part to play in the burial rites. In both spheres the symbolism is closely linked with that of mother-earth, the great universal deity from whence aU life springs, and to which at death it returns, to be born again into a hfe of blessedness. In studying the figurines from Britain, simUar associations are indicated, although the evidence is not so clear as that from Gaul. If then we accept that the same deity was venerated in both regions, then the personage represented by the clay figurines must have had closely simUar, if not identical functions, which qualified her membership in the circle of female deities displaying aU the manifestations of the universal mothergoddess. In this capacity, she would have been concerned with fertility and abundance, as weU as good health. It is therefore a reasonable assumption that her votaries were women who invoked her aid in conceiving chUdren, by warding off disease, and to assist them during the actual childbirth, a clay figurine of the goddess being the orthodox gift on such occasions. The gratitude of the worshipper would no doubt be expressed in a simUar manner. We have now arrived at the major problem, the identity of the goddess. Roman Venus, goddess of love, is suggested by the art-type, but it is very difficult to detect a deity of that kind in Gaulish rehgion. Perhaps the art-type merely expressed the physical qualities of a native deity a mother-goddess Who had no spiritual kinship with Venus. But before we accept this identity it is wise to bear in mind that the clay figurines could be representations of a water-nymph who was venerated as the guardian of the sacred waters, the source of aU life, which brings us back to the behef in fertility and abundance. Thus there seems httle doubt that the divinity was concerned with those qualities, and in view of the number of her clay images found throughout Roman Britain, it seems that her cult was popular in this country. If we are correct in recognizing her as a deity of that kind, then it is clear that she was venerated by a section of the native population, not as classical Venus, but a native deity who to us remains anonymous, and lacking any inscriptions which would shed light on her identity, it seems as well to regard her as the " pseudo-Venus." 70 THE CULT OF THE "PSEUDO-VENUS" IN KENT THE GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OE CLAY FIGURINES OE THE " PSEUDO-VENUS " IN BRITAIN KENT 1. Canterbury, King's Street. Canterbury Excavation Committee. (Unpubhshed.) Plate IIB present paper. 2. Canterbury, Burgate. Canterbury Excavation Committee. (Unpubhshed.) 3. Canterbury, WhitehaURoad. Canterbury Excavation Committee. A smaU fragment of left leg only. (Unpubhshed.) 4. Richborough. Society of Antiquaries of London, Research Report, X, p. 82, pi. XIII, No. 43. Richborough Museum. 5. Richborough. C. Roach Smith, Antiquities of Richborough, Reculver and Lymne, p. 71, text fig. 6. Richborough. Richborough Museum. No. 1661. 7. Chart Sutton. Arch. Cant., LXIII (1950), p. 155. Maidstone Museum. Plate IIA present paper. 8. Eastry-next-Sandwich. Found 1948. British Museum. 9. Cooling, near Bromhey Farm. Arch. Cant., XLII, proceedings, p. xlvni; hence Victoria County History, Kent, III, p. 151. 10. Hoo, or neighbourhood. An unusual type; precise detaUs unknown and the identification is rather doubtful. Eastgate Museum, Rochester. 11. St. Paul's Cray. Found by Mr. John Parsons. Pubhcation pending. 12. Springhead (Vagniacae). Found by Mr. W. S. Penn. Pubhcation pending. 13. Springhead (Vagniacae). Pound by Mr. W. S. Penn in the ceUa of the Romano-Celtic temple. Pubhcation pending. LONDON 14. Coleman Street. London Museum Catalogue, Roman London. No. 3, p. 48, pi. XXI, 1. 15. CopthaU Court. Ibid., p. 48. pi. XXI, 2. 16. London. Ibid., p. 48, pi. XXI, 3. 17. Angel Court. Ibid., p. 48, pi. XXI, 4. 18. AU HaUows Church, Tower HUl. Unpubhshed. 19. AU HaUows Church, Tower HUl. Unpubhshed. 20. AU HaUows Church, Tower HUl. Unpubhshed. 21. St. Martin-le Grand, G.P.O. site. Archaeologia, LXVI, pi. XXV, 1. GuUdhaU Museum No. 10533. 22. London. GuUdhaU Museum No. 2091. Guildhall Museum Catalogue, p. 70. No. 33, pi. XVI, 5. 23. London. G.H. Museum No. 2092. Ibid., p. 70, No. 34, pi. XV, 2. 24. London. G.H. Museum No. 2093. Ibid., p. 70, No. 35. 71 THE CULT OF THE "PSEUDO-VENUS" IN KENT 25. London WaU. G. H. Museum No. 2094. Ibid., p. 70, No. 36. 26. Mark Lane. G. H. Museum No. 2095. Ibid., p. 70, No. 37. 27. London. G.H. Museum No. 12599A. 28. London. G.H. Museum No. 2097. Ibid., p. 70, No. 39. 29. London WaU. G.H. Museum No. 2096. 30. Founders Court, Lothbury. G.H. Museum No. 17598. 31. Bank of England site. G.H. Museum No. 1936.336. 32. Bank of England site. British Museum No. 1928.7-13.10. Antiquaries Journal, VII, pp. 524-5, fig. 33. London. British Museum, C. Roach Smith CoUection No. 56/7-1-314. 34. St. Paul's Churchyard. British Museum, C.R.S. Collection No. 56/7-1-315. 35. Haydon Street, Minories. British Museum, IngaU Collection No. 54/11-30, 42. 36. WaUbrook, Bond Court, GuUdhaU Museum, No. 10,371. Archaeologia, LXIII, pi. LXIX. 37. London. No precise detaUs. Cambridge Museum of Archseology and Ethnology No. 23.553. The foUowing are in the British Museum Roach Smith Collection, and are almost certainly from London although exact sites are not stated. Nos. 38-44 inclusive. 38. British Museum C.R.S. 56/7-1-316. 39. B.M., C.R.S. 56/7-1-317. 40. B.M., C.R.S. 56/7-1-318. 41. B.M., C.R.S. 56/7-1-319. 42. B.M., C.R.S. 56/7-1-320. 43. B.M., C.R.S. 56/7-1-324. 44. B.M., C.R.S. 56/7-1-327. ESSEX 45. Colchester. Colchester Museum, Joslin CoUection, No. 977. 46. Colchester, North HUl. Colchester Museum No. 2084.10. 47. Colchester. Colchester Museum Joslin Collection, No. 978. 48. Colchester. Colchester Museum Report (1908-9), p. 15, pi. VIII, No. 3. HERTFORDSHIRE 49. Verulamium. Soc. Ant. London Research Report, Verulamium, XI, p. 203, pi. LXI. No. 3. This example is stamped IOPPILLO, which occurred on a mould, stamped in relief, in the Allier district of France. 50. Verulamium. Ibid., p. 203, pi. LXI, No. 4. 51. Verulamium. Ibid., p. 203, pi. LXI, No. 5. 72 THE CULT OF THE " PSEUDO-VENUS " IN KENT 52. St. Albans, Everlasting Lane. Found in a grave with associated Samian ware of Hadrian-Antonine date. Information kindly given by Mrs. Audrey Williams, F.S.A. All these are in the Verulamium Museum. SUSSEX 53. Alfoldean, at the Roman Station. Sussex Archceological Society CoUections, LXV, p. 131, fig. 54. Alfoldean, same site as above, but not part of the same figurine. Loe. cit., not figured. 55. Southwick, Roman vUla site. Sussex Arch. Soc. Coll., LXXIII, p. 29. HAMPSHIRE 56. SUchester, Archaeologia, XCII, pp. 129 and 147, pi. XXXVI d. Reading Museum. No. 03714 a. 57. SUchester. Archaeologia, LVIII, p. 423; T. May, The Roman Pottery at Silchester, p. 103, pi. XXXIX B, 9. Reading Museum No. 03714 b. 58. Silchester. Archaeologia, LX, p. 163. T. May, op. cit., p. 103, pi. XXXIX B. 10. Reading Museum No. 03714 d. 59. SUchester. T. May, op. cit., p. 103, pi. XXXIX B, 7. Reading Museum No. 03714 g. 60. Silchester. T. May, op. cit., p. 103, pi. XXXIX B, 11. No. 03714 c. 61. SUchester. T. May, op. cit., pi. XXXIX B, 12. Archaeologia, LIII, p. 283. Reading Museum No. 03714 f. 62. SUchester. T. May, op. cit., p. 103, pi. XXXIX B, 13. Reading Museum No. 03714 e. 63. Holt Down, Roman vUla site between Horndean and Butser. Journal of Roman Studies, XVH, p. 208. SUFFOLK 64. Hawkedon, Glebe Farm. Proc. Suffolk Institute of Archaeology (1888-9), VI, 9 et seq., fig. Hence Archaeological Journal, LVII, p. 106. 65. Hawkedon, Glebe Farm, loe. cit. 66. Blyford Bridge. Proc. Suffolk Institute of Archaeology, XXIV, p. 171. NORFOLK 67. Waterloo Scole. Proc. Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and Natural History, XXII, pi. VI, p. 267. 68. WUton. Found in 1931. Unpubhshed. Information from Mr. R. A. Clarke, of the Castle Museum, Norwich. 73 THE CULT OF THE "PSEUDO-VENUS" IN KENT SOMERSET 69. Charterhouse-on-Mendip. Victoria County History of Somerset, I, p. 337. Capper-Pass CoUection, Bristol Museum. Two pieces perhaps one ex. 70. Bawdrip. Roman vUla site. Unpubhshed. Information from Mr. Dewar of Bridgwater. 71. Bath. Found during the excavation of the Great Bath. Now in the Roman Baths Museum. HEREFORDSHIRE 72. Kenchester. Report of the excavations 1924-5, issued by the Woolhope Naturalists' Field Club, Hereford City Museum. YORKSHIRE 73. York, the Mount (1872). The Yorkshire Museum No. 857. 74. York, the Mount, site of Friends' School (1872). Yorks. Museum No. 481. 75. York, Fawcett Street. Yorks. Museum No. 863. 76. York. Found 1955 outside the boundary of the colonia. Information from Mr. Peter Wenham. GLOUCESTERSHIRE 77. Cirencester. Corinium Museum, Bathurst Collection No. 1547. CHESHIRE. 78. Chester, St. Mary's HiU. Archaeological Journal, XIX, p. 186. W. Thompson-Watkin, Roman Cheshire (1886), p. 220, text fig. DURHAM 79. South Shields, the Lawe. Blackgate Museum, Newcastle-on- Tyne. Two pieces, perhaps one example. CUMBERLAND 80. Birdoswald. Found in 4th century barrack block. Reference is in London Museum Catalogue No. 3, Roman London, p. 48. 81. Carhsle, rear of Crown Inn, Botchergate (1898). Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmoreland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, XV, p. 504, pi. I. 82. Carhsle, English Street; found 1872. Carlisle Public Library and Museum No. 15-20.9. 83. Carhsle. Found in the River Eden, south of Stanwix (Petriana), Oct., 1952. Now in the possession of the finder Mr. W. R. AUen, 35 Etherly Street, Carhsle. 74 THE CULT OF THE "PSEUDO-VENUS" IN KENT NORTHUMBERLAND 84. High'Rochester (Bremenium). J. CoUingwood Bruce, The Roman Wall, 3rd edition (1867), p. 326, fig. Was at time of pubhcation in Alnwick Castle coUection. 85. Chesters. The Roman Antiquities in the Museum at Chesters, p. 366. pi. 63, fig. 60. 86. Chesters. Op. cit., p. 366, pi. 63, fig. 59. 87. Corbridge. Found in the 1906-14 excavations. Corbridge Museum. 88. Housesteads. Housesteads Museum. Unpubhshed. LEICESTERSHIRE 89. Leicester, Red Cross Street. Now in Leicester Museum. SHROPSHIRE 90. Wroxeter. Society of Antiquaries of London, Research Report, Wroxeter, I (1912), p. 31, pi. XI, fig. 3. 91. Wroxeter. Ibid., pi. XI, fig. 2. 92. Wroxeter. MONMOUTHSHIRE 93. Caerwent. Archaeologia, LX, p. 121. Newport Museum. 94. Caerwent, from House XII (north). Newport Museum. 95. Caerwent, from House XXIV (north). Newport Museum. GLAMORGANSHIRE 96. Merthyr Tydfyl, Penydarren Park, Roman buUding " H." Archaeologia Cambrensis VI (6th series), 1906, pp. 201, 205-6, fig. 11. NOTTINGHAMSHIRE 97. Margidunum. F. Oswald, Margidunum, City of Nottingham Art Museum, Nottingham Castle pubhcation (The Thoroton Press), p. 26. DORSET 98. Dorchester, WoUaston House. Unpublished. An interim report of the excavations in Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society, 70 (1948), pp. 61-2, but with no mention of this figurine. Probably from a deposit in a weU with Samian dated c. A.D. 120. STAFFORDSHIRE 99. Wall (Letocetum), site of Roman Bath-house. Letooetum Museum, . WaU. 7 6 THE CULT OF THE "PSEUDO-VENUS" IN KENT; Addenda : ESSEX 100. Colchester. Found 1855. British Museum No. 65, 4-8, 17. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Limitations of space prevent the mention individuaUy of aU those who have kindly provided information concerning the figurines included in the appended hst of the distribution in Britain. To aU, the author extends his warmest thanks. 76