Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey (

c) E

urop

ean

Ass

ocia

tion

of A

rcha

eolo

gist

sEuropean Journal of Archaeology 14 (3) 2011512

The religious hybridisation of Roman and Celtic societies of northwest mainland Europe and Britain can be profitably studied through humble items used in ritual practices. This is the principal argument of Philip Kiernan’s 2009 investigation of miniature votive offerings. The book under review is the result of his 2007 doctoral thesis, completed at the Ruprecht-Karls-Universität, Heidelberg.

This is a fascinating and geographically wide-ranging exploration of ‘Romano-Celtic’ ritual practice, covering Britain and Continental Europe north of the Alps and the Pyrenees. The book is also a necessar-ily source-critical and cautious synthe-sis, investigating a form of ritual practice whose material traces are bedevilled by problems of classification, terminology and interpretation.

The geographical breath is a key strength of the study, enabling the author to look at a widespread phenomenon. Unfortunately, due to this scope, an analysis of the relation-ship between miniatures and models with other votive objects (depictions of animals and deities among them), and the analysis of how these artefacts are disposed of in differ-ent contexts (temples, urban and rural settle-ments, burials, etc.) are only briefly addressed. Despite this, an important argument of the book is that, contrary to previous assump-tions, miniature votive offerings are a heter-ogeneous group. Some of the artefacts under consideration prove not to be miniature and models at all, and others may be miniatures and models but are not utilised in principally or exclusively votive contexts. Those that do constitute miniature and model votive offerings may have different roles in ritual practice that change over time from the late

Iron Age through the early Roman period, and (in some cases) their use persisted into the third and fourth centuries AD.

Following an introduction, there are seven chapters exploring different types of miniature votive offerings and a concluding ninth chapter that draws the key arguments together. The large appendix is mainly taken up by a catalogue of model axes: one of the principal artefact types under consideration.

Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the focus of the book, outlining three previous approaches, all treating miniature and model votives as a homogenous group: (1) they are cheap substitutes for real things that are banned or cannot be afforded under Roman rule, (2) miniature objects are a form of ritual destruction and mutilation, dedicating items destined for the spirit world, (3) miniatures are symbolic of the desires and identities of the dedicator. The author reminds us that these are not mutually exclusive interpreta-tions. In any case, Kiernan argues that the biggest problem facing the study of mini-ature votive offerings is that most excavation reports and studies do not chose an inter-pretation, they simply group miniature finds together, serving to perpetuate the idea that they represent a coherent category (p. 7).

In Chapter 2, miniature wheels are con-sidered, noting the wider use of the wheel in ceremonial head gear (from the Wanbourgh temple, Surrey), wheel-shaped additions to fibulae and pins and models from burials thought to have been worn as amulets (pp. 14–16). The discovery of wheels from temples and ritual deposits is known from a range of French Iron Age sanctuaries (pp. 16–20) while Kiernan speculates with some justifica-tion that metal rings found in large numbers at certain sanctuaries might constitute a

Philip Kiernan, Miniature Votive Offerings in the Roman North-West (MENTOR: Studien zu Metallarbeiten und Toreutik der Antike 4, Mainz und Ruhpolding: Verlag Franz Philipp Rutzen, 2009, 299 pp., 143 b/w illustr., hbk, ISBN 978-3-941336-45-2, 978-3-447-05991-6)

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey (

c) E

urop

ean

Ass

ocia

tion

of A

rcha

eolo

gist

sReviews 513

related phenomenon (pp. 23–26). Kiernan dismisses previous suggestions that wheel models were model chariots or substitutes for them (p. 29), the suggestion that they repre-sent voting tokens (pp. 30–31), and the idea that they were used as coins or substitutes for coins (pp. 31–32). While the wheel could be included on Iron Age coins and in Iron Age and Roman dress, the artefacts found at sanc-tuaries cannot have all been worn as amulets (pp. 32–33). Kiernan reviews the study of wheel iconography by Miranda Green (1984) who regarded their use as pendants and votives linked to the solar cult of a Celtic sky/fertility deity of unknown name (pp. 36–38). A cautious conclusion to the chapter cites the need for further work and contextual analysis of the mass-deposition of wheel models from late Iron Age sites and the shift to an Early Roman practice of individual depositional acts of model wheels.

Chapter 3 explores miniature arms and armour including the deposition of mini-ature weapons from the sanctuary in the Bois du Flavier, near Mouzon, France (pp. 47–63) and Blicquy, Hainaut, Belgium (pp. 63–-66). Kiernan charts the origins of min-iature weapons from the Iron Age, discuss-ing the Salisbury hoard (pp. 42–46). The study is cautious not to label all weapons as ‘miniatures’ or ‘models’ since many may have been functioning razors, knives and folding pocket knives inspired by the form of weapons (pp. 78–83). Equally, for spear-heads it is difficult to discern between models and blades for projectile weapons (arrowheads and javelins: pp. 89–97). Model swords, shields and spears might also be fragments of lost bronze figurines. There are cases that are seen as convincing however. For sanctuary sites with previous Iron Age weapon deposits, he argues for a likely substitution theory for the continued deposition of miniature weapons. Kiernan speculates that such rituals may have alle-viated a social anxiety in not being able to participate in inter-tribal warfare and cel-

ebrate military victories under Roman rule (pp. 112–113).

The study then considers axes as votive offerings (Chapter 4). Based on a sample of 217 (mostly bronze) model axes collected from his study area, a typology is created and their distributions mapped. Most date to between 50 BC and AD 200 and derive from ritual sites, although there is no dis-cussion of the precise contexts and assem-blages that they form part of. The author argues that the geographical distribution is clearly swayed by the history of archaeology in the different regions under investigation; the distribution of axe models concentrates in Britain and Switzerland, a pattern expli-cable by these countries’ long history of recording small finds (p. 134). Regarding the interpretation of model axes, Kiernan remains uncertain but is able to dismiss the idea that these were ‘substitutes’ for the deposition of real axes. The author puts forward the fascinating argument that the reuse of prehistoric axes, found deposited in Roman-period contexts from some of the same sanctuary sites that produce model axes, might be a related facets of axes’ sig-nificance in Romano-Celtic ritual practice. This leads him to consider the solar icono-graphy proposed for axes by Miranda Green (1984: discussed p. 143, pp. 147–148). However, in contrast to the interpretations of wheels, the author regards the limitations of this approach as an inability to associate the axe with any specific deity or realm of worship (p. 148). While recognising that it is unlikely that the same rituals were con-ducted in the north-west provinces to those in Italy, Kiernan finds it most convincing to regard the axe as representing the weapon of the ritual attendant assigned to killing sac-rificial beasts: the popa. He cites two limita-tions even with this idea: the lack of model axes from Italy or elsewhere in the Roman world, and the lack of other miniature sac-rificial tools from Romano-Celtic sanctuar-ies. He is perhaps too ready to dismiss the

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey (

c) E

urop

ean

Ass

ocia

tion

of A

rcha

eolo

gist

sEuropean Journal of Archaeology 14 (3) 2011514

military connotations of the axe based on a clichéd view of Celtic and Roman warfare, but does see them as likely to be symbols of ‘divine or earthly authority’ (p. 152).

Coins are the next focus of scrutiny (Chapter 5), reviewing discoveries of ceramic and lead jetons utilised as votive substitutes for coins at sanctuaries but not as models of coins (pp. 154–157). Kiernan is not convinced by arguments that coin impressions, wax coins or plated coins served specifically as votives and likewise he dismisses the idea that ‘minimissimi’ (small bronze coins) found at temple sites constitute ritual money (p. 163).

Chapter 6 reviews occasional instances of miniature ceramic and metal vessels, lamps, tripods, stands and miniature table-ware. Many of the vessels called ‘miniature’ from sanctuaries are here interpreted as functional containers for incense, perfumes, oils and perhaps used as candles at ritual sites. Other categories such as miniature lead-alloy tablewares are thought to be toys rather than votive offerings. Chapter 7 reviews a range of rarer miniatures including jewellery, tools, and mallets, sandaled feet, boats and anchors, although few are recov-ered from reliable archaeological contexts. Finally, the author addresses the miniature objects found principally in late Roman adult female burials in the Cologne area, popularly known as Mithrassymbole, includ-ing miniature balances, double yokes, keys, ladders, axes, hammers and saws as well as snakes, toads and lizards. He dismisses any association with the cult of Mithras and suggests that other interpretations are also inadequate, including their use as weights, their association with the cult of Jupiter Sabazius, or that they indicate Germanic burial practice (pp. 203–207). Their role as symbols of wealth and fertility is broached, and Kiernan emphasises the importance of understanding these as amulets connected with cosmetic application (pp. 208–209). Most importantly for the study, he regards

them as unrelated to miniature votive offer-ings, instead representing a ‘very specific and localised type of grave good...’ (p. 210).

Minor typographical errors are not infrequent (e.g. the author ‘Eckart’ should read Eckardt on p. 168) and a few gram-matical errors also occur, but most dis-tracting are occasional shifts in font-size between and sometimes within some para-graphs. Overall though, this is a handsome if austere volume with fine black and white photographs, maps and line illustrations supporting the text.

So where does Kiernan’s study leave us regarding the interpretation of miniature votive offerings? The conclusion (Chapter 9) is very short (pp. 211–218). Given his assertion that miniature offerings are a het-erogeneous category, the interpretations are unlikely to be homogeneous and Kiernan’s caution to avoid a blanket explanation is laudable. Still, this work is most effective in critiquing others rather than develop-ing a clear interpretation of each category of miniatures and models. This leads me to four points for further discussion.

What does this study tell us about the socio-economic and political context of shifts in ritual practice between the late Iron Age and the Early Roman period? Kiernan cites the potential for his material to address the long-debated issues regard-ing ‘Romanisation’:

The dedication of small votive offerings, however humble, actually represent [sic] the actions of far more people than the con-struction of temples and the use of inscrip-tions do. As such they have the potential to be an even better source of information about changing beliefs (p. 215).

However, to address this issue, the study needed to engage with the Romanisation debate, and specifically, theories of ritual and religious change are sadly lacking here.

This leads to a second point. Kiernan suggests that the votive deposition of mini-atures and models represents the transfor-mation of the Iron Age traditions of ‘high

Pub

lishe

d by

Man

ey (

c) E

urop

ean

Ass

ocia

tion

of A

rcha

eolo

gist

sReviews 515

value dedications’ at sanctuaries (p. 4). Miniatures are seen as a substitute for the deposition of animal and human bones, iron weapons, armour, horse gear and precious metals as ‘typical’ for Gallic sanctuaries and watery contexts, often bearing signs of ritual damage. The change in the Roman period is the introduction of a varied range of new votive offering types, many of low economic value, of which miniatures are one manifes-tation, perhaps reflecting a move to more ‘individual’ ritual practice. However, the study does not discuss the inheritance of more widespread and localised traditions of ‘ritual/structured deposition’ in settlement and boundary contexts in the late Iron Age. Might lower-status Iron Age votive deposi-tion have taken place using items of daily use and personal dress as well as organic materials, only to be revealed with the avail-ability and interaction with new artefact types during and following conquest? After all, Roman votive practices are not exclu-sively comprised of specially-made mini-ature items as Kiernan ably demonstrates.

A third point regards the context of min-iaturising select artefacts for use in ritual contexts. Clearly some of the artefacts studied by Kiernan were made for, and used as, votive offerings in religious contexts, while others may require alternative explanations. Kiernan is rightly scathing of the uncritical and poorly applied use of the terms ‘miniature’ and ‘model’ although, ironically, I could not find a clear definition in this study of what constitutes a miniature and how it differs from a model – both terms are used ubiqui-tously in this study. However, I felt that his study is overly concerned with distinguish-ing artefacts on the basis of utility rather than considering the relationship between functioning and miniature artefacts. In my study of combs and toilet implements from early Anglo-Saxon graves, I found a similar problem to Kiernan in finding previous studies inconsistent and confused regarding their terminology regarding ‘miniatures’. Yet,

I found the key to their interpretation was to contextualise and investigate both ‘func-tional’ and ‘miniature’ artefacts employed in ritual contexts (Williams 2007). I wonder how profitable this approach might be for Roman mortuary and votive contexts?

This in turn leads to my fourth and final point. I wondered whether it might be more profitable to interpret the material agency of the votive miniature artefacts linked to their actual or imagined utility rather than a more abstract symbolic meaning. To this reviewer, it is notable that his two most convincing categories of miniature or model votive offerings (wheels and axes) both relate to real objects with distinctive circular movements when used – a wheel spins, an axe is swung or spins when thrown. Indeed, Kiernan only briefly cites an idea by Miranda Green that the wheel models may have contained a high tin content to give them a bright sun-like appearance (p. 37). Might their efficacy in ritual performance as miniatures have been related to their shining appearance and the spinning move-ments they create when thrown or dropped in dramaturgical contexts? Perhaps we need to consider more closely what miniature and full-sized wheels and axes do and what effects they may have created before we consider what they mean.

RefeReNces

Green, M., 1984. The Wheel as a Cult-Symbol in the Romano-Celtic World. Brussels: Latomus.

Williams, H., 2007. Transforming body and soul: toilet implements in early Anglo-Saxon graves. In S. Semple and H. Williams (eds), Early Medieval Mortuary Practices. Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 14: 66–91. Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity School of Archaeology.

Howard WilliamsDepartment of History and Archaeology,

University of Chester, UK