2. GAULISH TERRACOTTAS

In Gaul there appear to have been very extensive manufactures of terracottas, but not anterior to the conquest by Julius Caesar in 58 B.C. These statuettes were made for the Roman colonists, who introduced the types of their own religious conceptions, but the makers were local craftsmen. Potteries have been unearthed at Moulins on the banks of the Allier, and in Auvergne and other parts of France, and even in Germany, where one was discovered at Heiligenberg in Alsace, and others on the Rhine (see below, p. 384). The finds on the Allier, made in 1857, give a practically complete survey of the subjects; they are all now collected in the museums of Moulins and St. Germain, and were fully published at the time in a work by M. Tudot.[2663] The figures found here are not from tombs, but were unearthed from the sites of the potteries and from ruins of buildings; they are all made in a peculiar white clay, whereas the figures of the Gironde district are grey or black, and those of the Rhine Valley reddish, like those of Britain. The technique resembles that of the Roman figures; there is no vent-hole, and they usually stand on a conical base; the modelling is very heavy, and the latest specimens are absolutely barbaric. Until recently the subject of Gaulish terracottas had been greatly neglected; Tudot’s plates were useful, but his text unsatisfactory and devoid of method, there being no proper description of the plates. M. Pottier has given a good summary of his work, and M. Héron de Villefosse has also dealt with some aspects of the subject.[2664] But they had not been treated as a whole and in relation to the subject of ancient terracottas in general until 1891, when an important memoir by M. Blanchet appeared, in which a complete survey of the Gaulish terracottas was given.[2665] This must of necessity form the basis of the present account. In dealing with the technical character of the terracottas found in Gaul, M. Blanchet points out that the white clay of which many are made (_e.g._ those from the Allier valley) is not universal; some are made of red or grey clay, which has turned white in the baking, apparently by a process analogous to that used by the Chinese for porcelain, others are actually covered with a white _engobe_ like the Greek terracottas. This appears to have been done with a view to subsequent colouring, which in nearly all cases has quite disappeared; but statuettes with remains of colouring, made of purely red clay, have recently been found in the neighbourhood of the Moselle and in Germany.[2666] M. Blanchet quotes an example in the Museum at Angers, with the name of the maker, P · FABI · NICIAE, which is coated with a lead glaze like the enamelled wares described in Chapter III. He considers that the moulds from which they were made were often of bronze, and that bronze models were used as copies; but that they were also of terracotta is clear from the numerous examples given by Tudot. A terracotta mould for a figure of Venus Anadyomene, found at Clermont-Ferrand, is in the British Museum, and another from Moulins is for the back of the head of a similar figure, with hair elaborately coiled.[2667] From the numerous moulds which have been found it may be seen that the figures were cast in two pieces, longitudinally, the arms being added afterwards, together with the circular plinth. The mould in the British Museum may be cited as an example of one for the back part of a figure; probably only the upper part was modelled. Potters’ names are exceedingly common, not only on the figures, but also on the moulds,[2668] and form two distinct classes, those on the _exterior_ of the moulds, and those on the figures or _interior_ of the moulds (which are obviously the same thing). The distinction is that the former were merely for the identification of the moulds, while the latter indicated the creator of the type and made him known to the world, a feature which, as will be noted in Chapter XXIII. (p. 511), reappears in the pottery of Westerndorff in Germany. Tudot gives an example of a mould with the name ATILANO on the exterior and IOPPILLO on the inside.[2669] Many of the names are identical with those of the makers of vases,[2670] but the types and subjects are quite distinct from those on the Gaulish _terra sigillata_. Those on the exterior of the moulds are usually in a scrawling cursive type, whereas the other class are in capital letters[2671]; the cursive characters resemble those in use at Pompeii, but are not necessarily contemporary; they are, however, not later than the second century. The influence of this cursive character seems to have extended to the other class; for instance, in the inscription given in Fig. 198 below, not only are the G and S of cursive form, but E appears in the form II. Otherwise the letters are in the ordinary Roman alphabet (with the exception of A, which is sometimes 15[14]Attic alpha the forms E and II seem to have been used indifferently in Gaul at all periods. The “signature” sometimes combines the two names, as in the form AVOT FORM SACRILLOS CARATRI which has been taken to mean _Sacrillos fecit forma Caratri_, “made by Sacrillos from Caratrius’ mould.”[2672] Among the Roman names which occur are Attilianus, Lucanus, Pistillus, Priscus, Taurus, and Tiberius; among the Gaulish, Abudinus, Belinus, Camulenus, and Tritoguno. [Illustration: From _Blanchet_. FIG. 198. GAULISH FIGURE OF APHRODITE FROM NORMANDY. ] A large majority of the existing statuettes were, as we have seen, made in the valley of the Allier; these show more conspicuously than any others, the influence of transplanted Graeco-Roman art. Curiously enough none have been found at Lezoux, one of the chief pottery-centres of Gaul, although there is abundant evidence that the vases and statuettes were made in the same workshops (see above).[2673] M. Blanchet considers that there was a large and important manufacture in Western France, which may have been inspired by the Allier workshops, but mainly exhibits native characteristics; he also notes the scarcity of these figures in Southern Gaul (Narbonensis), which may perhaps be explained by the preference there shown for bronze statuettes and vases with medallions (p. 530).[2674] Other centres were Cesson, Meaux (where Atilanus and Sacrillos can be located), Bourbon-Lancy in Saône-et-Loire, and St. Rémy-en-Rollat (see p. 516), where vases also were made of the local white clay. M. Déchelette has been able to assign to the last-named pottery a date between A.D. 15 and 50. Another fabric was in the neighbourhood of Liège, and in Germany there were centres at Salzburg, and at Cologne, where the maker Vindex can be dated in the reign of Postumus (A.D. 260-270).[2675] An important maker, Pistillus, had a pottery at Autun; his statuettes are found all over Gaul,[2676] and the name appears on vases and coins, and also in an inscription.[2677] Julius Allusa had a workshop at Bordeaux. In West and North-West France statuettes are found with the name of Rextugenos; they are all of peculiar and original character, with highly-ornamented backgrounds to the figures, and easily distinguished. The specimen given in Fig. 198, representing Venus Genetrix, was found at Caudebec-les-Elbeuf in Normandy (Seine-Inférieure); it bears the inscription RIIXTVGIINOSSVLLIASAVVOT, _Rextugenos Sullias auvot_ (sc. _fecit_).[2678] An interesting find of terracotta figures was made at Colchester in 1866,[2679] consisting of thirteen figures presenting exact analogies to the Gallo-Roman terracottas of the second period both in type and style. One very poor specimen represents Hercules with club and lion-skin; another a bull, and a third a bust of a boy (perhaps a portrait of Nero or Britannicus); four are recumbent figures. The rest are more or less grotesque, including caricatured seated figures holding books or rolls, and a buffoon. With them were found vases in the form of animals of yellow-glazed ware. Figures of suckling goddesses (see below) have been found in Britain, and similar finds of Gallo-Roman types in white clay in London, among them a Venus holding a tress of her hair.[2680] Votive offerings of parts of the body and figures of the goddess Fecunditas were found near the source of the Seine, in a temple of Dea Sequana, the local river-deity.[2681] Other finds have been made in Touraine, Anjou, La Vendée, Brittany, and Normandy, brought by commerce from the Allier potteries; and in Germany at Heddernheim and on the Rhine. Part of a group of some size in purely Graeco-Roman style from the Department of Marne is now in the British Museum (Morel Collection). Tudot originally classified the Gaulish terracottas chronologically in three periods according to style, and in this he has been followed by M. Pottier. But M. Blanchet[2682] has pointed out that the former’s method was altogether unscientific, that he trusted too much to the evidence of coin-finds, and that he was altogether wrong in conceiving the possibility of any being anterior to the Roman conquest. On the whole the chronological data are exceedingly vague, and can only be accepted in isolated instances, as in the case of the finds at St. Rémy-en-Rollat (A.D. 15-50) or Cologne (A.D. 260-270), or where a resemblance in the coiffure of the feminine figures to those of Roman ladies can be traced. Some figures may probably be dated about A.D. 100 on the latter ground, the head-dress recalling those of Domitia and Julia the daughter of Titus. But it can only be laid down with certainty that the manufacture of statuettes was introduced into Gaul with the _terra sigillata_ or ornamented red pottery at the beginning of the Imperial period. Where there is a question of decadent or barbaric style, as is undoubtedly often the case, it does not necessarily imply a late date, but only that the inferior work is due to the incapacity of some local artist, and figures of varying style must frequently be contemporaneous.[2683] In dealing with the types of Gaulish terracottas, their origin and signification, M. Blanchet divides the subjects into three classes, of which the first is not only the largest but the most interesting: divinities, subjects from daily life, and animals. The deities are not those we should expect from Caesar’s statement[2684] that Mercury, Apollo, Mars, Jupiter, and Minerva represent the scale of popularity in Gaul, for they are mainly variants of one type, that of Venus. Many of these Venus figures reproduce types familiar in Greek and Graeco-Roman art, such as the Anadyomene, and the Cnidian or Pudica type; but in the majority she is frankly recognised as a Nature-goddess (Aphrodite Pandemos or Venus Genetrix), and hence we find numerous examples in which the old Oriental conception of the nude Aphrodite-Astarte with pronounced sexual characteristics, so common in the primitive terracottas of Chaldaea, Phoenicia, and Cyprus,[2685] once more reappears, as in Fig. 198. Of almost equal frequency is the seated type of the Mother-Goddess or Κουροτρόφος, suckling a child[2686]; this is not peculiar to Gaul, but is found in the terracottas of Southern Italy.[2687] We may compare also the Fecunditas types on Roman coins.[2688] Blanchet thinks that the goddess Rumina may be here intended, but prefers to adopt the general term of Mother-Goddess. [Illustration: From _Blanchet_. FIG. 199. GAULISH TERRACOTTA: THE GODDESS EPONA. ] Among other mythological types the Ephesian Artemis, Pallas, Mercury, Epona (Fig. 199), and Abundantia occur; and among _genre_ subjects the most interesting type is that of the Spinario, or boy extracting a thorn from his foot, familiar in Greek sculpture. Slaves, caricatures, and busts of ladies (see above) or children wearing the _bulla_, vases in the form of heads, and busts affixed to plates, also come under the latter category. Many of these are exceedingly rude and barbaric; children are transformed into coarse grotesques, and animals look (says M. Pottier) as if they had come out of a Noah’s ark. The artistic origin of the Gaulish types has been discussed by M. Blanchet,[2689] who points out that although the modern tendency is to restrict the rôle played by Alexandrine art of the Hellenistic period in influencing that of Rome,[2690] yet its effect on Gaul cannot be altogether ignored. That Egyptian cults found their way into Gaul is well known,[2691] and in the terracottas such types as Isis and Horus appear, while comparisons may frequently be made with the late terracottas found in the Fayûm and at Naukratis. But there was also a stream of influence from Southern Italy, especially Campania, whence, as we have seen, the Mother-Goddess types were largely derived. As regards the uses for which these terracottas were made, much that has been said on that head in Chapter III. will apply equally to Gaul. They have been found not only in tombs, but in wells and rivers, and on the sites of sanctuaries[2692]; but they do not seem to have had any special funerary significance. The majority were probably used for various domestic purposes in the houses, the figures of animals, for instance, as toys, and were then buried with their owners. Those found in wells or rivers may be regarded as votive offerings, as it is well known that the Gauls were fond of throwing votive figures into rivers or springs.