Hollow cast in heavily leaded bronze, the foot is shod in a sandal with the appearance of a thin sole, though there is no sole underneath the foot. The surviving part of the sandal consists of two perpendicular straps that cross on top of the foot at the big toe. A flower with four petals and raised central disc, reminiscent of a daisy, embellishes the crossing, while the straps widen from the crossing point. The toes are undefined, suggesting that the foot also wears a sock, an assessment which is supported by the damaged remains of additional decoration on the outside of the foot, which would not have been covered by the sandal straps. This decoration consists of a 5–point star made from more raised discs. Such a simple sandal is quite unusual, both in Roman art and in Roman footwear. The closest type of actual shoe seems to be the sandal, Van Driel-Murray’s type 11, which has a single strap across the toes, another strap running perpendicular up the instep, and then a more ornate closed-in heel, with fastening at the base of the ankle.
Surviving examples of bronze sculpture in London are rare, and identification of those remaining is difficult. Of the roughly fifteen fragments of bronze statuary found in London and the south east region, only one, the head of Hadrian dredged from the Thames and now in the British Museum, has been identified. The nature of this example and its fragmentary state makes sound identification nigh impossible. Another foot from a larger than life-size bronze statue (this example being a right foot) was found in London, near Holborn, and is now in the British Museum. However, further study of this does not aid identification of the Tabard Square piece. The Holborn foot is bare, with the toes realistically rendered and much of the sole remaining, by contrast with the Tabard Square example. Given the find spot some distance to the west of the Roman city boundary, this may not even be a genuine antiquity from Londinium but aliena brought to London in relatively modern times.
Considering its temple location, near the discovery of the inscription dedicated to Mars Camulus, the starting point for attempting to identify the subject of the Tabard Square foot must instead be to consider whether this is a statue of that god. Mars was worshipped throughout the Empire, and statues and dedications to him are common. In Britain, it seems he was one of the Roman pantheon more easily syncretized with existing pagan gods.
The cult centre for Mars Camulus was probably in Belgium and Northern France where there is a concentration of inscriptions, but he has also been recorded in an inscription on an altar found near Bar Hill, now in the Hunterian Museum, Glasgow. In other figures of Mars from Britain, the god is often portrayed either nude (or with minimal clothing) and bare foot, or as a soldier fully cuirassed with a helmet and ornate sandals.
More rudimentary carvings of Mars, however, show him slightly differently, and crucially with much simpler footwear. On a carved slab from Gloucestershire, with an inscription identifying him as Mars’ son Romulus, he is shown fully clothed and armed, but with a much less flamboyant helmet and simple boots. There is a good example of a statue showing him wearing very plain sandals, remarkably similar to the ‘T-bar’ or cross style in this statue, except without the addition of a flower, from Balmuidy, Lanarkshire. We might conclude, therefore, that if this is a statue of Mars that the style was provincial, and appropriate for such a syncretized god.
Given the clean break and indeed the presence of a flower on the sandals, one might suppose this was a figure wearing long drapery and, thus, possibly female. We know there is a temple of Isis, as yet undiscovered, somewhere in London or Southwark: the pre-Flavian flagon from Tooley Street bore a graffito ‘by the temple’ of Isis, while an altar dedicated to her at the time of the restoration of her temple was found in the riverside wall. Could it be her? Statues of the goddess show her wearing long drapery, like a stola, though with her feet showing underneath from instep to toe, as in this bronze fragment, while the carving of the deceased on a tombstone of a priestess of Isis from Naples is similarly dressed. Yet, equally, the feet of both male and female citizens poke out from underneath their long priestly robes in figurines of them in pious poses.
It remains very hard to offer any conclusive identification of the subject of the statue, but whether Isis or Mars, or not, it is more likely that the figure is a god or goddess, rather than an emperor or important citizen, given its discovery within the temple site.
The foot is from a series of layers of probable late fourth-century date south of the temple precinct (or former precinct). We might suppose that at least one of the three stone plinths or statue bases situated in the mortared open precinct to two Romano-Celtic temples found in the north part of the site, must have carried statues, possibly one of them, even this bronze one. The dates of use of the temples, between the second and fourth centuries, fits in well with date of deposition of this object. Perhaps this was part of a second-century cult statue, broken up and deposited in the fourth when the period of religious use came to an end.
Whilst the foot is clearly part of a larger piece and not intended to exist in this form, the shape may be more powerful in the object’s deposition. Feet were considered as pars pro toto, for example a footprint representing the presence of a person, or worshipped as if it were the deity. If this was not simply discarded as rubbish, unlikely given the value of the metal, it might have symbolized the rest of the statue. Deposition of other pieces of bronze statuary has been shown to have ritual significance, albeit when cast into the river or a well rather than buried, and it is possible that the subject of this statue had lasting significance for those present at its interment.
Read the BBC’s take on the find in Romans’ crimes of fashion revealed!
