The ‘Corpus of Sculpture from the Roman World’ is a long-running enterprise; this latest addition forms the tenth instalment of volume one for Great Britain. The first fascicule appeared in 1977 and the ninth in 2004; fascicule 10 therefore represents a long-awaited addition to this important catalogue. It adopts the well-established series format, but importantly introduces some excellent developments, such as colour printing and stable isotope geochemistry.

The intention of volume one of the corpus is to catalogue all Roman sculpture from Britain, excluding later imports (which are presented in volumes two and three). Fascicule 10 details material from Greater London, Hertfordshire, Surrey and Kent, although it includes, under the category of aliena, material that was probably imported in the post-Roman period, along with probable Renaissance material and forgeries. The inclusion of these ‘ineligible’ examples is justified on the basis that they have been regarded as genuine in the past; it is also useful to include this material as their exclusion from previous fascicules has left some hard to find and their status unclear. There is a more general problem here, however, in that inclusion criteria are not always clearly stated. Hence, an altar is excluded for being too “battered” (p. xxv), while the Cheapside archer from London is apparently “just large enough to qualify” (p. xxxi). The legendary statue of Cadwallo gets an entry, but it is unclear if all bases or inscriptions suggesting the former presence of a statue are included. The inclusion of a stone cinerary urn (and a lengthy appendix on this object type) is also unusual.

An inherent problem with this type of printed catalogue is that they are inevitably out of date by the time they appear. In this case, the most recent finds included were excavated in 2006, the one exception being the Minories eagle (although it is incorrectly noted as having been found in 1913), which is given an appendix of its own. This issue of cut-off dates—and more generally the time that has elapsed since the publication of the earlier fascicules—surely necessitates either a future volume revisiting all of the regions covered, or a move to a twenty-first-century solution, such as that recently made by the ‘Roman Inscriptions of Britain’ series with an online database (http://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org).

The corpus fascicules consist of three parts: introductory thematic considerations, the catalogue and the illustrations. This publication provides colour plates of the best pieces (mostly marbles and bronzes) and, more importantly, new photographs of every piece. The catalogue entries also include new information, noting at the outset that well-known examples receive comparatively little additional discussion, whereas previously over-looked pieces are given lengthy considerations. This new analysis takes the form of iconographic comparisons and some interesting re-interpretations. The most important addition new to this volume, however, is the inclusion of detailed geological information, contributing to our understanding of the sourcing of raw materials, and implicitly the expertise to work them, during the Roman period. This is one of the few chronologically detailed sections of the work, offering a sequence of changes by century, including the surprising suggestion of a Roman pre-Conquest resource survey of Britain. A map of the source locations is included, but, for anyone unfamiliar with this region, the volume would have been easier to use if there had been a map showing the distribution of the findspots (although this is not a problem unique to this fascicule). Such a feature would also make it apparent how little material has been found in some areas, despite the assertion that the region as a whole was “highly Romanised” (p. ix). This would then perhaps trigger more detailed discussion of the factors influencing adoption, survival and recovery, which are only touched upon briefly in the thematic section.

One change discernible in comparison to previous fascicules concerns a shift from the implicit or overt assumption that any damage to sculpture was the result of Christian iconoclasm towards a more nuanced consideration. It is noted in this fascicule that what were once held as prime examples of this phenomenon—namely, the collection of marble sculpture from the Walbrook Mithraeum in London—have recently been reinterpreted and are now thought merely to be victims of poor building maintenance. This, however, overlooks the original argument that these pieces were buried due to fear of a Christian attack, and still leaves open the question of why they were deposited; nonetheless, this new approach is welcome.

Yet this is not to say that assumptions of motive, based solely upon the act of damage itself, have been completely removed. In individual entries in the catalogue, it is still frequently suggested that damage is the result of Christian iconoclastic attacks, possibly even occurring during the reign of Magnus Maximus—without any specific stratigraphic evidence of deposition, let alone the infliction of damage, during the AD 380s. The thematic consideration of this issue is limited to the confident advance of just two cases, neither of which are convincing: the first example is essentially indistinguishable in terms of its treatment from many other pieces that are not considered to be victims of Christian attacks, and the other is quite thoroughly damaged (and so distinct in terms of treatment from the other more complete pieces) but still lacking any defining characteristic that can securely reveal the motivation for the damage or the identity of its perpetrators. On the subject of identity, it has been noted in relation to other fascicules that there is a tendency to advance firm identifications of the subjects of these sculptures, often in the absence of external corroboration. One example that combines this issue with that of iconoclasm is the material from Worth, Kent. Two hands are interpreted as from an image of Minerva, and its highly fragmentary nature as evidence of Christian damage. This, however, overlooks other deities depicted with spears and shields, and the circumstances of deposition.

This latest addition to the corpus is an excellent and essential piece of work. The images alone make it an invaluable companion to all other works on Roman Britain, brilliantly illustrating the artistic, religious and funerary visual world of the period. It also usefully assembles material, enabling a rapid appreciation of the diversity of artistic forms. The final fascicule—and any update of previously covered areas—is eagerly awaited, in the hope that it will follow the superb lead set here.