I. Did the populations of Great Britain use corporeal painting before and during Julius Caesar’s campaigns in the first century B.C.E.?

II. Was there a continuity in the custom throughout the Roman empire and the transition to the Early Middle Ages?

III. If one can establish that corporeal painting was performed, under which circumstances did it occur?

2. THE WRITINGS

Before addressing the subject of corporeal painting, a note regarding the matter of terminology. Regarding this topic, terminology such as Briton and Gaul often appears intermingled with the word “Celtic”, which is, in itself, a contentious term. There has been substantial debate regarding whether it ought to be used in the first place¹, and its assigned meanings are so vast that it has been used for populations found across the European continent, the British Isles and even Anatolia, with a significant diaspora, and an even more significant variety. More recent studies, such as Pope (“Re-approaching Celts”), have offered a new definition of a term which, as the author reminds us, has been constantly revised and reinterpreted over the centuries. Pope has defined the “original use” of the word as one addressing “matrifocal Early Iron Age groups in central Gaul”, and opposes the latest scientific data to conclude the Celts, as a group, became defined during the Bronze Age, mostly around the area which is now Northern Italy, and then spread across Europe through several centuries of migrations; these groups developed their own particular cultures, a factor reflected upon archaeological data².

What does this mean for the study of corporeal painting? Pope states that “attempting to define Celts as a cultural entity is nonsensical”, for they “did not represent an ethnicity”, and that the word is more of “a nickname for a multiplicity of prehistoric groups”; it is, in short, “a categorization”, made by various civilisations throughout History, to define several groups. For the purpose of this study, the word “Celtic” will occasionally be in use, when the terminology has been originally applied to relevant bibliography; otherwise, we shall opt for Briton, Gaul and Germanic, among others, to avoid possible misinterpretations regarding the scope of the word “Celt”. As will be observed in the sequence of this study, ancient sources have left several reports regarding corporeal painting by European populations, particularly for the regions of Great Britain, Gaul and Germania; yet these practices may have continued in Great Britain well into the Anglo-Saxon era, at a time the insular space had already received new migrations, and where the “Celtic” terminology would no longer apply, or would require substantial re-examination.

Sources presented through the viewpoint of the Roman world will not be without bias against the Britons. They are, however, amid the most abundant materials for the observation of this subject³. If one is to analyse the topic through this prism, there seems to be little doubt that it was a concept with some diffusion within Rome’s sphere of influence between the first century B.C.E. and the fifth century C.E. The earliest known source to mention it is Julius Caesar, who was among the first Roman military commanders to cross into Great Britain and recorded his campaigns at length in De Bello Gallico. Amidst his accounts, one can find physical descriptions of the individuals encountered by the Roman army, including the passage at Caes., B.Gall. 5.14, which mentions some form of body painting. This section uses the verb inficio, which regards dyeing or staining, and the noun uitrum, glass, to describe the appearance of the Britons⁴. The information provided is fragmentary for the purposes of researching the custom, for is devoid of data regarding the processes used in making and applying the body paint, the materials that would have been in use, possible motifs and stylistic preferences for application, and in-depth explanations of the sociocultural reasonings behind the origins of the custom.

The one suggestion of the paint’s purpose is the use of the expression in pugna, “in combat”. Caesar only provides information about the usage of body paint in military contexts, in which it was meant to make the enemy more terrifying. This stands in opposition to Pomponius Mela, who, approximately a century after Caesar, also makes a mention of blue body paint in his description of Britain and its inhabitants but does not present an association with war activities (Mel. 3.52). According to this source, Britons would engage in corporeal painting either for the sake of beauty or other unknown causes; unlike Caesar, he specifies the entire body would be covered. Pomponius Mela lived during the reigns of two emperors who would have employed operations either in the island or its vicinities: Caligula (37-41 B.C.E.) and Claudius (41-54 B.C.E.)⁵. He may have had access to older sources with descriptions of Britons, but there could also be circulating reports.

The understanding of what specific colours would signify for the writers of these ancient sources adds difficulty to the matter. If one traces nomenclature back to Homer’s Iliad, it will be observed that colour descriptions do not necessarily match those found in the modern-day English language⁶, and that we are yet to fully understand the context behind expressions such as the wine-coloured sea⁷, as seen, for instance, in Hom., Il. 345-349, and Hom., Od. 420-424. Caeruleus (“quod caeruleum efficit colorem”) is used by Caesar to describe the colour of the dye, alongside the mention of uitrum (“se Britanni uitro inficiunt”). In one of the most comprehensive studies regarding colour in the Roman world, Mark Bradley signalled caeruleus as being associated with concepts such as the sea or “copious waters”, the sun before the rain (found in Virgil), clouds, parts of the rainbow; it would not, however, “describe the clear blue sky”⁸. Alongside natural and geographic terms, caeruleus could also be associated with serpents, precious stones and even the Underworld⁹, and one can also add to the equation the modern knowledge of the colour of Roman glasswork.

Together with the difficulties in understanding the terminology of colour, there is the added factor of Rome’s own vision regarding corporeal painting. There seems to be somewhat of an association between body paint and foreignness in ancient sources, underlining its position (and that of those who practised it) of external existence in relation to the Roman world. This concept extends itself to Great Britain, whose inhabitants were described by Virgil as “et penitus toto diuisos orbe Britannos” (Virg., Ecl. 1); the Britons are presented as existing in separation from the remainder of the world. Pliny the Elder also associates the attribute of being foreign with corporeal painting, establishing its usage outside of military contexts: Plin., Nat. 22.2 describes it as a form of beautification of the self and also as a perpetuation of ancient rites: “formae gratia ritusque perpetui in corporibus suis aliquas exterarum gentium uti herbis quibusdam”. Another novelty introduced by Pliny is a possible association with Gaul: it would have been from Gaul that the Britons retrieved glastum¹⁰, and it would be through this plant that the wives and daughters-in-law of the Britons would stain their bodies. This practice would be in use for the participation in religious ceremonies, and the shade attained is described as similar to that of the inhabitants of Ethiopia: “Britannorum coniuges nurusque toto corpore oblitae quibusdam in sacris nudae incedunt Aethiopium colorem imitantes”. In the same chapter, Pliny describes several forms of facial and body painting, associating it, firstly, with barbarian women (“inlinunt certe aliis aliae faciem in populis barbarorum feminae”), and then alluding to the body inscriptions of Dacian and Sarmatian men (“corpora sua inscribunt”).

The apparent aversion for corporeal and facial painting in the Roman world did not extend to every circumstance. The use of cosmetics across the Ancient Mediterranean is well-reported and attested by written and archaeological sources¹¹. More unusually, the description of Camillus’s triumph by Pliny (Plin., Nat. 33.36) seems to suggest some form of facial painting. Claiming to quote a now-lost work of Verrius Flaccus, Pliny describes the way in which the victorious general would have likened himself to Jupiter, or a statue of Jupiter: specific religious days would require the said statue to be coloured with minium, a form of red lead, and the custom would have been extended to the bodies of certain military commanders partaking in a triumph: “enumerate auctores Verrius, quibus credere necesse sit Iouis ipsius simulacra faciem diebus festis minio illini solitam triumphantiumque corpora; sic Camillum triumphasse”. The same chapter mentions its usage by populations in Ethiopia, for similar ritual and religious purposes¹². This passage, which seems unique in these contexts, has given rise to debate on the different possibilities regarding the colour red in triumphal contexts. Historiographic analysis suggests the possibility of the triumphing general impersonating the statue of Jupiter, rather than the deity, with an association of the ritual’s origins with the development of “commemorative statuary”¹³.

The very use of minium for the purpose of corporeal painting is problematic. Minium is a form of red lead, and although it was used for several purposes throughout ancient and medieval times, it is known to be toxic to humans. Its relation with corporeal painting raises even more questions if one observes that the toxicity of minium was not unknown in Ancient Rome¹⁴, and that Pliny (Plin., Nat. 33.40) mentions workers using some form of protection to avoid inhaling the powder generated during transformative processes. This toxicity would not have prevented Camillus from tinging himself, thus creating both a symbiotic relationship between the general’s triumph and the statue of Jupiter and an association between the colour red and the celebration of military successes. Despite the several theories regarding this red facial painting in triumphs, and as stated by Professor Mary Beard, Pliny himself makes no mention of it actively being used for corporeal painting during his lifetime: it would have been unlikely for it to be a regular practice for Roman generals in triumph, especially during the Late Republic and imperial eras¹⁵. Concrete evidence is scarce, and the practice may exist only in literature, or it may be a remnant of earlier traditions of Roman triumphs¹⁶.

Regarding ancient Britons, one can make a juxtaposition of different colours: the foreign blue contrasts with the Roman red. The colour blue thus develops connotations with northern European populations and their extant existence outside of the Roman world. Its association with being foreign can also be connected with physical appearance. Although the trait was not inexistent in southern Europe, blue eyes were often linked with certain unusual characteristics, capacities, or even medical issues¹⁷. This tradition is not specifically Roman but extends itself across other cultures in the Mediterranean: the Physiognomonica already speaks of certain blue-eyed individuals as less trustworthy¹⁸.

Tacitus speaks of the Germanic tribes as blue-eyed and red-haired: “truces et caerulei oculi, rutilae comae, magna corpora et tantum ad impetum ualida” (Tac. Ger. 4.2)¹⁹. These traits were less common across the Mediterranean basin, which often makes them noteworthy when ancient sources describe powerful individuals. Blue and grey-eyed personages occurred somewhat frequently amidst the early dynasties of emperors and are usually described either in conjunction with physical incapacities, or superior physical skill.

Suetonius describes the light-coloured eyes of several emperors, and all of them have uncommon characteristics: Augustus’s light eyes²⁰ would have a certain divine fulgor, although his left eye would have begun to falter in later years²¹. Tiberius, described by Pliny-the-Elder to have had an eye colour between blue and grey, is said to have had particularly good vision in the darkness, for a few moments upon waking (Plin., Nat. 11.53-54; also in Suet., Tib. 68). Pliny describes blue-grey eyes in general (caesii) as the most efficient for seeing in the darkness²². Suetonius speaks of Nero, one of the most infamous emperors, as having blue or grey eyes.²³ Plutarch associates light eyes with Germanic tribes, together with greatness of stature;²⁴ he also describes Sulla, a controversial figure of the Late Republic, as having greyish eyes.²⁵ Blue or grey eyes can also be divine: Minerva is occasionally described as having caesi oculi, and Neptune as caerulei oculi (“caesis oculos Mineruae, caeruleos esse Neptuni”, seen in Cic. Nat. D. 423)²⁶.

There is a negative connotation found in Propertius that regards both hair dye and facial (cosmetic) painting. Prop. 2.18.23 makes a case against both the application of colour on the face and hair dyeing, making adverse comparisons with the Britons, and speaking of blue facial paint in derogatory terms²⁷. This invective seems to indicate practices and habits that would create an association, both ideological and physical, with the populations of central and northern Europe²⁸: characteristics seen as foreign were sought by Romans. Marguerite Johnson also mentions the practice of importing hairpieces from these locations, from whence the said hair would also have been, in many cases, red or blonde²⁹. This creates a stark contrast between literary discourse and popular practices: the contradiction of said barbarian tendencies was set against the popularity of habit.

Thus, cultural distancing was not so evident in practice, and materials potentially used for corporeal and facial painting were part of Roman life in different contexts. We revert to De Bello Gallico. The well-known passage may have been composed to underline the fierceness of the opponents and their differences from the Roman world: considering the difficulties and relative lack of accomplishments in the invasions to Great Britain, Caesar promoted the crossing into the location, yet unexplored by Rome, as one of the principal achievements, and likely made use of narrative forms to enhance his prowess further³⁰. To underline this distancing between Britons and Romans through an unusual form of war practice may have been one of the purposes, but there may be indications of its being factual practice in archaeological findings and writings of the early Middle Ages, as we shall see below.

3. PLANT DYES AND MINERAL DYES: THE CASES OF COPPER AND I. TINCTORIA

If we consider the possibility of corporeal painting as a practice among the Britons, the question of fabrication and materials follows. Sources aren’t particularly clear, and except for Pliny the Elder, who mentions what seems to be a vegetable dye, most of the information merely indicates the colour that would have been achieved. It is predominantly presented as a blue or greenish hue (through mentions of uitrum and caeruleum) and has led to two predominant theories: the vegetable-based dye, which supports the use of the plant Isatis Tinctoria, and the mineral-based dye, which suggests the use of copper-based pigments.

Isatis Tinctoria, commonly known as woad, was the chief source of blue dye in Europe until its eventual displacement for indigo, in the Early Modern era³¹. This plant, native to Middle Eastern regions, has been found in the European continent since, at least, the La Tène period, starting in the fifth century B.C.E., and likely since the Neolithic; in Great Britain and other European regions, it was mostly cultivated to create pigment for dyeing fabric³². During Victorian times, several works tried to establish connections between I. Tinctoria and pre-Roman populations. In 1856, Edwin Lees³³ mentioned the growth of this plant next to what he presented as a place of worship of “Teut, or Teutates”, in Sarn Hill³⁴, raising the possibility of it having grown there since what he calls “the Celtic period”. Lees underlines its existence in profuse amounts in that precise site, which lies next to the River Severn; in another book, he states that Isatis Tinctoria does not occur abundantly in the wild, aside from “the precipitous marl cliff at the Mithe Tout, an ancient British Tumulus by the side of the Severn, above Tewkesbury”³⁵.

The Victorian interest in I. Tinctoria, and the attempt to connect its areas of growth to sites linked with ancient populations, represents a historiographic effort of cause and causality, in an attempt to correlate it with pre-Roman populations and partly connected with the Victorian construction of Celtic identity. As we saw above, the term Celtic is, in itself, controversial, as is its association with the tribes that Julius Caesar may or may not have encountered. De Bello Gallico presents pre-Roman populations through an exclusively Roman look, and even Caesar’s description seems to find sources of disparity between them, which creates even further doubts regarding their origins and practices, and even more so concerning the materials that would have been used in something as specific as body painting. The report of the second invasion, which occupies the majority of the fifth book, offers a distinction between the administrative powers of the maritime towns and those of the hinterland, where one would find the territories led by chief Cassiuellaunus. The latter, by exceptional circumstances, would be commanding both his armies and those of maritime communities³⁶.

According to Caesar, hinterland tribes would consider themselves autochthonous inhabitants, and the tribes that dwelt by the ocean would have derived from continental populations connected to Belgium, receiving their names from their cities of origin. This section could raise questions regarding the influence of continental populations in the practice of body painting in Great Britain, particularly if one observes Pliny’s quote about glastum and its connections to Gaul. Genetic distinctions between the north and south of Great Britain during the Iron Age, together with comparisons with Ireland and the north of France³⁷, may contribute to understanding potential connecting practices between Great Britain and continental Europe through a comparatist analysis. Specific genetic connections, if chronologically established, may also help our understanding of when body painting reached Great Britain, and whether practices of corporeal tinging or tattooing predate or accompany the migrations of continental populations during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages.

A more difficult task is the understanding of whether different traditions of corporeal painting entered Great Britain via distinct waves of migrations, or even whether different practices develop among groups that arrived together and then, through the course of History, developed separately³⁸. Successive waves of migration throughout the Iron Age and the Roman period may have resulted, as suggested by Pope, in the development of differentiated traditions and practices as social identities amid populations with shared genetic backgrounds, separated by generations, diverging through the “continuous coming and going of individuals and small groups³⁹”. In parallel, similar archaeological cultures may be found amidst populations with no shared genetic backgrounds⁴⁰. Associating the results of genetic studies and archaeological data with written sources is equally difficult, for Greco-Roman sources may have elaborated distinct terminologies for populations who may have shared ancestry.

Body painting has been present across the European continent since remote times, whether through staining or the early examples of tattoos found in central Europe. As of now, regarding the case of Great Britain, conclusions are still premature. Perhaps Caesar’s proposition has some fundament and may insinuate that body painting entered the island through the migrations of continental populations in the late Bronze and Iron Ages, through a potential connection to Gaul and Pliny’s glastum. Perhaps it predates their arrival, and perhaps it was one or several cultural practices among the varied populational backgrounds of the inhabitants of Great Britain, with distinct origins, distinct methods, and distinct materials. One can only reinforce that, during the time of Caesar, blue body paint was a practice of the North and the Atlantic, rather than the Mediterranean. The cultural and mental impact of Caesar’s Britons in blue was such that it crossed into etymological studies. The idea of corporeal painting having a contributing role towards the name of Great Britain arose as early as the sixteenth century and is found in William Camden’s Britannia⁴¹. In the eighteenth century, Rapin de Thoyras suggested, alongside other possibilities, that the name Britain may have been derived from Brith, which he claimed to be the ancient Britons’ word for woad, “because the ancient Britons used to dye their skins blue with the plant”⁴²; in the Victorian era, the same explanation was presented by Richard Green Parker as being objectionable, as “the name Britain, or Britannia, must have been given by foreigners; because the original inhabitants never called their country Britain, nor themselves Britons”⁴³. It is not this study’s purpose to analyse the etymology of the word Britain, and the connection between Britannia and woad may rest on unsteady foundations, but these few examples, which are allied to many more similar writings from the Elizabethan to the Edwardian era⁴⁴, show the impact of the image of the Britons in blue⁴⁵.

4. ABOUT THE PICTS

The term Pict was not present in early periods in association with corporeal painting⁴⁶. Its connotations come mostly from late Imperial sources, creating a significant temporal distinction between the early contacts of Julius Caesar’s armies and the late imperial populations⁴⁷. Caesar’s experiences were also mostly established with southern and eastern populations, particularly those that lived below the Thames; his interaction with tribes from above the Thames was less significant⁴⁸. Archaeological evidence is limited, as will be discussed below, and the only known location with possible indications for body paint production to date is Dragonby, 240 km north of London⁴⁹.

This may lead one to question how late imperial sources came to associate corporeal painting with the Picts. One of the said sources is found in the Panegyrici Latini: Panegyric VIII.11 (Incerti Panegyricus Constantio Caesaris Dictus), written by an anonymous writer circa C. E. 297, states that amidst those whom Caesar would have faced in Great Britain would have been the Picts and the Hiberni: “ad hoc natio etim tunc rudis et solis [Brittani] Pictis modo et Hibernis adsueta hostibus adhuc seminudis, facile Romanis armis signisque cesserunt, prope ut hoc uno Caesar gloriari in illa expeditione debuerit quod nauigasset Oceanum” (11). In this passage, there is a clear association between the tribes met by Caesar and the Picts, and also a reinforcement of the underdevelopment of the inhabitants of the British islands, in juxtaposition with the Romans, as part of its panegyric functions.

Panegyric VI (Panegyric of Constantine)⁵⁰, believed to have been delivered in Trier sometime between C.E. 307 and 311, when commenting on Constantine’s last campaign, describes it as the gods having summoned the emperor towards the final border of the world: “cuius etiam suprema illa expeditione non Britannica tropaia, ut uulgo creditum est, expetiuit, sed dis iam uocantibus ad intimum terrarum limen accessit”. This campaign is thought to have occurred in modern Scotland, across the northern border of Hadrian’s Wall⁵¹. Although the descriptions of the Picts are not as derogatory as those found in Panegyric VIII, there is a concept of northern lands being a remote location, distant and difficult to reach, and the subdivision between the north and south of Great Britain is underlined.

Ammianus Marcellinus, writing during the mid-late fourth century C.E., refers to the Picts and the Scotti as gentes ferae (“in Britanniis cum Scottorum Pictorumque gentium ferarum excursus”; Amm. 20.1), describing their insurrections and the difficulties caused along the borders. In Amm. 26.5, when referring to C.E. 364, he also states that the Picts, the Saxons, the Scotti and the Attacotti would have attacked the Britons (“Picti Saxonesque et Scotti, et Attacotti Britannos aerumnis vexavere continuis”)⁵². For this individual, writing during the Late Imperial era, the Picts and the Britons were distinct enemies. Mentions of the northern warriors are continued in Amm. 27, in which the Picts, now presented as two separate tribes (Dicalydones and Verturiones), together with the Scotti and the Attacoti, would have caused significant devastation across Great Britain, while the Saxons pillaged Gaul.

Amm. 28 continues to present the Britons as their own entity, with the mention of commander Theodosius, who would have departed from Augusta (Londinium). This section creates an even more severe distinction between Britons and the peoples who were raiding Roman-controlled regions, claiming that Theodosius retrieved the cities of Britannia “a barbaris” (Amm. 28.14), a term that is repeated in the same chapter when describing ambushes (“ad insidiandum barbaris praevenis loca”). According to this source, the conditions of the Britons continue to deteriorate. In the reign of emperor Valentinian, in the late fourth century C.E., they are described as being unable to defend themselves from enemy hosts without additional aid (“itidemque Britannos, catervas superfusorum hostium non ferentes, spe meliorum assumpta, in libertatem et quietem restituit placidam, nullo paene redire permisso grassatorum ad sua”)⁵³.

Thus, whereas earlier sources do not mention the Picts, and associate corporeal painting with the Britons in exclusivity, some of the late Roman sources seem to distinguish between Britons and Picts, ascribing the practice to the people who lived north of Hadrian’s Wall. Whereas Caesar never creates a nominal division between the Britons ruled by Cassiouellanus and those living in coastal regions, he does, as mentioned above, claim the existence of a distinction between the indigenous inhabitants of Great Britain and the migrants from the continent, who would have had closer ties to Gaul and Belgium. Future studies may help understand whether corporeal painting amidst the populations of northern Great Britain was somehow connected to the Britons of the south, or whether its origins are distinct and unrelated. If the Picts and the northern tribes of Britons are distinct populations, they may, at least, have shared the practice of corporeal painting.

5. THE ANGLO-SAXON WORLD

Victorian-era historians believed there would have been some degree of continuity in corporeal painting practices between the Britons and the Anglo-Saxons⁵⁴, which would slowly come to an end through the influence of religious reforms introduced by Christianity⁵⁵. Strutt (1842)⁵⁶ and Percy (1823)⁵⁷ both refer to a 785 papal edict that would have established the legal prohibition of the practice. The aforementioned edict, which would have been promulged by Pope Adrian, speaks of the elimination of pagan rites and habits in chapter 19⁵⁸: “ut reliquias paganorum rituum quisque abjiciat”. Theological justifications are given, stating that God made Mankind beautiful (“Deus enim formavit hominem pulchrum in decore et specie”), and thus: