Religions 13: Religious Diversty Religions 13: Religious Diversty in the Roman Empire: Gaul and in the Roman Empire: Gaul and

EgyptEgypt

Roman GaulRoman Gaul

Historical backgroundHistorical background

120 BCE: Gallia Transalpina (later 120 BCE: Gallia Transalpina (later Narbonensis after capital Narbo = Narbonensis after capital Narbo = Narbonne) first Roman province Narbonne) first Roman province (Provincia = Province) outside of Italy(Provincia = Province) outside of Italy

58-50: Gallic Wars; Julius Caesar 58-50: Gallic Wars; Julius Caesar conquers rest of Gaul until the Rhineconquers rest of Gaul until the Rhine

22 BCE: Gaul divided into Roman 22 BCE: Gaul divided into Roman provinces: Aquitania, Belgica (Reims, provinces: Aquitania, Belgica (Reims, later Trier), Lugdunensis (Lugdunum = later Trier), Lugdunensis (Lugdunum = Lyon)Lyon)

Greg Woolf, Greg Woolf, Becoming Roman Becoming Roman (1998):(1998):

‘‘Romanisation’. How did Romanisation’. How did

Roman culture spread overRoman culture spread over

the Roman Empire after its the Roman Empire after its

expansion throughout the expansion throughout the Roman Empire?Roman Empire?

Old view: process instigated and dominated by Old view: process instigated and dominated by Romans > ‘top down’ viewRomans > ‘top down’ view

New view: indigenous population also New view: indigenous population also contributed to this process > ‘bottom up’contributed to this process > ‘bottom up’

ErgoErgo: term ‘Romanisation’ is biased, : term ‘Romanisation’ is biased, as it implies imposition from aboveas it implies imposition from above

Woolf: ‘becoming Roman’ (individual’s Woolf: ‘becoming Roman’ (individual’s perspective); slow and gradual perspective); slow and gradual process of interaction between Roman process of interaction between Roman and indigenous cultureand indigenous culture

Gallic religion is an excellent example Gallic religion is an excellent example of thisof this

Changes after Roman Changes after Roman conquestconquest

Gallia Comitata: ‘long-haired Gaul’: Gallia Comitata: ‘long-haired Gaul’: ‘barbarian’ country; soon, however, ‘barbarian’ country; soon, however, Roman administration was placed over Roman administration was placed over Gaul: provinces (22 BCE) and Gaul: provinces (22 BCE) and civitates civitates (nations) with cities ((nations) with cities (oppidaoppida); ); colonia colonia (military ‘colonies’)(military ‘colonies’)

Use as Latin as official languageUse as Latin as official language Villae Villae constructed in countrysideconstructed in countryside Acquaducts: Pont du GardAcquaducts: Pont du Gard

Opposition between Roman Opposition between Roman and Gallic (‘Celtic’) cultureand Gallic (‘Celtic’) culture

Can be clearly seen in differences Can be clearly seen in differences between religions:between religions:

- own Gallic deities (e.g. Epona, own Gallic deities (e.g. Epona, Nehalennia) and templesNehalennia) and temples

- Own religious customs, e.g. worship Own religious customs, e.g. worship of trees and animalsof trees and animals

- Human sacrificeHuman sacrifice- Priestly caste: DruidsPriestly caste: Druids

Old view: ‘resistance’ of local population Old view: ‘resistance’ of local population against Romans can be perceived in their against Romans can be perceived in their religious practicesreligious practices

Woolf, however: opposition may have Woolf, however: opposition may have existed in beginning but then crystallised existed in beginning but then crystallised and Roman culture spread over all segments and Roman culture spread over all segments of society. Better to ask the question (p. of society. Better to ask the question (p. 208): ‘did local identities, formed or 208): ‘did local identities, formed or maintained at least in part by cult, in any maintained at least in part by cult, in any sense undermine or offer an alternative to sense undermine or offer an alternative to Roman identity?’Roman identity?’

Case of Hercules Case of Hercules MagusanusMagusanus

Assimilation to Roman culture or Assimilation to Roman culture or adaption to indigenous culture? In how adaption to indigenous culture? In how an expression of Roman-ness?an expression of Roman-ness?

Half-full/half-empty discussion, p. 208-9:Half-full/half-empty discussion, p. 208-9: ‘‘A more pragmatic approach is to ask A more pragmatic approach is to ask

what impact Roman imperial institutions what impact Roman imperial institutions and ideas had on the religious and ideas had on the religious dimensions of Iron Age culture, and how dimensions of Iron Age culture, and how this encounter influenced the ways in this encounter influenced the ways in which Gallo-Romans came to approach which Gallo-Romans came to approach the divine and to make sense of their the divine and to make sense of their world in relation to it’ world in relation to it’

La TLa Tène cultureène culture Only knowledge through archaeology: `local variation Only knowledge through archaeology: `local variation

within a shared tradition`(p. 210)within a shared tradition`(p. 210) Rites after which people were killed and left in bogsRites after which people were killed and left in bogs Temples: deliniations of space (ditches, walls, banks)Temples: deliniations of space (ditches, walls, banks) Gods represented in anthropomorphic form, but also in Gods represented in anthropomorphic form, but also in

form of animals, hybrids, trees, other symbols (sun wheel, form of animals, hybrids, trees, other symbols (sun wheel, human head)human head)

We don`t know anything about religious cults and practices, We don`t know anything about religious cults and practices, and Caesar does not help further: when he says that the and Caesar does not help further: when he says that the Gauls are worshipping Mercury, Apollo, Mars and others, he Gauls are worshipping Mercury, Apollo, Mars and others, he is just looking from a Roman perspective and does not take is just looking from a Roman perspective and does not take local variety into account. Also Roman accounts focus on local variety into account. Also Roman accounts focus on `strange`aspects: human sacrifice, but almost nothing on `strange`aspects: human sacrifice, but almost nothing on animal sacrifice etc.animal sacrifice etc.

What did the Romans do?What did the Romans do? Like in Rome (see previous class) Romans were in principle Like in Rome (see previous class) Romans were in principle

accomodating to other cults and practices, but on Roman terms and accomodating to other cults and practices, but on Roman terms and conditionsconditions

E.g. E.g. interpretatio Romanainterpretatio Romana: `the assertion of some form of equivalence : `the assertion of some form of equivalence between a foreign deity and a Roman one`(p. 214). See example of between a foreign deity and a Roman one`(p. 214). See example of CaesarCaesar

Romans thought of themselves as bringers of civilization to `the Romans thought of themselves as bringers of civilization to `the barbarians`, but did not, and could not (see discussion of `belief`), barbarians`, but did not, and could not (see discussion of `belief`), enforce a theology or doctrine. On the other hand, there were some enforce a theology or doctrine. On the other hand, there were some general ideas about proper ritual conduct (general ideas about proper ritual conduct (pietas-religiopietas-religio) as opposed to ) as opposed to ritual behaviour that did not meet that standard (ritual behaviour that did not meet that standard (superstitiosuperstitio))

Examples of rituals not Examples of rituals not ‘in Roman way’: animal statues; however, ‘in Roman way’: animal statues; however, depended on level of Roman-ness whether these elements were depended on level of Roman-ness whether these elements were toleratedtolerated

Human sacrifice always forbiddenHuman sacrifice always forbidden But when these minimal standards were met, both sides were easily But when these minimal standards were met, both sides were easily

integratedintegrated

Two examples of the Two examples of the creation of Gallo-Roman creation of Gallo-Roman

religionreligion 1. Arverni (Auvergne): local aristocrats 1. Arverni (Auvergne): local aristocrats

ask for a statue of Mercury made by ask for a statue of Mercury made by Greek sculptor Zenodorus (first half first Greek sculptor Zenodorus (first half first century CE) (though governor may also century CE) (though governor may also have played a part in this case)have played a part in this case)

2. cult centre of Tres Galliae (12 BCE) in 2. cult centre of Tres Galliae (12 BCE) in Lyon >emperor cult; priests recruited Lyon >emperor cult; priests recruited from from civitatescivitates (very prestigious) (very prestigious)

In both cases, we see the local elite and In both cases, we see the local elite and Roman government working together to Roman government working together to establish a new amalgam of religionestablish a new amalgam of religion

Old interpretation: elite just giving in to Old interpretation: elite just giving in to economic benefits of Roman government. economic benefits of Roman government. But this is only partly true. Personal gain But this is only partly true. Personal gain may have played a role, but this does not may have played a role, but this does not mean that the local elite were betraying mean that the local elite were betraying their gods. Religion was simply their gods. Religion was simply transforming!transforming!

Also incorrect to assume that the Roman Also incorrect to assume that the Roman government influenced this religious government influenced this religious transformation > happened among the local transformation > happened among the local eliteelite

Only in some cases did Roman government Only in some cases did Roman government take action, e.g. case of Druids, human take action, e.g. case of Druids, human sacrifice, and some un-Roman cultic practices sacrifice, and some un-Roman cultic practices (see quote Pliny)(see quote Pliny)

‘‘But most cult was neither imposed nor But most cult was neither imposed nor banned by Rome and so reform from above is banned by Rome and so reform from above is implausible as a general explanation’ (p. 222)implausible as a general explanation’ (p. 222)

Romans did provide models, Romans did provide models, however:however:

- Cult of Three Gauls at Lyon (12 BCE)Cult of Three Gauls at Lyon (12 BCE)- Associations of Roman citizensAssociations of Roman citizens- Public cults in Public cults in coloniae, coloniae, e.g. in altar e.g. in altar

in Narbo/Narbonne (12 CE): laws in Narbo/Narbonne (12 CE): laws should be same as those of Diana on should be same as those of Diana on AventineAventine

In beginning these changes not always In beginning these changes not always systematic, later magistrates determined systematic, later magistrates determined religious calendar: cult of deity linked to religious calendar: cult of deity linked to Roman deity, new temples/images etc.Roman deity, new temples/images etc.

Besides these visible and great Besides these visible and great transformations, smaller transformations transformations, smaller transformations took place, e.g. disappearance of animal took place, e.g. disappearance of animal sacrifice, new rituals, such as burial ritessacrifice, new rituals, such as burial rites

ConclusionConclusion

Elite’s instigation of many of these processes Elite’s instigation of many of these processes does not mean that the masses were does not mean that the masses were unaffected by it: ‘The inevitable conclusion is unaffected by it: ‘The inevitable conclusion is that Roman religion had an attraction for that Roman religion had an attraction for Gauls that was also based on the primary Gauls that was also based on the primary function of religion, to make sense of the function of religion, to make sense of the world and of human experience of it’ (p. 229)world and of human experience of it’ (p. 229)

So Gauls did not passively take over Roman So Gauls did not passively take over Roman religion, result of complex interactions > religion, result of complex interactions > syncretism: dynamic combination of elements syncretism: dynamic combination of elements drawn from two religious systemsdrawn from two religious systems

Roman EgyptRoman Egypt

Changes from Greek to Changes from Greek to Roman periodRoman period

31 BCE: battle of Actium: Octavian wins 31 BCE: battle of Actium: Octavian wins from Mark Anthony and Cleopatra VIIfrom Mark Anthony and Cleopatra VII

30 BCE: Egypt Roman province30 BCE: Egypt Roman province Octavian/Augustus installs a prefect of Octavian/Augustus installs a prefect of

equestrian rank for Egypt to guard the grain equestrian rank for Egypt to guard the grain shipments to Rome > special status of shipments to Rome > special status of Egypt within Roman EmpireEgypt within Roman Empire

284: Diocletian > Egypt becomes more and 284: Diocletian > Egypt becomes more and more like any other province in Late more like any other province in Late AntiquityAntiquity

Like in case of Gaul we need to start Like in case of Gaul we need to start with religion before Roman arrival with religion before Roman arrival and then see what impact it had on and then see what impact it had on Egyptian religion and to what extent Egyptian religion and to what extent the encounter with Roman culture the encounter with Roman culture influenced how the Egyptians influenced how the Egyptians approached the divine approached the divine

What is Ancient Egyptian What is Ancient Egyptian religion?religion?

Enormous diversity of approaches, Enormous diversity of approaches, ideas, uses and images that ideas, uses and images that developed over time (ca. 3100 BCE – developed over time (ca. 3100 BCE – 450 CE!) and depended on place > 450 CE!) and depended on place > was there ever such a thing as was there ever such a thing as ‘Ancient Egyptian religion’?‘Ancient Egyptian religion’?

Basic characteristicsBasic characteristics1.1. embedded & polytheistic (inclusive)embedded & polytheistic (inclusive)

2.2. no ‘holy Book’ or dogma’s, though writing of holy no ‘holy Book’ or dogma’s, though writing of holy texts played a more important role in Egyptian texts played a more important role in Egyptian templestemples

3.3. ‘‘multiplicity of approaches’ (Frankfort): variations multiplicity of approaches’ (Frankfort): variations are only attempts to comprehend the divineare only attempts to comprehend the divine

4.4. Nature religionNature religion

5.5. Priestly caste: at the same time, temples were Priestly caste: at the same time, temples were centres of learningcentres of learning

6.6. Larger distance with gods (cf. Larger distance with gods (cf. interconnectedness)interconnectedness)

Changes in Religion in Changes in Religion in Graeco-Roman PeriodGraeco-Roman Period

Hellenism: Hellenism: interpretatio Graecainterpretatio Graeca, Greek , Greek names of gods (Isis becomes Aphrodite)names of gods (Isis becomes Aphrodite)

New gods: Serapis, combination of Osiris New gods: Serapis, combination of Osiris and Apis in Hellenistic contextand Apis in Hellenistic context

Universal and unique gods (e.g. Isis)Universal and unique gods (e.g. Isis) Gods in connection with fate (Tyche); Gods in connection with fate (Tyche);

personificationspersonifications Animal worship, e.g. of the Apis bull Animal worship, e.g. of the Apis bull

(Memphis)(Memphis) Emperor cultEmperor cult

Interpretationes graecaeInterpretationes graecae

ZeusZeus Amon-ReAmon-Re

AphroditeAphrodite HathorHathor

ApolloApollo Horus/MontuHorus/Montu

Artemis Artemis BastetBastet

AthenaAthena NeithNeith

DemeterDemeter IsisIsis

DionysusDionysus OsirisOsiris

HeliosHelios ReRe

Hera Hera Isis/MutIsis/Mut

Sarapis

Roman Serapeum

J.S. McKenzie, S. Gibson & A.T. Reyes, “Reconstructing the Serapeum in Alexandria from the archaeological evidence”,

JRS 94 (2004) 73-121

Serapeum, Alexandria, axonometric

reconstruction

Religious transformation Religious transformation from Ptolemaic to Roman from Ptolemaic to Roman

EgyptEgypt- Romans basically left stratification of society (Hellenized - Romans basically left stratification of society (Hellenized elite, special status for Greek cities, e.g. Alexandria) intact, elite, special status for Greek cities, e.g. Alexandria) intact, but only added a layer at the highest level of command; but only added a layer at the highest level of command; other changes mainly in army (settlement of veterans, other changes mainly in army (settlement of veterans, foreign army units etc.)foreign army units etc.)•Needs to be seen in the context of longer-lasting Needs to be seen in the context of longer-lasting transformations going on since the start of the Graeco-transformations going on since the start of the Graeco-Roman period > much more continuity, e.g. worship of Roman period > much more continuity, e.g. worship of animals, Serapis, and abstractions simply continued and animals, Serapis, and abstractions simply continued and syncretism already existed (Egyptian-Greek)syncretism already existed (Egyptian-Greek)•Even most significant change (emperor cult) partly Even most significant change (emperor cult) partly continued Ptolemaic ruler cultcontinued Ptolemaic ruler cult•Thus: religious transformation much less profound than in Thus: religious transformation much less profound than in e.g. Gaule.g. Gaul

Augustus as Pharaoh, temple of Mandulis at Kalabsha

Within these continuities, some slight changes took Within these continuities, some slight changes took place:place:

- Most significant is emperor cult; besides continuities, Most significant is emperor cult; besides continuities, we also see temples for emperor cult arising in some we also see temples for emperor cult arising in some cities (e.g. Alexandria)cities (e.g. Alexandria)

- Imperial control of priests and temples; priests’ Imperial control of priests and temples; priests’ appointments need to be approved by Roman official, appointments need to be approved by Roman official, wealth of temples restrictedwealth of temples restricted

- Some new cults introduced, e.g. that of Heron Some new cults introduced, e.g. that of Heron (Thracian rider god) and Bes becomes extremely (Thracian rider god) and Bes becomes extremely popularpopular

These are, however no more than other elements to the These are, however no more than other elements to the syncretistic mix!syncretistic mix!

ConclusionConclusion Religious transformation in Roman Egypt much less profound than Religious transformation in Roman Egypt much less profound than

in Gaulin Gaul Religion in Roman Egypt must be seen as a continuity of changes Religion in Roman Egypt must be seen as a continuity of changes

already set in in Ptolemaic period, which resulted in an Egyptian-already set in in Ptolemaic period, which resulted in an Egyptian-Greek syncretism, Roman elements were just an addition to thisGreek syncretism, Roman elements were just an addition to this

Traditional cults and practices in temples largely continued Traditional cults and practices in temples largely continued unaltered in Egyptian temples, cf. Gaul where changes were much unaltered in Egyptian temples, cf. Gaul where changes were much more far-reachingmore far-reaching

In Egypt gods remained worshipped under their old names, were In Egypt gods remained worshipped under their old names, were only ‘interpreted’ in Greek context; in Gaul we see doubling of only ‘interpreted’ in Greek context; in Gaul we see doubling of names (Hercules Magusanus etc.) and also worship under Latin names (Hercules Magusanus etc.) and also worship under Latin names (e.g. Mercury, at Arverni)names (e.g. Mercury, at Arverni)

in both cases measures were made against priestly establishment in both cases measures were made against priestly establishment (Druids, Egyptian priests), though the latter were never abolished (Druids, Egyptian priests), though the latter were never abolished and these measures had much less of an impact in Egyptand these measures had much less of an impact in Egypt

Conclusion Religious Conclusion Religious DiversityDiversity

Diversity:Diversity:-Priestly castes (Druids, Egypt, Syria)Priestly castes (Druids, Egypt, Syria)-Some temples were semi-autonomous states (temple Some temples were semi-autonomous states (temple states: Syria)states: Syria)-Some would equal gods with Roman or Greek ones Some would equal gods with Roman or Greek ones (North Africa, Egypt) or give both local and Roman name (North Africa, Egypt) or give both local and Roman name (Gaul)(Gaul)-Some put more emphasis on animal or even human Some put more emphasis on animal or even human sacrifice (Gaul)sacrifice (Gaul)-Some even worshipped animals (Gaul, Egypt) or gods in Some even worshipped animals (Gaul, Egypt) or gods in human-animal form (Egypt)human-animal form (Egypt)-Temple buildings were different (cf. Gaul and Egypt)Temple buildings were different (cf. Gaul and Egypt)

Yet, also commonality:Yet, also commonality:

Many gods, need to be worshipped, Many gods, need to be worshipped, appeased and sacrificed to, gods could appeased and sacrificed to, gods could influence daily life, etc.influence daily life, etc.

Enough common ground to allow for Enough common ground to allow for new elements from outside, yet new elements from outside, yet maintaining continuity maintaining continuity

Religious transformation = continuity + Religious transformation = continuity + changechange

Other dynamics: ‘particularization’ vs. Other dynamics: ‘particularization’ vs. ‘generalization’‘generalization’

- particularization: linking deity to specific particularization: linking deity to specific place by giving him/her epithet, e.g. place by giving him/her epithet, e.g. Artemis Ephesia ‘Artemis of Ephesus’Artemis Ephesia ‘Artemis of Ephesus’

- Generalization: awareness that gods of Generalization: awareness that gods of different places are similar, e.g. Ceres in different places are similar, e.g. Ceres in Rome, or Rome, or interpretatio romanainterpretatio romana