1. Religions 13: Religious Diversty in the Roman Empire: Gaul and Egypt

3. Roman Gaul

4. Historical background
120 BCE: Gallia Transalpina (later Narbonensis after capital Narbo = Narbonne) first Roman province (Provincia = Province) outside of Italy
58-50: Gallic Wars; Julius Caesar conquers rest of Gaul until the Rhine
22 BCE: Gaul divided into Roman provinces: Aquitania, Belgica (Reims, later Trier), Lugdunensis (Lugdunum = Lyon)

6. Greg Woolf, Becoming Roman (1998):
‘Romanisation’. How did
Roman culture spread over
the Roman Empire after its
expansion throughout the Roman Empire?
Old view: process instigated and dominated by Romans > ‘top down’ view
New view: indigenous population also contributed to this process > ‘bottom up’

7. Ergo: term ‘Romanisation’ is biased, as it implies imposition from above
Woolf: ‘becoming Roman’ (individual’s perspective); slow and gradual process of interaction between Roman and indigenous culture
Gallic religion is an excellent example of this

8. Changes after Roman conquest
Gallia Comitata: ‘long-haired Gaul’: ‘barbarian’ country; soon, however, Roman administration was placed over Gaul: provinces (22 BCE) and civitates (nations) with cities (oppida); colonia (military ‘colonies’)
Use as Latin as official language
Villae constructed in countryside
Acquaducts: Pont du Gard

10. Opposition between Roman and Gallic (‘Celtic’) culture
Can be clearly seen in differences between religions:
own Gallic deities (e.g. Epona, Nehalennia) and temples
Own religious customs, e.g. worship of trees and animals
Human sacrifice
Priestly caste: Druids

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

12. Case of Hercules Magusanus
Assimilation to Roman culture or adaption to indigenous culture? In how an expression of Roman-ness?
Half-full/half-empty discussion, p :
‘A more pragmatic approach is to ask what impact Roman imperial institutions and ideas had on the religious dimensions of Iron Age culture, and how this encounter influenced the ways in which Gallo-Romans came to approach the divine and to make sense of their world in relation to it’

13. La Tène culture
Only knowledge through archaeology: `local variation within a shared tradition`(p. 210)
Rites after which people were killed and left in bogs
Temples: deliniations of space (ditches, walls, banks)
Gods represented in anthropomorphic form, but also in form of animals, hybrids, trees, other symbols (sun wheel, human head)
We don`t know anything about religious cults and practices, and Caesar does not help further: when he says that the Gauls are worshipping Mercury, Apollo, Mars and others, he is just looking from a Roman perspective and does not take local variety into account. Also Roman accounts focus on `strange`aspects: human sacrifice, but almost nothing on animal sacrifice etc.

14. What did the Romans do?
Like in Rome (see previous class) Romans were in principle accomodating to other cults and practices, but on Roman terms and conditions
E.g. interpretatio Romana: `the assertion of some form of equivalence between a foreign deity and a Roman one`(p. 214). See example of Caesar
Romans thought of themselves as bringers of civilization to `the barbarians`, but did not, and could not (see discussion of `belief`), enforce a theology or doctrine. On the other hand, there were some general ideas about proper ritual conduct (pietas-religio) as opposed to ritual behaviour that did not meet that standard (superstitio)
Examples of rituals not ‘in Roman way’: animal statues; however, depended on level of Roman-ness whether these elements were tolerated
Human sacrifice always forbidden
But when these minimal standards were met, both sides were easily integrated

15. Two examples of the creation of Gallo-Roman religion
1. Arverni (Auvergne): local aristocrats ask for a statue of Mercury made by Greek sculptor Zenodorus (first half first century CE) (though governor may also have played a part in this case)
2. cult centre of Tres Galliae (12 BCE) in Lyon >emperor cult; priests recruited from civitates (very prestigious)

16. In both cases, we see the local elite and Roman government working together to establish a new amalgam of religion
Old interpretation: elite just giving in to economic benefits of Roman government. But this is only partly true. Personal gain may have played a role, but this does not mean that the local elite were betraying their gods. Religion was simply transforming!

17. Also incorrect to assume that the Roman government influenced this religious transformation > happened among the local elite
Only in some cases did Roman government take action, e.g. case of Druids, human sacrifice, and some un-Roman cultic practices (see quote Pliny)
‘But most cult was neither imposed nor banned by Rome and so reform from above is implausible as a general explanation’ (p. 222)

18. Romans did provide models, however:
Cult of Three Gauls at Lyon (12 BCE)
Associations of Roman citizens
Public cults in coloniae, e.g. in altar in Narbo/Narbonne (12 CE): laws should be same as those of Diana on Aventine

19. In beginning these changes not always systematic, later magistrates determined religious calendar: cult of deity linked to Roman deity, new temples/images etc.
Besides these visible and great transformations, smaller transformations took place, e.g. disappearance of animal sacrifice, new rituals, such as burial rites

20. Conclusion
Elite’s instigation of many of these processes does not mean that the masses were unaffected by it: ‘The inevitable conclusion is that Roman religion had an attraction for Gauls that was also based on the primary function of religion, to make sense of the world and of human experience of it’ (p. 229)
So Gauls did not passively take over Roman religion, result of complex interactions > syncretism: dynamic combination of elements drawn from two religious systems

21. Roman Egypt

23. Changes from Greek to Roman period
31 BCE: battle of Actium: Octavian wins from Mark Anthony and Cleopatra VII
30 BCE: Egypt Roman province
Octavian/Augustus installs a prefect of equestrian rank for Egypt to guard the grain shipments to Rome > special status of Egypt within Roman Empire
284: Diocletian > Egypt becomes more and more like any other province in Late Antiquity

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

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

26. Basic characteristics
embedded & polytheistic (inclusive)
no ‘holy Book’ or dogma’s, though writing of holy texts played a more important role in Egyptian temples
‘multiplicity of approaches’ (Frankfort): variations are only attempts to comprehend the divine
Nature religion
Priestly caste: at the same time, temples were centres of learning
Larger distance with gods (cf. interconnectedness)

27. Changes in Religion in Graeco-Roman Period
Hellenism: interpretatio Graeca, Greek names of gods (Isis becomes Aphrodite)
New gods: Serapis, combination of Osiris and Apis in Hellenistic context
Universal and unique gods (e.g. Isis)
Gods in connection with fate (Tyche); personifications
Animal worship, e.g. of the Apis bull (Memphis)
Emperor cult

28. Interpretationes graecae
Zeus Amon-Re Aphrodite Hathor Apollo Horus/Montu Artemis Bastet Athena Neith Demeter Isis Dionysus Osiris Helios Re Hera Isis/Mut

30. Sarapis

31. Roman Serapeum
J.S. McKenzie, S. Gibson & A.T. Reyes, “Reconstructing the Serapeum in Alexandria from the archaeological evidence”, JRS 94 (2004)

32. Serapeum, Alexandria, axonometric reconstruction

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

34. Augustus as Pharaoh, temple of Mandulis at Kalabsha

35. Within these continuities, some slight changes took place:
Most significant is emperor cult; besides continuities, we also see temples for emperor cult arising in some cities (e.g. Alexandria)
Imperial control of priests and temples; priests’ appointments need to be approved by Roman official, wealth of temples restricted
Some new cults introduced, e.g. that of Heron (Thracian rider god) and Bes becomes extremely popular
These are, however no more than other elements to the syncretistic mix!

36. Conclusion
Religious transformation in Roman Egypt much less profound than in Gaul
Religion in Roman Egypt must be seen as a continuity of changes already set in in Ptolemaic period, which resulted in an Egyptian-Greek syncretism, Roman elements were just an addition to this
Traditional cults and practices in temples largely continued unaltered in Egyptian temples, cf. Gaul where changes were much more far-reaching
In Egypt gods remained worshipped under their old names, were only ‘interpreted’ in Greek context; in Gaul we see doubling of names (Hercules Magusanus etc.) and also worship under Latin names (e.g. Mercury, at Arverni)
in both cases measures were made against priestly establishment (Druids, Egyptian priests), though the latter were never abolished and these measures had much less of an impact in Egypt

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

38. Yet, also commonality:
Many gods, need to be worshipped, appeased and sacrificed to, gods could influence daily life, etc.
Enough common ground to allow for new elements from outside, yet maintaining continuity
Religious transformation = continuity + change

39. Other dynamics: ‘particularization’ vs. ‘generalization’
particularization: linking deity to specific place by giving him/her epithet, e.g. Artemis Ephesia ‘Artemis of Ephesus’
Generalization: awareness that gods of different places are similar, e.g. Ceres in Rome, or interpretatio romana