Transcript Inleiding Griekse religie: Het Griekse landschap

Religions 13: Religious Diversty in
the Roman Empire: Gaul and Egypt
Roman Gaul
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)

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’


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
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

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
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?’

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. 208-9:
 ‘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’
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.
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
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)

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!

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)


-
-
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
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

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

Roman Egypt
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


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
What is Ancient Egyptian religion?
Enormous diversity of approaches, ideas,
uses and images that developed over time
(ca. 3100 BCE – 450 CE!) and depended
on place > was there ever such a thing as
‘Ancient Egyptian religion’?
Basic characteristics
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
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)
Changes in Religion in GraecoRoman 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

Interpretationes graecae
Zeus
Aphrodite
Apollo
Artemis
Athena
Demeter
Dionysus
Helios
Hera
Amon-Re
Hathor
Horus/Montu
Bastet
Neith
Isis
Osiris
Re
Isis/Mut
Sarapis
Roman
Serapeum
J.S. McKenzie, S. Gibson & A.T. Reyes, “Reconstructing the Serapeum
in Alexandria from the archaeological evidence”, JRS 94 (2004) 73121
Serapeum, Alexandria,
axonometric
reconstruction
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 GraecoRoman 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
Augustus
as
Pharaoh,
temple of
Mandulis at
Kalabsha
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!

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 EgyptianGreek 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
Conclusion Religious Diversity
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)
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


-
-
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