- Chapter Twenty-Four -
Not surprisingly, most classical accounts of Celtic cult sites employ Greek or
Roman vocabulary. Equally, most writers give the standard classical terms for cult
loci (Table 24. I).
TEIl£VO~ and tEp6v are Greek descriptors for temple complexes on the classical
model. TEf..lEVO~ (a Ccut' or share of land apportioned to a god) defines a consecrated,
enclosed area surrounding an altar, and tEp6v the sanctuary at the heart of the
enclosure. The Latin equivalents, fanum and temp/urn, have similar meanings. The
use of these terms in Celtic contexts could suggest structural similarities between
Celtic and Graeco-Roman cult loci.
However, as with the use of Greek or Roman names in accounts of Celtic deities
(e.g. Caesar De Bello Gallico VI.q), the use of classical vocabulary for Celtic cult
sites is a form of interpretatio, the classical interpretation of alien gods and practices.
Descriptive detail rarely accompanies interpretatio. It is thus uncertain whether the
classical terminology in Table 24. I represents a meaningful approximation to the
nature of an alien cult site or simply the imposition of one frame of reference on
another.
In this context, references to Celtic tEp6v would appear to imply roofed
structures. But Posidonius' account of the re-roofing of an tEPOV at the mouth of
the Loire (Strabo Geography Iv+6) is the single reference to suggest this unam-
biguously. In other cases, the issue remains uncertain, but it may be suggested that
tEp6v was often applied meaningfully. With the exception of the Loire account, all
references to Celtic tEpa are to northern Italy and the Provincia. It is probable, given
the long classical influence in these regions, that some sites described in this way in
the later Iron Age were constructed on the classical model. Equally, classical terms
could have been felt appropriate for the Celto-Ligurian stone-built sanctuaries
described below. It is certainly significant that tEp6v references are largely restricted
to zones of Mediterranean influence.
References to Celtic tEf..lEVEa are equally difficult to assess. Although the iron age
archaeological evidence suggests that enclosure was an important concept in Celtic
sacred space, the standard tEf..lEVO~ occurs infrequently, and is restricted to areas open
to considerable Greek influence. As discussed below, there are significant differences
between Graeco-Roman and Celtic usage of enclosures in sacred contexts. It is
therefore conceivable that tEf..lEVO~ was considered an inappropriate term for many
Celtic enclosures. It is interesting, in this context, to find references to probable
Celtic enclosures in which alternative vocabulary is employed (Table 24.2).
Posidonius's reference to aTlKu (enclosures or shrines) is of great interest, as,
according to Ammonius, aTlK6~ specifies a site dedicated to a hero (Diff 94.V). The
Greeks heroized the dead, and it is surprising that the use of aTlK6~ by a Greek
commentator has not been noted by those arguing for a Celtic cult of the heroized
dead (Benoit I955: I 6-27; Duval I976: 2I-2; Brunaux I988: 38). Posidonius (Athen-
aeus, Deipnosophistiae IV.37) also documented a quasi-religious act of enclosure by
the Arverni: Luvernius's construction of an enclosure I2 stades square in which to
hold a feast.
Underlying most iron age texts is thus a common theme: a sacred area comprising
or including an enclosure. How such enclosures were realized is nowhere specified,
but the concept of sacred enclosure is clear. Ironically, given their interest to the