There was no fusion or syncretism or simple dressing up – these gods changed both
names and identities.
Of course, many divinities retained their local names, either because there was no
Roman equivalent – one thinks notably of the god bearing stag antlers, named
Cernunnos, found on a bas-relief from Paris, whose image is well known from the
Celtic provinces – or because the god in question had a topical and local dimen-
sion. In the city of the Convenae, one finds at least 60 gods with indigenous names,
a diversity which, in the end, reflected the fragmentary nature of the lands and com-
munities. One encounters a similar situation in the comparably mountainous regions
of Galicia, which teemed with indigenous divinities very frequently flanked by
Jupiter the omnipotent, father of the gods. Sometimes, the aura of these gods stretched
well beyond the frontiers of the city, as seen in the example from the Germanic
provinces of the goddess Sunuxal, studied by Spickermann (2001: 36). She possessed
an important temple at Kornelimünster, yet her cult is also attested at Bonn,
Cologne, and other locations. Such a widespread presence is most certainly explained
by the goddess’s well-known powers, honored by Roman citizens throughout the
second and third centuriesad. Of course, one must not forget that similar processes
took place in the Greek east – one thinks in particular of the indigenous gods specific
to the rural zones of inner Asia Minor.
In such a context – that of specific pantheons of the imperial era adapted to the
history of each of the thousands of cities which comprised the empire – it is obvi-
ous that the classification formerly suggested by Toutain, which distinguished
indigenous gods from the Roman and “oriental” gods, loses its probative character.
The very rigidity of such categories fails to take account of the inner evolution of
cities and people, ultimately masking the harmony that these gods, together, were
meant to represent for each community at any given time. Rather than focusing on
“indigenous” or “Roman” gods, the point was to worship familiar gods and cults
whose power was guaranteed by municipal investiture, gods who also established a
connection with Rome and were adapted to their times, the situation of individuals
and their place in society. This explains the naturalization of gods in numerous cities,
which simultaneously allowed them to integrate and keep in step with their times.
This also explains the continuity – never denied – of sanctuaries as powerful and
wealthy as the Serapeum of Alexandria, the sacred wood of Apollo at Daphne (Antioch),
or again the temple of Aesculapius at Pergamum.
Religious Autonomy and Empire:
Rapprochement with Rome
The great variety of situations was in large part due to the system of cultic organ-
ization overseen by the autonomous city. Each city has its religion, Cicero said, and
we have our own (Cic. Pro Flacco69). The notion still held true for the imperial
era, notwithstanding the progressive rapprochement of the empire’s communities with
Rome. Thus, so-called Roman tolerance was in fact simply due to an autonomy defined
and controlled by Rome. Indeed, the Romans were no more tolerant than anyone
88 William Van Andringa