sometimes even up to 50 percent) felt themselves obliged not only to bring offerings
to the Roman gods and – normally – to the not very well known, but important
Genius lociat the customary dates, but also to erect their own altar.
This phenomenon is not restricted to stations of beneficiarii. We know it also from
commanders of auxiliary units (Maryport: RIB810, 812, 814, 816, 818 –20, 824 –9,
832– 4, 846 –7, 850), primipili legionis(Mogontiacum: CIL13.6694, 6749, 6752,
6762), or tribuni legionis(Aquincum: AE1990, 814 –15, 817–19). Even a number
of praetores urbaniof the third and early fourth centuries wanted to honor Hercules
with a separate ara(ILS3402–9; cf. Scheid forthcoming b).
As a parallel and perhaps even connected phenomenon, we find during the same
second century an ever growing number of altars and other monuments, dedicated
especially by soldiers, that are addressed not to one god only but to a number of
different deities, concluding sometimes even with the formula et diis deabusque omnibus
(e.g. Cadotte 2002–3; for the earlier practice, see ILS3208). This phenomenon was
surely connected with the imperial cult, too. It was especially this cult which was
often combined with other cults, whether the members of a ruling dynasty were equated
with particular gods, whether deities were addressed pro saluteof the reigning emperor,
or whether certain dedications were made i(n) h(onorem) d(omus) d(ivinae), as became
a widespread practice in the northern provinces from Severan times on (Raepsaet-
Charlier 1993; Schmidt 2004: 47).
Only a small number of all the dedicatory inscriptions are precisely dated – by
way of naming the consules ordinariiof the year, or by referring to a provincial era
or to local magistrates. Even the most widely known way of dating – by citing the
consuls – became a more general practice only in the last quarter of the second and
the first quarter of the third centuries. Not much more can inscriptions be dated in
an indirect way – for example by prosopographical means or by our knowledge of
the history of the units of the Roman army and their location. Dating by the form
of the letters is only possible if the inscriptions come from a place where many well-
dated inscriptions of the same kind were found. Even then we get only dates of such
an approximate kind that we cannot base historical conclusions on them. This ren-
ders a difficult problem even more problematic. Dedicatory inscriptions are often
used to determine the spread of a certain cult in space and time. For many cults not
mentioned in the literary sources, inscriptions are our most important source of knowl-
edge. But we should not forget that inscriptions can only provide termini ante quem
for the introduction of a certain cult at a certain place. And the inscriptions known
to us are normally only a small part of all those erected in ancient times. Finally, a
cult could have been practiced at a certain place for centuries before the first inscrip-
tion was erected. Thus, it will always be the absolute exception if our inscriptional
evidence of a cult dates really from the time of its introduction to the place in ques-
tion (for a comparable problem see Eck 1995: 349ff.). This problem is even more
aggravated by the fact that precisely datable inscriptions are wanting. Thus, it is almost
impossible to determine the precise routes and dates of the spread of a certain cult
through the empire.
Another problem which has to be confronted by studies evaluating dedicatory inscrip-
tions in bulk to get answers to questions of a more general nature is the fact that
184 Rudolf Haensch