with Neptunus or Turmasgada with Iuppiter, or, as AE 1969/70, 405, does, con-
nect the Celtic gods Atepomarus and Mullo with Mercurius and Mars, we know
only that a part of the ideas of these gods recalled another. Only if we get further
information – by bilingual parallel or divergent formulae (Scheid 2005b), by the archae-
ological context (characteristics of the sanctuaries; representations on the dedicated
monument – very rare in the west: Spickermann 2003: 17f.) – do we get insights
into the specific characteristics of these gods and eventually of their cults.
The Romans often presumed a divine presence but were not interested in deter-
mining its precise character, as the dedications to the genii loci, to sive deus sive dea
(ILS4015 –17), and to such abstractions as disciplinaor pax(ILS3809 –10, 3789)
show. It was probably only in the later third century – under the impression of
the crisis of these decades and its repercussions on religious beliefs – that a larger
number of individuals used the epigraphical medium to explain explicitly the typical
characteristics of a certain god (ILS2996, 2998 – 9, 3170, 3257).
Thirdly, there are the formulae. Generally modern research puts them light-
heartedly aside. Most researchers think apparently that the dedicators never took an
interest in the formulae and that they were only added by the stonemason, who thought
them to be part of a “normal” dedicatory inscription of a certain type. However,
Scheid (2005b) has shown, by comparison between the Palmyrene and Greek or
Latin parts of trilingual inscriptions from different places in the Mediterranean
world, that the adherents of certain cults approached their gods in different ways
in these parts of the inscriptions. In Latin (or Greek) the inscriptions recorded con-
ditional vows typical of the Greek and Roman religions – the devout man had made
a vow and thanked the god if he had gotten what he wanted. Such a contract, which
placed an obligation on the god, was not possible in the context of the Palmyrene
concepts of divinity. Thus, we find no equivalent to votum solveruntor euche–in the
Palmyrene texts.
The examples used by Scheid are typical in another way, too. The inscriptions
he discusses can show that the devout had different religious viewpoints accord-
ing to the languages used. But Scheid cannot prove that all Palmyrenes who
addressed their gods by means of a Latin or Greek inscription had the same com-
plex way of thinking. We are almost never able to demonstrate how typical a certain
behavior was.
We meet the same problem in the context of the rare cases in which dedicators
informed us of their motives. For instance, it is quite surprising that somewhere in
the Alps (near Seben), a slave of the emperor would thank Mars Augustus conser-
vator corporis suiby dedicating a statue ex iussu numinis ipsius(ILS3160, cf. 3704).
The combination of the emperor, Mars, and the characteristics of a healing god seems
astonishing, but apparently this slave had had a very impressive revelation of the god
addressed by him. From the surroundings of Capua came a dedication to Silvanus
(ILS 3523) by a vil(icus) Dian[ae] (Tifatinae?)and of eight candidati(to his post?).
The constellation points to a ritual, routine act, but at the end of the inscription we
find ex viso.
Rarely do we know what was dedicated (apart from the inscribed monument). In
many cases the erection of the monument was part not only of a ritual, but also of
182 Rudolf Haensch