That said, we do possess extensive clauses of the lex coloniae Iuliae Genetivae–
the colonial charter of ancient Urso, near modern Osuna, in Spain (ILS6087; FIRBruns
28; FIRA^2 21). Urso was founded in 44 bc, by an unknown magistrate; the char-
ter itself repeatedly cites the authority and authorship of Julius Caesar. Its religious
clauses have recently been subjected to careful scrutiny (Rüpke 2006b), and con-
straints of space permit me here to gesture only to two important conclusions of
that reading. First, the charter assigns to the duumviri, in consultation with the
decurions, the task of determining “which days will be festal, and how many, and
what rites will be performed publicly, and who shall perform them” (Lex Ursonensis
c. 64). Second, the charter provides for the institutionalization of two priesthoods,
pontificesand augures, but, remarkably, assigns them virtually no powers or respons-
ibilities whatsoever (Lex Ursonensisc. 66 – 8). That is, although the charter provides
for the replication in the colony of the two most prestigious colleges of priests at
Rome, it seemingly removes from them all significant functions held by their coun-
terparts at Rome, in particular, the pontiffs’ control of the calendar and the augurs’
power to stop public actions through obnuntiatio. One effect is to transfer control
over public religion in a very limited sense to the public: in comparison with Rome,
significant authority is removed from life-long priests and transferred to elected
magistrates and the city council.
The degree of autonomy granted the decurions at Urso is perhaps best revealed
by comparison with another centrally produced document, the Feriale Duranum,
the calendar of the auxiliary cohors XX Palmyrenorum, produced early in the second
quarter of the third centuryad for a military unit stationed in Mesopotamia. To be
sure, it was directed at a military and not a civilian body. Nevertheless, it commends
to them the celebration of an enormous number of specifically Roman holidays,
and precludes all possibility of local variation beyond the capacity to celebrate the
“birthday” of their unit. In particular, neither the ethnic origin of the unit, nor the
religious landscape in which it served, makes any impression upon its official cele-
brations (P. Dura 54 =Roman Military Records on Papyri 117).
Against such normative documents as charters and army calendars must be set
an astonishing array of evidence for local diversity and, often enough, for careful
replication of Roman institutions (fine particularized studies include Rives 1995;
Belayche 2001: 108 –219; 2003). These might even go hand in hand. Two particu-
larly fascinating examples of this phenomenon include the inscription of a lex sacra
at Carthage (Ennabli 1999) and the worship of Mater Matuta at Beirut (Kaizer 2005).
The lex sacraconcerns public cult (Ennabli frag. 3, line 3), directed to a variety of
deities in a number of locations. Almost all the names of the gods are lost, though
one set of rites is to be performed at the Capitolium (Ennabli frag. 7), and the
identity of other gods can be conjectured with considerable confidence from the
words that do survive. These name an astonishing variety of specialized offerings,
and occasionally specify the structures, even temporary structures, in which they
should be made; and both the offerings and structures have parallels at Rome and
in central Italy. What is novel is the inclusion of Abaddir (Ennabli frag. 5, line 2):
in Roman eyes, evidently a local god, but more likely in origin a Punic baityl. Mater
Matuta’s worship at Beirut is known from an imperial dedication by a woman with
Exporting Roman Religion 435