James Hunter King’s College London 5,931 words Evidence for how religion functioned in Roman Britain is abundant, but agonisingly difficult to understand. It is not sensible to isolate Roman religion from its Celtic predecessor. Indeed, interpretatio romana, first outlined by Tacitus (Germania 43), remains one of the most useful models to have been applied in the study of RomanoBritish religion, in spite of Tacitus’ pro-Roman stance. 1 The nature of polytheistic religion itself allows for similarities between gods of different religions to be exploited. 2 The danger of using only this approach, however, is that we become preoccupied by the issue of what was native and what was Roman. As a result it might lead to a compartmentalising of the two as separate, even though this was not the case during the Roman period. At the same time, we should not view RomanoBritish religion as a brand-new religion created purposefully by the Romans on their arrival in the 1st century AD. This approach might lead us towards blanket coverage that obscures the intricate elements that made up Romano-British religion. 3 This already complex relationship is made even more so by the issue of what was public and what was private. However, the situation was rarely this clear-cut: an expression of an individual’s religion could be placed in what is deemed a ‘public’ place, but its significance was probably private. We must also be aware of the problems of material sources: we cannot be entirely certain of their purpose. Furthermore, an assessment of the wholly Celtic gods is primarily based on epigraphic evidence. This is largely reliable, but it does not provide an image of what was happening in areas where the epigraphic habit was less pronounced. The complex nature of Romano-British religion as a whole is impossible to understand by way of a broad overview, therefore it is necessary instead to narrow our field. I shall use the case study of Mars as a vehicle for re-evaluation of how we should view Romano-British religion. Mars is particularly apt for this purpose because his presence is distributed widely across Britain, and he is a god for whom we have a great deal of material evidence. This is probably because he was especially popular in military zones, where the epigraphic habit was strong. My paper will 1 Henig 1995, ch. 3. Assmann 1997, 45. 3 It is for this reason that Webster’s model of creolisation (2001) does not sit well with the issue of religion in Roman Britain. 2 1 James Hunter King’s College London demonstrate that the relationship between Celtic and Roman religion was not a straightforward process of assimilation or resistance. It was one of intricacy, in which public and private, native and Roman could co-exist and interact. Furthermore, the representation of Mars in the cultic context depended greatly on what best suited a given social context, and was affected to a lesser extent by regional trends. Were different manifestations of Mars viewed as different gods altogether by different people, or was he the same god with a different title? Further study will be able to answer these questions with regard to other gods, but my aim, by using Mars as a model, is to debunk a common myth. Henig (1995, 66) argues that a dynamic syncretism was “used by priests and artists under their lead, as well as RomanoBritons in general, to make their gods fully Roman”. We should not simply assume a universal desire to become ‘Roman’. What was this ‘Roman’ ideal that Romano-Britons were apparently striving for? It is simplest to construct an ideal in terms of his function and typical appearance. In Italy, Mars had probably begun as a god of fertility, whose function it was to protect agriculture from disease. 4 Indeed, Mars Silvanus was worshipped as an agricultural deity through to the late Republic. 5 Towards the end of the Republic, Mars’ role as pater became more prominent. By the time of Rome’s invasion into Britain, Mars had been fully established as the war god of the empire. Under the reign of Augustus, Mars became intrinsically linked to the Roman state, and his role as father of Romulus and Remus, and as founder of Rome, was celebrated by the emperor: Mars Quirinus and Mars Romulus became common titles. 6 Indeed, Augustus went one step further and created the epithet Ultor for Mars, a direct reference to the return of the imperial standard from Parthia, and an indirect reference to his avenging the death of Caesar. 7 It is clear, then, that Mars was already a versatile god by the time he reached Britain. He could be adapted for different purposes: success in battle, a good harvest, political advantage. Was Mars Romulus the same god as Mars Ultor, or were they distinguished by their function? If this diversity of function was present in Italy, a stronghold of the Roman pantheon in the early empire, then it is no wonder that we 4 Lindgren 1978, 100; Ogilvie 1969, 115. Bailey (1936) provides a summary in P. Ovidi Nasonis fastorum lib. III, 33ff. 5 c. 160 BC: Cato, de Agr. 141. Rustic festivals in the Republic: Henig 1995, 26-7; Scullard 1981, 193f. 6 E.g. ILS 64; AE 1972, 504. 7 Suet. Aug. 29.2; Res Gestae 21; see also the temple of Mars Ultor in Rome. 2 James Hunter King’s College London find a similar state of affairs in Britain, where Mars could take on further roles, as dictated by groups of worshippers, communities, or individuals. The practice of attributing different epithets to the ‘same’ god should not be unfamiliar to us when it appears in Britain. Mars’ traditional appearance, in the western provinces at least, was very much of the classical tradition. For the purposes of this paper, I shall operate within the artistic classifications set out by Lindgren (1978, 100ff): 1) “… a beardless nude wearing a plumed Corinthian helmet, right hand on a spear, the left holding a sword or shield” (Fig. 1); 2) “cuirassed warrior, based on the cult statue of the temple of Mars Ultor” (Figs. 2-3); 3) “nude, drapery around the hips with an eagle sitting on his arm”. 8 A test of Mars’ adaptability in Britain will be to assess how closely the image of Mars echoed the connotations of any epithet he might have been given in the same context. If no strong similarities were necessary – for example, if a Mars in military dress was worshipped for an agricultural purpose – then it is likely that the traditional military iconography of Mars was required only as an identifying characteristic. Instead it was the social context in which the image was found, and in many cases his epithet, that denoted the god’s function. By way of such an assessment, we can begin to establish trends in the practices of different social groups, in terms of how Mars was depicted and addressed. Furthermore, we can investigate the possibility of regional trends. Evidence for the nature of rural worship in Romano-British society is scant. Nevertheless, there is enough material available to draw some moderately secure conclusions. The evidence we do have for the cult of Mars is primarily composed of inscriptions, figurines and statuettes, and votive plates. There are no known depictions of Mars on samian pottery from Britain; in comparison there are seven of Venus, three of Mercury, and two of Minerva. 9 The finds can be divided into three groups according to the archaeological context in which they were found or presumed to have 8 9 Not found in Britain. Lindgren 1978, 31. 3 James Hunter King’s College London been originally located: 10 the military, the domestic or civilian (including household shrines), and the distinctly religious (public temples, for example, fall into this category). Mars’ primary function as a god of war by the time of the Roman invasion of Britain has resulted in a great abundance of evidence appearing at military sites, and it is with this category that I shall deal first. There are two inscriptions that immediately demonstrate the amalgamation of a Roman god with a Celtic deity, and combine a Roman achievement (victory in war) with a Celtic practice (drinking copious amounts of alcohol before battle). 11 The first is from Colchester, a town with a strong military heritage, but the inscription might not have necessarily been composed by a soldier. 12 On this bronze ansate plaque is a dedication by Lossio Veda to Mars Medocius and the victory of the Emperor. He is ‘nepos Vepogeni Caledo’, proud of his Caledonian heritage. In light of this, we might conclude that he was a visitor to Colchester, perhaps a merchant. Medocius, the epithet applied to Mars in this inscription, was therefore probably a Celtic deity brought south by this individual as part of his private worship. The military context and content of the inscription suggest that Medocius might have had direct martial connotations in Celtic religion, in a similar way to Mars in Roman religion. However, the reconstructed proto-Celtic term *medwo-oci- (he who is drunk) and the lexeme *okitā- (to harrow) suggest a meaning along the lines of 'mead-harrower'. 13 It is this meaning that seems most likely when we compare it with an inscription found on a gritstone altar at Bakewell. 14 Set up by Quintus Sittius Caecilianus, prefect of the first cohort of Aquitanians, it is dedicated to ‘Deo Marti Braciacae’. Since Braciaca is believed to have been a god of malt, 15 it is another example of the connection between Celtic soldiers and the consumption of alcohol. This soldier was probably thanking the god for supplying the army with beer, and/or for helping them in battle. Alternatively, it might also be an epithet transferred as a result of the itinerant nature of the military, since Braciacus occurs five times as a place-name in 10 Presumption is the key word here: the portability of many of the small finds casts some doubt over whether they were discovered in their original location. 11 Ross 1967, 181. 12 RIB 191. 13 Stokes 1894; Pokorny 1989. 14 RIB 278. 15 The elder Pliny refers to brace, a Gallic grain (Nat. Hist 18.11). 4 James Hunter King’s College London Gaul. What is clear from these two inscriptions is that there was complex interaction between native and Roman tradition. The attachment of a Celtic deity to the Roman god of war was not as straightforward as selecting the general Celtic god of war and attaching him to Mars. Medocius and Braciaca/us were representative of a more specific Celtic practice connected with warfare, the excessive consumption of alcohol, and therefore only indirectly connected with Mars himself. For these two dedicants, it was the title Mars that identified their god as being ‘Roman’, but the localized epithet that helped determine the god’s exact function. Found near the fort at South Shields, an altar dedicated to Mars Alator once again demonstrates how an individual, Gaius Vinicius Celsus, could combine a Celtic deity with the Roman Mars. 16 This combination seems to be a better match between the responsibilities of each god, however. The Celtic Alator, whose name probably meant either ‘huntsman’ or ‘nourisher’, was probably linked to Mars via the latter function. As nourisher, presumably of the people who worshipped him, he seems to have been similar in nature to pater Mars. But how do we account for Mars Alator’s appearance on a votive plaque in Barkway, Hertfordshire? 17 This was not a military site. There are two possible explanations: the simplest is that the dedicant at Barkway, Censorinus, was a soldier (or veteran), perhaps from South Shields, who had continued his worship of the god having moved south. On the other hand, he could have moved north and spread the word – in either case the significant point is the itinerant nature of these gods. The other explanation is that Censorinus did not have a military background and was worshipping Mars Alator of his own accord, independent of any influence from South Shields. In both these situations, Censorinus at Barkway was surely worshipping the god for a different reason from Vinicius Celsus in the frontier zone at South Shields. Perhaps Censorinus, no longer in active service, was appealing to Mars Alator in his guise as ‘nourisher’ – there was no longer any need to pray for victory. What this demonstrates once more is versatility in the function of Mars Alator, depending on the context in which he was worshipped. On the militarily active frontier, Mars Alator was used mainly for good fortune in warfare (although the soldiers did still require nourishment). In the peaceful south, 16 RIB 1055: ‘Mart(i) Ala(tori)/C(aius) Vinicius/Celsus/pro se et [suis]/v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)’. 17 RIB 218: ‘D(eo) Marti Alatori/Dum() Censorinus/Gemelli fil(ius)/v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)’. 5 James Hunter King’s College London pater Mars became predominant. While Mars alone has a ‘nourishing’ role, it is the Celtic epithet Alator that explicitly outlines the function of the combined deity. What is interesting, however, is that the image of Mars found on the same plaque as the Censorinus inscription (RIB 218) depicts the god in military dress. This does not necessarily indicate a military function. Further examples will support the idea that, by the 3rd century AD, the iconography in widespread use in images of Mars had become a recognisable element used to identify the Roman ‘part’ of the god. This identification tool would have been more necessary than ever before because of the wide range of (primarily Celtic) epithets and roles that Mars now had across Britain. Furthermore, clear visual imagery in a mostly illiterate region was necessary for many worshippers to recognise their god. Other inscriptions found in a military setting further suggest the movement of gods, versatility, and adaptability. At Lancaster, a beneficiarius of the governor dedicated an altar to Mars Cocidius, and the same god is attested at other locations on the northern frontier. 18 The fact that this form of Mars is found only in the military region suggests that he held a purely military function. Indeed, Cocidius as a god on his own is attested at various military sites – presumably he was also a war god, though we only have epigraphic evidence for this. 19 A dedication to Mars as a single deity in his own right would surely have sufficed to fulfil a military purpose, but this was a rare phenomenon. 20 Combination with a Celtic deity is further evidence of the defining role played by the ‘native’ epithet. The fluid movement of people between military sites along the frontier – and from civilian settlements further south up to the frontier – was conducive to the spread of deities. This ease of movement makes it difficult to ascertain whether particular gods were originally specific to a region of Britain. 18 Lancaster: RIB 602; Bewcastle: RIB 993; Cumberland Quarries: RIB 1017; Old Wall: RIB 2015; Tarraby: RIB 2024. 19 Bankshead: RIB 1955-6; Bewcastle: RIB 985-9; Birdoswald: RIB 1872; Housesteads: RIB 1577, 1583, 1633; Howgill: RIB 1961, 1963; Netherby: RIB 966; Old Wall: RIB 2020; Risingham: RIB 1207; Vindolanda: RIB 1683. 20 There is one example from Lancaster (RIB 601). 6 James Hunter King’s College London There is one possible example of regionalism in the military zone, however. Mars Belatucadrus (or Belatucairus) is attested across northern Britain. 21 MacCulloch (1911, 135) suggests that Belatucadrus was a warrior god, and his location in the military north of Britain and combination with Mars seems to confirm that. But it is the concentration of dedications to Belatucadrus as a single Celtic deity at Brougham that hints at a particular regional affinity, in this case with the Carvetii tribe. 22 If Brougham was a centre for the worship of Belatucadrus, then dedications elsewhere are surely a result of migration and/or word of mouth. Those people (mainly Roman soldiers) dedicating an altar to Mars Belatucadrus would have, in searching for an appropriate epithet, naturally taken on that which was closest to them or best known to them. We have seen how there were other appropriate options available (Alator, Cocidius), but the choice of Belatucadrus seems to owe something to loyalty to a regional tradition. Loyalty to a particular god prevailed as worshippers relocated to other areas, which explains attestations across northern Britain. Indeed, regional trends can be obscured by the transfer of a god originally associated with one area to another. An example of this in northern Britain, most likely brought about by military movements, is that of Mars Condatis. Condatis probably means ‘god of the confluence of waters’, and was perhaps entreated so that his power of healing might affect the waters in a certain region. Mars was suitable as a combinatory god, since he sometimes possessed a healing function. The majority of dedications are in County Durham, therefore Condatis is likely to have originally referred to the confluence of specific rivers. 23 But a dedication to the same god in Cramond, near Edinburgh, has shed new light on Mars Condatis. 24 There is no confluence of rivers in the region, at least not according to the modern geography, therefore it seems as though a soldier has once again taken his god with him when he was dispatched to the fort at Cramond. We might reasonably assume that he travelled from County Durham. 21 Burgh-by-Sands: RIB 2044; Carlisle: RIB 948; AE 1958, 99; Carvoran: RIB 1784; Netherby: RIB 970; Penrith: RIB 918. 22 RIB 772-7, 3230. 23 RIB 731, 1024, 1045. 24 RIB 3500. 7 James Hunter King’s College London The epigraphic evidence in the military setting has so far demonstrated how Mars and his various facets – war, healing, hunting – were combined with more specific Celtic epithets, directly related to an exact function or tradition within regional communities. However, the ease of movement within the military realm has led to uncertainty as to how far the worship of particular combined gods spread. Despite a lack of pictorial evidence, the combination of the Roman with the native that we see in inscriptions was sometimes repeated in Romano-British art of the military world. A sandstone head and torso near the fort at South Shields, although not positively identified as Mars, is an example of this (Fig. 4). The sculpture is Celtic in style, but its “motif and format are based on Mediterranean influences”. 25 Likewise, the facial features of a Mars found within the fort are stylistically Celtic (Fig. 5). 26 The naturalistic illustration of Mars on a shield found near the mouth of the Tyne might at first glance suggest that purely classical representations did exist in the military domain (Fig. 6). 27 But Mars’ unusual pose indicates that the image was imported when the legion arrived in Britain. 28 Once more, freedom of movement makes it difficult to establish any regional trends, or a trend within the military. The problem presented by the freedom of movement within the empire is more widespread. The Barkway hoard, from which Censorinus’ dedication (RIB 218) is taken, was discovered in a civilian context, and makes plain this problem. 29 It has been suggested that the hoard is the remains of a neighbourhood shrine, constructed for communal use. 30 The find comprises a bronze statuette of Mars (Fig. 7) 31 and seven silver votive plates, two of which portray Vulcan. Three portray Mars without an inscription, one is Censorinus’ dedication to Mars Alator alongside an image of the same god, and the final plate is a dedication to Mars Toutatis by a freedman, Tiberius Claudius Primus. 32 The hoard represents possible further evidence for freedom of movement and a lack of regionalism. In a single find, like the Felmingham Hall hoard 25 Lindgren 1978, 113-4, pl. 85. Ibid. 116, pl. 89. 27 Ibid. 115, pl. 87. 28 RIB 2426.1. 29 Toynbee 1964, 328. 30 Fox 1923, 216. 31 Once again, the unusually Mediterranean technique employed suggests the statuette was imported (Lindgren 1978, 109). 32 RIB 219: ‘Marti / Toutati / Ti(berius) Claudius Primus / Attii liber(tus) / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito)’. 26 8 James Hunter King’s College London perhaps the result of a communal shrine/temple deposit, there are dedications to two separate manifestations of Mars. 33 Toutatis as a Celtic deity probably meant ‘tribe protector’, and it is suggested that, at least in Gaul, every tribe had a ‘toutatis’. 34 Indeed, the wide geographical range of dedications to Toutatis or Mars Toutatis seems to confirm this theory. 35 A ‘toutatis’, therefore, was probably a common element in a Celtic tribe’s religion. At or near Barkway, Tiberius Claudius Primus deemed Mars to be the most suitable Roman god with which to combine Toutatis. The combination of Mars with both Alator and Toutatis at the same location suggests that it was very much the choice of the worshipper(s) as to how they viewed Mars, dependent on what they sought from their god(s). Mars was adaptable to many religious requirements. The geographical spread of Toutatis further indicates that, even if a Celtic deity was once attached to a specific place, the free movement of much of the population caused the suspension of any region-specific connections to gods. Elsewhere the phenomenon was intensified by the trouble-free movement of traders from one province to another. 36 The choice of the individual as opposed to an imposition of state religion is a theme that runs throughout the cult of Mars in Roman Britain, and is embodied most clearly by an inscription on a statue-base at Caerwent. 37 The base, which probably supported a statue of Mars, was found in a domestic setting (House XI, Room 5). The inscription reads as follows: [Deo] Marti Leno/[s]ive Ocelo Vellaun[o] et Num(ini) Aug(usti) Sive is crucial. It seems to be an invitation to viewers of the statue to attribute to the image one of two titles: Mars Lenus and Ocelus Vellaunus. There are other examples of Mars Lenus elsewhere, 38 and there are two more dedications to Mars Ocelus in 33 Felmingham Hall: Gilbert 1978. Duval 1957. 35 Wide geographical range: Benwell: AE 2001, 1298; Dacia: AE 2004, 1204; Frampton: AE 2007, 868; Kelvedon: RIB 2503 (131); Little Walsingham: AE 1994, 1120; Noricum: CIL 3.5320; Rome: CIL 6.31182; Tetford: RIB 2422 (39); Willoughby-on-the-Wolds: RIB 2422 (40); York: RIB 2422 (37). 36 E.g. Mars Camulus from Gaul to Britain (RIB 3014). 37 RIB 309. 38 Mars Lenus: AE 1915, 70; 1924, 16; 1932, 40; 1989, 549; CIL 13. 3654, 3970, 4030, 4122, 4137; possibly RIB 126. 34 9 James Hunter King’s College London Britain. 39 The question we might ask as a result is, did it matter to the dedicant which god was being worshipped? In contrast to what we have seen in the military setting, where the title attached to Mars was a function-defining tool, the Caerwent inscription and statue begin to suggest that it was the identification of the image that was more important in a civilian or domestic setting. Nowhere is this more obvious than at Custom Scrubs. Two stone votive tablets (Figs. 8-9), probably produced by the same craftsman, seem to depict ‘Mars’ figures, but his image is different in each. The titles they are given seem to have no influence on the function of each god – instead it is how the god is illustrated that does. The first tablet bears an inscription dedicated to Mars Olludius (RIB 131), but the image is of a figure wearing no military garb and holding double cornucopiae. The second is dedicated to Romulus (RIB 132), but the iconography is suggestive of the god being a Mars figure, holding as he does a spear and shield in his typical pose. In light of Mars’ traditional connections to Romulus we might view the figure as Mars Romulus. 40 However, he also holds double cornucopiae, which are not typical attributes of Mars in Romano-British art. Aldhouse-Green (1989, 115) suggests that the two figures “represent the worship of a peaceful, bucolic prosperitygod”. If this is the case then this Mars is reminiscent of the protecting fertility god worshipped by Cato, 41 but the name Romulus is not indicative of such a function. Similarly, the attribution of Mars Olludius to an image far removed from the traditional iconography of Mars at the time strongly suggests that worshippers of the god were, in this rural and civilian setting, more attuned to what the graphic representation signified. At Custom Scrubs it was the pictorial element that defined the function of the god. Indeed, image was so important in the religion of the domestic and civilian world that there seems to be more of an attempt by some artists to exert a Celtic influence on their depictions of Mars. A bronze figurine of Mars from Norfolk (Fig. 10), dated to 39 Mars Ocelus: RIB 310, 949. The majority of Mars Lenus dedications are from Trier, which suggests this could be the house of a soldier stationed nearby, having been sent to Britain. 40 Toynbee (1962, 152) notes that Romulus is “always rendered in the guise of Mars in Roman art”. 41 supra n. 5. 10 James Hunter King’s College London the 3rd century AD, is stylistically a fusion of Mediterranean and Celtic traditions. 42 The drapery across the left shoulder and lower torso of Mars resembles the Mars Ultor depicted on the Ara Pietatis relief. 43 Likewise, the Fossdyke Mars (Fig. 11) is the result of an artistic technique found across the north-western provinces that combined classical and Celtic stylistic traditions, but maintained the Mediterranean iconographical prototype. 44 Further north at York, a statue, dated to the late 3rd or early 4th century AD (Fig. 12), is evidence for this phenomenon continuing into the later Roman period. Discovered alongside three altars, of which one was dedicated to Mars, the artistic rendering of the statue represents a combination of “Celtic abstraction and Mediterranean naturalism”. 45 Significant production of non-classical depictions of Mars in Britain occurred because artists recognised that as long as the iconography of Mars was loosely consistent with tradition, the god could be identified. For the purpose of worship, identification was surely the most important factor. The statuette from Southbroom (Fig. 13), part of a set of eight classical Roman gods, is representative of this – so much so that identification as Mars is likely but has not been universally agreed. 46 Stylistically, the Mars is “more non-classical in appearance than other representations of Mars found in Britain”. 47 But his upright stance and semi-outstretched arms, and full military costume, are strong indications that it is Mars. The artistic style of this particular Mars is highly Celtic, but the typical iconography of Mars remains. It is illustrative of a complex fusion process that was occurring between ‘native’ and ‘Roman’, especially in the rural areas, such as Wiltshire. This might have been a result of a lack of urban development, leading to less contact with the Roman authorities and state religion. In this civilian religious setting we not only see the fusion of native and Roman, but also the blurring of the lines between public and private. We should always be aware that the modern view of what the home represents in terms of privacy was not always shared in the Roman period. Likewise, the community spirit embodied by the modern 42 Lindgren 1978, 106, pl. 76. Bloch 1939; Torelli 1982, 66ff. 44 Lindgren 1978, 107, pl. 77. Amand (1967) details other similar statuettes from Berlin, Blicquy, Neumagen, Reims and Winringen. 45 Lindgren 1978, 111, pl. 83. 46 The burial at Southbroom, although mooted as the site of a possible temple (Lewis 1966, 127), could equally represent a votive offering by an individual, and not part of a temple-based ceremony. 47 Lindgren 1978, 109, pl. 79. 43 11 James Hunter King’s College London Christian church was in the Roman period combined with a tendency to make private dedications in a public place. Some of the evidence for the cult of Mars underlines this ambiguity. The statue base from Caerwent 48 was found in a large residence, often assumed to be a private setting. However, a sizeable statue was probably seen by more than just the inhabitants of the house. It might have been commissioned not only as a display of wealth but also as a semi-public demonstration of the owner’s allegiance to Mars Lenus or Ocelus Vellaunus. 49 The statue from York raises the same issue: a display of wealth on such a scale was surely not supposed to be private, despite being located in a domestic setting. 50 On the other hand, from Southwark we have an example of a private dedication to Mars Camulus being produced by an individual within the public setting of a Romano-Celtic temple. 51 Lacking from the evidence for the cult of Mars, however, are significant rural temple finds. Possible rustic shrines provide a few inscriptions or pieces of art. But in light of the 3rd century shift in Britain towards the use of rural temples instead of urban, and the widespread popularity of Mars, it is odd that there are not more remnants of such religious practice. 52 There was a general increase in the use of temples, peaking in the middle of the 4th century AD, but by the end of the 3rd century urban temples were becoming less popular, whereas rural temples were still increasing in popularity. 53 This lack of evidence can partly be attributed to the varying levels of contact with Roman influence – in the deepest countryside, sanctuaries were perhaps more likely to adhere to the Celtic tradition for atectonic religion; 54 in the towns temples were more likely to be influenced by Roman architectural and religious practice. 55 According to Lewis, this model would have worked on a sliding scale; therefore worship in rural areas should be expected to be on a smaller scale, that is, in shrines, not large temples. 56 48 supra p. 9. For discussion of the ‘public’ nature of the Roman house in Italy, the conclusions of which can be considered in relation to Britain: Wallace-Hadrill 1988; Grahame 1997 50 supra n. 45. 51 supra n. 36. 52 Lewis 1966, 52. 53 Horne 1981, 21. 54 Though by its very nature, an atectonic tradition is very difficult to detect in the evidence. 55 Lewis 1966, 10. 56 Ibid. 49 12 James Hunter King’s College London Nevertheless, the evidence that is available suggests a similar situation to the urban and military contexts: a complex relationship between ‘Roman’ and Celtic, and a not insignificant level of religious practice. The Stony Stratford hoard comprises around thirty silver votive plaques; of the five that are figured, Mars appears on four. Such an abundance of votive offerings suggest the existence of a temple at the site. But the style of all the figures is altogether classical: naturalistic and well-proportioned, which has led Toynbee (1964, 330) to suggest they were imported. A bronze votive plaque from Woodeaton begins to suggest that the fusion of Celtic style and Roman iconography was more common in Romano-British art. 57 At Bruton, a bronze statuette was discovered on the temple site (Fig. 14). 58 Once again, “Mediterranean and Celtic attitudes mingle in the technical rendition of this figure”. 59 Lindgren suggests it could have been imported, but it is because of the synthesis of native and Roman, and the Celtic influence evident in other figurines in the set, 60 that local production seems more likely, in spite of its similarity to a figurine from the Netherlands. 61 The set of figurines might suggest the existence of a classical cult at the temple. However, the evidence has shown that each of the Roman gods represented could quite easily have been combined with a Celtic deity, and worshipped as such by those who travelled to the temple. Therefore the complex relationship outlined at the outset could even exist where classical religion was ostensibly dominant. Mars in Britain, then, was a versatile god. Having been combined with a Celtic deity, he was sometimes subject to the effects of religious regionalism (in the case of Belatucadrus, for example). More often, however, the amalgamation of Mars with Celtic gods did not reflect any local tradition. The freedom of movement that the army and trade brought about enabled individuals to relocate their chosen native deity and match it with Mars. Reasons for combination of Roman with native ranged from the region-specific (Mars Braciaca) to those better suited to Mars’ agrarian role in Roman religion (Mars Alator). Thus it was the Celtic epithet that governed the function of the god, and Mars was adapted to correspond. Naturally, in the military 57 Toynbee 1964, 330, pl. 77a. Toynbee 1964, 66. 59 Lindgren 1978, 110, pl. 80. 60 Ibid. 53-4. 61 Zadoks-Josephus Jitta, Peters and van Es 1969, no. 34. 58 13 James Hunter King’s College London zone Mars was the most likely Roman god to be combined with a Celtic deity, but the attributes of the latter were almost enough in some cases to render Mars redundant. Mars therefore sometimes acted as an intensifier for what the Celtic god symbolised, as well as a symbol that the combined god existed within a Roman world. This complex relationship between native and Roman was also embodied by RomanoBritish art. It is not the case that on the frontiers, where perhaps Roman influence was felt the most, art was generally produced in the classical style. Indeed, most entirely classical representations are generally agreed to have been imported. 62 However, in the civilian zones, both urban and rural, there was more often a combination of Celtic artistic tradition with Roman iconography. This occurred in larger temples, 63 smaller shrines, individual votive offerings, and even in ‘private’ residences. 64 It was in fact the iconography that was the common element in the great deal of Romano-British depictions of Mars. As a result, no matter how he was depicted – in highly Celtic fashion, or adhering to classical principles – a Mars figure could be identified. Iconography acted as a recognisable feature by which regional artistic fashions could still exist. However, it is quite clear from the various Celtic epithets that Mars did not symbolise the same thing to every member of the population. Therefore, although the artistic depiction of Mars often shared the same iconography, the identification it facilitated was not necessarily the same everywhere. For example, the depiction of Mars with a sword and shield on a temple doorway at Housesteads would probably symbolise the war god, who might aid victory in battle. 65 On the other hand, for a country bumpkin from Gloucestershire, the same iconography might instead represent Mars as protector of his harvest for that year, evoking his agrarian function. 66 Indeed, the archaeology and architectural layout of some temples suggest that not only the same image but also the same temple might have been used for the worship of more than one individual god, or of a multi-aspect god. 67 Mars Nodons/-ens is possibly the clearest 62 For further examples of a lack of Celtic influence hinting at importation: Lindgren 1978, 105, pl. 75 (a bronze statuette from Huntingdonshire); Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and Natural History XXIV, 1947, 116, pl. 5 (a bronze plaque). The iconography remains standardized. 63 Mars Rigonemetis: RIB 3180. 64 Mars Rigisamus: RIB 187. 65 RIB 1593. 66 Lindgren 1978, pls. 81-2. 67 Lewis 1966, 35. 14 James Hunter King’s College London example of this, 68 and provides further evidence that the versatility of Mars existed in the later empire, and in rural areas. 69 At Lydney, a specially divided cella suggests the existence of a triple-aspect god. It has already been shown that it was more often the Celtic epithet that determined the function of a combined god, and so the god was probably not a triple-aspect Mars. The “complex deity, combining the diverse aspects of healing, hunting, and the sea”, was more likely to have been a triple-aspect Nodens. 70 It is possible that Mars was exploited and combined with just one of these Nodens to create Mars Nodens, in whose power was a single aspect, ‘healing’ being the most likely. Each of the three inscriptions at Lydney is a dedication made by a different individual, and so represents the concept of private worship within the public domain. The fact that it is Mars Nodens – a Romano-Celtic deity – demonstrates that public religion did not have to adhere to the traditions of the Roman pantheon or the imperial cult. What the evidence overall shows quite clearly is the versatility of Mars. For the worshipper he often maintained his traditional functions in war and agriculture, but could be easily adapted to suit a more specific or regional purpose. In various guises he could be worshipped as part of a private act in public, and as part of a public act in private. 68 Nodons: RIB 305 (also at Cockersand Moss (RIB 616-7)); Nodens: RIB 306 (also at London (RIB 2448.3)); Nudens: RIB 307. 69 Coins date the larger temple complex after AD 364 (Lewis 1966, 88). 70 Lewis 1966, 89. 15 James Hunter King’s College London Bibliography Aldhouse-Green, M. (1989). Symbol and Image in Celtic Religious Art. London. Amand, M. (1967). ‘Une Statuette en bronze de Mars trouvée à Blicquy’, Latomus 36.1, 82-3. Assmann, J. (1997). Moses the Egyptian. Harvard. Bailey, C. (1936). P. Ovidi Nasonis Fastorum liber III. Oxford. Birley, A.R. (1964). Life in Roman Britain. London. Birley, E. (1978). ‘The religion of the Roman army, 1895-1977’, ANRW 16.2, 150641. Bloch, H. (1939). ‘L’Ara Pietatis Augustae’, MEFR 56, 81-120. Collingwood, R.G. & Wright, R.P. (1965). The Roman Inscriptions of Britain Vols. III. Oxford. Duval, P.M. (1957). Les Dieux de la Gaule. Paris. Ferguson, J. (1970). The Religions of the Roman Empire. London. Fishwick, D. (1969). ‘The Imperial Numen in Roman Britain’, JRS 59, 76-91. Fox, C.F. (1923). The archaeology of the Cambridge region: a topographical study of the bronze, early iron, Roman and Anglo-Saxon ages, with an introductory note on the neolithic age. Cambridge. Gilbert, H. (1978). ‘The Felmingham Hall Hoard, Norfolk’, Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 28, 159-87. Grahame, M. (1997). ‘Public and private in the Roman house: investigating the social order of the Casa del Fauno’, in Laurence and Wallace-Hadrill 1997, 137-64. Henig, M. (1995). Religion in Roman Britain. London. Horne, P. (1981). ‘Romano-Celtic Temples in the Third Century’, in King and Henig 1981, 21-6. King, A.C. & Henig, M. (1981). ‘The Roman West in the Third Century’, BAR 109. Oxford. Laurence, R. & Wallace-Hadrill, A. (eds.) (1997). Domestic Space in the Roman World. JRA Suppl. Series 22. Lewis, M.J.T. (1966). Temples in Roman Britain. Cambridge. Lindgren, C. (1978). Classical art forms and Celtic mutations: figural art in Roman Britain. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Press. MacCulloch, J.A. (1911). The Religion of the Ancient Celts. Edinburgh. 16 James Hunter King’s College London Mattingly, D.J. (2006). An Imperial Possession: Britain in the Roman Empire. London. Maxfield, V.A. (1981). The Military Decorations of the Roman Army. London. Ogilvie, R.M. (1969). The Romans and their gods in the age of Augustus. London. Piggott, S. (2008). Early Celtic Art. New Jersey: Transaction. Pokorny, J. (1989). Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern. Ross, A. (1967). Pagan Celtic Britain. London. Scullard, H.H. (1981). Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic. London. Speidel, M.P. & Dimitrova-Milčeva, A. (1978). ‘The Cult of the Genii in the Roman Army’, ANRW 16.2, 1542-55. Stokes, W. (1894). Urkeltischer Sprachschatz. Göttingen. Tomlin, R.S.O. (2009). The Roman Inscriptions of Britain Vol. III. Oxford. Torelli, M. (1982). Typology & structure of Roman historical reliefs. Ann Arbor. Toynbee, J.M.C. (1962). Art in Roman Britain. London. Toynbee, J.M.C. (1964). Art in Britain under the Romans. Oxford. Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1988). ‘The Social Structure of the Roman House’, PBSR 56, 43-97. Webster, J. (2001). ‘Creolizing the Roman Provinces’, AJA 105, no. 2, 209-225. Zadoks-Josephus Jitta, A.N., Peters, W.J.T., & van Es, W.A. (1969). Roman bronze statuettes from the Netherlands. Groningen. 17 James Hunter King’s College London List of Figures 1. Drawing of Mars (Lindgren 1978, 100ff). 2. Drawing of Mars (Lindgren 1978, 100ff). 3. Drawing of Mars (Lindgren 1978, 100ff). 4. Stone head and torso, South Shields (Lindgren 1978, pl. 85). 5. Mars, South Shields (Lindgren 1978, pl. 89). 6. Shield depicting Mars, near the mouth of the Tyne (Lindgren 1978, pl. 87). 7. Bronze statuette of Mars, Barkway (Lindgren 1978, pl. 78). 8. Stone votive tablet, Custom Scrubs (RIB 131). 9. Stone votive tablet, Custom Scrubs (RIB 132). 10. Bronze figurine of Mars, Norfolk (Lindgren 1978, pl. 76). 11. Bronze statuette of Mars, Fossdyke (Lindgren 1978, pl. 77). 12. Stone statue, York (Lindgren 1978, pl. 83). 13. Bronze statuette of Mars, Southbroom (Lindgren 1978, pl. 79). 14. Bronze statuette of Mars, Bruton (Lindgren 1978, pl. 80). 18 James Hunter Figure 1 King’s College London Figure 2 19 James Hunter King’s College London Figure 3 Figure 4 20 James Hunter King’s College London Figure 5 Figure 6 21 James Hunter King’s College London Figure 7 Figure 8 22 James Hunter King’s College London Figure 9 Figure 10 23 James Hunter King’s College London Figure 11 24 James Hunter King’s College London Figure 12 Figure 13 25 James Hunter King’s College London Figure 14 26