TRAC 2006 SESSION
Religion in the Roman Empire:
The Private versus the Public sphere
Philip Kiernan (Ruprecht-Karls Universität, Heidelberg) RomanModels@gmail.com
Ben Croxford (University of Cambridge) bc256@cam.ac.uk
The religious practices of different ethnic groups and cultures within the Roman Empire
e.g., the Celts, Greeks and Romans etc., have frequently been commented upon.
Archaeological evidence for Roman religion can also be considered on a personal
and public level. On the one hand we have the emperor cult, the construction of stone
temples by elite groups and organisations, and monumental depictions of mythological
and divine subjects. On the other hand we have the simple dedication of small objects
in shrines, the deposition of curse tablets, superstitions, and the construction of
smaller monuments by individuals, such as votive altars and tombstones. On one side
the driving motivation seems to be self-representation, on the other, true personal
piety. Is this really the case? How greatly do these two aspects of Roman Religion
differ from another, and what do they share in common? This session aims to move away
from the somewhat worn theme of native versus Roman, and explore the idea of personal
versus public religion.
Paper titles
Philip Kiernan (Ruprecht Karls Universität, Heidelberg)
"Valuing Votives"
Steven Ditsch (Ruprecht Karls Universität, Heidelberg)
"Self Representation or Personal Piety? Scenes on Roman provincial grave monuments"
Franziska Ofner (Ruprecht Karls Universität, Heidelberg)
"The virtus of Hercules and the owner of Piazza Armerina"
Dr. Günther Schörner (Friedrich-Schiller Universität, Jena)
"New Pictures for Old Rituals: The Saturn Stelai as Media of Personal Cult in Roman North Africa"
Henning Wirth (Ruprecht Karls Universität, Heidelberg)
"Lefthanders and the Left Side in Roman Religion and Superstition"
Ben Croxford (University of Cambridge)
"Romano-British sculpture in relation to public and private religion"
Abstracts
"Valuing Votives"
Philip Kiernan (Ruprecht Karls Universität, Heidelberg)
The translation of ancient values for goods and services into modern terms is well known to be an awkward task.
The problem is particularly vexing for the study of votive objects, as it is a fairly universal assumption that there was
a change from high value communal offerings to low value personal dedications towards the end of the Iron Age. The chief
evidence for this shift in ritual activity is the material found in the sanctuary sites of the northwest provinces.
The new trend towards depositing coins, jewellery, figurines, models, and other small objects is certainly a stark contrast
to the earlier large-scale deposits of arms, armour and precious metal. Of course, high value offerings were still made
in the Roman period, but there is a marked tendency amongst archaeologists to interpret the “cheaper” offerings as
indicative of genuine religious piety and private religious practice, and the “expensive” offerings in terms of social
display and advancement, or communal ritual. Just how valuable were the objects that we usually consider to be trinkets
purchased at the sanctuary stall? Where do we draw the line between low and high value votive offerings, and what do these
distinctions actually mean?
"Self Representation or Personal Piety? Scenes on Roman provincial grave monuments"
Steven Ditsch (Ruprecht Karls Universität, Heidelberg)
For a long time, research on Roman funerary sculpture was chiefly concerned with Roman beliefs about the afterlife.
The very diversity recorded in the literary sources made these attempts highly speculative. While the different scenes
carved on grave monuments sometimes do match the ideas found in the textual sources, others seem to represent quite
different eschatological ideologies. More recent research has seen grave monuments as media for the self-representation
of the deceased and their families. But funerary art also records contemporary social values, in which society paints
an ideal picture of itself (ideologia funeraria). The sculptured reliefs from the funerary monuments of the north eastern
part of Germania Superior (known today as the Pfalz) include mythological imagery, scenes from the daily life of the
deceased, and representations of the deceased performing religious activities. We will consider to what extent the three
types differ from one another in their meaning. Do they record true personal piety or reflect one aspect of an idealised
society, or are they just another means of self-representation?
"The virtus of Hercules and the owner of Piazza Armerina"
Franziska Ofner (Ruprecht Karls Universität, Heidelberg)
This paper considers the function of mosaics depicting Hercules in Roman households, a somewhat rare hero for mosaics
in domestic settings. In fact, he is found on about 15 mosaics, six of which depict the Dodekathlos or modified
versions of it. The Dodekathlos is the term applied to the twelve canonical deeds of Hercules, a group of images that was
often used in religious contexts, such as temples. The arrangement of these six mosaics suggests that they were set in
banquet-rooms. The best published of them is found at Piazza Armerina, where the Herculean scenes are interspersed with
Dionysian scenes. While the deeds of Hercules can be seen as representative of the daily work (negotium) of the symposiasts,
the Dionysian scenes are representative of life’s pleasures (otium). The balance between otium and negotium are an example
of Hercules’ virtus, and these three Roman values are subsequently transferred to the master of the house. The different
owners of the six mosaics probably identified themselves with the hero, but also wanted to be identified with Hercules and
his virtues by their guests.
"New Pictures for Old Rituals: The Saturn Stelai as Media of Personal Cult in Roman North Africa"
Dr. Günther Schörner (Friedrich-Schiller Universität, Jena)
The large number of Saturn stelai found in Roman North Africa show the important position of this god in the religious
landscape. The majority of these votives were set up by private dedicants, and by analysing their inscriptions and
iconography, it can be shown that the stelai served to commemorate the performance of indigenous rituals. Significant
elements of their design, especially the portraits, are adapted to Roman concepts and may have been used to reinforce
the dedicators’ Roman habitus in a public context. To understand these stelai, both as instruments of a personal religious
act and as subjects of collective memory, they need to be discussed along with other provincial votive monuments such
as the Jupiter-Giant columns of Germania.
"Lefthanders and the Left Side in Roman Religion and Superstition"
Henning Wirth (Ruprecht Karls Universität, Heidelberg)
“Certain auspices and omens he regarded as infallible. If his shoes were put on in the wrong way in the morning, the left
instead of the right, he considered it a bad sign.” (Suet. vit. Aug. 92, 1) Suetonius' anecdote not only allows insight
into the superstitious behaviour of Augustus, but also shows that left and right sides had different connotations for
the Romans. The right side was regarded as normal and lucky, whereas the left side caused misfortune. A graffito from
Ephesos shows a theatre scene in which a thief is stealing a bottle-like object with his left hand. Outside the realm
of superstition, the opposite is true in the Roman augural system. Discussing the differences between Greek and Roman
auspices, Cicero wrote: “While we see (birds or lightning) on the left as better, the Greeks and Barbarians consider
things on the right to be better” (Cic. De div. 2, 82). This paper will analyse the significance and association of the
left-side in the public and private life of the Romans, and attempt to find the reasons behind these different viewpoints.
Against this background we can ask how, and in which contexts, lefthanders were perceived and valued by the Romans.
How did the Romans explain the phenomenon of left-handedness, and which activities were associated with the left hand?
"Romano-British sculpture in relation to public and private religion"
Ben Croxford (University of Cambridge)
Sculpture undeniably plays an important role in Romano-British religion. This is particularly the case from a modern
perspective as it is frequently the only surviving visual representation of a deity worshipped in any particular place.
Indeed, it is often the only evidence relating to cult practice on some sites. Whilst much is often made of the process
of identifying the intended subject in each case, an important aspect is often overlooked when considering these objects.
These carvings can tell us a great deal about the division in religion at the heart of this session – that of public and
private.
This paper will examine the various standpoints concerning Romano-British religious sculpture, and will attempt to discern
some elements of contemporary private thought and action in relation to religion in Roman Britain. This paper moves away
from the (still) common and overly simplistic dichotomy of Roman vs. native. Our aim is to generate a hypothesis that
fully takes account of the possible separation in religious activity (public vs. private). Such a hypothesis should
consider the impact of means and circumstances on both personal expression in religious sculpture and public response to it.
Return to sessions page here
Last updated 17th January 2006 R.M.B.