T H E IN S T IT U T IO N O F T H E IM PER IAL C U L T

IN T H E W E S T E R N P R O V IN C E S

O F T H E R O M A N EM PIRE*

P r e l i m in a r y S t a te m e n t

A s early as 29 B . C . O ctavian perm itted tw o eastern provinces, A sia an d B ithynia, to erect tem ples consecrated to himself and Rom a1, but it w as not until about two decades later that he

established a w estern provincial c u lt when an altar to Roma and A ugustus w as dedicated in the Th ree G auls2. T h e h istory o f the extension o f this cu lt in various western provinces is com plicated by problems which are w orthy o f a fresh discussion. It is my purpose in this paper to consider fu lly the question o f the date o f its institution in provinces where w e have no definite literary evidence for the origin o f the cu lt but w here w e have sufficient

cpigraphical and numismatic evidence to ju stify the attem pt to reconstruct the time and circum stances o f institution.

I11 treating the institution o f the imperial cult in the provinces, it is desirable to consider w hat is meant by provincia and to define the m eaning o f the term provincial in relation to the cult. Provincia in the time o f the republic was used for the sphere of operation o f the Roman m agistrates and most particularly for

This article contains the most important results of a dissertation preented in 1932 to the faculty of Bryn Mawr College for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The text of the entire dissertation is on file in the Bryn Mawr College Library. The article published in the Studi e Materiali was written during my term as Fellow of the American Academy in Home.

1 Dio, I.I, Jo, 7.- Livy, Epit. 139; Dio, 1,1V, 32, r; Suet. Claud. 1; Mattingly, Coins *>/ the

Roman Empire in the British Museum (London, 1923), I, pp. 92 IT., 127-128, 185 n., 196, JJ9 . 395

154 A lin e L . Abaeckerli

the m ilitary com mands exercised b y them 1. W ith the grow th of the em pire these m ilitary commands w ere gradually organized into adm inistrative units w hich paid tribute to Rom e. Such organized commands are w hat w e ordinarily understand b y the

Rom au provinces, bu t in th is disscussion w e shall consider also regions like G erm an y, w hich in the reign o f A u gu stu s w as t province in the m aking, not y e t a stipendiaria provincia2. W ith this broader m eaning o f provincia in m ind w e m ay define the Provincial cult o f the emperor as an official worship (of the emperor and related deities) conducted b y an organization o f local units m eeting at an im portant center w ith in a territory adm inistered b y a proconsul, im perial legate, prefect, or procurator3.

In the west the datable evidence for the institution of the provincial cu lt begins w ith 12 B. C . when in the midst o f a revolt over the census the Th ree G auls'un der Drusus as governor voted the erection of an altar to Rome and A ugustus at Lugdunum 4. L ater a temple also w as constructed here3, but its date is unknow n. Betw een the years 9 B. C . and 9 A , D . another altar was

constructed in L ow er G erm any in the land o f the U bii . In 2 B . C.

1 The use of the word in Plautus stems to indicate that this was the broader meaning of provincia (Cap, 474; Miles, 1159; cf. Terence, Phorm. 72). Livy uses it not only for the sphere of activity of the consuls in the early republic but also for the jurisdiction of the praetor peregrinus and praetor urbanus [XXXII, 28; XXVIII, 33; et passim). See also Chapot in Daremberg-Saglio. IV. j, s. v. provincia, p. 716 and note; Momraaen, Staatsrecht I, pp. so ff.. I ll, j, pp. 748 B.

2 Veil. II, 97, 4: sic perdomuit earn, ul in formam paene stlpen- dlariae redigeret provinciae.

3 Federal cult would have been a more accurate term, but since provincial cult has been sanctioned in application to the organised federal cults within the provinces, I have kept that tertn in this paper.

* Livy, Epit. 139; Dio. I.IV, 32. 1; Suet. Claud. 2. For the date of the altar's dedication see Hirschfeld, Zur Geschichte des r&miscken Kaiserkultus, Kleine Schriften, p, 479, n. 1 (Sttzber. der Bert. Ak. 1888, 35 p. 839 n. 30) and Gard- thausen, Augustus, I, 3, Leipzig, 1904, p. 1086. The year 10 B. C. is definitely used by Toutain, Les cuites paiens dans l'empire romalne, I, Paris 1907, p. 32 and p. 32, n. 3; see also his article in Rec. de mem. cent, sociiti nationals des antiquaires de la France {1904), pp. 455 ff; H. Mattingly, op. cit. Introd. pp. cxiii f. See also the discussion in Heiuen, Klio XI (1911), Zur Begriiudung des Romischen Katserkultus, p. 162, s. a.

* C. /. L. XIII, 1706, 1691, 1714, 17:6, 1712, 11174.* Tac. Ann. I, 39. S7

T he Imperial C ult in the Western Provinces

w hen the Rom an arm y had occupied much o f Germ any, L . D omitius erected an altar o f A u gustus on the E lb e1. A ll of these monuments date from the tim e of A ugustus, and a ll o f them are altars. There is no evidence for an y teiuple b uilt b y an y western province in the reign o f A ugustus.

Im m ediately follow in g the death of the first emperor a new phase in the grow th of the im perial worship appeared in the provinces. T h is was the erection of tem ple to the deified A ugustus.

W e are indebted to Ta citu s for the brief account we possess of the event w hich brought about the new development. H e tells us (Ann. I , 78) that T iberiu s granted permission to the Spaniards in the year 15 A . D. to erect a tem ple to A u gu stu s in T a rra c o : tem plum ut in colonia Tarraconensi strueretur A ugusto petentibus Hispanis permissum. T h is w as an act o f im portance. But as the historian looked back over the first century o f the empire

it w as the result o f this single a ct w hich impressed him, for he a dds: datumque in omnes provincias exem plum . A s he wrote this statement Ta citu s m ust h ave had in mind other provincial temples o f A u gustus constructed after the tem ple at Tarraco.

T h e n ext datable shrine o f the w estern provincial cu lt is the temple o f Claudius in B ritain, for there is little doubt that the temple w as instituted as a result of the Claudian organization of that province. It was in existen ce during N ero s reign2, and it

is un likely that Nero provided a shrine in a remote province for a predecessor whose tem ple in Rom e he alm ost com pletely destroyed3. T h e construction o f a tem ple instead o f an altar to a livin g ruler in the west is again a new phase o f the provincial cult.

Th ere is one more western shrine w hich w e can date w ith a fair am ount of probability under Trajan - the Ara A ugusti in

the province of Dacia11. In this case the emperor returned to the p olicy of A u gustus in the west as it began with the dedication of the altar o f the Th ree G au ls a t Lugdunum .

T h e w estern provinces w hich present special difficulties are

1 Dio, LV, toa, 2.2 Tac. Ann. XIV, 31.' Sut. Vasp. 9: prope funditus destructum. See p. 35, n. 4.

- Siudi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni, XI (1935)

156 .'lne /.. Abaecherli

Germ any, where the true status o f the A ra Ubiorum has to be determined; the Spanish provinces, where the relation if the A u g ustan altars to the provincial cu lt needs clarification; G allia N arbonensis, w here the date o f institution has had to be reconsidered; and A frica Proconsularis, w here the era according to w hich the priests dated their year o f office must be defined. W e proceed im m ediately to G erm an y.

G e r m a n y .

It w as not until the year 12 B . C . that A u gu stu s undertook the task o f establishing a m ilitary command in Germ any. H is

decision to do so w as apparently in line w ith a policy suggested by his step-son Drusus, who w as governor of the Th ree G a u ls1, and to D rusus w as given the generalship of the legions which were dispatched for that puri>ose2.

A fter the subjection of L ow er G erm an y, the conquests of D rusus continued southward and eastward to the E lbe, where

he set wliat w as at that time the farthest lim it of the em pire1 . O n h is return he received the mortal in jury w hich cu t short his brilliant ca reer1. H is body w as accompanied to Rom e b y the ch ief men of the coloniae and municipia and Tiberius, who had

1 Dio, L1V, 15, I.2 Ibid. 32, i f ; C. 1. L. XIII, 166S. Throughout the Augustan age Germany

was to remain under the chicf Ic^alus of the Three Gauls. It was not until the reign of Tiberius that a separate military command was established in Germany. This wits after the recall of Germanicus in 16 A. D. when the latter waspromised tbe triumph which be celebrated in 17 A. D. We do not know exactly when the provinces of Upper and Lower Germany were formed. The period of Germanicus campaigns is the earliest possible date, for the language of the Res Gestae, V, j6, with reference to Germany precludes the possibility that the provinces existed in the Augustan age: Gallias ct Hiep.mias provi(n)cia[s, item Gcrmanlmn, qua ciau]dit Oceanus.... [.pacavi...] (Sandys text). I'ot the evidence on legatl see Marquardt, Nflro, SUialsver. I, p. 274, n. 3 and . For a special discussion of the status of Germany in tbe early period see Oldfather and Canter, TI? Defeat of Varus, Vnlv. of Illinois Studies In Hist., 1915. Dessau, Gesch. der RJ 111. Kaisenelt, II, 2, Berlin, 1930, 5*o-j2t, seems to date the organization under Domitian.

a Suet. ('fund. 1; cfr. Tac. Ann. II, 8, Dio, I.V, I, 3.< Livy, Epll. 142; cf. Suet. Claud. 1, Dio, LV, 1, 2-4.

The Imperial Cult in the Western Provinces 157

gone to meet the procession, went before the cortege 011 foot*.

Drusus was to rest forever in the mausoleum o f A u gu stu s in the Cam pus M artius, but somewhere in the land o f h is conquest there was erected to him a cenotaph, where every year on a stated day the cities o f G au l came to worship2. T h is cenotaph-cult o f the G allic civitates is perhaps an offshoot o f an institution previously established; w e may ask w hether it was related to a provincial

cult and where was the center in which it w as located. A nother incident in the Rom anization of G erm any m ay throw some light upon the subject.

Iti the year 14 A . D . the son o f Drusus, whom we know as Germ anicus, in accordance w ith the honorary title bestowed upon D rusus and his posterity, was sent to quell a m utiny o f the legions in G erm an y, w hich , like those in Pannonia, had taken Tiberius' accession to the principate as an opportunity to rebel against the

term o f service and the amount o f remuneration". In the course o f the m utiny Tiberius sent an embassy from Rome. T h is embassy, headed by M unatius P lancus, met Germ anicus at a certain altar the Ara Ubiorum4. Later, after a night o f riot resulting from a m isinterpretation o f the purpose of the em bassy, G ermanicus rebuked the rebels for their d isloyalty. Tow ards the close o f h is speech as reported b y T a citu s he appealed to his predecessor for a id : Tua, D ive A uguste, celo recepta mens, tua,pater Druse, imago, tui memoria ...... eluant hanc maculam irasqueciviles in exitium hostibus vertant !s In these lines, w hich, in

1 Sut. Tib. 7; Livy, Epit. 142; Dio, LV, i , 1.2 Suet. Claiul. 1: exercitus honorarium el tumulum cxciiavit. circa quern

deinceps stato die quotannis miles decurreret Galliarumque civitates, publice supplicarent. Cf. Eutrop. VII, 13; qui (Drusus) apud Mogontiacum monumentum habet. See Hirschfeld, Die Katserlichen Grabsttten i Rom, Kleine Schriften, PP. 4S3-454 for a discassiou of the location of the cenotaph. Decurreret seems to imply military maoouvers; the same thing occurred at an altar of Drusus in central Germany. See Tac. Ann. II, 7, 8 for the restoration of this altar (veterem aram Druso sitam) and the military maneuvers held in honor of Drasiss at the time of restoration.

* Tac. Ann. I, 39. For an analysis of Tacitus phraseology, a discussion of the altar's status at this time, and it* site with reference 0 modern Cologne see Dilntzer, Die Ara Ubiorum und das Legionsla^er brim Oppidum I'biorum, Festschrift zum fiinjzigjahr. ubilium des Vcreins v. Altertumsfreundcn im Rhclntande (Bonn, 1891).

5 Tac. Ann. I, 43.

15$ A lin e L . Abaecitcrlt

ciden tally , w ere effective in p acifyin g the soldiers, Germ anicus

speaks o f the mens o f A ugustus, which in a prayer o f this sort seems to be not unlike num en or genius. W h y should Germ anicus ask the mens o f A u gustus to avert the evil? It seems not im probable that as he w as speaking the son of D rusus saw from his tribunal an altar that had some tim e ago been dedicated to the livin g A u gu stu s or his genius, and to that deity he appealed for practical help in a crisis. T h is altar was the A ra Ubiorum , where Germ anicus had met the em bassy under M unatius Plancus. That it belonged to the im perial cu lt is clear from the fact that in

9 A . D . the priest broke his fillets in rebellion, profugus ad re- belles1 .Probably a statue o f Drusus, the imago o f G erm an icus speech, stood close by. W as there located here also the cenotaph

of D rusus circa quem deinceps stato die quotannis m iles decurreret Galliarumque civitatcs publice supplicarent?* D io tells us that the cenotaph was on the R hine11. I f it was at Cologne its central location between large sections o f G a u l and G erm any was convenient for the strictly G allic towns as w ell as fo r German units. A n d even if the cenotaph was not at Cologne, this would not elim inate the possibility that there w as a statue o f Drusus near the altar o f the U bii. Th ere was more reason to honor Drusus

than Augustus in G erm any.W e m ay now ask w hen and by whom the Ara Ubiorum in

the territory o f the U bii w as instituted. W e know that the altar existed in 9 A . D ., for w e are told that in the year o f the Germ an revolt Segim undus, the son o f the ch ief Segestes, who had been made sacerdos at the altar of the U bii, broke his fillets as a token o f rebellion4. T h u s the altar w as in existen ce during A u gu stu s lifetim e an d w as dedicated to the emperor or to h is genius.

W hen w e consider the long-standing friendship o f the U bii and the Romans' , and w hen we recall that during the period of his

* Sut. Claud, i.3 Dio, I,V, 2, j ; cf. Eutrop. VII, 13: qui apud Mogontiacum

monumentum habet and Tac. Ann. II, 7, where Germauicus restores a veterem aram Druso sitam. See p. 157 n. 2.

Tac. . I, 57.5 For Caesars relatione with the Ubii see B. G. IV, 3; 16. In 38 B. C.

The im perial C ult in the Western Provinces 159

cam paigns in G erm any D rusus w as the leader in the erection of the altar of the Th ree G auls, it seems probable that the A Ubiorum w as constructed by Drusus in the period o f h is German campaigns. W h ile our definite terminus ante quern for this altar, then, is 9 A . D .( it is lik e ly that it w as erected in or before 9 B. C. w hen D rusus died.

A lthough Ta citu s has not indicated the status o f the altar in the land o f the U bii, a few historical facts m ay enable us to determine w hether the altar was purely local or w hether it served a large adm inistrative territory. Th e position o f the U bii gave them political and com mercial im portance; their capital, the modern Cologne, was a strategic point of blockade against possible G erm an invaders into G au l. T h u s it occupied in the L ow er

Rhine territory a position similar to that of the provincial capitals and an even more im portant one from a m ilitary point o f view . T h e location o f the altar in this tow n is therefore significant. T h e monument proved to be o f inore than passing interest, for

the town, even after it became a Rom an colony in honor of the younger A grippin a Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensis from which the modern name Cologne com es was very frequently called sim ply Ara. Soldiers' inscriptions bearing this name are numerous1. It was not purely a local altar; Segim undus, priest of the altar, w as not o f the U bii, but o f the Cherusci2. T h e altar therefore belonged to a union of G erm ans in the tim e o f A u gustus. Ara w as the seat of early and late commanders; there V itelliu s11 and T ra ja n 1 were hailed imperatores. W e know that it was the capita l o f im perial legates and that a praetorium was

Marcue Agrippa arranged for their transfer to the west bank of the Rhine (0 form a bulwark against tribes less friendly to the Roinaus. Strabo, IV, 3, j ; Tec. Germ, aS; Ann. XII, 27; cf. Dio. XI.VIII, 49. Some historians attribute this movement to the period of Agrippa'a second visit to Gaul. See II. Reinbold, Marcus Agrippa, New York, 1933, p. 88, n. 74, who holds that there is no convincing evidence for either date.

> Ifor a list of these inscriptions see C. I. L. XIII, 2. p. 505. Cf. Hm

A lin e L . Abaecherli

located there1. A pparently the institution here, like that in other new territories, was prim arily a m ilitary affair2.

Before w e leave Germ an soil, w e m ust take note o f one more important official act this time at the eastern boundary. In the year 2 B. C ., L . Dom itius penetrated the territory of the Elbe and even crossed the river, on the west bank o f w hich Drusus

had erected a trophy to mark the boundary". Th e most surprisin g thing about this expedition is the fact that D om itius established friendly relations with the natives and set up an altar to A u gu stu s1. T h e promptitude ivith w hich the latter act was I>erformed is very striking. It seems to indicate that this procedure w as a kind o f ritual expected o f a com mander who occupied territory w ith in new lim its. T h e founder o f the altar,

moreover, was the husband o f A u gu stu s niece, A ntonia M aior1. T h e extension o f the worship o f A u gustus beyond the farthest lim it of the empire was again an act o f the emperor s own fam ily. Clearly this cu lt outside accepted lim its of the em pire could not attain the developm ent of those w ith in the provinces. Perhaps it is too much to say that there was an incipient provincial cult here, but the altar on the E lbe is a parallel for other altars dedi

cated by imperial officers engaged in the subjection o f territories w hich w ere attached to Rom an provinces or eventually became separate provinces. Such altars w ere the Arae Sestianae in Spain, w hich w ill be discussed in the n ext section, and the Ara Ubiorum in G erm an y. I f a province o f political significance had been formed from the Ell>e territory, doubtless Dom itius altar would have served as a center for the provincial cult.

1 C. I. L. XIII, 8170. Ac this time, of course, the German provinces were part of Gaul, a fact

which may jastfy us in including Germany in Suetonius' phrase Golliammque civitates for the participants in the cult of Drusus. The separation of the Rhine command from the governorship of Gaul was effected by Tiberius.

3 Dio, LV, r, 3.* Ibid. 10a, 2. The two altars in Germany probably included the worship of

Roma. Ancient historians were inclined to neglect mentioning this goddese in

sion on p. 166. Suet. Nero 5; Plutarch. Ant. 87; cf. Dio, XI.VIII, 54, 4.

The Imperial Cult in the Western Provinces 161

T h e S p a n is h P r o v i n c e s .

The Arae Sestianae in North-W estern Spain.

In the north-west corner of Spain the territory called Callaecia and A sturia secins to have been transferred from the dom ain of Farther Spain to that o f H ither Spain in the reorganization of

the A ugustan a g e1. In this territory there stood three altars dedicated to A ugustus, know n as the Sestian altars2. T h e im perial c u lt had been introduced into a remote territory apparently by a Roman officer who m ay have been identical w ith L . Sestius, consul-suffectus in the year 23 13. C .:|. W e have no record o f him or of any other Sestius in connection with Spain, and the iden

tification must remain doubtful, but the association of the name

w ith the altars probably means that a Sestius dedicated them. W h y w ere there three altars? Perhaps they signified ethnical

groups. In L ugdunum each o f the sixty-four cantons dedicating the altar of Rome and A u gustus w as represented b y a statue near the a ltar'. T h e cantonal organization had persisted in this part o f Spain . L ik e the statues at the altar in G a u l, the Sestian altars m ay have represented tribal units. O r perhaps they were shrines

o f the three legions w hich were stationed in A sturia and C antabria the Fourth M acedonian, the S ix th V ictrix , and the Tenth

1 Pliny, .Y. H. IV, 22, 11S; Strabo, III, 4, 19-20. See a'.so Mommsen's discussion, Provinces, (Trans. Dickson. London 1909). I. P 104, n. j; Van Noetrand, The Reorganization of Spain by Augustus, Berkeley, tg, pp. 106, in .

2 Pomponius Mela, III, 13. /n Astynim tltoic Soeca cst oppldum et tres arae qum Sestianas vocant. (> paeninsula sedent el jnn Augusti numine (tin- mine: Hllbner) sacrae illustrantque terras ante ignobiles; Pliny, iV. H. IV. jo, 3: regio Asturum, Soega oppidum S'erl el stiper Tainarcl, quorum in aeninsula tres arae Sestianae Augusto dicatae; Ptol. II, 6, 3: | u t i xspav ixpumjptov, i' '.'i ^ (() .

3 C. 1. L. I. i, p. 162: Sec Ronald Syme, The Spanish ]Var of Augustus, (26-25 B C.). A. J. P. I.V (1934), p. 316, for commem on L. Sestius and the date of these altar. The author proposes 19 B. C. as a conjectural date for the institution of the altars, since in that year Spain -as finally ami completely pacified. II. Stuart Jones in the Cambridge Ancient History, vol. X, p. 137, comments on Sestius' position as a Republican and the significance of his appointment to the consulship in 23.

Strabo, IV, 3, 2.

A lin e L . Abaecherli

G em ina1. A t an y rate, w e have here an incipient cult o f the emperor during the principate of A ugustus, probably founded d uring or after the Cantabrian W ars.

W hen w e com e to the cu lt in the rest o f Spain, w e deal, on the other hand, with its establishm ent in a territory where, as in G allia N arbonensis, w hich w e shall discuss later, Rome had already spread her ow n m unicipal organization and culture, and where the province had its beginnings in the earliest colonial expansion of the republic.

Hither Spain.

It lias been gen erally assumed that the provincial cu lt was instituted in Spain w ith the erection of a tem ple to A ugustus, l>ermission for which w as granted to the Spanish provincials by Tiberius in 15 A . D . A s w e have said before, T a citu s records the event in a single statem ent: tem plum ut in colonia Tarraconensi strueretur A ugusto petentibus Hispanis permissum, dalum quc in omnes provincias exem plum 2. T o be sure, there w as an altar to A u gu stu s in Tarraco during h is lifetim e, but that, scholars have m aintained, was merely a m unicipal institution. O ur on ly in formation about this altar in the time o f A u gu stu s is found in an anecdotc related by Quintilian : A ugustus nuntiantibus Tarraconensibus palmam in ara eius enatam apparet, inquit, quam saepe accendatis3. T h is altar has, by an association of tw o historical facts, been dated in the year 26 B . C.'1, for in the previous year, the citizens o f M ytilene, having decreed m anifold honors to A ugustus, had a copy o f the decree sent to various cities,

' See Kubitschek in Iauly-Wissowa, s. 11. Leglo, col. 1550; 1600; 1678-1679. See aleo Sir George 1'. Hill, Notes on the Ancient Coinage 0/ Hispania Cllerlnr, New York, 1931, p. 87 mxl PI. XV.

1 Tac. Ann. I, 78. For a resume of the interpretations of this passage see Iippidi, Note despre Cullul Imperio!, Revista Clasica, (1930) pp. 35-35 (summary in French, p. I0{).

3 Quint. Inst. Or. VI, 3, 77.* Heineu, Zur Begriindttng des rdmisclten Kaiserkultus, Klio, XI (191J),

p. 153, n. 2. The possibility o a later date (perhaps 15 or 13 B. C.) has been suggested by C. . V. Sutherland in his articlc, Aspects of Imperialism in Roman Spain, ]. K. 5 . XXIV (1934), p. 3a.

T h e Imperial C ult in the Western Province 163

among them Tarraco1. T h e M ytilenean embassy found Augustus in Tarraco, and it has usually been assumed that the citizens o f that c ity therefore im mediately followed the exam ple o f the M y- tileneans in worshipping him and erected the altar w hich Q uintilian mentions. Sin ce this assum ption has led to the unquestion

ing acceptance o f the year 26 as the date o f the altar at Tarraco, it is w ell to point out that this date has been reached b y com bining events w hich m ay have no historical relation a t all. The M ytilcnean decree was sent to Tarraco because A u gu stu s was there; it does not necessarily fo llow that the altar at Tarraco

was instituted as a consequence o f this decree. In fact, w e know nothing about the institution o f this altar. T h e question of whether the altar was m unicipal or provincial is b y the evidence in extricably connected w ith the temple at Tarraco. H ence we must proceed to a discussion o f the character o f the tem ple before we try to reach a solution for the altar.

Th e evidence of inscriptions and coins proves that the Spanish temple w as crected to D ivus A ugustus. In L usitan ia, w here the

cult was certainly based on that of H ither Spain, there is a amen divi A u g (u sli),2 and there is abundant evidence from H ither Spain and Baetica for the c u lt o f the divi. T h e most strik ing evidence for the character of the tem ple, however, is a series o f temple coins issued at Tarraco under T iberius. P lates of these coins have been made available in recent years in a monograph b y S ir G eorge

H i l l , published by the A m erican N um ism atic Society . Th e

1 Cichorius, Rom uud Xlylllene, Leipzig 1S88, pp. 34 f . ; also, Sltsungsber. tier fieri. Ak. 1889, p. 959 ff.

2 C. 1. L. II. 473.3 Op. cil. p. 47 and PI. V, nos. 6, S, 11. I am greatly indebted to tbe Ame

rican Numismatic Societ; for assistance in the study of tbese coins and especially to Mr. E, T. Newell for casts made from the altar and temple-coins :a bis collection. The only available reproductions of these coins before tbe publication of Sir George Hill's Notes (see above, p. 163, n. 1) were, so far as I know, the old drawings of l'lorez in his Medallas de las colonias, municipios, y pueblos anllquos de Espaa, Madrid, 1757-1773, II, PL. XLIV, 2. Professor I'iske, Harvard Studies XI (1900}, p. 130, assumes that the temple is that of Divus Augustus, but he does not discuss the question of its status and tbe deity to wbom it was dedicated.

Heinen, op. clt. p. 153 and Hiibner, Tarragona, Hermes I, (1866), p. no, have read tbe legend on the altar-coins Deo Augusto instead of Dfvus Augustus. Deo Augusto appears on Ihe temple series. A reconstruction of this temple is

164 A lin e !.. Abaecherli

coins arc- sestertii, probably first struck in 15 A . D . T h e y show on the reverse an octostyle tem ple w ith the name o f the colony C . . T . T . (Colonia Victrix Trium phalis Tarraconensis) and Aetern(itatis) A ugustae. O n the obverse of one type is a head o f Til>erius, and on others is a portrait o f A u gustus seated either on a throne or curule chair and the legend Deo A ugusto1. There are in addition altar coins, one o f w hich lias on the obverse

a portrait of A u gustus and the legend D ivus A ugustus Pater; on the reverse is ail altar and C. V. T . T ' A nother type of altar coin shows the head o f T iberiu s and the legend Ti. Caesar Dfai A u g . j. A ugustus on the obverse, and on the reverse is the altar. O n the face o f the altar are filleted bucrania. Betw een the

bucrania a shield and spear are represented*, and beneath the shield are garlands of oak-leaves, apparently suspended from the bucrania. G row in g from the top are branches of a palm tree; this is a strik ing confirmation of Q uintilian s story that a palm

grew on the altar. T h e legend on the reverse is C. V. T . T . The w eights of the coins with the exception of the one bearing the portrait of A u gustus seated1 are approxim ately the same.

A ll doubt that this temple was dedicated to D ivus (cf. Deu-s) A u gu stu s is excluded by the obverse legend o f the coins bearing the head of A u gu stu s. Several facts about these coins, moreover, indicate a relation between the temple and the altar. T h e same

shown in J. Puig i Cntnfalch, .'Arquitectura Romana n Catalunya, I (ed. 2), Barcelona 1934. P- i.

1 Deo Augusto is considered by Sir George Hi!!, op. clt. p. jo, to be an expression of provincial flattery; cf. C. . V. Sutherland, op, cit. p. 32, who disagrees; Dessau, Gescli. der rcJm. Kalserzeit, II, a, Berlin 1930, p. r e thinks that Augustus was dens, not (tins in Hither Spain. The omission of divus in Tacitus, Ann, I, 7S is not unusual immediately after the death of Augustus. Cf. numen Augustum on an inscription relating to an altar of the imperial cult at I'orum Clodii (C. I. L. XI, 3303) in the year 18 A. D. In this inscription Augustus is referred to as gusfus Caesar.

3 No photograph is available. See the drawing in Florez, op. cit., PI. XI.IV.3 These details may be related to the emperors victories in Spain, as

Hlibner. of. cit. pp. no-in suggests. For the identification of the shield cf. contemporary coins issued at Emerita (Mattingly, CREBM, I, PI. 5, 110s. 1-3, 17, >8).

This coin is approximately 10 gr. lighter than the rest of the series, but this is not unusual in the issues of sestertii.

The Imperial C ult in the Western Provinces 165

issue o f coins, the same denomination, the same cu lt represented on them to judge from the legend D ivus Augustus Paler on the altar series w hat does this mean for the status of the altar at Tarraco? T h e coins were struck for a purpose to commemorate the foundation o f the new tem ple cult under Tiberius.

A ltar types were struck alon g with tem ple types. Sin ce the two types are associated in this com mem orative issue, it can hardly be denied that they represent a single organization and that the altar w as therefore in the service o f the provincial cult at the time our coins were struck, T h e shrine m ay have been municipal

o riginally, but there is now good reason to suppose that it was more than local, since it was regarded as provincial under T iberius.

Th e deities worshipped in the sacred precinct at Tarraco were Rom a, A u gu stu s, the A ugusti, and the divi ( = the D ivi A ugusti)1. One would norm ally assmne that the first tw o were introduced w ith the dedication of the altar under A u gu stu s and

that the last two groups appeared as a natural consequence o f the cu lt o f D ivus A u gustus in the same precinct. T h e addition o f new cu lt statues o f emperors and divi w ould com plicate the original worship o f Rom a and A ugustus.

A different story o f the c u lt s developm ent was conceived by K o r n e m a n n , who considered the worship o f Roina an addition coincident w ith H adrians restoration of the tem ple2. O f priests' inscriptions in cluding Rom a in the list o f deities worshipped, one

1 The titles in the following list are variously abbreviated. Ilantcn Augustalis P. H. C. (C\ /. L. II, 4223), flam. Aug. Prov. Hisp. Ctler. (Ibid. 4226), flamen Divorum Aug. Provine. Hispan. Citer, (/bid. (4239, 4258), flamen Augustorum Provine. Hispaniae Cii. {Ibld. 3329), Jiam. Romae et Divorum August. P. H. C. |fbid. 419:), fiemen Divor. el Augustorum Provlnelac Hispan. Citerioris (Ibid. 4199, 4217I, fiemen Hornae Dlvor. et August. P. H. C. (Ibld. 4aos. 42, 4*28, 4235, 4J43, 4247, 4249, 4250). The rest of the priests inscriptione, by far the greater part, do not include the names of the deitiee in the cult,

2 Zar Geschiclilc der antlkcn Herrscherkutte. Kilo I (1902), p. 112 and n. 1. Kornemann here follows Krascheninnikotf, op. cit. p. 175, n. 132. The fact that Hadrian changed the name of the Parllla at Rome to Komaia influences Kor- neinaun to believe that the cult of Roma was brought into Tarraco at this time. Hadrian also huilt a two-cclla temple to Venus and Roma (Dio, J.XIX, 4, 3) near the Colosseum where the Colossus of Nero had formerly stood.

166 A lin e L . Abaecherli

or two can be dated in H adrian s tim e1. Therefore, argues K orue- mann, all inscriptions in cludin g Rom a are to be dated under H a

drian and mark the introduction o f the goddess into the precinct3.It is to be doubted that the cu lt o f Rom a was a late addition

to the tem ple cu lt of H ispania Citerior; the author o f the Vila H adriani does not mention such a developm ent w hen he speaks of H adrians restoration of the tem ple: post haec Hispanias petit et Tarracone hiemavit, ubi sum ptu suo aedem A ugusti restituit3. T h e author o f the Vita Severi mentions the templum Tarraconense A ugusti4. There is no literary trace of a c u lt o f Roma in H ither Spain, and certainly no evidence that H adrian introduced her w orship. T o be sure, the lack o f literary evidence cannot be taken as a denial o f the existen ce o f the cult, for the inscriptions

are definite enough. O n this question let us com pare the cu lt of Rom a in the Th ree G auls. A survey o f the literary sources for the altar at Lugdunum w ill reveal the fact that Rom a is com p letely neglected by the authors3. A n d y e t the inscriptions and coins are con vin cin gly profuse in the honor they pay to the goddess at L u gdun um 6. I t seems to be general that there is no emphasis on this side o f the cu lt in literature w ith the exception o f Suetonius' statement that A u gu stu s accepted a temple in noprovince nisi com m uni suo Romaeque nom ine7. T h e conditionhere attached to the dedication of tem ples probably held in Spain, and if it d id , Rom a had a share in the A ugustan altar. T h e altar

1 C. I. L. II, 4349, 4225 (cf. 4609, the son).* Kornetnann's whole classification of the titles of priests in Hispania Ci

terior is based on an assumption that the titles were fixed in a given period. On the contrary, there was a certain amount of flexibility of the titles in a given period. For instauce, the same man is represented by Flam Aug. Prov. Hisp. Citer. (C. 1. L. II, 4226) and flamen Romae et Aug. Provine. Hispan. Citer. {Ibid. 4225). Likewise the same flamen is called fiam. Romae Divor. el Aug. [P]rovinc. Hisp. Citerior in C. I. L. II, 4250 and flamen P. H. C. in 35S4 and 3585, unless one is the son or grandson of the other. From this evidence it is clear that the province did not require uniform titles in any single period; Kornemanns classification is therefore unjustified.

a 5 . H. A.. V. Hatir. 2, 3.* Ib Id., V. Sev. 3, 4.

0 C. I. L. XIII, 1674, 1673, 1036, 1042-1044, 1706, 1710, 1718, 1722, 1714, 1716, 1712, 1174, and note 2, p. 153 for references to coins.

1 Suet. Aug. 52; cf. Dio, LI, 20, 7.

T h e Imperial Cu ll in the Western Provinces 167

in Tarraco, then, was provincial under T iberius, probably provincial under A ugustus, and was almost certainly dedicated to Roma as well as to Augustus from the time o f its institution.

Baetica.

T h e earliest evidence for the provincial cult in the province o f Baetica m ay be an inscription o f the flamen A ugustalis in Baetica primus1, parallel to one in H ither Spain of a flamen Augustalis P . H . C. (C\ / L- II , 4223). T h e inscription can be dated shortly after Tiberius from the fact that the flamen A ugustalis w as a curator D ivi Tiberii in Baetica. But the name is missing; the reading is doubtful and obscure, and on the whole the evidence is not

satisfactory.A t the latest an official cu lt o f A u gustus must have existed

in the senatorial province of Baetica soon after the erection of the tem ple to D ivus A u gustus in H ither Spain. In 25 A . D . the Spaniards o f the farther province sent an embassy to Tiberius requesting permission to erect a shrine to the emperor and his mother, L ivia*. Tiberius apparently refused to grant the request,

but he took the occasion to express to the senate reasons for his previous and future policies3. H e had perm itted the erection of a temple to himself and the senate in A sia, since in doing so lie was on ly follow in g a >olicy laid down by A ugustus, who had lon g been worshipped w ith Rom a in that province. H e felt,

however, that the cu lt o f A u gustus would command respect only if honors w ere accepted w ith discrim ination by his successor. Devotion to A ugustn s m ust remain unadulterated: vanescet A u gusti honor, si promiscis adulationibus vulgatur. A pplied to the

1 C. I. L. II, 3*7'2 Tac. Ann. IV, 37.a With this speech we may compare the recently discovered letter of Ti

berius to the city of Gythium in the Peloponnese, S. K. Kougeas, tt; t ic x TuOeisu ;, , I {1928) pp. 7-;I5-:S7; H. Seyrig, Rev. Arch. XXIX (1929), PP &4-S6; for a discussion of the significance of the letter see L. R. Taylor, Tiberius' Refusals of Divine Honors, T. A. P. A. LX (1929), pp. 87 ff.; Rostnvtzeff, VEmpcreur Tibirc et le cuite imperial, Rev. Hist. CLXIH (930), pp. 1-26.

A lin e I. Abaecherli

province of Bactica this statement takes on a very concrete m eaning; it seems to indicate that the worship o f A u gustus w as already

established in that province, as w e w ould suppose. A tem ple had doubtless been devoted to the cu lt of D ivus A u gu stu s follow in g the precedent set by H ither Spain, and a similar temple to T iberius and L ivia w ould on ly have detracted from the grandeur o f the c u lt o f the first emperor.

W hether or not T iberiu s refused the homage o f the Spaniards is not so im portant for us as the single fact that the provincials

in this instance asked for a tem ple. Th e tem ple w as denied them, and Tiberiu s indicated that his action w as based on A ugustan precedent. In A sia A u gu stu s had furnished an exem plum for a temple to the liv in g emperor in conjunction with a d eity sym

bolizing Rom an power. W e can be fa ir ly sure that there was no A ugustan precedent for a temple o f the livin g emperor in Spain.

Probably the earliest record o f the provincial cu lt in L u sitania is a dedication to D ivus A u gu stu s: D ivo A uguslo Albinus A lb in i f. flamen D ivi A ug. Prow Lusitaniae1. T h e simple form of the name m ay indicate that the flamen had o n ly recently received Roman citizenship. T h u s there is no indication o f a prov incial cu lt in Lusitania during the lifetim e o f A ugustus. It is possible that the cults in H ither Spain and the un ru ly northwest were considered sufficient in the early period; perhaps the

concentration of the legions in the north m ade the further pacification of Spain impossible at the moment. N ative institutions in Lusitania were not supplanted by Rom an as easily as in H ither Spain and B aetica. On the other hand, it is also possible that the early evidence for the c u lt has failed to survive.

W hen we turn to the m unicipal cult for parallels, it is equally

difficult to find certain indications o f the w orship of A ugustus during his lifetim e. Th ere is a flamen o f Tiberius Caesar Augus-

> C. 1. L. II, 47J. Dessau, op. cit. II, a, p. 457, seems to think that the provincial cult was instituted in Baetica and Lusitania soon alter 25 A. D.

T h e Imperial C u ll in the Western Provinces 169

tu s', and a flamen o Germ anicus seems to point to a cult o f the heir-designate*. O therwise where the deity is mentioned the emphasis is on the cult of the cirri3. T h e provincial institution proba bly received its im petus from the precedent o f H ither Spain and accordingly erected a tem ple to D ivus A ugustus. B ut for

the A ugustan age there is a strong probability that the imperial

adm inistration regarded the institution o f the cu lt at the A rae Sestianae in the north-west the on ly peaceful means of controlling the remote tribes o f Spain. A n d if that institution was founded before the north-west was separated from Lusitania proper, our lack of A ugustan evidence may be the answer to the p ro blem : A ugustus failed to substitute in L usitan ia as it was fin ally adm inistered a cu lt center to take the place of the one defined by the Sestian altars in the north.

G a l l i a N a r b o n e n s is .

T h ere is no evidence for a provincial altar in the senatorial province of G allia Narbonensis, w here unlike the provinces we have discussed, w ith the exception o f Hispania Citerior, there was a long h istory of Romanization and colonization. O ur only definite evidence of a provincial shrine in honor of the emperor is the tcmplum mentioned in the L e x Narbonensis', a fragm entary bronze tablet 011 which is inscribed a series of a regulations for the provincial cult of G allia Narbonensis5. T h e law provides con secutively for honors o f the flamen, taboos placed upon his w ife , honors to be conferred upon the retiring flamen, the method o f fillin g a vacancy in the flaminate, and the disposal of surplus funds in the treasury. Here w e are chiefly concerned w ith the

1 c. 1. L. II, 49.2 Ibid. II, 194.3 See Geiger, De Sacerdotibus Augustorum Municipalibus, HaUe dise. 1913,

pp. 33 ; Iso p. 101.* C. I. L. XII, 6038. Hues >3, 30. Found iu the vicinity of Narbooue in southern France in 188S. Hron de

Villefosse. Bull. Crll. 888. pp. 111-115; Mispoulet, ibid. 233-260; restored texts in C. I. L. XII, 6038, Dessau, /. L. S. 6964, aa

A lin e L . Abaecherli

third section, dealing w ith the honors o f the ex-priest, the formula for whose honorary inscription has parallels in other provinces and m ay therefore have some bearing on the date o f the law and the tem ple. T h e name o f the retiring flamen, his fathers name, and the locality from w hich he came w ere to be included

in the honorary inscription associated w ith h is statue1. Formulae similar to the one here provided for, as w e learn from inscriptions o f ex-priests, w ere used in the Three G auls, in Spain , and in A frica Proconsularis. In the Th ree G auls2 and in Spain3 the name o f the priests father and the locality from w hich he came were m entioned (cfr. L . N . line 12: [ius esse siajtuae ponendae nomenque suum patrisque e t unde sit ...... [inscribendi]),and in A frica 4 the year in w hich he held officc was indicated, not b y consulships or other conventional m ethods o f Rom an dating but b y the annus o f a certain era (cfr. L . N . line 12 : et qua anno fla[iten fuerit]). These sim ilitarities suggest that a single policy w as at w ork in different provinces. W e have seen that in the

reign o f Tiberius the dedication of one provincial tem ple in

2 C. I. L. XIII, 1042-45, fathers name included; the inscription is probably Augustan] 1699, the father's name; 1541 (fragmentary), the fathers name. Cf. 16S0 (late). The father's name and the tribe appear in 1674, cf. 1675, 1706, 1712, 5353; cf. 1714, where the name of the tribe appears, but the stone is broken where the fathers name would be. 1036 is inscribed on the arch at Orange ami would uot come under the inscriptions under discussion. White neither the fathers name nor the tribe or only oue appears, the inscription is very early (before Lex Sabronensis), very, fragmentary, or outside the class of inscriptione we are considering.

> C. I. L. II, 4189, 4193, 4195, 4197, 4200, 4203, 4204, 4205, 4207, 4209,4212 (not by province], 4213, 4214, 4213, 4*18, 4330 (not by province), 4222, 4223,

4354. 4357. 6093. 6094, Rev. Arch. XXXI (1897), p. 441, n. 100 (not by province); flaminicae: C.I.L. II, 4243 (not by province), 4241 (not by province), 4236 (husbauds name), 4242, 4252. Of other inscriptions cut by the province about ten mention the fathers name, while only one fragment has neither father nor municipality, tribe, or conventus: father's name appears in 4225, 4217, 4206, 4211, 3793, 4188, 4228, 4233, 4243, 4238, 6096. Without name of father or locality: 4258.

* The inscriptions in bonor of the priests or ex-priests of Africa Proconsularis are with a single exception local or private dedications. The exception is a fourth-century inscription apparently set up by the concilium (C. I. L. VIZI, 11025). For the two inscriptions in which the year of the priest's office is indicated see the section on Africa Proconsularis.

H ispania Citerior set a precedent for other provinces1. Undoubtedly there were regulations con trollin g the provincial organization which met in the tem ple precinct. In Spain these law s w ould have

existed at least from the time o f the dedication o f the tem ple of D ivus A ugustus at Tarraco. T h e regulations for the Spanish cult as well as fo r the temple at Tarraco may have set a precedent for other provinces; this w ould exp lain the sim ilarity w hich w e have noted between the honorary inscriptions o f the ex-priests of H ither Spain , the Three G auis, A frica Proconsularis, and the the formula o f the L e x Narbonensis. I f similar law s as w ell as similar tem ples were based on the exem plum of H ither Spain , we are justified in suggesting an early date for the L e x and the temple mentioned therein.

T h e question o f the date o f the L e x Narbonensis is ultim ately dependent on the restoration o f line thirteen, where the name

of the emperor who is to grant permission for the erection o f the statues in honor o f retiring priests is lost at the break in the tablet3. I t is alm ost certain that the docum ent on the basis of letter-form s belongs to the first century A . D 3, but the principate in w hich it was inscribed is still an open question. Kom em ann follow in g K r a s c h e n in n ik o f f , who restored Caesar Vespasianus A ugustus in line thirteen, [Narbolne intra fines eius templi statuae ponendae ius esto, nisi cui Im perator [Caesar Vespasianus A ugustus concesserit. E ique (14) i]n curia sua, e tc .),4 has accepted a F lavian datin g5. R ecently I have shown that Krasche- ninnikoff's restoration was based on an error in his estimate of the space available for the name and that it is impossible to restore Caesar Vespasianus A ugustus in fu ll and restore the rest of the line properly6. A lthough several other restorations are pos

sible, including H irsclifeld s Caesar Augustus, I prefer to read

Tac. Ann. I, 78.3 For a description of this part of the tablet see my article. The Dating of

the Lex Narbonensis. T. A. P. A. LXIII (193s), p. 237, n. 3 and PI. I.3 Ibid. p. it. Cf. Hirschfeld, C. I. L. XII, p. 864: litterae bonae aetatis

imperatoriae.* Ueber die Elnfhrung des provinzlalen Kaisercultus im rJtnischen West

en, PMM. I.III (1894), pp. 159-161.* Op. cit. p. 6.* Op. cit. p. 59.

T h e Imperial C ult in he Western Provinces 171

19 Sludi e Materiati di Storia deile Religioni, XI (1935)

172 A lin e L . Abuecherli

T i Caesar A ugustus (followed b y interdixerit eique or interces

serit eique)'. In the first place, this reading fits the space permitted for the name o f the emperor granting permission for the erection o f statues. T h e law , moreover, m entions a templum (11. 13, 30), as w e have said, and the provision for a tem ple in the I .ex Narbonensis falls in line w ith the dedication o f temples to D ivus A ugustus, a general movement w hich Ta citu s ascribes

to the reign o f T iberius. T h e practical application or the provisions o f this law in other provinces, evidence for w h ich is provided b y inscriptions, suggests that law s similar to the L e x Narbonensis accompanied the dedication of temples after the exem plum provided b y the action o f H ispania Citerior. These temples w ere built some time durin g or after 15 A . D ., and there is reason to suppose that the provinces w hich followed the precedent of H ispania Citerior were not slow to act. One m ay therefore assume that law s attending the dedication o f tem ples w ere issued shortly after 15 A . D .. I f the L e x Narbonensis m ay be taken as typical of regulations for the provincial cu lt as carried out in Spain, in the Three G auls, and in A frica , w e have good reason to prefer

the restoration T i. Caesar Augustus in line thirteen and to attribute the dedication of the tem ple mentioned in lines 13 and 30 to the reign o f T iberius.

T h e L e x Narbonensis, then, especially w ith its provision for a temple and regulations for priests honors, appears to be typical o f a gen eral developm ent in the imperial cu lt under Tiberius. It

m ay therefore be studied in connection w ith other documents revealin g the emperor s p olicy on the question of divine honors.

In the Conclusion we shall return to a discussion of the L e x in relation to these documents.

1 Ibid. p. 259, n. 9; pp. 260 ff. The suggestion that the Lex Narbonensis probably belonged to the reign of Tiberius was first made by L. B. Taylor, op. cit. p. 93 and The Divinity 0/ the Roman Emperor, Middletown 1931, p. 281. This date has been accepted by Charlesworth in his bibliography for the reign of Tiberius in vol. X of the Cambridge Ancient History, p. 960, Inscr. no. 2.

Th e Imperial C ult in the Western Provinces 173

A f r i c a P r o c o n s u la r is .

T h e date o f the introduction o f the provincial cu lt into Africa has remained a m ystery. T h is statement w ill be vigorously contested, fo r w ith one or two exceptions scholars have generally held that, however little w e know of the A frican organization,

the date o f its introduction is established beyond dispute by significant inscriptions pertaining to the provincial priest1. T h ey

C . I . L . V I I I 12039: P . Mummio L . Papir. Saturnio Sac(erdos) P(rovinciae) A(fricae) a(nno) C X III dec(urialis?) I I vi[ra]L(is) municip(es) F urnitan i cui cum ordo honorem fl(amonii) obtulisset pron

174 A line L. Abaecherli

attributed to 120391. It has therefore been assumed that the imperial cult was brought into A frica between the years 71-73 A . D. under the regim e o f Vespasian. B ut this interpretation is not the o n ly possible one. C X III m ay be intended prim arily to indicate not a religious but a political year based on a provincial

era. T h a t is, P . M um mius Saturninus was priest in the 113th year after a political act w hich marked a new era fo r the pro

vince o f A frica . I w ould ofier this suggestion not o n ly as a pos

sib ility bu t as a real parallel for w hat was a very general custom in Mauretania. In 40 A . D . G aius instituted the province of M auretania. Innumerable sepulchral inscriptions of M auretania read A{nno) P[rovinciae), takin g the year 40 as the terminus a quo2.

T u rn in g aside from provincial matters for a moment, le t us consider a num ber of C arthaginian inscriptions w hich seem to indicate a similar system . T h e y relate to priests of Ceres3. I t has been suggested that these inscriptions bear the year of the foundin g o f the colon y o f Carthage1, but again the general opinion has followed the theory that the era is here a religious one

that of the cult o f Ceres in Carthage. One o f these priests held office in the year C C X X X V (sacer. Cerer. C. I . K . C C X X X V ). H is inscription can be dated about the middle o f 197 A . D . Thus we have approxim ately as the beginning o f the era the year 38 B. C . W e may assume, o f course, that the inscription was cu t a few years after the man held office; in an y case, 38 B. C.

is roughly the term inus ante quem for the era. N ow this date falls within the period of the Julio-Augustan colonization of

1 C. I. L. VIII, 12039, note.2 Cf. C. I. L. VIII, 8426, 8430, 8433, etc. These Mauretanian inscriptions

3 C. I. L. VIII, 805; 12318; 26255, 26419, 26615, Ref. Arch. XX (1954), p. 382, no. 33; CagTiat, j. a . 38, 238, 382, 384. Cf. 390, for the dating. I cannot understand Rev. Arch. I (1915), p. 358, no. 22, f. L. A. 238 Saard. Cer. An. CLXXIII; where, if tie reading is correct and the inscription dates after the accession of Antoninus Pius, 36 or 35 B. C. is the earliest date for the era. It may record another office held previously.

* Mommsen in a note on C. I. L. VIII, 12318; also Carcopino, Rev. Hist., CIA'III (1928), p. i f., who points out that the cult of Ceres must have been brought to Carthage in the fourth century B. C.

The Imperial C ult in the Western Provinces 17s

Carthage, the exact date o f w hich is somewhat obscure1. W hether

O ctavian fulfilled the dead Julius' intentions in colonizing Car

thage or whether he merely com pleted what Julius had already begun, the period im m ediately preceding or follow in g Philippi is a reasonable date for the establishing o f the Colonia tilia Kar- thago. Th us, there is some reason for accepting the political era

as a means of d atin g, but so far as I know , there is no real basis for acceptin g a religious era in the case o f Carthage, R ecently it has been suggested that the era o f the priests dates from the building of a cu lt temple at Carthage, follow in g the establishm ent o f the Rom an colony2. T h e difficulty with this suggestion is that

it com es into conflict w ith the fact that the cu lt o f Ceres in Carthage had a long Punic h istory3 and w ith the probability that a reorganization in the cu lt would have dated from the foundation

1 Apparently land bad been promised or assigned (o tbe soldiers at the time of Caesars death (App, B. C. II, 125). Another story of Appian's (Pun. 136) tells that Octavian found a memorandum of Caesar's in which tbe colony was authorized, and consequently he built the present Carthage. Caesar had previously arranged to seud some of the poor to the colony. The date is here given as 44. A passage in Dio (XLIII, 30, 3-4) apparently means that Caesar began tbe task; we can only assume that be left it incomplete and Octavian finished it. For the complete evidence see Gsell, Rev. Hist. CLVI (1927), p. 228 f., who holds that colunies were Bent by Caesar in 44 and by Octavian in 29; also Broughton, The Organization of Africa Proconsularis, Baltimore 1929, pp. 56, 57.

C. I. L. VIII, S05, has been placed in tbe third centnry. This is inconsistent with 38 B. C. as a starting point, whether $S is considered the era of the colony or the cult of Ceres, for in either case tbe inscription would fall almost fifty years before the third century.

2 Gsell, op. ctl. p. 229. Guiraud, Les assemblies provinciales dans 'empire remain, Paris 1SS7, p. 78, note 6, rejects the theory of a religious era for Carthage and Africa Proconsularis. The Spanish provincial era dates from 3S B. C. In Tarragona this era was 11 use until 1180. The same method of dating remained in Aragon until 1358, in Castile until 1383, and in Portugal until 1420 (Kubitschek in I'auly-Wissowa, s. v. Aera). The fact that the era based on the year 38 B. C. or a slightly earlier date is used only by the priests of Ceres in Africa Proconsularis may be taken as an argument against a political basis for the era. But there is no reason why the priests of Ceres should not have adopted or continued a method of reckoning based on the foundation of the colony, while the rest of the province used tbe conventional method of dating according

J Carcopino, op. cit., p. j f; Audollent, Cereres, Mlanges Cagnat, Paris, 5912, pp. 359-381.

176 A lin e L . Abaeckerlio f the Punic autonom ous settlem ent at Carthage in 28 B. C .1 Since 38 B . C . is the latest date for the beginning of the era, we m ust hold to a political era datin g from the Roman colony at Carthage, or, i f w e assume a c u lt reorganization, w e m ay sup

pose that the priests of Ceres adopted the RomaD colon y s method o f reckoning w hen the Punic settlem ent w as united w ith the latter. In either case we return to the same conclusion; it is im possible to distinguish between the political and religious eras. T h e fact that one inscription of the priests o f Ceres om its C . I. K . is not surprising; in M auretania A {nno) P{rovinciae) is omitted in one case (8524); another inscription has sim ply P(rovinciae).

T o return to the province of A frica , then, the era indicated in our inscription may w ell be a political one. There w ere a number o f political changes in A frica after 25 B. C . ,J and before

D iocletian. T h e first it that established under G aiu s in 37 A . D A Perhaps this date w as regarded as beginning a new era in Africa; it would be interesting if both A frica and M auretania used the organization under G aius as a term inus from w hich to date monum ents'. But a reorganization more sweeping in its results, though perhaps for us less clearly indicated in the sources, was carried out under Vespasian, who instituted the policy o f re

defining and strengthening the boundaries o f the empire. A fter the reign of Nero and the turm oil o f the year 69 Vespasian set about the task o f puttin g in order the lega cy of the Julio-Claudian

For the evidence for this foundation see Broughton, op. ett. pp. 53, 57.* Ibid. p. 72. 25 B. C. as the initial years of the era is out of question since

Mummius was living in the time of Marcus Aurelius (?), and, allowing adequate time for his holding the priesthood before this date, 25 B. C. is still too early.

> Tac. Hist. IV, 48; Dio, MX, 20, 7. In this case P. Mummius Saturninus wae a priest in the year 130 A. D.,

the nne-hundred-and-thirteenth year of Gains' reorganization. Now it will be recalled that his inscription is dated 183-185. Assuming the date given by Cagnai and Schmidt to be correct, it follows that the inscription was cut about thirty years after Mummius was sacerdos of the province. This is not necessarily inconsistent with the wording of the inscription, for although the priesthood is the mint important office mentioned, it is not the significant element of this inscription. The fact that Mummius had attained the higest municipal honors anil had at this time retired may indicate that this inscription was set up toward the end of his life. Perhaps he refused the honor here offered him because he considered his official career completed.

T h e Imperial Cult in the Western Provinces 177

line. In A frica the question o f a new land developm ent was in the emperor's hands, for Nero had confiscated the large estates

form erly owned b y private individuals1, and the management of these had to be taken over b y governm ent officials. I t is a fair assumption that Vespasian undertook the adm inistration o f these

lands2. W e know that he actually surveyed the provincial boundaries3, and reorganized the interior through the establishm ent of new colonies'1, the repair and construction of h ighw ays across the province from Carthage to Th eveste in Num idia and from H ippo to Th eveste5; he even brought new tribes into military service as auxiliaries0. T h e strengthening o f the exterior and the development o f the interior seem to have been prosecuted with a new vigor. It was a movement which touched the provincials

themselves rather than the proconsul and the legate on ly , as in the reorganization of G aius. F or that reason it is probable that a calendar which was based on an era o f the province would take its beginning from a general reorganization, such as that o f V e spasian rather than from a transfer o f the arm y from the proconsul to a legate. N ow Vespasian represented a new dynasty

o f rulers; the Gens Flavia succeeded the Gens Julia and Do mus Augusta and the associated G ens Claudia. T h e political reorganization therefore m ay easily have been attended by a reorganization o f the provincial cult, especially with the accession of a fam ily new to divine honors. A n era o f reorganization in the

cult or province was suggested b y T o u ta in ,7 but he did not bring the two ideas together. T h e line of demarcation between the political and religious was practically nonexistent in the imperial cult, and the era w ith w hich the priests w ere concerned probably began with the reorganization o f the F lavians.

1 Pliny, .V. f. XVIII, j5.2 See Brouuhton, op. cit. pp. 114, 158, 16:.3 C. I. I.. VIII, 23084; cf. 25860, 25967.* Atnmal;irn, C. . L. VIII, 308; Madautos, 1. L. At. 2070, 2064, 52, cf.

Apul. Apol. 24; probably Hippo Regius, see Broughtou, op. eit. 109.* Gsell. f. L. At., 3885; C. /. L. VIII, 10116, 10(19.* Cagnat, VArme romalue d'Afrtque, Paris 1912, p. 245, C. I. L. VIII, 4879

(Mu?u!ami); Rev. Arch. XXVIII (1896), p. 267, no. ro. Op. cit. pp. 79 f.

A line L . Abaeckerli

M unicipalities in the east offer several interesting rallis for

the institution o f a new era under Vespasian. Flaviopolis in C ilicia long used an era that began in 73 or 74 A . D .1 Samosata in Com magene apixiars to have had an era dating from 71 A . D .2 B y far the most interesting parallel, however, com es from Paphos in C yprus, w here for the last three years o f Vespasian s reign coins were struck bearing the legend epou r, i), or t in the new sacred year 8 , g, or 103. I t seems certain that this new sacred year had nothing to do w ith a rebuilding o f the temple o f A phrodite at Paphos and that it w as in fact an era based on the advent o f the new im perial regime'1.

T h e 113th year of the era in A frica , then, w as v ery lik e ly the

113-th year from the beginning o f Vespasians reorganization in A frica and can hardly be used to date the beginning of the provincial cult. Inscriptions o f C . C a ecilius G allus, a priest o f D ivus Julius at Cirta, Num idia, (C. I . L . V I I I , 7986) and a flamen pro vinctae (V III, 7987), m ay have some bearing upon the problem. T h e inscription recording his priesthood o f D ivus Iulius dates after C aligula. M ommsen and H irschfeld placed it in the first century3, and their dating has not been effectively disputed. If w e accept a first century datin g for 7986, w e must explain flamen provinciae in 7987, since the priest cannot be a priest o f Num idia, w hich became a separate province under Septim ius Severus0, and since the priests o f A frica seem to have been regularly sacerdotes. A recently discovered inscription dating in the tim e of A ntonin us Pius {Rev. A rch . X X II < i9 2 .s > , p . 344, no. 23) seems to indicate that Num idia at that time shared the cu lt of the pro-

1 Hill, Greek Coins in the British Museum, Cilicia, pp. -S ff. For further references sec Kubitschek in Pnuly-Wissowa, s. v. aera, p. 646.

* bid. pp. 646-647.3 Hill, Creek Coins in the British Museum, Cyprus, pp. 76-81 (PI. XV, 7);

see also the discussion, Introd. pp. cxxi-cxxiv,* Ibid. find Gardners comments in E.rcnvei/ons in Cyprus, J. H. 5. IX

(iSSS), p. a08.5 Die Stadtverfassung Clrlas und der clrtensischen Cotonieen, Hermes I

I1866), p, 60; Gesammelle Schriften V, p. 484; Ann. des Inst. 1866, p. 76; see also Krascheiiinnikoff, op. cit., p. 174, n. 128.

* C. . L. VIII. I, p. XV), col. 2; Gsell, /. L. At., Preface, p. x; Schulten, Das romlschc Africa, Leipzig 1899, p. 99; Marquardt, op. cit. I*, p. 470.

The Imperial C u ll in the Western Provinces 179

vin cc o f A frica ; ...... C . Iu lius Crcscens flam(en) [p(erpetuus) sacerdotalis /irontjnciae A fricae qu[t fr]im us e x col(onia) sua Cui- .cnlita[no /iu]nc hon[orei consecutus esi]. Several other sacerdotales of the province o f A frica are found on Num idian soil1. It is possible that Caecilia, the daughter o f C. Caecilius Gallus, under the influence o f the m unicipal flaminate o f C irta , called her father flamen provinciae by mistake an d that the father was really a sacerdos provinciae Africae. B u t another recently discovered inscription, from Bulla R egia {Rev. A rch . I V , 1916 p. 46S, no. 75), records a flam(en) A u g . provinciae, apparently a priest of the province o f A frica . I f the failure o f the sacerdotes to mention the deity o f the c u lt is a mark o f a later phase in the

cu lt, and if the inclusion of A ug. in the above inscription indicates an earlier period a period to which C. C aecilius G allus also belonged as flamen provinciae it is possible that the sacerdotes of the province date from a reorganization o f the cult w hile the flamines go back to an earlier period. I f this is true, w e have further reason to believe that the era mentioned b y the sacerdotes o f A frica represents a reorganization under Vespasian and that a provincial cu lt w ith flamines existed in A frica before V espasians tim e.

T h e foregoing discussion leads to the conclusion that the accepted basis for dating the institution of the provincial cu lt in A frica is open to doubt; that there is no certain reason w h y the

year named as the year o f the priesthood follow s an era dating from the institution o f the provincial cult; and that the tendency to date the istitution on such an a priori assum ption has been too strong. Can w e offer an alternative theory for the institution of the provincial cu lt in A frica ? T h e worship of A u gu stu s first presents itself in A frican m unicipal life as that o f D ivus A u

gustus3, although Dessau attributes a recen tly discovered dedication reading Deo A ugusto to the first principate3. B ut Julius

i C. 1- L. VIII, 11025 (Gigthi); 11546 (Aiinua

A line L . Abaecherli

Caesar had his worship in C irta , Num idia, before that tim e1,

and Tiberius w ith Rom a w as thus honored in M ograwa in his

lifetim e2.If w e consider the situation in other provinces, w e shall find

that the m unicipal and provincial cults generally appear to be synchronous in organization. Th e m unicipal cu lt of D ivus A u gustus in A frica w as in existen ce in the first half o f the century.

It is therefore probable that a provincial cult had also been organized in A frica at that tim e. Th e lack o f inscriptions o f early date is not proof that the institution w as not in existen ce early

in the first century, for in other western provinces where w e know the cu lt was established early imperial inscriptions recording the names o f priests are rare3. In A frica , w here there is an extraordinary dearth of records from the first century o f the empire, the lack of early evidence for the provincial cu lt is not strange. W hen w e consider the fact that a cu lt o f Rom a and Tiberius was in existen ce in an A frican town during the life of Tiberius and that D ivus A u gustus w as worshipped in municipalities at

the same tim e4, it seems probable that the province of A frica in the early em pire developed a cu lt organization similar to that in

other provinces.In the brief section on G allia Narbonensis I pointed out that

A frican priests who mention the year in w hich they held office seem to be follow in g a rule similar to the provision in the L e x Narbonensis that the retiring flamen indicate h is year on the base of h is statue in the sacred precinct. T o be sure, the A frican inscriptions under discussion are local dedications5, bu t they were set up in honor o f provincial priests, and it is therefore probable that the priest s fu ll title w ith his fathers name and

1 C. 1. L. VIII. 79S6. The inscription is dated after Caligula, but the cult must have been early, for Julius Caesar was the founder of the colony of Cirta.

2 C. 1. L. VIII, 685 ( = 11912). Mr. Charlesworth in Class. Rev. XXXIX (1925). p. 114, a. 2, cites this inscription as evidence for a temple to Romo and Tiberius, but the evidence does not seem to me conclusive.

3 C. . /- XIII 1541; II. 3271, and II, 473 may be early. C. 1. L. XIII, 1036 records a priest of the Three Gauls under Tiberius.

See n. a; p. 179, u. 3.5 C. I. L. VIII, 12039 (Pumos Maius) and 146 (Simitthus).

T he Imperial C u li in the Western Provinces

the year o f h is priesthood w as inscribed in accordance with a pro

vincial form ula like the one prescribed in the L e x Narbonensis1.It is clear, then, that similar law s for the provincial cult may

have been set up in A frica and G allia Narbonensis. W e have

stated that the Three G au ls and H ither Spain probably possessed such a set of laws. H ither Spain had constructed a temple

to D ivus A u gustus in the year after his death, and this temple w as the model for similar shrines in other p ro vin ces: datumque in omnes provincias exem plum (Tac. A n n . I , 78). Th is was in the reign o f T iberius. U nder Tiberius the L e x Narbonensis was w as probably codified2. T h e natural inference is that the temple

of H ither Spain and the laws for the provincial cu lt, the provisions o f w hich w e have in the L e x Narbonensis, belong to the same phase in the h istory o f the cult. T h e custom o f recording the year o f the provincial priest in A frica is probably synchronous w ith the introduction o f a tem ple and a set of cult laws. I do not hesitate to assign this movement to a period shortly after

T iberius gave permission for the construction o f the tem ple to D ivus Augustus in H ither Spain when a precedent was established for provincial temples in omnes provincias.

C o n c l u s io n .

The Development of the Im perial Cult in the W estern Provinces.

A consideration of the distribution and date of the provincial shrines in the west brings to ligh t some significant facts. In a

prelim inary statement the shrines dated from literary sources w ere listed. These were the altar o f Rom a and A u gu stu s at L u g dunum, the Ara Ubiorum at Cologne, and the altar o f A ugustus on the Elbe. T o these we can w ith a strong degree o f probability

1 The requirement of the Lex Sarbonensls that the retiring priest inscribe his place of residence would be superfluous for local monuments; hence the locality is not indicated in one case and in the other only because it is necessary

2 See my section on Gallia Narbonensis, p. 172.

l82 A lin e L . Abaecherli

add the Arae Sestianae in north-western Spain, w here for a time there seems to have been an independent adm inistrative unit. W e can even more confidently add the altar at Tarraco, w hich now from the evidence of coins seems to have been not m unicipal but provincial. T h is is a fu ll list o f shrines of the cu lt that can be dated under A ugustus. A fact w hich has not hitherto been recog

nized is that a ll o f these altars are either in fu lly organized im perial provinces or in regions under the command o f an imperial legate. A ll o f them except perhaps the altar at Tarraco belong to regions whose lo ya lty was a source of a n xiety to central authorities. T h e Three G auls had been through a period o f op

position to the census1; G erm an y was not yet a stipendiaria provincia2-, and the Elbe territory was in a position w hich later had to be abandoned. T h e cult seems to have accompanied the Roman legions and to have played a part w ith them in the pacification of subject territory. It is clear that the new institution had the sanction o f the emperor. C ertainly in the Th ree G au ls and on the E lbe and perhaps at Cologne members o f the imperial fam ily

had a share in establishing the cu lt centers . T h e altars were built im m ediately on the acquisition of new territory or at a time when the w avering allegiance o f the subjects made the institution of the cult seem advisable. It is to be noted that the regions in

which the altars were built were not strictly defined and there m ay have been in one or tw o cases several cu lt centers. In this connection we must point out that in Germ an territory, where presum ably the governor o f the Three G auls w as in command, there w ere at least two shrines w here more than one local unit gathered to w orship. T o the cenotaph o f D rusus came the civitates of G aul; at the Ara Ubiorum at least tw o tribes, the Ubii and Cherusci, w ere represented1. It m ay well be that several cults of a provincial nature w ere needed in the territory under the control of the governor of the Th ree G auls5. In addition to the

1 Livy, Epit. 139.2 Veil. II, 97, 4.3 See pp. 154, m 160.i See p. 159.3 Altars at I.ugdunum and Cologne; the cenotaph of Drusus. The temple of

the Lingones (Cass. . II, 135) was probably not a provincial monument.

T he Imperial Cult in the Western Provinces 183

foregoing facts w e learn that there is no record o f a provincial tem ple in the west in the A ugustan age. A fter this period, how ever, a new development in the cult, the construction o f provincial temples to D ivus A ugustus, takes place.

In the year after the death o f A u gu stu s the province o f H ither Spain , w hich already had an altar in Tarraco, received from T iberius permission to build a tem ple to the new god, D ivus A u

gustus1. O ther provinces followed the precedent w hich , as T a citus tells us, this permission provided. A s w e have pointed out, there is good reason to date the tem ple o f G allia N arbonensis in the reign o f Tiberius2. T h is was a senatorial province w here there probably had been no altar at an earlier date 3. I have argued in the last chapter that other provinces acted speedily upon the precedent provided. Some facts have come to lig h t from the m unicipal cu lt w hich g ive support to the theory. R ecently there was discovered in the Peloponnesian c ity o f G yth iu m a stone copy of

a letter from Tiberius to the G ytheates, in w hich the emperor commends the c ity for the honors it has decreed to his father but deprecates similar honors for himself*. T h e important thing to notice in this letter is the statement T iberiu s makes w ith reference to honors for A u g u s tu s : for these I commend yo u and I

think it fittin g that a ll men in general and your c ity in particular should reserve honors that befit the gods for the greatness o f my

father's benefits toward the whole w orld . In this case the honors were a statue, sacrifice, and contest5. W hen W ith er Spain

The institution of the Arae Flaviae (Ptol. II, 11, 15; Tab. Peut.), at the modern Rottweil on the Neckar, will be discussed by Professor K. Scott in his forthcoming book on the imperial cult under the Flavians.

1 Tac. Ann. I, 78; see p. 162.2 See pp. 171-172.3 The altar at Narbo (C. I. L. XII, 4333) apparently was only municipal.

This altar was dedicated to the Numen Augusti. Altars were consecrated to the same deity in Rome and in Forum Clodii. For Tiberius' connection with this group of altars see Pippidi, La date de 1 Ara Numinis Augusti , Rev. des ludes tal. XI (1933), pp. 435-456. Tiberius' promotion of the cult of the Numen Augusti seems to date from the end of the reign of Augustus.

* See p. 167, note 3. For the translation see L. R. Taylor, T. A. P. A. I,X

5 These honors are listed in the Gytheate decree to which Tiberius' letter replied.

A line L . Abaecherli

asked for a tem ple, T iberiu s reply m ay w ell have been similar to h is letter in the case o f G ythium . Both were given about the same tim e. W e know from Dio that the cities o f the empire were expected to build shrines to A u gu stu s1. One c ity , Cyzicus, was

punished for neglecting; to com plete the shrine which it had begun to build2. Just as the G ytheate inscription shows that T iberius expected from other cities decrees like those honoring A u gustus in G ythium , so the emperors answer to the Spanish provincials w hen they requested permission to build a tem ple to A ugustus m ay have contained a clause suggestin g that other

provinces w ould do w ell to follow the precedent o f H ither Spain. T o overlook the suggestion would have been disloyal to the regime of Tiberius as w ell as to the house o f A ugustus. W hen Baetica asked permission to honor Tiberius and L ivia w ith a temple in 25 A . D ., it is improbable that the province had not already carried out T ib eriu s expressed w ishes that A u gustus be honored like the gods. C ertainly both Baetica and Lusitania had

provincial priests o f the deified emperors, and one o f the priests in Baetica may date from the reign o f Tiberius3. A temple w hich w e find associated w ith the altar in the Th ree G au ls w as probably built at th is tim e, and the precedent seems to have applied to other provinces where our information about the cu lt is more scanty. The

evidence w e have, then, points to separate phases in the history o f the western provincial cu lt under A u gustus and Tiberius. The former introduced the cu lt into im perial provinces w ith altars as the shrines; the latter allow ed the construction o f temples of A u gustus after his death in imperial and senatorial provinces a like. H e forbade a provincial tem ple devoted to h is own worship and that o f his mother.

T h e earliest tem ples o f the provincial cu lt in the w est seem then to have belonged to the reign o f T iberius. T h ey differed from the tem ples in the east in that they were dedicated not to the liv in g emperor but to a dead ruler who had been officially deified. T h u s they follow ed the precedent set for the imperial

T h e Imperial Cult tn the Western Provinces

cu lt in the c ity of R om e1. Perhaps there w as already in existence a tem ple to D ivus A u gustus w hich prompted the people o f Baetica to request the privilege o f follow in g the exam ple o f A sia in m ultiplying shrines o f the imperial cult. But when they asked in 25 A . D . that permission be given them to build a shrine of Tiberius an d L ivia , the emperor, true to the p olicy o f his predecessor, refused the request, though he had already allow ed the

people o f A sia to build a shrine to him self and the Roman senate2. T iberius, like A ugustus, accepted the fu ll prerogatives o f d ivinity o n ly in the east.

T h e first provincial tem ple o f the livin g emperor know n in the west w as the one dedicated to Claudius in n ew ly conquered Britain11. It was in a province that w as remote from contacts with other portions of the empire, and eviden tly the emperor did not

there find him self restricted b y the precedents o f his predecessors. O ur study of inscriptions lias brought to ligh t no other case of a provincial tem ple of the livin g emperor in the w est. Apparently Trajan in Dacia and Pannonia Inferior preferred to go back to A ugustan models, for the shrines which were the cu lt centers in these provinces seem to have been altars'1.

In this paper I have not discussed the relation of all the western provinces to the imperial cult. F o r this reason a brief outline has been appended in order to present as concisely as

possible the date or probable date o f institution in eacli province, the types o f shrines, and a classification o f provinces to show imperial policy reflected in the development o f the cult.

1 The temples of Divus lulius and Divus Augustus.a Tap. Ann. IV, 37.3 Ibid. XIV, 31; Seneca, Apoc. 8. For a refereuce to altars also, see n. 132.

A. Momigliano, .'opera dellimperatore Claudio, Florence 1032, p. 61, note 2, indicates that Senecas very words (Apoc. 8: parum est quod templum in Brit- tanla kabet) sbow that the temple in Britain was the only one of its kind, that is, the only one dedicated to tbe living Claudius.

C. /. L. Ill, 1209, m3, 1313, 1509, Fox Pannonia Inferior, C. . L. Ill, Suppi, i, 10496. It is reasonable to suppose that the altars here mentioned were dedicated under Trajan, who organized the new province of Dacia 1C. I. L. Ill, 627, dating in 109/110 A. D-; see Dio, I.XVIII (epit.), 14 and Mommsens comments on C. I. L. Ill, 1, 550 and discussion; Q. Glitius Agri- cola was legatu$ propraetor of Fannonia in 102 and Hadrian of Pannonia Inferior about 107, the end of the second Dacian war.). Cf. Arae Flaviae, p. 59,

iS6 A lin e L . Abaecherii

Three Gauls Lower Germany

Elbe N. W. Spain

Hither Spain Narboncsc Gaul

INSTITUTION INSTITUTIONOF ALTAR OF TEMPLE

ia- B. C- Tiberius?9 B. C.-9 A. D.

2 B. C.

AUGUSTUS : altars 1in imperial provinces, i Three Gauls, Lower s Germany, Kibe, N. W. Hilher Spain, proba-

: temples CLAUDIUS: TRAJAN: altarsi

provinces, pic in Britain, provinces, Daci

Spain, Hither Spain. bly in Haetka nia, Three Gauls, Nar- boneae Gaul, Africa

Divus Augustus in all Claudius. Spanish provinces and probably in Gall.Narb.(cf. C./.Z.. XII, 39s) An

EVIDENCE TOO LIMITED TO CONJECTURE TYPE OF SHRINE OR DATE OF INSTITUTION:

Alpine Provinces Priests ol cult in allDalmatiaPannonia Superior Sardinia

There is no certain evidence for the provincial cult in Raetia,

N oricum , S ic ily , or M auretania, though all had m unicipal cults.

A U N E L . A B A E C H E R L IAmerican Academy in Rome

1 Altars are mentioned in Riese, Anlh. Lot., Leipzig 1894, I, 1, ed. 2, 419; on the attribution of these lines to the elder Seneca, see Prae/, p. xl.

* Cf. the analysis of Kraschenianitoff, op. cit., who argued for an earl; institution of the cult in unromanized provinces and a Flavian institution for old Roman provinces like Baetica, Gallia Narbonensis, and Africa Proconsularis.