The Nature and Origin of the Cult of Silvanus in the Roman Provinces of Dalmatia and Pannonia [1 ed.] 9781784915131

Citation preview

The Nature and Origin of the Cult of Silvanus in the Roman Provinces of Dalmatia and Pannonia Ljubica Perinić

Archaeopress Roman Archaeology 19

The Nature and Origin of the Cult of Silvanus in the Roman Provinces of Dalmatia and Pannonia Ljubica Perinić

Archaeopress Roman Archaeology 19

Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Gordon House 276 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7ED

www.archaeopress.com

ISBN 978 1 78491 512 4 ISBN 978 1 78491 513 1 (e-Pdf)

© Archaeopress and Ljubica Perinić 2016 Cover image: Relief of Silvanus found in Sonković by Skradin (Scardona) kept at the Archaeological Museum in Split. Photo: Ljubica Perinić

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners.

This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com

It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. Arthur Conan Doyle, A Scandal in Bohemia

E

Contents

Foreword���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� iii Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� iv 1. The Cult of Silvanus in Rome, Dalmatia and Pannonia�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 1.1. The origin of the cult..........................................................................................................................................1 1.2. Rome and Italy...................................................................................................................................................3 1.3 The cult of Silvanus in Dalmatia..........................................................................................................................7 1.4. The cult of Silvanus in Pannonia........................................................................................................................9 2. Dedicators and Epithets of Silvanus����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 11 2.1. Silvanus without his most common epithets...................................................................................................11 2.2. Silvanus Augustus............................................................................................................................................12 2.3. Silvanus Silvester..............................................................................................................................................14 2.4. Silvanus Domesticus........................................................................................................................................15 3. The Reliefs��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 16 3.1. Reliefs representing Silvanus alone.................................................................................................................16 3.2. Silvanus with other deities and figures (nymphs, Diana, and other gods)....................................................21 3.2a. Silvanus and nymphs................................................................................................................................22 3.2b. Silvanus and other deities........................................................................................................................24 4. Interpretatio Romana and Syncretism������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 29 5. Silvanus' Shrines����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 40 5a. Dalmatia............................................................................................................................................................40 5b. Pannonia...........................................................................................................................................................44 6. Concluding Remarks����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 46 6.1. Dalmatia...........................................................................................................................................................46 6.2. Pannonia..........................................................................................................................................................51 7. Conclusion��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 57 Bibliography���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 61 I Catalogue ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 67 II The Catalogue Unit�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 68 Acronyms of the museums where the reliefs and/or inscriptions are kept: ..........................................................68 III. Silvanus in Dalmatia (Map 1): The Inscriptions�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������69 III.1. Silvanus ..........................................................................................................................................................69 III.2. Silvanus Augustus...........................................................................................................................................70 III.3. Silvanus Silvester.............................................................................................................................................71 III.4. Silvanus Domesticus.......................................................................................................................................72 III.5. Silvanus and the other deities........................................................................................................................72 The Reliefs������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 74 III. Silvanus alone....................................................................................................................................................74 III. Silvanus and the nymphs...................................................................................................................................86 III. Silvanus and Diana.............................................................................................................................................90 III. Silvanus and the other deities...........................................................................................................................92 IV. Silvanus in Pannonia (Map 2): The Inscriptions�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������97 IV.1. Silvanus...........................................................................................................................................................97 i

Pannonia Superior............................................................................................................................................. 97 Pannonia inferior............................................................................................................................................. 100 IV.2. Silvanus Augustus.........................................................................................................................................101 Pannonia Superior........................................................................................................................................... 101 Pannonia inferior............................................................................................................................................. 101 IV.3. Silvanus Silvester...........................................................................................................................................101 Pannonia Superiror.......................................................................................................................................... 101 Pannonia Inferior............................................................................................................................................. 102 IV.4. Silvanus Domesticus......................................................................................................................................103 Pannonia Superior........................................................................................................................................... 103 Pannonia Inferior............................................................................................................................................. 107 IV.5. Silvanus and the other deities.......................................................................................................................109 Pannonia Superior........................................................................................................................................... 109 Pannonia Inferior............................................................................................................................................. 110 The Reliefs����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 112 IV. Silvanus alone .................................................................................................................................................112 Pannonia Superior........................................................................................................................................... 112 Pannonia Inferior............................................................................................................................................. 115 IV. Silvanus and the nymphs/silvanae ..................................................................................................................119 Pannonia Superior........................................................................................................................................... 119 Pannonia Inferior............................................................................................................................................. 120 IV. Silvanus and the other deities..........................................................................................................................121 Pannonia Superior........................................................................................................................................... 121

ii

Foreword

This book emerged as a result of my PhD thesis, defended in 2008 at the Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb. It has since been rewritten and reorganised. During the work on the dissertation, I noticed some discrepancies in the scholarly literature caused by a general paucity (or lack of exposure) of evidence on the Silvanus cult in Dalmatia (today mostly Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina). The findings deriving from the evidence of this cult in Dalmatia needed to be compared with evidence from (at least) one neighbouring province – which is why I chose Pannonia. With the previously acquired insights, newer perceptions also appeared during the period that followed my decision to present evidence of the Silvanus cult in English. This book positions itself primarily in the field of formalistic research, with the objective of showing the evidence and current state of research of the cult in Dalmatia and Pannonia to the wider scholarly community. I would like to express my gratitude to reviewers Branka Migotti, academic consultant of archaeology at The Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, and Danijel Džino, associate lecturer at the Departments of Ancient History and International Studies (Croatian Studies), Faculty of Arts, Macquarie University, Sydney, for their invaluable counsel, which has helped deepen my understanding, and for their support and encouragement along the way.

iii

Introduction

The Romans, it seems, had a very practical approach to religion – as they had towards most complex, carefully structured institutions. Their polytheism was not built around one central deity, but on the many rituals, taboos, traditions, or what today we might call superstition. If possible at all to compare the experience of Rome’s polytheism and today’s monotheistic religions, then the former was not so much a spiritual experience, in terms of the contractual relationship between the faithful and their deities. It is possible that it was precisely this attitude that favoured the development of the two ‘forms’ of Roman religion: the public and private cults. Private cults contributed to the progress of individual families (individuals or communities), while public cults significantly influenced the national well-being in general. Just as is the case in each household, where, for example, women looked after the hearth for the sake of Lares, the same was done at the Roman state level in the Temple of Vesta, caring for the eternal flame for the good of the state as a whole – the home of the Roman people. Great interest in the subject of Roman religion has resulted in numerous studies on some or all of its many aspects. Nevertheless, a large number of unresolved issues and questions, especially those relating to the interpretatio Romana, remain. The term interpretatio Romana involves the synthesis of a local and a Roman god, under the Roman name of the deity, or whereby the deity carries a double name, Roman and local. However the interpretation of deities with two names (indigenous and Roman) is still not very clear – or as simple as it may appear. When the name of a local deity was not preserved, conclusions about the existence of interpretatio Romana were made on the basis of the differences a particular cult showed in relation to the Italic cult, both iconographically and in its content. Such concerns are particularly strongly reflected in the example of the cult of the god Silvanus, the Roman god of shepherds, water, and forests, especially those forests along border regions with areas still to be conquered. The classic interpretation of Roman religion (by Theodor Mommsen, Georg Wissowa, Kurt Latte, and others) seems to stress how little of what was significant existed beyond the public cult. Some recent works continue to echo the same overtones, although they bring some new and much needed perspectives. Regarding Silvanus, he stands squarely outside the category of public cults. He had no temple, public feasts or holy days, and he was not involved in the national calendar; he was never closely associated with public policy and urban life, and remained under the supervision of individuals and families: it seems he was never particularly important to the social elites. Judging from the votive inscriptions we have, senators and knights were not among his adherents. Most were individuals from the lower classes, including slaves and freedmen. This situation raises the question (as noticed by R. MacMullen and others) of whether Roman religion was truly indifferent towards social class. Silvanus’ unofficial status is not a sign of his lesser importance, or even irrelevance. Official recognition or Imperial patronage is not the only indicator of the popularity of a particular deity. Hundreds of dedications to Silvanus throughout the Roman Empire witness his great appeal, although his is a private cult. The theme of this book, therefore, is the nature of the god Silvanus, and the origin of his cult within the geographical framework of the Roman provinces of Dalmatia and Pannonia, i.e. the area of today’s Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Slovenia, Austria, and Hungary. Neither Dalmatia nor Pannonia were culturally and ethnically coherent. Illyricum was a Roman province divided into two regions, Dalmatia and Pannonia, sometime around AD 10. That division is noted on inscription CIL III, 1741, found in Cavtat, Croatia, in honour of Publius Cornelius Dolabella, the governor of Illyricum. La Tène Dalmatia was inhabited by Illyrian ethnic communities, and Pannonia by Pannonian (akin to Illyrians) and Celtic ethnic communities. Following the sources, the Taurisci lived in south-western Pannonia, the Breuci were south-east of the Požega valley, the Scordisci were in south-eastern Pannonia, the Andizetes resided in eastern Podravina, the Boii were in the Slovak and Hungarian lowlands by the Danube and the Mura, and the Erqavisci inhabited Transdanubia, including Gellért Hill, Dunaújváros, and Aquincum. Different ethnic communities, under the new political and administrative system imposed by the Roman central power, and even though they possibly resisted the changes at first, ultimately looked to continue their day-to-day lives with as little disruption as possible. Religion is a common component of every human culture, nevertheless it is a complex phenomenon that manifests itself in different ways in different societies. Roman religion was part of the same system as its politics – they intertwined. Consequently, one might (rightly) suppose that the religion of indigenous and conquered ethnic groups must have been affected by this new system: if not forceably then by means of coexistence and the passing of time. What were those changes? Did they affect both the indigenous religious system and the belief itself held by indigenous peoples? iv

And what was the nature of the indigenous religious system in the first place? These are questions that are easier to answer if our perceptions of native communities are supported by knowledge of their social structures, systems and administration, religion, and all the other factors that go to make up daily life. As for Dalmatia and Pannonia, we know some of the local deities, but not so much of their religious system as a whole as we know of the Roman system and its gods. The most popular gods (if not the main ones) in the province of Dalmatia differ depending on the ethnic community. The Liburnians (along the coastal region of the north-eastern Adriatic, between the rivers Arsia-Raša and Titius-Krka) preferred the local goddesses bearing different names, e.g. Ica, Ansotica, Sentona. The situation with the Lapodes (north of the Velebit mountain, north of and inland of the Liburnians) was not as clear, but it is likely that Bindus, who was assimilated with Neptunus, was the main and most popular deity; for the Delmatae (of the eastern Adriatic coast between the rivers Krka and Neretva in Croatia, and the hinterland, now in Bosnia and Herzegovina) the main deities were Silvanus and Diana. The situation did not differ in Pannonia – with its mostly Celtic communities. Often, only the name of the divinity has been preserved on the inscriptions, and thus it can be difficult to distinguish the true nature and extent of their influence. Sometimes an epichoric deity could have been more universally venerated, known in several districts and regions within an ethnically uniform area, or worshipped in an even broader context. It also cannot be excluded that a seemingly Roman divinity may have concealed an autochthonous deity. For example, in the Emona basin there are Aecorna and Laburus; in Neviodunum Neptunus Ovianus; in Gorsium there was a nymphaeum and the temple of Divus Augustus; in Budapest, Jupiter Optimus Maximus Teutanus was especially venerated, with Teutates being the Eraviscan major deity, etc. According to the number of surviving reliefs and inscriptions dedicated to Silvanus, his worship was widespread among the inhabitants of both Dalmatia and Pannonia. Resolving issues related to these monuments would contribute to a deeper understanding of the relationship between the indigenous people and the Roman Imperial culture. Here are just some of the authors who were/are especially devoted to the topic: Older foreign and domestic scholars, e.g. A. von Domaszewski, R. Schneider, D. Rendić-Miočević, considered that in both provinces, genuine interpretatio Romana happened, or that under the Latin name Silvanus, the supreme indigenous deity, whose name, unfortunately, is not preserved, was worshipped. In more recent foreign scholarly literature there are two schools of thought. One is represented by P. Dorcey who denies both the Dalmatian and the Pannonian Silvanus any indigenous trait. Furthermore, his opinion is that Dalmatian Silvanus is, in fact, the Greek Pan. The second direction is represented by Á. M. Nagy who attributes some indigenous features to Dalmatian/Delmatean Silvanus. As for domestic scholars, for example D. Maršić, A. Rendić-Miočević and N. Cambi, they still consider Silvanus as an indigenous deity. For Pannonian Silvanus, older authors (as mentioned above) and more recent ones (A. Mócsy, Á. M. Nagy) agree that it was the Italic Silvanus, denying him any indigenous features. Although the terms Romanisation and interpretatio Romana have fallen out of favour over the last twenty-five years or more, they are regularly referred to in this book. The theoretical approach was taken into consideration, especially in the chapter discussing Interpretatio Romana and syncretism, but it was not the guiding principle. The approach here is more directly derived from the inscriptions and reliefs dedicated to Silvanus in both provinces, Dalmatia and Pannonia, and to whatever might be the result, for example, of their mutual comparison. Furthermore, one of the aims of this work was to present ongoing debates on the subject of Silvanus, especially in the Roman province of Dalmatia, which are more often than not in the Croatian language and therefore do not reach a broader audience. Dorcey and D. Rendić-Miočević, and recently Cambi, are (or were) especially dedicated to the subject of Dalmatian Silvanus, which is the reason for the frequent references to their work. The discrepancies, at least regarding Dalmatia, in the processing of various types of monuments (inscriptions and reliefs) have already been noted in the Croatian scholarly literature by D. Maršić. Much more attention was given to the reliefs (neglecting inscriptions) from the Dalmatian hinterland, and to the area itself, than it was to the overall spread of all the various types of monuments dedicated to Silvanus. Because of this it was necessary to collect all the available/published inscriptions and reliefs so as to create a reliable base for either theoretical or formalistic research. Silvanus’ imagery on the reliefs in Dalmatia differs from his representations in Pannonia. The scholarly consensus, so far, is that in Dalmatia his representations are not the same, even in the different parts of the province itself. So in the hinterland, which is the heart of the old Delmatae territory, Silvanus appears as young and beardless anthropotheriomorphic god (with horns and goat’s legs), while on the coastal sites he is represented as an old man with a beard, completely anthropomorphic (the Italic type), and such are his representations in Pannonia. In other words, the Delmatae Silvanus is mostly portrayed as the Greek Pan. Although there are features they do share, in most cases Silvanus and Pan differ. However, Silvanus’ possible indigenous name is not preserved. For convenience I use the terms which indicate the geographical determinants and the imagery attributed to specific areas. Thus the term Delmatean refers to the interior (the heart of the province of Dalmatia, and simultaneously of the old Delmatae population), and the term Dalmatian refers to the coast of the Roman province of Dalmatia. In Dalmatia, Silvanus is v

most often paired with Diana and the nymphs. Only Italic names appear in all variants: Silvanus, Diana, nymphae. In Pannonia not one single relief was found in which Silvanus appears with Diana. Moreover, Pannonia yielded fewer inscriptions and reliefs illustrating Silvanus accompanied by nymphs. The categorisation by which there are two types of representations of Silvanus in Dalmatia is disputed and rejected here. However, the point of view that the Italic and ‘Illyrian’ Silvanus can be reduced solely to a common denominator of the deities of nature, pastures, flocks, and fertility is reinforced. It is possible and probable that in the contacts of indigenous ethnic communities and settlers in Dalmatia, a new cult of Silvanus was created. The worship of Silvanus and his imagery in the Roman provinces of Dalmatia and Pannonia reflect and also bear witness to the fusion of Imperial Roman and indigenous religious, iconographic, and artistic ideas and attitudes. Such representations of Silvanus were a response of the local community to classic incentives. Furthermore, the aspect of Silvanus as tutor finium, the guardian of the borders, is significantly less questioned, virtually ignored, in the studies dealing with his cult, which therefore made it necessary to re-examine all the evidence of the Silvanus cult in such perspective. The evidence of the cult is found mostly in border areas of the Danube, and the dedicators are in many cases soldiers. In such situations it would seem that Silvanus appropriated specific military components, or the geographical spread reflected his aspect as a guardian of the borders, regardless of the soldiers. With these general points of interest stated, it is clear that there are still many questions in need of an answer, and preferably a formalistic one upon which theories can then be developed. This book provides, if not answers, then at least a standpoint from which certain problems may be addressed.

vi

1. The Cult of Silvanus in Rome, Dalmatia and Pannonia

is described as a deity who protects animals and their procreation, as well as one who keeps predators at bay. De Agricultura (83) records the annual sacrifice to Mars–Silvanus, which was offered for the overall health of livestock. The sacrifice precluded the presence of women, but not slaves.6 It is not clear whether Silvanus was the epithet of the god Mars or they were separate deities. Since women were forbidden to attend the sacrifice in the woods (in silva), where we can recognize the characteristics of Silvanus (at least those known from the Imperial period), it can be assumed that Cato thought of Silvanus and of Mars too, or that Silvanus was not Mars’ epithet. This ritual is the only known ritual of the rural Silvanus’ cult. If the slaves were explicitly allowed to attend worship and conduct rituals, we can assume that such a ritual for the welfare of the animals, in the absence of the owner of the property, was conducted by the slave vilicus.7 Maybe this ritual, or parts of this ritual respectively survived on the relief III/36 from Sinj. With the penetration of Silvanus in the urban contexts, such rituals undoubtedly lost their importance. Likewise, it could be concluded that the vilicus on the mentioned inscription was Delmatian, since it is known that vilici erected similar monuments dedicated to Silvanus in Italy (CIL VI 696).8

1.1. The origin of the cult Silvanus is the Latin deity whose name, translated, probably meant ‘the one who manages the forest’.1 He is the god of the forests, but not of forests in their entirety, in particular those areas which border clearings in regions still to be completely conquered. Therefore he is partially ‘civilized’ and partially wild, and as such he reflects the experiences of early settlers to Italy, whose descendants took him to the frontiers of the Empire. Silvanus has always been a friendly god who benevolently watched over immigrants in foreign lands.2 Not only he did he reflect the experiences of the early inhabitants to Italy, but also aspects of religious assembly, or nautural human response to the tamed and the untamed, the wild and the civilized. M. Milićević-Bradač elaborately discussed this idea in her article related to the relief of Silvanus and Diana (III/72).3 The main characteristics of Silvanus are clearly demonstrated in Roman literature. Horace wrote of him as the horridi dumeta Silvani – ‘the hirsute/horrible4 Silvanus’ (Ode III, 23), but he also called him tutor finium – ‘the guardian of borders’ (Epod. 1, 22). For Virgil he is arvorum pecorisque deo – ‘god of the fields and cattle’ (Aen. VIII, 600). The land-surveyors (Scriptores gromatici veteres, I, 302) cite three aspects of Silvanus: domesticus – influencing household agency; agrestis – influencing wilderness and pastures; and orientalis – influencing border protection. From all these aspects it is obvious that Italic Silvanus was a most useful deity, explaining why he became so popular in all his varied forms. Unlike Mars, from whom he possibly separated in a certain early developmental phase (Cato, De re rustica, 141, Mars Silvanus and De agricult. 83), Silvanus never ‘entered’ cities and he remained almost the only Roman deity to preserve a rustic character. His dual nature, as a deity of both forests and cultivated land, is also reflected in artistic representations – at least in Italy, the country where his cult originated. He is to be seen in one hand carrying a young tree, and in the other a sickle.5 Silvanus

Ancient writers did not record Silvanus’ relationships with other deities. One inscription (CIL VI carmen 329) called Hercules his grandson (Silvani nepos). The later Latin writers have compared him with Faun and Pan. According to Probus, the myth that connects him to Pan is his birth from the relationship of the shepherd and the goat (Probus, Ad Verg. Georg. 1, 20).9 Servius (Ad Verg. Georg. 1, 20) gave the longest mythological representation of Silvanus. He recognized the link between Silvanus and the cypress tree that occurs in Virgil, and connected it with the story of the passion the god had for a certain young man named Cupressus. After See, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cato/De_ Agricultura/E*.html ‘Make the vow for the cattle, that they may be well, in this way. Make the vow to Mars Silvanus by day in the woods for each head of cattle. Three pounds of spelt and four and a half pounds of bacon fat and four and a half pounds of meat, three sextarii [each about one pint, or 0.568 litres] of wine; it must be placed together in one vessel, and in the same way the wine must be placed together in one vessel. It will be allowed that either a slave or a freedman may perform this offering to the gods. When the offering to the gods will have been made, consume it straight away in that very place. A woman may not be present at this offering to the gods, and nor may she see in what way it is done. It will be allowed to make this vow each year, if you wish.’ 7  Dorcey 1992: 9. 8  Sanader 1995: 105-106. 9  Marcus Valerius Probus (Probus’ comment on Virgil’s Georgics). 6 

Nagy LIMC: 763. Dorcey 1992: 7-13. 3  Milićević Bradač 2008: 359-366. 4  Horridus – hirsute, scary, frightening. From the context it is not possible to distinguish which meaning the writer had in mind. 5  In (Croatian) literature a sickle is more commonly referred to as ‘a vineyard knife’, which is not the best name for this implement. Such a name presupposes Silvanus’ connection with vines, and consequently suggests that he had some sort of special connection with viniculture. As a god of nature, all plants and trees were under his patronage – not only vines. This explains why the English word ‘sickle’ is preferred here. 1  2 

1

The Nature and Origin of the Cult of Silvanus linked with the forest. Something similar happened with Mars who in the beginning was an agrarian deity and only later did he became the supreme god of war.16

Silvanus accidentally killed Cupressus’ tame deer the young man died of grief and turned into the eponymous tree; this explains why Silvanus, to comfort himself, carried a branch of the tree with him. This also explains the twig often carried by Silvanus appearing on his many iconographic representations. Servius had, in fact, taken the whole story from Ovid (Metam. 10, 106). In Ovid’s story it was Ciparis, and not Apollo or Silvanus, who accidentally killed the deer and was later turned into a tree. However, it is also possible that Servius was retelling an already popular folk story concerning Silvanus.10 According to Dolabella, Silvanus is primum in Terra lapidem finale posuit (Script. grom. veteres, 302, 13-19), that is, he was the first to set up a boundary stone in the countryside.

Silvanus has been associated by some scholars with the Etruscan deity Selvans, and there were presumptions that the Silvanus cult evolved from that of Selvans.17 Similarly other Etruscan deities were attributed with Greco-Roman counterparts, some more justifiably than others.18 However, the origin and significance of Selvans are yet to be explained; it is unclear even whether his name originated from the Etruscan, Latin, Umbrian, or other Italic language. Our knowledge of the Etruscan language is still insufficient to conclude, based only on linguistic grounds, whether Selvans has given his name to an agrarian or forest deity such as Silvanus. The religious significance of Selvans cannot be easily defined, and all his epithets, apart from one, reveal little of his function: this epithet is tularia, relating to boundaries. If it is accurate, then this epithet is a very notable link with Silvanus, who was also the guardian of borders. However, not enough is known about the beginnings of the Silvanus cult, as well as that of Selvans, and between them the links are rare and insufficiently clear for any further comparisons to be reliable.

The development of the cult of Silvanus is still unclear.11The presupposition of his Etruscan–Italic parentage leads to the conclusion that it is an archaic religious ‘mix’: seen today, Silvanus is certainly a Roman deity. It is clear that his name originated from the noun silva, -ae f. Already by the time of Cato (2nd-1st century BC) Silvanus was worshipped in silva – in the woods (De agri. 83), and for centuries after he was still closely linked to wooded areas. There are opinions according to which the name of Silvanus resulted directly from the noun silva, and that in form it is not an adjective.12 Some scholars, however, reject an association of Silvanus with the noun silva. H. Klotz dismissed the theory, holding that Silvanus was the deity of cultivated fields or land in the process of cultivation, and not forests.13 What perhaps slipped Klotz’s mind is the fact that almost every cultivated area before processing was either a forest intended for reclamation, or a meadow intended for sowing. All scholars, however, agree with the fact that Silvanus’ name in its basic form is not an adjective, and therefore cannot serve as an epithet of Mars or some other deity. Silvanus is connected with the forest (silva) in the same manner as, say, Dominus was associated with the house (domus), or tribunus with the tribe (tribus),i.e. the name of the god is an empathic form of the noun silva.14 Therefore Silvanus would be master of the forest as dominus can be master of the house, and tribunus a tribal representative. P. Dorcey, in an opinion that echoes that of my own, puts forward that such an etymology (silva>Silvanus) could stem from the historical period.15 Furthermore, Silvanus’ character, and/or his name, at the very beginnings of his cult could easily have differed from that of the Imperial period. There is a possibility that the people of the late Republic and/or the early Empire simply forgot the basic meaning of his name, or his purpose changed, and that Silvanus was subsequently 10  11  12  13  14  15 

The beginnings of the Silvanus cult were probably in the animistic phase, with Silvanus not yet conceptualized in human form. (Ovid, Metamorph. 1. 192-193;19 Pliny, NH 15, 77-78; Augustine, De Civ. Dei. VI-9).20 The development of his cult in the early Republican era still remains mysterious, and contemporary literary sources mention him only in 39 BC. Iconographically, he appears only in the Imperial period. Such scarcity of data, together with the fact that not one public monument was ever dedicated to Silvanus (before the Imperial period), no feast ever arranged, nor was his priesthood organized at a ‘national’ level, as far as we know, bears witness to the fact that throughout this period, rich, aristocratic classes were never attracted to Silvanus. However he still remained a powerful deity whose strength is also reflected in the fact that he was celebrated during the later Imperial period, moreover, he gained popularity at the same time as the old Roman public deities were Beard, North,Price 1998: 47-48. E.g. E. Fieseler, RE, IV A, 2, St. Selvans, coll. 1324, accepts the etymological connection between Selvans and Silvanus, but believes that this is a coincidence. 18  E.g. Dorcey 1992: 10. Menerve–Minerva, Apluo–Apollo, Uni– Juno, Velxans–Vulcanus. 19  Sunt mihi semidei, sunt, rustica numina, nymphae/faunique satyrique et monticolae Silvani (‘Beneath my sway are demi-gods and fauns, nymphs, rustic deities, Silvani of the hills.’) 20  A ceremony to cast Silvanus from the house was performed by three men on the threshold during childbirth. Here Augustine quotes Varo, describing Silvanus as a cruel deity who would harm wife and newborn during delivery. Furthermore, he states that Silvanus and Pan would together attack and sexually assault women at night. For now it is believed that here Augustine either incorrectly quotes Varo, or replaced Silvanus and Faun, but there is also the possibility that Augustine (i.e. Varo) was right. 16  17 

Dorcey 1992: 15. Dorcey 1992: 7-13. Meid 1957: 72. Klotz 1927: 18. Dorcey 1992: 10. Dorcey 1992: 10.

2

The Cult of Silvanus in Rome, Dalmatia and Pannonia losing their significance. The cult of Silvanus we recognize from the first three centuries AD21 serves only as a guide in any attempt to reconstruct his character and/ or meaning in the early Republican period.

that Silvanus carries. However, it is also possible that the temple mentioned in the Historia Augusta was in Region VI, among the gardens of Salustius.30 There was, among other features, the portico of Miliarensis, with its 1,000 steps (based on its reported length it probably stretched in different directions), and to the northeast of the gardens there was a nymphaeum with three swimming pools. This location is indeed noteworthy, because it contains almost all the external elements of the Silvanus cult: plants, water, and even his companions – the nymphs. The inscriptions from Rome also mention other buildings, and it is indicative that none of them was state-funded. There are perhaps eleven of his sanctuaries spread across Rome, and all originate from the Imperial period.31 The only thing known from the Republican period is the statue of the deity in front of the Temple of Saturn in the Forum, and Silvanus’ sacred grove on the Capitoline. Interestingly enough, even this sanctuary from the Republican era is mentioned only in the sources of the Imperial period.32

1.2. Rome and Italy Over 250 inscriptions and tens of statues and reliefs dedicated to Silvanus were found in the city of Rome, and almost 200 in the rest of Italy. Nearly a third of all inscriptions were addressed as Silvano sancto, and among other epithets those of a toponymical nature dominated. Very few inscriptions associate Silvanus with the Imperial cult or Imperial estates, which might be expected in Rome herself.22 Silvanus appears on reliefs and inscriptions with various Roman gods and genii.23 He is closely linked to Lares, and once even takes the name Lar Agrestis.24 Interestingly, Lares worshipped with Silvanus were those of the Imperial cult – not of the house. He was also, as noted above, closely linked with Hercules.25 In some inscriptions dedicators mention that on Silvanus’ command they erected statues and/or temples dedicated to Hercules.26 In Rome, judging by the number of inscriptions dedicated to various deities, Silvanus comes immediately after Jupiter Optimus Maximus. P. Dorcey explains the huge ‘success’ of this single rural deity in the Imperial capital of Rome, with a form of nostalgia for the simpler way of life that exists in the countryside.27 Dorcey’s view can be expanded on with the assumption that rural populations, when coming to town in search of a better/easier life, brought Silvanus with them and continued to worship him in his original environment (forests, groves).

With regards to this piece of evidence, we surely must accept the existence of different forms of sanctuaries to Silvanus in his home country, and at least one form of sanctuary has to be assumed in the provinces of Dalmatia and Pannonia. Among Dalmatian shrines, P. Dorcey only mentions that at Klis (according to the inscription III.5.6.) and at Solin/Salona (according to inscription III.2.5.). From the province of Pannonia, he mentions only shrines at Cirpi (according to inscription IV/5), Scarbantia (according to inscription IV.2.5.), Carnuntum and Topusko.33 These shrines will be discussed later at more length.

The relatively frequent appearance of shrines and temples to Silvanus presupposes the existence of priests to conduct the rituals and manage the assets and income of the divinity; consequently it also supposes the existence of aeditui – those who took care of the temple/shrine, or lands belonging to Silvanus. Historia Augusta mentions a temple of Silvanus in Rome, which is an otherwise completely unknown building.28 According to the author of this section of Historia Augusta, it was the temple of Silvanus Salutaris, but, to date, except for an inscription dated 115,29 there are no signs pointing to its existence. P. Dorcey placed that temple in urban region XII, close to the thermal baths of Caracalla, on the Aventine hill, which would correspond with the epithet Salutaris

Significant number of statues have been found, intended to decorate Silvanus’ smaller shrines and aedicules. One such marble statue found its way to the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Hull.34 Its origin is not certain, but it is assumed to be from Italy. The figure wears the nebrys or goatskin, in which, under the left arm, he holds various fruits and cereals. The head, arms, and legs are missing so it cannot be said with certainty that the statue represents Silvanus.35 In Silvanus’ honour porticos were This is a garden that belonged to the historian Sallust. (There is a possibility that the core of these gardens was Caesar’s garden at Porta Collina.) Sallust spent much of the wealth he acquired in Numidia to decorate them. The gardens most likely remained in the possession of the family until Tiberius, when partially, if not entirely, they were opened to the public. 31  See, Ball Platner: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/ Places/Europe/Italy/Lazio/Roma/Rome/_Texts/PLATOP*/Sacella_ Silvani.html (accessed April 2016). 32  Pliny, NH 15. 77-78; Propertius 4. 4. 11. 33  Dorcey 1992: 91-92. 34  See, Holden 1997: http://www.arts.mun.ca/mouseion/1997/holden/ indexThe author assumes that the discolouration of the monument might suggest that the statue probably stood in the garden. However she concludes that such an interpretation is problematic as it cannot be known with certainty when the damage occurred. 35  See, Holden 1997: http://www.arts.mun.ca/mouseion/1997/holden/ index 30 

All dates below are AD, unless otherwise indicated. Dorcey 1992: 50-51. 23  IOM, Diana, Bona Dea, Victoria, Juno, Minerva, Felicitas, Salus, Vulcan, Luna. 24  CIL VI 646. 25  CIL 329 – where Hercules is called Silvanus’ grandson, Silvani nepos. 26  CIL 597, CIL VI 607. 27  Dorcey 1992: 51. 28  Historia Augusta, Tacitus, 17.1. 29  Palmer 1978: 1088, n. 10 (CIL VI, 543). 21  22 

3

The Nature and Origin of the Cult of Silvanus

Fig. 1: The Arch of Trajan at Benevento.

also erected in which the objects of ritual significance could be tended: a statue or painting (as known from the famous painting at Ostia),36 a stand (crepido), a relief, a couch (accubitus), all objects needed for ritual observances.37 These smaller buildings/shrines did not require a permanent guard or housekeeper (aeditus).

a form medical therapy with worship of Silvanus.41 P. Dorcey stresses that Propertius42 is the only author who connects Silvanus with water and with ivy, but forgetting to mention the swimming pool in Rome dedicated to Silvanus or the trireme that was called after the god.43 Based on the pool and trireme we must accept Silvanus’ connection with water generally, including not only natural springs, but also the sea and features containing water. Sacred groves and gardens were inseparable parts of his cult and everyday rituals, and certainly the most common types of shrines to Silvanus (according to the sources).44

In addition to porticos and small shrines, simple architectural constructions were also provided – a roof, a table for ritual purposes, a pillar and bronze lamp, perhaps for lighting rituals at night, and the sella sintoniacis, special seats for synthon players (syntonum), instruments similar to castanets for musical accompaniment during elements of the ritual.38

The Silvanus cult was reasonably well organized on the private level by the 2nd century (elegiac societies with their own rules, temples and sacred groves). There are indications that their reverence took on a public dimension.45 There is very little evidence of the deity’s

In Rome there was a pool, access to which was denied to women on the special instructions of Silvanus. Such a pool could serve for ritual purification.39 Ammianus Marcelinus40 mentions another spa (lavacrum) named after Silvanus, or a person named Silvanus (Silvanus was often a cognomen). This site was visited by the upper classes in the 4th century, where they possibly combined

36  37  38  39  40 

Dorcey 1992: 94. So far only one dedication mentions a cure, and more are pro salute. 42  Dorcey 1992: 94 (Propertius, 4.4.11). 43  CIL X 3398, 3408, 8211 (Misenum). 44  Sacred groves and/or gardens are mentioned in: Plautus (Aulul. 674, 766); Virgil (Aen. 8. 600); Propertius (4.4.11), all three from the Republican era; subsequently Gratianus (Cyneg.1.20); Lucan (De Bell. Civ. 3.402) and Nemesianus (ecl. 56 second); Dolabella in Gromatici veteres (302, 13-19), who placed Silvanus Orientalis in the sacred grove; Statius (Theb. 6. 110). 45  In Dalmatia there is a relevant dedication to Silvanus of the community of Salona (Silvanus communis III.1.1.), but the available 41 

Baker 1989: 145 ff. Dorcey 1992: 93. Dorcey 1992: 93. CIL VI 579. 28. 4. 19.

4

The Cult of Silvanus in Rome, Dalmatia and Pannonia

Fig. 2: Medallion from the Arch of Constantine.

appearance in the iconography of the Imperial period of the 2nd century. Even Augustus showed no interest in Silvanus, although he was very eager to revive Roman traditions in daily life.

(Fig. 1). This man, with very short hair and trimmed beard, carries no branch and he is not standing by Diana. Except for the dog, this relief shows none of the standard characteristics of Silvanus. E. Simon, correctly, assumes that this figure is, in fact, the genius of veterans.46

The first public monument to depict Silvanus is the Arch of Trajan at Benevento, built in AD 114. Among other reliefs on the south side of the arch, originally located outside the city, there are panels depicting the colonies in Dacia, recently annexed. For the first time (that we know of) Silvanus is publicly displayed, in the company of Liber, Ceres and Diana, who almost completely covered his image. The god is represented holding a pine branch, but not the ‘sickle’ (falx). He is dressed in a short tunic with hunting boots. The second relief that, perhaps, depicts Silvanus is on the next panel. On this some soldiers are being presented to the emperor, and a male figure stands next to Diana and (probably) Fortuna. However, this figure is quite different from the first, which was displayed on the so-called Attic relief

The history of the Arch of Constantine is more complex. It was built in 315, after the emperor’s victory over Maxentius at the bridge of Milvian (312). It is generally believed that the decorative elements of the arch date, however, from various periods, i.e. from the reigns of Trajan, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius, and Constantine himself. A hunting trip is shown on the four Hadrianesque medallions, and then follows the sacrifice to Silvanus (Fig. 2), the capture of a bear, and finally the sacrifice to Diana. Silvanus is shown on a small altar next to a tree that resembles lararium. It is worth mentioning that the above-mentioned marble statue from the Canadian Museum also dates to the period of Hadrian.47 Simon 1981: 7; 9. See, Holden 1997: http://www.arts.mun.ca/mouseion/1997/holden/ index 46 

evidence is insufficient to confirm any pattern and that inscription was unrelated to the god’s area of origin.

47 

5

The Nature and Origin of the Cult of Silvanus anise,52 ash,53 and lily,54 all plants dedicated to Silvanus. On the reliefs Silvanus is usually seen holding a pine branch or a crown made of pine twigs, which also emphasizes his character as a deity of wilderness and forests. Another element that appears persistently in his representations is the dog, symbolizing Silvanus’ role as hunter or shepherd, but also as an apotropaic symbol of his role as a guardian of borders. These most common attributes reflect his rural background and introduce us to his world of agriculture, forests, hunting, and/or rural life in general. Many ancient writers imagine him as a deity of the forest, or at least as one residing in forests or sacred groves.55 It is the absence of Silvanus from the forest that contributed to the state of fear and terror in Lucan’s Farsalia.56 He was venerated by bear hunters (Ursaria), lumberjacks (sectores) and hunters in general (venatores). One such inscription can be seen in the catalogue (IV.5.31.). As a deity of the forest he unifies trees, branches and bushes.57 In Gaul Narbonensis, one worshipper had vowed a thousand trees (possibly ash),58 and another raised an altar between two trees,59 which corresponds to the scene on the altar of Peruča III/21, or that on the monument from Kamenska gradina III/42. According to Martial, lambs and kids were sacrificed to Silvanus.60 It is equally possible that Silvanus’ connection with trees reflected rituals related to the cult. Many groves dedicated to him were clearly centres for rituals and pilgrimages. From his epithet Dendrophoros (tree-bearer), visual representations and his companions, Silvanae, it may be concluded that followers of the cult carried twigs/branches during the religious ceremonies, very much like the devotees of Attis and the Great Mother (Magna Mater) were known to do. Virgil61 imagined Silvanus carrying a whole cypress tree, from

Fig. 3: A Trajan dupondius.

Silvanus first appears on the coins minted at the time of Trajan, on the reverse of coins dated AD 112-116, which seems to be his earliest official appearance (Fig. 3). Silvanus has a beard and holds a falx. In place of pine he holds a palm branch. There is also the well documented (but rare) bronze medal from the time of Antoninus Pius. The reverse of the medal shows Silvanus walking towards an Ionian temple, in front of which is a small altar with fire; the obverse shows a posthumous portrait of Hadrian. P. Dorcey believes that it may represent Silvanus’ temple on the Aventine.48 Silvanus once again appears on the reverse of the bronze medallion of Antoninus Pius, but in this case with a portrait of the reigning emperor on the obverse. The reverse shows Silvanus holding a pine or oak twig and falx (?). He stands between a dog and a modest altar, upon which is placed a pitcher with two handles. Both of these coin types were not intended for general circulation.

Martianus Capella, 5425. CIL XII 103. Virgil, Eclog. 10: 24. 55  Cato, De agr. cult. 83: in silva (in the forest); Livy 2.7.2: ex Silva Arsia (from Arsian forests); Ovid, Met. 1193: monticolae Silvani (highlanders Silvani); Pliny, NH 12.2: Silvanos Faunosque et deorum genera silvis. .. (Silvani and Fauns and different types of forest gods.); Servius, Georg. 1: 20: Silvanus deus Silvarum (Silvanus god of the forests); Servius, Eclog. 10: 24: Silvanus id est deus Silvarum (Silvanus who is the god of the forests); Servius, Aen. 8601: prudentiores tamen Dicunt (Silvanum) esse eum Hilikon theon hoc est deum Hiles (..and the wise say that Silvanus is the forest god, that is the god of the forest); PseudoProb, Georg. 1. 20: Quem quia in silva primum agrestes conspexerant, ut Deum venerato Silvanum appellaverunt. (The one whom the villagers first spotted in the woods, they worshipped as a god and called Silvanus.) 56  Lucan, Pharsalia, 3. 402: hunc non ruricolae Panes nemorumque potentes/Silvani Nymphaeque tenent, sed barbara marsh/Sacra Deum. (Rural Pans do not live here, nor do masters of the groves Silvani, nor nymphs, barbaric rituals rule this sanctuary of the gods.) 57  Virgil, Georg. 1. 20: Teneram ab radice ferens, Silvane cupressum. (Silvanus, you who carry the cypress by its delicate roots.) 58  CIL XII 103. 59  CIL XIII 1780. 60  Martialis, 10.92: Et semidocta vilici manu structas/tonantis aras horridique Silvani/quas pinxit aqui saepe sanguis aut haedi. (And altars of the hirsute/horrible Silvanus, made by the untaught hand of the Vilici, often smeared with the blood of lambs or kids.) 61  Georg. 1. 20: ...ab radice ferens... cupressum (...carries the cypress by the roots). 52  53  54 

In Italy Silvanus is usually dressed in a tunic, wearing a mantle covered with pine-cones or fruit, or is represented naked. Throughout the western Roman Empire, representations of the deity either naked or clothed appear in roughly equal numbers, except for Pannonia and Dacia, where the most common depictions are those of Silvanus dressed.49 The attribute most usually carried by that god is the falx, used as agricultural tool in the Mediterranean area – then as it is today. Equally as prominent as the falx is some reference to a pine tree – either in the form of the whole tree, branches, or cones only. Written sources also mention pine,50 cypress,51 48  49  50  51 

Dorcey 1992: 91. Dorcey 1992: 17. CIL VIII 27, 764. Virgil, Georg. 1. 20; Martianus Capella, 5425.

6

The Cult of Silvanus in Rome, Dalmatia and Pannonia roots to crown. Due to the thousands of trees planted by his devotee in Gaul Narbonensis, it was probably not that important which species of tree were chosen for the rites, since, as a forest deity, he had all trees under his care.

Rendić-Miočević left no room for doubt that this deity was indigenous, or as he said, Illyrian, who was then, through interpretatio Romana, identified with the Italic Silvanus.64 He supported this by the fact that Silvanus was so well-known in Dalmatia that in the inscriptions his name was often presented only by an abbreviation – apparently clear to everyone (e.g. III.1.15.).

As for the Silvanae, they were probably a specific type of nymph, but the epigraphic and iconographical evidence does not clarify whether they were wood nymphs, or those from mountains, fields or rivers. They added a special dimension to the cult, by drawing adherents, especially women. Most of the evidence for Silvanae comes from Pannonia; in Dalmatia nymphs prevailed, and the rest were distributed over the western Empire.62

Research into the Silvanus cult in Dalmatia can be divided into two research phases: older and more recent, depending on which theory emerged first. The previous phase has been covered by foreign authors, such as A. von Domaszewski65 and R. Schneider.66 Croatian scholars, D. Rendić-Miočević67 and N. Cambi68, are of the opinion that, when it comes to Dalmatia, a native cult syncretized with the closest Italic deity during the Roman period. More recent, local authors, such as D. Maršić69 and A. Rendić-Miočević,70 still believe that Silvanus was an indigenous deity. A. Rendić-Miočević71 further analysed this problem methodically and came to the conclusion that Silvanus was an indigenous divinity, who, through interpretatio Graeca, assumed the visual appearance of Pan, and then, through interpretatio Romana, received the name of the Italian divinity. His approach has been recently shared by a few other scholars.72 Alternatively, recent works by foreign authors reject the indigenous component, i.e. A. Móscy,73 P. F. Dorcey,74 and consider that ‘Dalmatian’ Silvanus was an Italic deity and that indigenous elements cannot be recognized in his cult.

Despite the lack of reliable mythological tradition, some aspects of Silvanus’ character appear consistently – especially his age and wild, unkempt appearance. Horace and Martial imagine him as hirsute and intimidating (horridus); Virgil calls him old (senex), while Horace called him father (pater), thus focusing on his maturity.63 On the reliefs in Italy, Silvanus is almost always portrayed as a bearded man. No matter how obscure the origins of Silvanus were in the early and middle Republic, this cult was to gain great popularity in the western Empire until the 2nd century AD, becoming also one of the most widespread cults through the 3rd century. Worship of Silvanus and his cult in the Roman provinces of Dalmatia and Pannonia reflects and also testifies to the fusion of traditional Imperial and indigenous religious, iconographic and artistic ideas and attitudes. Such representations of Silvanus are the reply local indigenous communities to classic incentives.

P. Dorcey denies Dalmatian Silvanus any indigenous elements, believing that the theory of Silvanus as an indigenous deity as set by A. von Domaszewski,75 and later taken up by more recent authors, is inherently wrong. D. Maršić corrects Dorcey, stating that the author of this thesis was R. Schneider,76 who was the first scholar to systematically and analytically publish Silvanus’ monuments from Dalmatia, with the assumption that local populations took the image of the god Pan from Greek colonists, as a suitable figures to represent Silvanus.77 As useful as this study was, and still is, it is now quite outdated. Schneider classified Pan’s monuments into two groups based on the composition of the monument. The first group consists of those monuments where Pan is alone, and the second comprises representations of

1.3 The cult of Silvanus in Dalmatia Neither the cults of the local population/communities, nor those of the other known ancient populations from the Balkans, had the range of mythological content and representations as did the cults of the GrecoRoman pantheon. Epigraphic monuments preserved the names of several different deities, e.g., Medaurus, Andinus, Vidasus, Thana. The artistic representations of indigenous cults are reduced to those of related deities that we know under the Latin names of Silvanus, Diana, nymphae, etc. These deities are often represented together, and the most important deity, or the most prominent, was without doubt the one identified with the Italic Silvanus through the Roman interpretation (interpretatio Romana), although Silvanus has little or no iconographic similarities and connections with the other. Accordingly, all such images in which this Latinized indigenous deity occurs alone, or in the company of the other associated deities, we can rightly interpret as cult representations or images of Silvanus. Finally, D.

D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 462. von Domaszewski 1895: 1-123. 66  Hirschfield and Schneider 1885. 67  D. Rendić-Miočević 1989a: 461-507. 68  Cambi 1968: 131-141. 69  Maršić (1997) 1998: 45-69. 70  A. Rendić-Miočević, I. Pedišić 2005: 415-425. 71  A. Rendić-Miočević 1982: 121-140. 72  Matijašić–Tassaux 2000: 89. 73  Mócsy 1974. 74  Dorcey 1992. 75  Domaszewski 1895: 14. 76  ‘Bericht über eine Reise in Dalmatia, and Uber die bildlichen Monuments Dalmatiens’, Arch.-epigram. Mittheilungen aus Österreich-Ungarn, Band IX, Vienna 1885. 77  Schneider 1885: 36. 64  65 

Dorcey 1992: 43, 48; on nymphs in Dalmatia, Maršić 1997: 103124; D. Rendić-Miočević, 1989a, 468; on Silvanae, Mócsy 1974: 251. 63  Horridus (hirsute): Horace, Odes, 29.03.21, Martialis, 10: 92; pater (father): Horace, Epod. 2: 22; Senex (old man): Virgil, Georg. 2. 494. 62 

7

The Nature and Origin of the Cult of Silvanus Pan and nymphs together. D. Rendić-Miočević further developed Schneider’s scheme and established four categories of visual representations in Dalmatia: 1) Silvanus alone; 2) Silvanus and other deities; 3) Silvanus and nymphs; and 4) Silvanus, nymphs and other deities.78 Following the previous classifications, I have created also four categories of visual representation. They are: 1) Silvanus alone; 2) Silvanus and nymphs; 3) Silvanus and Diana; and 4) Silvanus and other deities.

always, and without exception, as two different deities.84 They share several common characteristics: forest management, nudity, company of nymphs and shepherds, and pine trees. What distinguishes Faun from Silvanus is exactly what separates Pan from Silvanus: sexual aggression, familiarity with satyrs and Sileni, goatlike limbs and attributes, lack of interest in agriculture, musical talent, and tendency to provoke panic. These differences are evident not only in literature, but also in actual cult practices, as the iconography shows two different types of deities. Silvanus rarely had Pan’s goat traits, he had (and kept) human form; usually he did not occur accompanied by goats, or with shepherd’s staff or syrinx – all characteristic attributes of Pan. Silvanus does not dance, nor does he perform comic scenes – a favourite pastime of Pan. His behaviour has never been questioned, and, unlike Faun and Pan, he never copulated with the women (or goats). His role is never erotic or sexual, and his representations are not phallic.85 All the above is true for Silvanus in the area he originates from, but not for Dalmatia.

In his entry on Silvanus in LIMC, Á. M. Nagy follows Dorcey’s opinion, but he accepted certain local specifics of Silvanus.79 Dorcey’s and Nagy’s interpretations follow the views of A. Mócsy, given 30 years ago.80 Furthermore, Dorcey considers that the inability to recognize the Roman character of Silvanus is the only and, at the same time, the biggest obstacle to the understanding of his cult in Dalmatia. He believes that the idea of the cultural homogeneity of the Illyrian people is unsustainable. In support of his theory, or as evidence of it, he considers that the occurrence of votive monuments dedicated to Silvanus and a deity of local importance must have happened at least on one occasion; however, we (still) have no evidence for this. All Silvanus’ epithets are Latin, and none of them shows even traces of his possible indigenous origin, and, moreover, Silvanus is invoked mainly in the company of Roman gods.81 Silvanus is equated only with Pan, who, of course, is not Illyrian, although sometimes he can wear a mask of the indigenous gods – and, in Dalmatia, Silvanus is displayed mainly as Pan. The iconographic form of Roman Silvanus is rejected in Dalmatia: the shepherd’s staff (pedum) and panpipes (syrinx)82 are the two most characteristic symbols of Pan, displacing the sickle (falx) and the pine branch. Under the guise of his Greek counterpart, Silvanus lost his human form and here he has acquired goat legs, ears and horns. Dorcey believes that some scholars easily and uncritically attributed many reliefs from Dalmatia, actually depicting Pan as Silvanus, even if the name of the deity to whom the monument was erected was not mentioned. The equating of Silvanus to Pan is not surprising given that both deities were, although rarely, confused with each other and associated in the Latin literature. Finally, he concludes that Silvanus in Dalmatia was not an Illyrian deity, although very many of his admirers were indigenous, because this god was particularly appealing to a highly Romanised layer of the civilian population.83

Silvanus’ image in Dalmatia and Pannonia differs from the Italian persona, and, it was believed, also from each other, given that Silvanus is not even depicted in the same way throughout different regions within Dalmatia. It was considered that the Italic anthropomorphic iconography of Silvanus was prevalent in the coastal Dalmatian towns, while in the inland such imagery was unknown. There, Silvanus is shown in the guise of Pan.86 In Pannonia the anthropomorphic representation of Silvanus prevails, and there, as seen in the inscriptions dedicated to the god, scholars detect only a reflection of the Italic Roman Silvanus, but no indigenous component (see later in text). D. Maršić correctly states that these differences, in terms of Dalmatian Silvanus, are partly due to the fact that, when researching the cult of Silvanus, equal attention was not paid to all regions of Dalmatia, or to all categories of monuments found.87 Regarding Dalmatia and its hinterland (in what is today Bosnia and Herzegovina), scholars have studied primarily the most attractive material – the reliefs of the divinity, especially those originating from wider area of Sinj and the plains of Glamoč and Livno.88 Epigraphic monuments were only of secondary importance and often not taken into consideration at all. Consequently the coast of Dalmatia and its metropolis, Salona, remained almost entirely overlooked with regard to the analysis of epigraphic evidence relating to the cult of Silvanus. Maršić, again correctly, concluded that analysis of this material is very important because without it is virtually impossible to

Generally considering their cults, Silvanus and Pan do have similar features, but they still differ in many respects. They appear together in the sources, but 78  79  80  81  82  83 

D. Rendić-Miočević 1989a: 463. Nagy LIMC: 773. Mócsy 1974: 250-252. Dorcey 1992: 69. e.g. falx III/30; pedum III/5. Dorcey 1992: 69-71.

84  85  86  87  88 

8

Virgil, Georg. 2. 493-494; Ovid, Metamorph. 14. 638-639. Borgeaud 1988: 88 passim. E.g. D. Rendić-Miočević 1989a: 469; Imamović 1977: passim. Mócsy 1974: 46. Cf. D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 468.

The Cult of Silvanus in Rome, Dalmatia and Pannonia reach valid conclusions on the character of the cult, the circle of adherents, the typology of iconic images, attributes, and everything else that is crucial to judging whether the cult is of local/indigenous tradition, or just an indication of Romanisation.89

the interaction of Roman, Greek and autochthonous agencies (which then resulted in the common features of Silvanus that we are accustomed to finding in Dalmatia) carries a certain weight. He also speculates that Silvanus acquired a symbolic value that extended into Dalmatian communities as part of the ‘global’ sphere that was the Roman Empire.96 It is a very interesting point of view, but it requires answers to questions such as who recognized him as a symbol and who would benefit from it? Also, if he was a ‘symbol’ then he must have had a prominent place of some importance within local communities, even after a few generations of life under Roman rule. He could have been their most revered divinity.

Recently two papers were published by J. Lulić and D. Džino, respectively, in which the authors sought to bring newer perspectives on the issue of Silvanus’ cult. In her article, J. Lulić proposed and discussed a cognitive approach to the reinterpretation of monuments relating to Silvanus in Dalmatia. She considers that the material that represents the focal point of research in the humanities and social sciences is a product of the human mind and necessarily therefore must conform to the laws of psychology.90 She offers a tool for the reexamination of any interpretative theory. The author gives a short overview of the history of studies into the Silvanus cult, assuming that P. Dorcey was unburdened by any legacy of traditional local scholarship, whereas D. Rendić-Miočević was not only burdened by it, but was nationally conditioned, which resulted in him adjusting his findings within the framework handed down to him by J. Lulić.91 The author seems to have overlooked that Dorcey saw Silvanus not just as an indicator of extensive Romanisation, but he denied the deity any possible autochthonous traits and considered him to be completely Italic. Not only that, it is also disrespectful to regard any scholar as nationally conditioned, especially when such an argument is arbitrarily constructed, and thus making his research demeaning. Such a position on D. Rendić-Miočević’s work is in complete disaccord with his findings: he never construed interpretatio Romana as a one-way process92 and his works resonate with a much deeper understanding of the specific problem than Lulić gives him credit for. While representing a cognitive approach, the author suggests that autochthonous population was forced to accept a new Roman system while keeping the older one in mind, consciously pretending that they actually believed in the Roman god.93 Such a trivialization of the matter is highly deceptive, and, again, seems only to serve the purpose of the conclusion made. Her division of Silvanus monuments into smaller geographically distinct groups (or clusters) may be of interest, and it is worth investigating what kind of perception could arise from such division. I agree with Lulić that Silvanus is a cultural concept that merits investigation in its own right,94 and that is exactly what scholars (including, and especially, D. Rendić-Miočević) have been doing. The conclusion made by D. Džino in 2013 follows that of A. Rendić-Miočević,95 arguing for 89  90  91  92  93  94  95 

1.4. The cult of Silvanus in Pannonia In Pannonia, Silvanus is the most popular Roman deity after Jupiter Optimus Maximus himself, and in the cities of Carnuntum and Aquincum he even surpassed Jupiter. Dorcey believes that the number of dedications to Silvanus is the only reason many scholars, especially A. von Domaszewski,97 thought that Silvanus was an indigenous Pannonian deity, while Dorcey himself thinks that Silvanus in Pannonia is Italic as he shows very few, if any, local characteristics.98 Items dedicated to Silvanus were found mainly in Roman settlements, and to the north of the province, along the limes. Nearly half of all the Pannonian inscriptions dedicated to Silvanus originate from Aquincum and Carnuntum; other major cult centres include Brigetio, Scarbantia, Savaria and Vindobona, which are all positioned in the zone of the Pannonian limes. Dorcey mentions only two towns in southern Pannonia that showed some importance in terms of the cult of Silvanus (Sisak and Topusko),99 with Daruvar not being mentioned at all. Pannonian Silvanus was invoked together with the Roman gods, and very rarely with native deities e.g. Quadriviae,100 (IV.5.14, IV.5.16). The only deity with whom Silvanus (iconographically) is identified is Pan, and only on a single monument (IV/13), which Dorcey considers as likely to have been erected by Dalmatian immigrant.101 Earlier scholars considered that the local deities Vidasus and Thana represented Silvanus and Diana, their scope being the closest to Roman counterparts.102 In any event, today we still lack facts or evidence strong enough to confirm such an opinion. On many of the Pannonian inscriptions dedicated to Silvanus one epithet probably derives from the Celtic language – Maglae or Maglenus,

Maršić 1998: 46. Lulić 2013: 37. Lulić 2013: 40-41. E.g. D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 425-439. Lulić 2013: 45. Lulić 2013: 46. A. Rendić-Miočević 1982: 121-140.

Džino 2012: 264, 270. Domaszewski 1895: 21. 98  Dorcey 1992: 71. 99  Dorcey 1992: 72. 100  Mócsy 1974: 252-253. 101  Dorcey 1992: 72. 102  E.g. Fitz 1980: 163; D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 467. 96  97 

9

The Nature and Origin of the Cult of Silvanus IV.1.11, Sisak; IV.1.58, Osijek (?). If in these cases we are dealing with an indigenous deity, then we know nothing of him. The remaining Silvanus epithets that appear in Pannonia are all Latin. The interesting and unusual epithet Viator occurs on one inscription (IV.1.57.). Dorcey considers the epithet to be Latin and that it does not include, or even suggest, interpretatio Romana.103 This title appears only once on the mentioned stone inscription, but it appears on some personal items found (three times on rings IV/38, 42 and 46 and once on bulla IV/41). The ring with the inscription Silvanus Viator might lead to the conclusion that followers of Silvanus felt the need to ensure his protection during their absence from home, where he was honoured and worshipped in his usual form. It is possible that this Silvanus epithet – Viator – is exactly that feature of his divinity that connects him to the Quadriviae, those goddesses of the crossroads in charge of overseeing good fortune when travelling, and also may explain why is he sometimes invoked for the ‘health and the safe return of’ a supplicant (pro salute et reditu). Silvanus did not especially watch over travellers, nor was he particularly associated with Mercury (as the protector of travelling merchants).104

Sometimes he has a Phrygian cap, which is frequently the case in Dacia. The only factor that differentiates Pannonian Silvanus from his Italic counterpart is the very rare occurrence of Silvanae in Italy, or the western Empire generally for that matter. A. Mócsy has tried to discern an earlier and older phase in the worship of Silvanus. His assumption is that the pre-Severan monuments were concentrated in towns along the so-called ‘Amber Route’ from Aquileia to Carnuntum, and that they were associated with Silvanus Augustus, whose cult developed in Aquileia.105 Dorcey disagrees with this assumption, however, as he considers the earlier monuments as not being limited to the ‘Amber Route’, nor does the epithet Augustus later occur more rarely than did in the period before the Severan dynasty.106 The vast majority of inscriptions and reliefs are dated to the time of Septimius Severus, whom some authors see as the great promoter of Silvanus; the deity took on the role of the official symbol of Pannonia – the province first to recognize Septimius Severus as emperor.107 The increase in the number of inscriptions in general will be analysed later in this study.

However there are inscriptions and reliefs where Silvanus appears associated with Mercury (i.e. Pannonia IV/34 and Dalmatia III/80), and it is also possible to connect the phrase pro salute et reditu with his rarest mentioned epithet, Viator, embodying his aspect Orientalis which was mentioned solely in Gromatici Veteres. Passengers travelling within the province certainly felt somehow protected by divine activity, while those travelling on provincial borders, or those crossing the limes, needed still better protection, and it is therefore possible to consider Silvanus’ epithet Viator as beneficial to travellers, as well as his aspect as Silvanus Orientalis.

The number of inscriptions dedicated to Silvanus before the Severan dynasty is smaller, probably due to the fact that the Marcomanni wars destroyed the larger cities (e.g. Aquincum, Brigetio and Carnuntum) and these cities have yielded the majority of inscriptions and reliefs. In both Dalmatia or Pannonia the name of the indigenous deity has not been reliably preserved, and all the examples reveal only Italic names (Silvanus, Diana, nymphae). On the other hand, as mentioned earlier, perhaps the names Vidasus and Thana, which have been preserved on the altar at Topusko, are the only surviving indigenous names of deities, as supported by earlier authors.108 Unfortunately there are no images of deities on altars, so the names cannot be safely connected with Silvanus or Diana, and this represents another shortcoming of this theory (see later in this book). More recent authors have rejected this assumption without additional argument.109 The attributes of both the Italic and indigenous Silvanus were based on natural features: pastures, flocks, fertility. Nevertheles, in all his aspects, Pannonian Silvanus seems a purely Roman deity.

From the catalogue of stone reliefs dedicated to Silvanus (with or without inscription), we can see that they are found mainly along the Danubian limes. The inscriptions and reliefs generally show no indigenous influences that might be interpreted either as interpretatio Romana or as evidence of certain syncretism. Pannonian Silvanus is usually dressed in boots and a short tunic, with or without cloak (which does not necessarily hold fruit). In one hand he holds the falx, and in the other the tree branch, just as Italic Silvanus does.

Mócsy 1974: 250. Dorcey 1992: 74. 107  Fitz, 1980: 163; Mócsy 1974: 251-252. 108  AIJ 516, 517, 518: Vidasus and Thana; Mayer, 1941-1942, 187 id; D. Rendić-Miočević 1951a: 34-35, idem 1989a, 467; Fitz ARP 1980: 163. 109  E.g. Dorcey 1992: 72. 105  106 

103  104 

Dorcey 1992: 73. Dorcey 1992: 73.

10

2. Dedicators and Epithets of Silvanus

Worshippers of Silvanus rarely recorded their professions or social status on votive inscriptions. Those who considered it necessary to record such personal details on dedicatory inscriptions to Silvanus were soldiers and some members of the upper classes (e.g. augurs or decurions). Judging from the inscriptions, it can be seen that Silvanus was not usually worshipped by those of higher social status.110 Unlike upper-class citizens, who did not favour Silvanus, some slaves obviously felt that he helped in securing their freedom, as can be seen on an inscription from relief IV.10. Diana, Silvanus’ most common companion on inscriptions and relief monuments, has an equally important status in the life of slaves. In Rome, Dies Natalis (13th August) was celebrated at the Temple of Diana on the Aventine as a holiday for slaves. Thus, the aforementioned ritual in honour of Mars–Silvanus (i.e. to Mars and to Silvanus), commands slaves to perform a ritual in honour of the gods.111 It can be assumed that at other times slaves were forbidden to participate in rituals dedicated to Silvanus and/or Mars. In any event it is clear that different social groups gravitated towards certain deities, partly by choice and partly because they were deliberately excluded from other cults.

(Sican[?]); III.1.18., III.1.19. (Panes); III.1.23. (Turus Pirami) and III.1.24. (Temus). The same dedicator, Titus Aurelius Proculus, appears on the damaged monument III.1.20. from Mokronog and also on III.1.25. from Prekaja. Given the short distance between the two sites, we are most likely dealing with the same inscription (which has been twice documented).113 In the Vrlika area, which in pre-Roman times was a part of the old territory of Delmatae, 8 dedications to Silvanus have been found. Most of them begin with the abbreviation SVS, or are so damaged that it is impossible to read them (III.1.15.–III.1.18 and III.1.20.). Some authors have proposed reading the acronym V in the inscriptions from Vrlika as vilicus114 or Viator.115 Viator as an epithet of Silvanus was never found in Dalmatia, and in Pannonia we come across it only on small objects, rings and bulla. The epithet Vilicus for Silvanus has not been confirmed in any province.116 No dedicator has recorded their status or profession, except for the centurion Lucius Titius (the cognomen has not survived), of I or II cohors miliaria (III.1.27.). This soldier was also one of the few dedicators, together with the aforementioned Titus Aurelius Proculus, to represent himself using the scheme of three names (trianomina).

2.1. Silvanus without his most common epithets

In the same category, Pannonia has 75 inscriptions, of which 55 are from Pannonia Superior, and 18 from Pannonia Inferior. In Pannonia the name of the dedicator appears before Silvanus’ name only as an exception. The trianomina scheme, which almost always occurs in soldiers’ dedicatory inscriptions (e.g. IV.1.29.), is also less frequent than binominal or single name schemes. Unlike in Dalmatia, Silvanus appears with a much broader range of ex qualitate epithets. On the inscription from Sisak, Silvanus is mentioned as Magla (IV.1.11.); as Magnus in Daruvar (IV.1.15.), Osijek (IV.1.58.) and Carnuntum (IV.1.50.); as Bellator in Sirmium (IV.1.60.); as Conservator in Intercisa (IV.1.61.); as Anticessor [sic] (IV.1.63.) and Erbarius (IV.1.65.) in Aquincum; and as Viator (IV.1.57.) in Gerulata.

We know of 29 inscriptions, without epithets, dedicated to Silvanus in Dalmatia, of which only three come from the coastal area of the province (Salona III.1.1., Vranjic III.1.2. and Nin III.1.12.). On a large number of inscriptions, although with the usual templates, the name of the dedicator is placed first, followed by the god’s name. The inscription (III.1.1.) from Salona, by a certain Alypus, probably a slave or, perhaps, a person of Greek origin, was dedicated to Silvanus Communis – Silvanus of the community, or common Silvanus. The cognomen of the dedicator is most common in Italy (5), Gallia Narbonensis (2) and Dalmatia (3).112 Since only one such inscription is known, it would be unsound of course to give any final conclusions as to which community it addressed. It is possible that, through this epithet, the dedicator wanted to unify all of the aspects and epithets of Silvanus, or if he considered Silvanus to be protector of the entire community (whatever that covered). Among the 29 inscriptions, those dedicators with native names are: III.1.2. (Eucarpia); III.1.3. (Bato Peius); III.1.5.

Soldiers almost always cited their profession and unit, e.g. Finitius Lucanus tesserarius of Legion X Geminae (Carnuntum, IV.1.44.), Julius Senilus, negotiator (Skarbantia, IV.1.26.), eques from Gerulata (IV.1.56.), Even though the inscription is most likely the same, I have decided to cite both in the catalogue, as part of the documentation process, which sometimes calls for such investigative work. 114  Klotz, RE III A, 1, 122. 115  E. Tóth 1980: 96; Matijević and Kurilić 2011: 149-151. 116  Dorcey 1989: 295. 113 

Dorcey 1989: 1 – senators, knights and decurions make up less than 3% of the 1100 inscriptions dedicated to Silvanus. 111  Cato, De agricult., 83. 112  Mócsy 1983: 24. 110 

11

The Nature and Origin of the Cult of Silvanus from Salona, which was set up by a dispensator120 Trophimus Servius Amandianus, the existence of some kind of sanctuary is presumed. Trophimus himself renewed it with his own money and supplied it with water. The dedicator of the monument (III.2.18) at Otišić, near Vrlika, is most likely Dalmatian, but with Roman citizenship – Titus Cneius Daio. Three monuments from Salona probably recognize Silvanus’ prophetic character: III.2.3. ex auditus erected by the dedicator Laberius Rufinus, ex visu: III.2.8. by Lupus Marcianus, and III/1 by Gaius Popilianus Expetitus.

decurion of Basiana colony (IV.1.59.), decurion and duumvir of Sirmium (IV.1.60.); decurion of the colony (IV.1.63.), prefect of Legion II Adiutricis (IV.1.69.) and tabularius (IV.1.72.) from Aquincum. The epithet Viator is exceptional as it is most commonly found on portable personal items, such as rings and bullae (three times on rings IV/38, 42 and 46 and once on bulla IV/41). Most of the rings date to the 4th century AD, which Tóth has interpreted as indicative of the resistance of this ancient cult through its funereal aspect (Viator) to the increasing popularity of Christianity.117 It is also possible to connect the consecrations of pro salute et reditu, and Silvanus’ epithet Viator, with his rarest mentioned aspect – Orientalis. Those passengers travelling within the province certainly felt themselves protected to an extent by divine action, while those on the fringes of regional borders, or even crossing them, needed even better protection, and it is therefore possible that Silvanus’ epithet Viator may well be perceived in that light, as falling under the care of Silvanus Orientalis, and not necessarily linked to a Christian perspective.

In Pannonia 10 (+2) inscriptions dedicated to Silvanus Augustus are known, of which eight come from Pannonia Superior and two (+2) from Pannonia Inferior. In addition to the inscriptions, this dedication appears on five reliefs with inscriptions: IV/3 Ptuj; IV/4 Savaria; IV/5 Cirpi (Silvester August); IV/6 Scarbantia; and IV/11 Osijek. As in Dalmatia, the dedicators present themselves mainly using the trinominal and binominal schemes. In a small number of inscriptions dedicated to this form of Silvanus, the dedicators were of higher social status: Favianius, augur from the colony at Siscia, with his family (IV.2.3); Tiberius Julius Quintilianus, municipal decurion from Scarbantia, who renovated the existing sanctuary of Silvanus (IV.2.5); and Ulpius Sabinus, commentariensis121 from Legion I Adiutricis Piae Fidelis (IV.2.9). Among them, too, is the slave Nionis, dispensator of the Noricum treasury at Carnuntum (IV.2.8). According to the catalogue of Pannonian inscriptions, the largest number of monuments was found in urban centres, a large proportion of them being set up by soldiers, i.e. Roman citizens. The small number of inscriptions dedicated to Silvanus Augustus is fully in accordance with the view of R. Turcan that the situation by the 3rd century, when the Empire was under threat on all sides, led to what was tantamount to military anarchy, during which the soldiers never respected Imperial power less.122 Generally, after Severan, the Imperial cult in the provinces very quickly lost credibility.123 In Pannonia, evidence of the Imperial cult compared to other Western provinces is in general very scarce.124

2.2. Silvanus Augustus Silvanus Augustus in Dalmatia is mentioned on a total of 25 (+1)118 inscriptions and seven relief monuments with inscription: III/1 and III/2 from Salona; III/20 from Podstrana; III/46 from Lepenica; III/49 from Pljevlje; III/73 from Ljubuški (also dedicated to Diana); and III/80, from Danilo Biranj (also dedicated to Diana and Mercury). In Salona eight inscriptions are known, and the rest are mainly linked to those sites where military units resided119 (Muć: III.2.10. and III.2.11.; Trilj: III.2.13., Julius Cassianus, a soldier of the cohort; Runovići: III.2.16. Acutianus consular beneficiary). From the interior of the province only four inscriptions are known: Vašarovine near Livno (III.2.22), Srebrenica (III.2.23.), Radosavac (III.2.24.), and Pljevlja (III.2.25.). Taking the inscriptions together with the reliefs containing inscriptions, it is noticeable that along the coastal region of Dalmatia the dedications to Silvanus Augustus were found mostly in the wider area of Salona (9 items) while others are scattered throughout the interior, but still attached to the localities where various military units were located. The inscriptions were mostly provided by Roman citizens, i.e. individuals represented using the trianomina and duanomina schemes. Among the dedicators to Silvanus Augustus is one Agricola, a slave from Muć (III.2.11.). According to inscription III.2.5.

The meaning of the epithet Augustus is still unresolved, but most scholars believe that through it, at least, loyalty was expressed to Rome.125 Despite the extensive literature on the subject of the Imperial cult,126 the greatest uncertainty remains over whether Augustus was Clauss 1999: s.v. dispensator – a slave of the Imperial treasury or a soldier employed in distributing food. 121  Clauss 1999: s.v. commentariensis – head of protocol in the administrative office of the legions in charge of civil affairs. 122  Turcan 1978: 1001. 123  Fishwick 1978: 1249. 124  Fishwick 1992: 301. 125  Cf. E. Schraudolph 1993, 68 ff., and the literature in note 29, and following. 126  Clifford 2000: passim; Herz 1978: 834-910, gives a comprehensive list. 120 

E. Tóth 1980: 96-97.; for further information A. Szabo, Some notes on the rings with sacred inscriptions from Pannonia, Dissertationes Archaeologice ex Instituto Archaeologico, Ser. 3. No. 2., Budapest, 2014, 157-171. 118  25 (+1) – The number in parenthesis means that the inscription also appears in the other part of the catalogue, where e.g. Silvester was mentioned as the first and Augustus as the second epithet. 119  Bojanovski 1988: 359. 117 

12

Dedicators and Epithets of Silvanus related to the Imperial cult or was just an epithet meaning ‘sublime’. Rome dealt with the existing practice of the Hellenistic ruler cult in the East with a different solution to this difficult task from area to area. In the West there was no such tradition of ruler cult, but with a model from the Eastern tradition the Imperial cult could be modelled as dictated by existing regulations, or, as suggested, instigated by Augustus. D. Fishwick corroborated this theory with an altar find (from Lugdunum) dedicated to Rome and Augustus. In this developmental period the Imperial cult mentioned on the Lugdunum altar, and also on coin inscriptions, confirmed that Rome and Augustus were venerated (Rome was mentioned first): such a pattern remained consistent until Hadrian’s time.127 However, political loyalty expressed in the cult is not necessarily related to any conviction that the emperor was actually a divine being. The forms of testimonies of the Imperial cult are manifold and often ambiguous. The emperor’s cult was the ultimate indicator of the community of Rome (its citizens) and the emperor, through whom both religion and authority were unified. In this sense, the power of the Roman people is embodied in the hands of one person, the emperor. This unique relationship puts the emperor closer to Jupiter Capitolinus, and at the same time the emperor becomes an intermediary between man and gods.128 F. Tassaux has concluded for Istria that only a few of the inscriptions from there can be explained as signs of loyalty, while the vast majority simply represents religious acts. The dedicators are mostly freedmen, a smaller proportion of them are ingenui and servi.129 The use of the genitive is very limited, and by far the most common when Augustus is used in adjectival form. Obviously this is due to lower specificity, more consistent with the nature of the god than a situation where a god is directly linked to the emperor by the use of the genitive.130 The cult of Imperial genius eventually disappeared in favour of Imperial numen and domus Divinae. At the same time, throughout the entire Empire Augustan gods multiplied, as did Augustan virtues, in countless variations.131

can be extended in effect to the entire province) was the result of the general cultural and social opportunities within the Delmatae society, which was in the process of integration within the Roman world. The absence of major urban centres of municipal level until the time of Hadrian, and, in that regard, the absence of smaller temples or shrines dedicated to the Roman pantheon and the Imperial cult, through which the title of Augustus, as an expression of individual loyalty, not only to the state but also to the emperor, came into general use; it was thus the main reason why the epithet Augustus was rarely used. All this rightfully led the author to conclude that the indigenous deity with the epithet Augustus shows that the use of this epithet was a sign of the advanced process of what he sees as Romanisation.133 D. Fishwick is of quite a different opinion, believing that the less civilized (or Romanised) the provinces are, then the greater will be the chance of an early development of the ruler cult.134 Comparing the epigraphic evidence from the old area of Delmatae and from Salona, certain differences become clear between the circle of worshippers and the attributes they preferred. The only question still open is whether there were differences in the nature of Silvanus himself.135 As stated above, earlier scholars connected Silvanus’ epithets with differences to do with factors of the local economy, i.e. the specifics of the cult were supposed to relate to the predominant economic sectors in parts of Dalmatia,136 which resulted in the addition of various epithets and attributes.137 The interpretation whereby an epithet of Silvanus can be viewed, when linked to any Delmatean, Dalmatian, or Pannonian location, as an economic and regional singlularity, is essentially accurate and well founded. It is clear that the epithet silvestris is easily linked to rural life and animal husbandry within Delmatae and to the geographical features of the area (forests, pastures, etc.). However, it is impossible to explain the appearance of the epithet Augustus in this way within the area of Salona, nor in the wider area where it appears on inscriptions and reliefs (e.g. III.2.). Augustus is generally the most common epithet of Silvanus in Dalmatia. It is clear, therefore, that the use of silvestris, and the comparatively rarer epithet Augustus, in the Dalmatian interior cannot be explained solely by the local singularity of the Silvanus cult. However, it is possible that through the epithet silvestris, the Delmatae and their neighbours could easily identify their indigenous deity with the Italic Silvanus. The epithet silvestris cannot be explained solely in terms of a local specificity and its manifestations, as is clear from its appearance in other parts of the Roman world, and

R. Turcan considers that the official Imperial cult is not affiliated with the local features that can be linked with reverence and religious feelings, either on a city or personal level. Furthermore, from the 2nd century AD, the cult shows visible signs of fatigue, brought about in part by the dissolution of urban society as such. In addition, municipal authorities became advocates of the cult, meaning, in a figurative sense, the cities themselves.132 D. Maršić also held this opinion, concluding that the weak representation of the Augustus epithet coming from the three field sites behind Mount Dinara (the area

Maršić, 1998: 60. Fishwick 1978: 1209. 135  Maršić 1998: 58. 136  D. Rendić-Miočević 1951a: 34; A. Rendić-Miočević 1974: 30, 32. 137  D. Rendić-Miočević 1989a: 482. According to D. Rendić-Miočević, accepting the opinion of C. Patsch, whereby the epithet Messor suggests that the economy in their area largely relied on livestock and agricultural production. 133  134 

127  128  129  130  131  132 

Fishwick 1978: 1205-1207. Turcan 1978: 999. Tassaux 1997: 77-84. Fishwick 1976: 376-377. Fishwick 1978: 1251. Turcan 1978: 999.

13

The Nature and Origin of the Cult of Silvanus ultimately in Salona (III.3.1. and III.3.2.).138 The epithet Augustus is found on three well-preserved monuments in the Vrlika area, where votaries were represented using the trinominal scheme: III.2.17. Titus Quintus Aurelius; III.2.19. Titius Cneius Daio; and III.2.20. Valerius Firmus. The epithet Augustus also appears on the dedications III.2.20. (where the dedicator’s name cannot be read), and on III.2.21. (which uses the abbreviation SVS S AVG, and only the dedicator’s praenomen is legible: Quintus). The situation is similar in municipium Magnum, where the epithet Augustus is found on those monuments where the dedicators have Roman names: III 2.10. Publius Aelius Aper; III.2.11. Agricola Iulia servus; and III.2.13. Marcus Iulius Tigrinus.

might have been expressed through it, nor can it be linked to the Imperial cult. The title Augustus was one of the three most common epithets of Silvanus, who was worshipped mostly by Roman citizens. 2.3. Silvanus Silvester Dalmatia has provided to date 13 inscriptions with the epithet Silvester, of which only two are from Salona, five from Danilo, and the others from various locations within the province’s interior (Grkovci, Livno, Glamoč, Grahovo). Dedicators are mostly presented using the binominal scheme (e.g. Primus Vepi III.3.9. Livno), or with a single name (e.g. a patronymic such as Dasius, Gemelli filius III.3.11. from Glamoč, or without a patronymic, e.g. Andes III.3.13. from Golubić), and only two inscriptions employing the trinominal scheme come from Salona (one of the dedicators is a soldier). Three of 13 inscriptions carry the additional epithet Messor: two from Danilo (III.3.4. – dedicator Aneius Caecilius, and III.3.5. – dedicator Plator), and one from Grahovo (III.3.10.). One relief with an inscription is from Busija; it is dedicated to Silvanus Silvester and Diana (III/74) and the dedicator is likely represented in the binominal scheme.

In Rome itself, very few inscriptions have been found in which Silvanus appears as Augustus, although, generally speaking, one might have expected a much larger number of such inscriptions from the Imperial headquarters.139 Dalmatia yielded 76 inscriptions and 81 reliefs and Pannonia 257 inscriptions and 36 reliefs, all dedicated to Silvanus. These finds certainly allow us to assume that worshippers of the cult in these two provinces were from different social backgrounds, or at least may suggest that adherents in Pannonia were more literate. A small number of inscriptions dedicated to Silvanus Augustus comes from Pannonia – even less than from Dalmatia. After examining the evidence presented in this book, the opinion favoured is that the appearance of the Augustus epithet in the two provinces cannot be linked to the Imperial cult. However, its prevalence in the province of Dalmatia can be linked with the assumption of D. Fishwick, who holds that the ‘less’ Romanised provinces were more likely to adopt a form of the Imperial cult,140 while the meager representation of Silvanus Augustus in Pannonia could be associated with R. Turcan’s opinion that the crisis in the 3rd century AD, when the Empire was threatened on all sides, led to the state of military anarchy, referred to above, and the consequent low regard for the Imperial institution.141 If this assumption by Turcan is correct, the small number of inscriptions that might be interpreted as belonging to the Imperial cult is quite feasible. (These inscriptions are discussed later in the text.)

There are 30 inscriptions from Pannonia dedicated to Silvanus Silvester: 12 from Pannonia Superior, and 18 from Pannonia Inferior. In addition, the epithet appears on two reliefs with inscriptions: from Cirpi (IV/5), and Budapest (IV/13).143 As in Dalmatia, the dedicators are usually presented in binominal form. Those who presented themselves with their profession are related to the military, which follows the pattern: custos armorum Flavius Victorinus from Brigetio (IV.3.5.); Signifer Legion I Adriuticis Marcus Maximus from Brigetio (IV.3.6.); from Budapest: discens regulatorum144 Ulpius Nundinus (IV.3.16.) Tiberius Iulius Masculus princeps Legion II Adiutricis p.f. (IV.3.19.); pro impedimentis centuriae (IV.3.20.); optio145 Valerius Maximianus (IV.3.22.); several soldiers from Legion II Adiutricis (IV.3.23.) miles Legion II Adiutrix Septimius Karus (IV.3.26.); Lucius Naevius Campanus praefectus kastrorum (sic) Legion IV. Flaviae for the health of himself and his comrades (IV.3.27.); miles Septimius Iulianus Legion II Adiutricis (IV.3.29.). Most military inscriptions can be dated to the 2nd century based on the movements of the legions, except for inscription IV.3.6. that dates back to AD 101, due to the missing epithet Pia Fidelis that Legion I Adiutrix only received then. One monument from Brigetio (IV.3.3.) was erected by an association of craftsmen – collegium opificerum (sic). One can, therefore, conclude that Silvanus was

Adding the title of Augustus an individual might invoke the protection of a god and the ruling emperor, or just show an act of respect expressing loyalty to the state, although the individuals themselves did not realise it with regard to the trivialisation of the use of the epithet Augustus.142 The use of Augustus as an epithet of Silvanus, at least in the case of Pannonia and Dalmatia, cannot be linked to a special status of Silvanus which 138  139  140  141  142 

Kirigin, Lokošek, Mardešić, Bilić 1987: 36, T. VII, 1. Dorcey 1992: 45. Fishwick 1978: 1209. Turcan 1978: 1001. Fishwick 1978: 1251.

Dorcey assumed that this monument was set up by a Delmatae (see above). 144  van Dorst, s.v., discens regulatorum – probably the legionary immunis, a levelling specialist. 145  Clauss 1999, s.v., optio – a soldier with specific responsibilities. 143 

14

Dedicators and Epithets of Silvanus a patron of their association and that those craftsmen (unfortunately the trade is not preserved) chose Silvanus as their patron, at least in Brigetio. There is also one inscription dedicated by the augur of municipium Aquincum, Gaius Titius Platanus (IV.3.25.). From inscription IV.3.4. (Brigetio) it is not clear whether Aelius Tertius Pequarius is the dedicator, presented in the trinominal scheme, or whether his occupation was pecuarius.146 The only woman in this category is Valeria, Valerii filia from Carnuntum (IV.3.1.). This category also presented some cognomina of dedicators deriving from nouns, i.e. activities that are directly attributable to Silvanus Silvester: Caninus IV.3.21.; Campanus IV.3.27.; Messorinus IV.3.12.; Pequarius (?) IV.3.4.; Platanus IV.3.25. There is a possibility that their names could derive from their commitment to the worship of Silvanus Silvester, or even from certain duties that could have been performed in his cult.

and decurio ex singularium Cornelius Genetious from Aquincum; IV.4.96. beneficiarius consularis Titus Faustinus from Aquincum). The inscription IV.4.67. (Carnuntum) mentions an altar replacement dedicated by Attius Mansulitis, from which an assumption can be made that it was most likely that the altar stood in a civil sanctuary (rather than being erected by soldiers), as was probably the case at Topusko. Two altars from Aquincum were dedicated by decurions: Accius Maximus IV.4.87. and Lucius Seranus Serotinus (also sevir aedilis) IV.4.92. Both presented his inscription for personal reasons, using the standard formula: v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito). From inscription IV.4.98. Silvanus’ prophetic nature can be assumed (ex viso posuit), suggesting this inscription can be associated with three Dalmatian examples: III.2.3. ex auditus, from the dedicator Laberius Rufinus; III.2.8. ex visu, from the dedicator Lupus Marcianus, and III/1, also ex visu, from the dedicator Gaius Popilianus Expetitus. This category provides another epithet of Silvanus – Custori (sic) – on the inscription from Aquincum (IV.4.109.), which undoubtedly corresponds with the attribute of guardian of the home. Inscription IV.4.15., in honour domus Divinae Silvano Domestico, was dedicated by a certain Secundinus. Although generally a less frequently employed phrase, and perhaps the only one in Pannonia and Dalmatia associated with the cult of Silvanus, it is not uncommon in Gaul and Germania, but there in the context of a cult to Mercury.147 Such a phrase is usually related to buildings148 connected either to the shrine and built for the mentioned deity (if specified), the Imperial family (living and deceased), or the Imperial cult.149 The inscription dedicated to the goddess Victoria in honour of the divine Imperial house of Augsburg differs from those specified here, as there is a possibility that the goddess was mentioned in the genitive, and thus directly involving the Imperial cult.150 Unfortunately this inscription is not preserved in its entirety. There is a slight possibility that Silvano Domestico was actually misspelled, and that the name of the god and his epithet should be in the genitive, which would then be connected to the Imperial cult.151 As the word deo is missing from the formula in honorem domus Divinae, the inscription is dated to the second half of the 2nd century AD until the middle of the 3rd century AD, according to known analogies from Gallia, Raetia and Noricum.152 Finally, this inscription is the only one which might be seen in the context of the Imperial cult, and if so, there is also a possibility that Secundinus was an Imperial slave or freedman.

2.4. Silvanus Domesticus Silvanus as Domesticus was not particularly popular in Dalmatia. Only three inscriptions have been found, two from Danilo (III.4.2. and III.4.3.) and one from Ivoševci (III.4.1.). The Ivoševci find was dedicated by Tytulius Panentis and that from Danilo by Titus Aurelius Dasius (III.4.3.), who, from their names can be considered descendants of indigenous people. By contrast, Pannonians (the inhabitants of the province) revered Silvanus Domesticus especially. 110 inscriptions have been recorded (75 from Pannonia Superior and 35 from Pannonia Inferior). In addition four reliefs with inscriptions are known: IV/9 from Carnuntum, IV/10 from Tüskevár, IV/14 from Aquincum, and IV/29 from Brigetio. Furthermore, the highest number of women dedicators (ten individuals, representing almost 10% of the total) came from this particular category: IV.4.1., IV.4.2., IV.4.8., IV.4.16., IV.4.31., IV.4.33., IV.4.73., IV.4.82., IV.4.94., and IV.4.100. The largest group of inscriptions, nearly half (52), is from Carnuntum, where a sanctuary to Silvanus is attested. The dedicators are equally represented in terms of name scheme (tria nomina, duo nomina), but there are twice as many civilian inscriptions as military ones. Inscriptions with no dedicator given have been classified as ‘indefinable’. The soldiers who dedicated altars or reliefs to Silvanus Domesticus held various military duties, from ordinary soldiers (e.g. IV.4.56.), such as those who were specifically responsible for animals (e.g. IV.4.53. Seius, venator from Carnuntum; IV.4.55. Ulpius Candidus, strator consularis also from Carnuntum), to those of higher military rank (IV.4.89. centurion

CIL XIII 5676, In Honorem Domus Divine Deo Mercurio Mocco, Lucius Mascl (?) Masculus et Sedatia Blandula Mater Ex Voto (Strasbourg). 148  Cagnat 1914: 264. 149  Blagg 1990: 25. 150  Roberto 2008: 180. 151  Fishwick 1976: 376-377. 152  Raepsaet-Charlier 1978: 267. 147 

Clauss 1999, s.v., pecuarius – one who cared for the health of animals (veterinarius). 146 

15

3. The Reliefs

be defined as reliefs dedicated to Silvanus Domesticus.160 The leafy branch Silvanus holds under his left arm could also represent an oversized ear of some cereal crop, which certainly fits the specified image of Silvanus Domesticus – a protector of household and family. This idea is attractive in many respects and it could be used as a way marker for investigating all the evidence we have on the Silvanus cult, so as to see whether this direction will lead to new or better ways of understanding the cult. For now, D. Rendić-Miočević’s theory regarding different iconographies for Silvanus Domesticus and Silvanus Silvester in Pannonia cannot be confirmed with certainty, since it was not fully investigated. This idea was not pursued in this present study as it requires a different approach for the evidence presented.

3.1. Reliefs representing Silvanus alone In Pannonia, Silvanus was depicted solely in the Italic style, except on one relief dedicated to Silvanus Silvester by Publius Aelius Capito from Aquincum IV/13. The relief is dated to AD 218. Dorcey assumed that this votive monument was erected by a Dalmatian immigrant.153 The fact that the relief was dedicated to Silvanus Silvester led D. Rendić Miočević to consider that the god’s appearance differed depending on his epithet. This would, to some extent, affirm that the epithets Domesticus (most commonly in Pannonia and least common in Dalmatia) and Silvestris are essential content elements of one god. Relief IV/5 from Cirpi also presents Silvester but here he is shown in a completely anthropomorphic form, which shows that some intertwining of the two iconographic and cult comprehensions existed.154 Onomastics may be of help in this case. Publius is a common praenomen;155 from his nomen we discover that he received his citizenship from Hadrian. The cognomen Capito, although ending with ‘o’, is Latin,156 but it may be assumed that its origins are Celtic or Illyrian, e.g. connected to the ethnic communities that lived in Illyricum.157 From this pejorative cognomen we also learn that this was a man with a rather large head (capito, -onis m.); or, on the other hand, this cognomen may refer to a species of fish (mullet) common in the Adriatic.158 The cognomen appeared most often in Italy (28), Hispania (34), Dalmatia (13) and Pannonia (11).159 From all the above it is certainly possible that the dedicator came from Dalmatia and that he brought with him to Pannonia a quite different iconographic figure of Silvanus. Therefore the assumption Dorcey made is, indeed, highly probable.

The majority of this particular section of the text concerns a specific cult image of Silvanus from Dalmatia, not only because of his unconventional representation, but also because of the sheer number of finds. Furthermore, I mostly refer to the article by D. Rendić-Miočević, which is the only one that covered a wider area of the Silvanus cult, but, unfortunately, he rarely considered the inscription monuments without reliefs. A significant amount of the evidence in this group is preserved in its entirety, or the remaining elements of finds are in good enough condition to show that there is no doubt that Silvanus was represented alone on them. These reliefs and inscriptions are most numerous in the coastal area, i.e. the area longest under Greek cultural influence. D. Rendić-Miočević believes that the influence of the Greek tradition explains why images of Silvanus from the coastal area of Dalmatia resemble the GreekArcadian canonical iconographic forms. There, Silvanus is always portrayed as old, bearded, and horned satyr with goat legs (Aegipan). Aegipan Silvanus usually has a mild expression, he stands en face and is surrounded by the trees consecrated to him (spruce, laurel), animals (dogs, goats), as well as other symbols and attributes (nebris, pedum, syrinx, etc.). In contrast to the images from the Dalmatian coast, the hinterland behind mountain Dinara was dominated by the figure of a young, beardless Silvanus. Although he is here most often depicted with goat legs (tragopous), he also appears with human legs, which brings him closer to the Italic Silvanus under whose name he is worshipped. Here Silvanus is represented in a free and indefinite space, with exaggerated bodily proportions with respect

Due to the iconography of Silvanus in Dalmatia and Pannonia, it may also be inferred that the Delmatean/ Dalmatian Silvanus was the divinity connected with nature (and as such he encompassed both life and death), just as it is assumed, while in Pannonia his role was more complex. D. Rendić-Miočević considered that the monuments representing Silvanus as anthropomorphic, with falx and a branch in leaf (without exception), should

153  154  155  156  157  158  159 

Dorcey 1992: 72. D. Rendić-Miočević 1989b: 513. Schulze 1933: 525. Schulze 1933: 315. Kajanto 1965: 120. Marević 2000: s.v.Capito, -onis. Mócsy 1983: 66.

160 

16

D. Rendić-Miočević 1989b: 512-514.

The Reliefs to the frame of the relief.161 Perhaps the clearest example of this transplanted situation in which the cult image of both Roman and ‘Illyrian’ Silvanus (in this case with the epithet Augustus) can be recognised is the votive altar from Lepenica (III/46).

is represented alone. On the upper Cetina River, where the cult of Silvanus is unusually widespread, not one such monument has been found. All known depictions of Silvanus depicted alone originate from western Bosnia, primarily from the Glamočko polje and featured in the above-mentioned study by D. Rendić-Miočević.165 Two monuments – III/36 (Sinj) and III/37 (Čitluk) – have been identified thus far. Some of the Silvanus images from Glamočko polje indicate singularities that, in visual terms, show a very different character to Silvanus from that appearing on the monuments from the Delmatae area and Illyrian region in general. First, Silvanus was always shown as Aegipan, i.e. with goat ears, legs and horns (sometimes hardly visible, perhaps only because of the lack of space). On two monuments Silvanus was shown as a young beardless satyr (III/41 and III/76). We rarely see the syrinx, as on the monument fragment from Podgradina (III/38). On this relief the syrinx is on the right, positioned high, close to Silvanus’ head. Most likely he held it high in his hand. A similarly positioned syrinx is also found on monuments III/1 and III/12, both from Salona. The monuments from Kamenska Gradina (Glamočko polje) III/42 and Gradac (near Glamoč) III/41 show Silvanus walking, his hands folded on his chest, or with a pedum, and with goat legs, which brings them closer to the iconography of Dalmatian Silvanus.

However today, when the catalogue of the Silvanus relief monuments is complemented with recent findings, the above-mentioned differences fade and ‘the border’ between the two areas is not as clear. Monuments on which Silvanus appears alone still prevail in coastal areas, but the disparity as far as the ‘old’ and ‘young’ Silvanus is concerned is not so noticeable, as will be explained later. On reliefs from all over Dalmatia Silvanus was often depicted nude, or in a chlamys, a nebris, or some kind of a cloak. He can be shown with goat legs, horns and ears, and also with accentuated phallus. There are also depictions of Silvanus with human legs, as is the case on III/48 from Trusina. On this monument D. Sergejevski162 recognized what he called the Illyrian deity of the forest, in Roman times called Silvanus, but he was perplexed as Silvanus was presented in human form and not with the goat legs characteristic of the god. D. Rendić-Miočević noted that on the oldest monuments of Pan from Arcadia, this god was represented in human form, and that the anthropo-theriomorphic representation appeared only when his cult spread to Attica. On the other hand, Italic Silvanus is portrayed in an anthropomorphic way and these elements can be discerned on some of the visual representations from Dalmatia.163 Furthermore, D. Rendić-Miočević correctly notes that Silvanus with human legs, as seen on Delmatean monuments, reflected a Western (Italic) impact, rather than it being a residue of the anthropomorphic Pan of older, Arcadian type. Interpretatio Romana imposed the usual forms and iconographic features, and in some cases, in addition to the name of the Italic Silvanus, it managed to combine his image with all the Italic iconographic features. This was possible only in those areas where the cult of the local deity identified with Silvanus was not sufficiently deeply rooted and was not established iconographically. This is also the reason why the anthropomorphic Silvanus very rarely appears in the area where the Delmatae lived.164 However, if we consider that the Delmatae were capable of developing a figure of the anthropo-theriomorphic Silvanus, i.e. of the nature deity that would later be identified with the Italic Silvanus, then this relief (III/48) certainly can, and must be seen as the Italic influence.

Not far from the Čulišić vineyards, in the locality of Zadravica, close to a villa rustica, a stone was found with a relief of Silvanus (III/26). It seems that it was erected within a wall, the remains of which were still visible at the time the find was published.166 In addition to this monument from Čulišić (Liburnia), there are also finds from Karin,167 Privlaka-Nin (III/32), Pridraga, near Novigrad (the site of Mijovilovac) III/34,168 Zadar III/33,169 and Asseria III.1.7.170 The head of Silvanus on the monument (III/26) from Čulišić shows similarities with the relief found on the island of Hvar (III/17) and with one from Danilo (III/31). Recently, during the organisation and arrangement of the Bribir Collection, one Silvanus relief with an inscription was found, with the curator noticing two parts that fitted together. Unfortunately these two fragments are extensively damaged (Fig. 4.).171

D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 479. Pedišić 1992: 265-267. See Note 189. 168  Cambi 1968: 131-141. 169  Raknić 1965: 85-91. 170  Raknić 1965: 85; CIL III, 2848 – Th. Mommsen mentions a monument dedicated to Silvanus, found around Asseria, that also contained a relief of Silvanus. In Mommsen’s time the relief was in Zadar, but it is not known what happened to it afterwards. The monument is located in the epigraphic section of the catalogue, no. III.1.7. 171  I thank Danijel Džino for this information and for the photograph of the relief. (As the relief will be published soon, only the photograph Fig. 4. is presented here.) 165  166  167 

As already stated, the interior of the Delmataen territory has not revealed an abundance of reliefs where Silvanus D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 469. D. Sergejevski 1943: 5-6. 163  Relief from Karin from the collection of the Belvedere in Vienna (D. Rendić-Miočević 1989a: 472); then III/29 and III/48. 164  D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 476. 161  162 

17

The Nature and Origin of the Cult of Silvanus Silvanus depicted on them, differ from those in the rest of the province of Dalmatia. The relief from Zadar (III/33) is specific because the image of Silvanus is carved on one side, while on the other is a relief of Mercury. Silvanus is displayed with pedum, syrinx and dog, while Mercury holds a staff in one hand and branch in the other. It was found in the city centre, built into the foundations of houses destroyed in World War II, not in situ. A relief from Pridraga (III/34) shows Silvanus wearing a Phrygian cap, holding in his left hand a writhing snake, which is not a common attribute of Silvanus.174 The Pridraga relief was found within a villa rustica, where it probably stood as part of some form of shrine. Later a Christian church was built nearby.175 The Phrygian cap, almost without exception, appears on images of Silvanus from Pannonia (e.g. IV/8, IV/14, IV/17, IV/18). The Pridraga relief conforms to the same artistic traditions affirmed in the Dalmatian hinterland. However, when it comes to the cult image of Silvanus, the tradition from the coastal regions of Dalmatia (III/3) is clearly respected. In general, it appears that the Silvanus reliefs from coastal Dalmatia were made by more schooled hands. On monument III/1, for example, the distinctive characteristic of Priapus (the Greek-Roman fertility god and patron of the vineyards) is visible; the phallus, the Priapic symbol of fertility, has probably been transferred to Silvanus. If this were the case, Priapus has impacted upon the presumably indigenous Silvanus.176 However, the cult of Silvanus already included a component of fertility, so it did not necessarily originate from Priapus. The goat177 is shown perpendicular to the leg of Silvanus, as on some other monuments (Sonković near Skradin III/27, Danilo III/30, Pridraga III/34, Čitluk III/37, Trusina III/48). The reason for positioning the goat this way could simply stem from the carver’s inability to show it prancing, which is one of the most common depictions. N. Cambi has associated Silvanus’ long beard with relief III/9. The Phrygian cap worn by Silvanus undoubtedly is an attribute taken from oriental deities (i.e. Mithras, Attis, Ganymede). Silvanus’ clothes are especially interesting: a tunic reaching only to the navel, leaving his lower body naked – a representation usually appearing on monuments depicting Attis. Regarding the snake, N. Cambi sees it as most likely as a symbol of magical power and evidence of medical/healing attributes. Furthermore, the same scholar considers that this relief is an example of remarkable cult syncretism (the indigenous Silvanus and the deified shepherd Attis of Asia Minor).178 Silvanus’ medical/healing ability (Silvanus salutaris), is apparent, as is on the Pannonian inscription dedicated to Silvanus

Fig. 4: Relief from Bribir.

To date the prevailing opinion is that in Liburnia it was the Italic Silvanus who was worshipped, as the monuments from this region show clear connections with the Italic Silvanus.172 The ‘Liburnian’ Silvanus (reliefs found in the Liburnian area) shows significantly different characteristics from the Delmatean form, and because of the common interest in agriculture he is much closer to the Italic than to the Delmatean deity. Furthermore, according to D. Rendić-Miočević, the Liburnian Silvanus has anthropomorphic features: youthful, beardless and lacking the shepherds’ usual attributes (syrinx, goat, pedum, dog).173 However, in the overall picture, neither these above-mentioned monuments, nor the figure of

Cambi 1968: 132. Migotti 1992: 231. Cambi 1968: 135. 177  Cambi 1968: 132. The author claims that because of the beard and horns the goat was male. 178  Cambi 1968: 136. 174  175  176 

172  173 

Raknić 1965: 88. D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 468.

18

The Reliefs Erbarius IV.1.65., and especially inscription IV.5.34., where Silvanus appears with Asclepius. (This image will be discussed in more detail later.)

by some Delmatae monuments, especially a find from Karakašica (III/82), as well as those where Silvanus is depicted holding grapes (III/1, III/3, III/44). Some opinions hold that Liber (only in what is today eastern Bosnia) was identified with Silvanus.186

Considering all said, the prevailing opinion that ‘Liburnian’ Silvanus shows significantly different characteristics from the Delmatae Silvanus,179 is no longer sustainable. Apart from the anthropomorphic Silvanus from Karin and the example from Pridraga, iconographically, the Silvanus seen in Liburnia is no different from Delmatean or Dalmatian Silvanus: in the territory of the the Liburnians one finds the Delmatean Silvanus (III/26 and III/27).180 The reason that Liburnia has so far not yielded more monuments dedicated to Silvanus might be the growing popularity of the female indigenous deities, which shows the tradition for preserved matrilineal succession within Liburnia, and its reflection in the local cult. The attributes from the Zadar monument (III/33), and Silvanus’ image on the Pridraga relief (III/34), resemble Delmatean Silvanus and undoubtedly point to the existence of cult similarity and iconographic connection between the two neighbouring ethnic communities.181

A particularly interesting example, curious for its unusual attribute shown by Silvanus’ side, was found in Makarska. The monument (III/35) is very poorly executed, and it may be assumed that it was made by a local workshop. In his left hand Silvanus holds a pedum and in the right a shovel (bipalium). The coastal area of Makarska, because of the small amount of arable land, saw limited arrivals of immigrants and consequently there was a relatively weak impact by them on the indigenous population. One of the most important characteristics of Makarska and its surroundings is the continuity of the indigenous population throughout antiquity. At the beginning of Roman rule the indigenous population was partially hindered in its further development by the reduction of their tribal lands; however by the 2nd century AD they were more and more visible.187 The monuments dedicated to Roman deities (e.g. Jupiter, Minerva) were found in the simple rural villas, and therefore it may be concluded that these cults primarily served the settlers, the owners of the farms and their families. It is possible that these cults gradually penetrated into other geographically remoter parts of the Makarska coastal regions. Similarly it may be assumed that in some areas, where the conditions of life and local production remained almost the same as in pre-Roman times, that the local indigenous deities were still worshipped, and among these the most important were those associated with livestock.188 Nevertheless, the impact and/or importance of the indigenous population is difficult to discern with absolute certainty when it comes to spiritual culture, especially religion.

Three monuments dedicated to Silvanus (and the nymphs) were found on the island of Hvar (III/16, III/17, III/55). In terms of iconography, they bring nothing new, but their findspots were curious, and these are so far the only monuments from Hvar dedicated to Silvanus. On the neighbouring island of Brač, two indirect confirmations of the cult were found,182 in addition to one relief probably connected with a sanctuary of Silvanus.183 M. Zaninović believes that these monuments from Hvar confirm the cult syncretism of Silvanus and Liber, and that they also linked in some way the islands and the coastal Delmatean area within the unique cult image of Silvanus.184 The pantheon of the central Dalmatian islands (Brač, Hvar, Vis, Korčula) is more complex as a result of the interdependencies between older and younger, durable and multifaceted, and cultural and ethnic influences. The Hellenistic component is represented by Zeus, Aphrodite, Artemis and Hermes; the Roman by Jupiter and Diana; and the oriental through Mithra. The domestic, indigenous component seems lost. It is not possible to determine in which of these components the old local gods lurked, if at all, and it was certainly possible to look for them in the simple reliefs of Silvanus and Liber, whose worshippers are found among the local population.185 The worship of Silvanus and Liber had common elements, as indicated

Thus, on the relief from Brela (III/35) we find Silvanus holding in his left hand the pedum, a typical attribute, and in the right a shovel.189 The appearance of the spade/ shovel on the relief might easily be explained by the fact that the stonecutter did not know Silvanus’ attributes, and that he replaced those unfamiliar ones with what he considered the most acceptable attribute. However, it would be logical to seek an explanation within the wider meaning that this cult had for an indigenous population engaged in livestock and agriculture. The relationship Silvanus’ cult had with agriculture was already established in the Delmatae areas (upper Cetina, Rider), which, after all, have provided us with the epithet Messor (reaper). In addition to this epigraphical testimony, there are several iconographic elements that link and confirm it – the sickle appears on monuments from Privlaka Nin (III/32), Trilj (III/64), and Danilo (III/30).

D. Rendić-Miočević 1989a: 468; Raknić 1965, 88. Raknić 1965: 85-88. 181  Cambi 1968: 137. 182  Zaninović 1966: 16; Kirigin 1979, 129: goat legs can be seen in one half of the preserved monument, and may therefore represent Silvanus. Another part of a stone pillar depicts a goat; Jelinčić 2005: 126-127. 183  Demicheli 2010: 175-185. 184  Zaninović 1966: 17-18. 185  Zaninović 1966: 20-21. 179  180 

186  187  188  189 

19

Paškvalin 1963: 131; Zaninović 1966: 20-21. Medini 1963-65: 127. Medini 1963-65: 128. Medini 1963-65: 129.

The Nature and Origin of the Cult of Silvanus J. Medini also points out that there are two iconographic schemes illustrating our understanding of the character of Silvanus’ cult images: on the coast Silvanus is usually portrayed as old, bearded and horned satyr (Aegipan) with goat legs (tragopus), surrounded by pine and laurel trees, animals and other attributes, while the areas behind the Dinara mountains were dominated by the figure of a young, beardless Silvanus, sometimes with goat legs and and sometimes with human feet.190 This prevailing opinion is called into question here, as it seems unsustainable today. The youthful and beardless Silvanus appears only on images III/41 (Gradac, Halapić) and III/76 (Opačići), unlike III/38 (Podgradina, Glamoč) and III/44 (Županjac), which is either the result of its rustic and unskilled work, or for the level of damage to the monuments. Equally, the youthful and beardless Silvanus is found in coastland areas (i.e. on relief III/64 from Trilj, and III/27 from Sonković near Skradin). Thus the claim that the hinterland behind the Dinara mountains was characterized by figures of the young Silvanus is no longer sustainable. It may be said that such representations of Silvanus are more frequent in that area, and only on the condition that it is a youthful Silvanus depicted on relief I/36.

the ‘classic’ Delmatean Silvanus was not yet sufficiently widespread. Perhaps the held shovel was the result of the Italic impact (not from the cult image, but from the cult in general), or perhaps it was a consequence of the carver’s lack of knowledge, as already said. If it was the latter, in some way it would be an acknowledgment that the old Delmatean cattle cult had adapted to the new economic and social conditions.192 Or, as A. RendićMiočević suggests, such a vision of Silvanus was an indisputable confirmation of the gradual deepening of certain specifications of the Silvanus cult in various production structures of the older society of the Delmatae.193 Considering that the image of Silvanus with a shovel is difficult to fit into the existing frameworks of the Delmatean Silvanus, we should give some credibility to the artist and/or customer who commissioned such a monument, having in mind that the individual knew what the monument should feature. According to Martial, stewards of a farm/estate also produced altars.194 In the Delmatean area Silvanus was probably a pastoral and forest deity, with the exception of random references to agriculture. The shovel is an agricultural implement, and Silvanus was originally patron of cultivated (or arable) land, which is a fact easily forgotten in the Delmatae area. He was the protector of cultivated land, as well as of cattle, so the shovel does not contradict his Italic cult figure in terms of its sense, but only in its features. Perhaps the Delmatae concept of the pastoral-forest deity approached that of the Italic protector of cultivated land and livestock, spontaneously, with the change in lifestyle.

Another common misconception concerning representations of Silvanus is that in the Delmatean area Silvanus is shown in a free and undefined space, whereas on the coast he is depicted in the landscape, or in a silvaneum.191 The fact remains that the representations from the Delmatean territory were of a rustic design, but this does not mean that Silvanus appeared in a free space, as can be seen on reliefs III/41, III/41 III/47. Silvanus in a free and undefined space can be identified with certainty only on relief III/44 from Županjac; he is shown there in motion and the monument was made extremely unskillfully.

There are two other, now lost, monuments of Silvanus in the Makarska area. The first stood in the church of St. Rocco in Drašnice, and the other was from Zaostrog, in the garden of the local Franciscan monastery. The Drašnice monument is described by Fortis in his work Viaggio in Dalmazia. His description showed the typical imagery of Silvanus: a deity in goatskin, stick in hand and accompanied by a dog. Fortis referred to him as a satyr, adding that on a part of his body was an object ‘of a gardener’ (custode d’orti).195 Most likely he was referring to the falx, that typical attribute of Italic Silvanus. J. Medini added that it could also have been a sheepskin (nebris), not a goatskin, covering some of the body.196 The relief stood in the church of St. Rocco and was venerated as the image of the saint. This image almost certainly depicted the Italic Silvanus, since it is hardly possible that the Delmatean form (with goat legs, horns and often with exaggerated penis) could have stood in the church where he was venerated as Saint Rocco.

On the relief from Brela, Silvanus is bearded and was shown, probably, in an open space, although this cannot be ascertained because of the poor state of preservation of the relief. However, a circular niche appears to his left, so it is possible that Silvanus was represented in the silvaneum. The shovel appears here for the first time, thus linking (in this region) the forest feature of his cult, and the shepherd’s way of life with the agricultural way of life. The duality of his cult, shown in the images of Silvanus, can also be understood from the Brela monument. Such phenomena are logical in areas where the cultural influence of the Empire was limited for any reason, and where, consequently, the Roman cults and iconography are not so well known. The divinity displayed with an agricultural implement is a reflection of the changed economic conditions, where

192 

D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 475. 191  A. Rendić-Miočević 1982: 131-133; who rightly proposed that instead of the term paneum we should use the term silvaneum. (See Chapter 5.). 190 

193  194  195  196 

20

Medini 1963-65: 130-131. A. Rendić-Miočević 1982: 124. Martialis, 10.92. Fortis 1981: 231. Medini 1963-65: 134.

The Reliefs The statue from Zaostrog was discovered with a marble relief of the Amazonomachy and a bronze statuette of Minerva. These remarkable finds are, alas, no longer in Croatia (the Minerva was sold somewhere in Italy) or they have been destroyed.197 Both reliefs depicting Silvanus were destroyed on the orders of the bishop, as he realized that believers were actually worshipping Pan/Silvanus instead of St. John the Baptist. As for the relief depicting the Amazonomachy, the bishop thought that the scenes represented the martyrdom of St. Barbara.198 J. Medini, again correctly, concluded that the statue undoubtedly contained attributes (staff, goatskin, etc.) on the basis of which Silvanus could indeed be identified with St. John the Baptist. So it is his assumption that Pan (as J. Medini called him in one instance) does not appear as Aegipan, but rather was represented as anthropomorphic. The place and circumstances of the finds were another reason indicating that this statue did not represent the Delmatean Silvanus. The statue was found (together with the relief of the Amazonomachy and the statuette of Minerva) in the territory of one larger villa rustica on the Makarska coast. It is logical to assume that the owners were Italic immigrants. Therefore the statue must have represented the Italic Silvanus, not the Delmatean.199

it appears that his usual companions, the goat and the dog, are absent. On the coastal part of Dalmatia Silvanus is usually venerated as Augustus.202 In addition to these reliefs, there are bronze statuettes that were probably part of the lararii. Judging by the small number of preserved bronze figures of the god, this ‘indoor’ aspect of Silvanus worship was not particularly widespread, which is entirely accordant with the specific character of his cult.203 However, it is also possible that such statuettes did not stand in the lararium, but that their owners carried them with them. The head of the figurine (III/52) from Čitluk is worn, bearing witness possibly to the fact that its owner usually held it by its head. Another small statue, only 92mm high, most likely originates from Nin.204 It is described as a statuette of a satyr standing on a rock and resting, leaning on his left leg, while the right is bent.205 His body is feminized, disproportionate and even carelessly made. Nagy, however, attributes this statuette to Silvanus,206 and it is possible that it actually shows the Italic Silvanus. One bronze statuette was also found in the Kupa River near Sisak (Fig. 5.). It shows the deity holding an apple in his left hand, while the object apparently in his right was not preserved. The statuette was interpreted as a statue of Hercules,207 but due to the fruit shown in his cloak it is also possible that it represents the anthropomorphic Silvanus.208 The small number of bronze statuettes in Pannonia (1) can be explained by the lack of the Italic form of the deity in the region.

Silvanus’ images in the Makarska area are used as historical sources,200 as the lack of dedications to Silvanus is used as evidence ex silentio for limiting the Delmatae territory to Cetina.201 Furthermore, the expansion of the cult of Silvanus should not be exclusively associated with the Delmatae, but in this case the existing monuments proved the existence of that community east of the Cetina River. At least regarding the two lost visual representations, where it is obvious that they were of the Italic Silvanus type (otherwise it would not have been possible to identify them with Christian saints), there is no need to prove the existence of Delmatean communities in the said region, as those monuments are easily attributed to settlers of Roman origin.

3.2. Silvanus with other deities and figures (nymphs, Diana, and other gods) This body of evidence helps us to better understand the connections of the deities who appear on the reliefs as well as the connections between the cults and the probable reasons for their appearance together. To accentuate these relationships, in this chapter the reliefs are processed together with monuments that are only inscriptive. In this category only six inscriptions in Dalmatia were found, while there are 30 reliefs. Pannonia has yielded a completely different situation: there are 34 inscriptions and 10 reliefs.

Most reliefs dedicated to Silvanus alone are without inscription, thus making it difficult to distinguish which of the epithets correspond with specific iconographic figures. Therefore, special attention should be drawn to the presence (or absence) of those specific attributes of Silvanus that are typical for his forest-pastoral nature (goat, dog, shepherd’s crook, syrinx). D. RendićMiočević thought such attributes related to Silvanus Silvester. Unfortunately, the image of the god is not preserved on the monument that mentions Silvanus Cor... (III/39). The remains of the legs do not allow us to determine whether they were of a human or goat. Judging by the space (niche) where Silvanus was placed, 197  198  199  200  201 

Most reliefs depicting Silvanus associated in the cult community with other gods were found in the Dalmatian hinterland. The coastal areas provided only five reliefs, while the other 25 were scattered throughout the interior of the province (Glamoč, Livno, Tomislavgrad, Opačići, Danilo, etc.). Of the 30 visual representations, 17 show D. Rendić-Miočević 1989a: 479. A. Rendić-Miočević 1974: 40-41. 204  Held in the Archaeological Museum in Zadar; its origin is uncertain. 205  Medini 1968: 144. 206  Nagy LIMC: 765, no. 34a. 207  Brunšmid 1913/1914: 232, 60; Tadin 1979: 19; A. Rendić-Miočević 1992: 139; Sanader 1994 (1995): 104, 31. 208  Sanader 1994 (1995): 104, 31. 202  203 

Medini 1963-65: 134. Medini 1963-65: 131-132. Medini 1963-65: 133. Medini 1963-65: 134. Zaninović 1966: 72-73.

21

The Nature and Origin of the Cult of Silvanus second group includes only one relief – the cult image is located in the cave suggested by the semi-circular edge, while Silvanus is sitting on the rock, separated from the nymphs, playing his flute (III/63). The third group consists of the representations of Silvanus with unusual attributes (grapes, nebris, and panther skin), which brought the cult image of Silvanus closer to the popular cult of Bacchus.209 The first monument is now in Musée Calvet, Avignon,210 while the other is from Salona (III/59). The relief from Narona shows three nymphs and Silvanus walking, his head turned en face. In his left hand, over his shoulder, he holds a pedum, at the end of which a cymbal is suspended, similar to the relief from Duvanjsko polje, on which a syrinx is suspended (III/44), or the example from Hvar III/55. This motif seems to be used to represent Silvanus, the traveller, i.e. when he is displayed walking or moving, in general. Grapes as an attribute (in addition to monument III/59) are found on several monuments: III/1 (Salona); III/3 (Salona); III/44 (Županjac); III/47 (Jajce); III/55 (Hvar); III/59 (Salona); III/62 (Kaštel Novi – but here it is the nymph who holds the grapes); and III/76 (Opačići). Grapes, perhaps, do not point to the syncretism of Silvanus and Liber, or Bacchic elements, but clearly portray the impact of Italic Silvanus, who is regularly represented with the sickle (falx), on almost all of the monuments representing that deity from Pannonia. On the Silvanus monuments from Italy the god is shown, when not carrying the falx, with an armful of fruit. When depicted carrying the falx, it is logical that Silvanus should sometimes appear carrying the grapes he had cut with it. In Pannonia, as noted above, 34 inscriptions were found (22 in Pannonia Superior, and 11 in Pannonia Inferior), as well as 10 reliefs – on which Silvanus is associated with nymphs and/or other gods. Unlike in Dalmatia, in Pannonia no relief on which Silvanus and Diana appear was found, and the nymphs are almost always named Silvanae. Equally, the inscriptions often carry the collective name: Silvanabus, Silvanis, Silvanabes. They also appear as Silvanis Augustis on monuments IV.5.1. from Topusko and IV.5.5.-7. from Varaždinske Toplice; then as Silvanis Silvestribus on IV.5.15. from Carnuntum; as Silvanis on monument IV.5.3. from Sisak and IV.5.16. from Carnuntum and on IV.5.20. from Enzesdorf an der Fischa (where the dedicator is Troucisa), and on IV.5.28. from Aquincum; as Silvanabes IV.5.21; and as Silvanabus on IV.5.28. (also from Aquincum). Although

Fig. 5: Silvanus (?) from the Kupa River, near Sisak (after Sanader (1994) 1995: 104, 31).

Silvanus and the nymphs, eight are of Silvanus and Diana, and the remaining five feature Silvanus with Diana and Mercury (III/80); three nymphs and Hercules (III/81 and III/84); three nymphs and Neptune (III/82), and three nymphs and Diana (III/83). 3.2a. Silvanus and nymphs In the area of the Delmatae, what might be considered a novelty is the visual interpretation of the classical patterns of the cult image, as well as the rustic form in general and the emergence of local folk costumes. The reliefs therefore can be divided into three subgroups, taking into account the compositional scheme and ‘purity’ of the cult image, or the presence of some aspect of syncretism. The first and largest group includes the reliefs illustrating Silvanus, with his usual attributes, either actively or passively involved in the dance that the nymphs were performing under his supervision. The

D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 475. The relief was originally in Venice (Museo Nani) but today it is in Avignon (Musée Calvet). However there is some confusion about the relief: D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 487 considered that it was from Narona, while N. Cambi (2013: 82, fig. 23) wrote that the relief came from the house of Geremia, near Diocletian’s Palace. Both describe the same relief. The relief also has the inscription Pro Saute D(omini) N(ostri) Gai Pos(uit). According to Cambi, this inscription is dedicated to the health of Diocletian, and, as such, he dates it to the 3rd century, together with the Silvanus mask from the coffered ceiling of Diocletian’s Palace; see Cambi 2013: fig 24. 209  210 

22

The Reliefs nymphs, in general, rarely appeared on Pannonian monuments, they were a common occurrence in areas where there are thermal springs, such as at Varaždinske Toplice (Aquae Iasae) and Daruvar (Aquae Balissae). Nymphs are those indigenous numina who were very early connected with Silvanus, especially in this part of Pannonia. According to their place of ‘residence’, as well as their place within the cult they joined, these ‘secondary’ deities, or numina, change their nature, role and name, thus becoming Silvanae.

a local cult community (i.e. IV.5.2. from Daruvar).218 In Pannonia, nymphs quickly transferred from the category of protectors of health into the realm of guardian and benefactor of health, which corresponded to the healing effects of thermal and therapeutic waters. The universal and, to deities of lower rank, traditional epithet Augustae was replaced with salutares.219 Reliefs depicting Silvanus and nymphs are most numerous in the Delmatae coastal regions, and most are from the surroundings of Salona (8 of the 16 monuments). From Klis, above Salona, comes the rather interesting inscription III.5.6. It suggests the existence of a shrine in Klis dedicated to Silvanus and the spring nymphs, erected by Fescenia and her companion and husband, Titus Faustus, sevir and augustalis, by the command of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, with the council of the forest gods and goddesses. Titus Faustus was probably a knight (because of his title), and there is also a possibility that he came from Rome.220 Fescenia is a city in Etruria and it is logical therefore to assume that Fescenia was Etruscan.221 D. Rendić-Miočević thought that the title of the nymphs (Fontanis) crossed to Silvanus, while on the other hand Silvanus’ epithet Silvester (most common behind the Dinara Mountains) crossed to his companions, the nymphs.222 There are two versions of the reading of this inscription. The correct one made by F. Bulić223 and used by Maršić,224 and S. Bekavac225 more recently. The other appears in Inscriptiones Latinae quae in Yugoslavia inter annos MCMI et MCMXL repertae et editae sunt (no. 2003).226 This second version delivers one more line of text, but with the note: textus confusus. However it is almost certain that the adjective silvestrium (gen. pl.) placed in front of the nymphs (dat. pl.) does not apply to them, but to the alliance of gods and goddesses (gen. pl.) – cum suo consentio deor(um) dearum/[q(ue) Si]lvestr(i)um, etc.227 N. Cambi considers that this inscription demonstrates how a local system (i.e. of Silvanus) was included in the Roman religion by means of adoptio, namely in the same consentio deorum dearumque, since, after all, the temple was erected by Jupiter’s command.228 We already know that water is one of the fundamental elements in the cult (e.g. the shrine at Močići), so it is obvious that this element connected Silvanus to the nymphae fontanae. This duality in the cult of Silvanus is prominent also in its visual representations. In the coastal regions of Dalmatia, the nymphs appear mainly holding a clam (e.g.

From the monument at Carnuntum (IV.5.16.), dedicated to Silvanabus et Quadribis Augustis, questions arises whether the form Silvanis (dative), which is found at the two Pannonian sites (Varaždinske Toplice (IV.5.5 and IV.5.6.) and Sisak (IV.5.3.)), should be interpreted as a common collective name of the female numina (nymphs), or maybe it hid the common names of the two (or more) Silvanae, and, finally, whether it relates to the two deities of different sex who formed part of the same cult community, as confirmed by the inscription from Daruvar (IV.5.2). A. and J. Šašel,211 favour the two deities of different sex, while A. Mócsy,212 D. Pinterović,213 and E. Swoboda214 prefer the two nymphs. Móscy went a step further in his interpretation, writing that it is the Silvanae who appear with Silvanus (who is most frequently represented alone), and that the Silvanae are also sometimes called Quadriviae (plural), or Diana (in the case when there is only one Silvana). D. Rendić-Miočević believes that each of these entities has a special place in the cult of Silvanus,215 which is clearly confirmed by the dedication Silvano et Silvanis et Quadrubis on inscription IV.5.9. Regarding the monument from Daruvar (IV.5.2), there are doubts about the authenticity of the graphics (Silvanae, dat.), as it is possible that this was an error by the stonecutter.216 On the other hand, it could have been a broader generic name for Silvanus’ companion, or the interpretation might be compared with that of a pairing of Liber/Libera.217 Furthermore, when the form Silvanabus (e.g. on IV.5.14) was used instead of (that) Silvanis, the possibility of the male form of the mentioned theonyme should be excluded, since such an inscription actually occurred in the Pannonian region, either in the plural (i.e. the above-mentioned inscriptions (IV.5.9. and IV.5.15.) from Carnuntum, or when, under the name of Silvana (fem. Sing.), there also appeared a single female numen who had already been paired with the male numen to represent a form of

218  219  220 

Situla 19: Indices – form Silvanis (dat.) nominative interpreted as Silvani (m. nom. pl.). 212  Mócsy 1974: 253. 213  Pinterović 1973-1974: 123. 214  Swoboda 1964: 45. 215  D. Rendić-Miočević 1989b: 518. 216  Pinterović 1973-1974: 144. 217  D. Rendić-Miočević 1989b: note 7. 211 

221  222  223  224  225  226  227  228 

23

D. Rendić-Miočević 1989b: 509. D. Rendić-Miočević 1989b: 509. Duthoy 1978: 1257-1230. Schulze 1933: 559. D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 480. Bulić 1907: 118. Maršić (1997) 1998: no. 14. Bekavac 2011: 161. ILJug, 2003. I would like to thank Alka Domić-Kunić for this transcription. Cambi 2013: 79-78

The Nature and Origin of the Cult of Silvanus III/58, III/60) or with a bundle of reeds (III/59, III/69, III/70), which are self-evidently symbols of water. These representations can easily be called nymphae fontanae cum Silvano, while some other attributes, especially those relating to Silvanus (in particular on reliefs from south-western Bosnia) favour the second interpretation, i.e. nymphae silvestres cum Silvano.229

Among the existing reliefs showing the iconic image of Silvanus and nymphs from Dalmatia, there are none in which Silvanus is not represented as Aegipan, yet his features depict certain differences. Again, in this category also, the prevailing opinion that the youthful and beardless Silvanus is specific to the Delmatae area, whereas the visual representations from the coastal areas represent Silvanus as older and bearded, is proven to be wrong. The only monument on which Silvanus could be described as youthful is the find from Trilj (III/64).

On all the reliefs in this group (from mainly the Delmatae area) Silvanus is accompanied by three nymphs. He participates in the dance they are performing or he is watching them. The nymphs are placed by his side – left or right – which is the canonical composition for this category of relief. There are only two examples that deviate: from Klis (III/63) and Kaštel Novi (III/62). On these two reliefs Silvanus is not participating in the dance but is shown sitting on a rock. On the relief from Kaštel Novi (III/62) Silvanus is seen not playing the syrinx but the flute, which is a unique example in the entire area under consideration. The element of water is essential in his coalition with nymphs, the personification of springs and water.

3.2b. Silvanus and other deities In this particularly engaging category, Silvanus is joined with other gods. Dalmatia has yielded only six inscriptions, and 30 reliefs in this group.233 Pannonia has provided the diametrically opposite picture: there are 34 inscription monuments and 10 reliefs. In Dalmatia two inscriptions come from Salona, one from Galovac, near Zadar, and one from Kila, near Stobreč. Monument III.5.1. is unfortunately damaged at the start of the inscription field so it remains unknown to which deity, apart for Silvanus (named as Conservator), it was dedicated. From another inscription, also from Salona, we learn that Lucius Aprofenius Circitor raised a shrine to Silvanus and the nymphs (III.5.2.). From Galovac (III.5.4.) and Kila (III.5.5.) the inscriptions begin with the dedicator’s name, followed by the name of the deity. Inscription III.5.4. is dedicated by Quintus Septimus Naso to Pater Liber, Juno (pl.) and Silvanus, all associated in an alliance of the gods (concilium deorum). Given the fact that the inscription is dedicated by a man, the appearance of Juno, the patroness of women, may perhaps be connected to Silvanus, given that the Silvanus was hazardous to women at the time of childbirth (see 1.2.). Even though such a connection is unusual, it should not be entirely unexpected. The common term Silvanis Augustis, which in Dalmatia is very rare, appears on inscription III.5.7. from Crkvina near Novi Grad (formerly Bosanski Novi). The dedicator is Callimorphus, Augusti nostra verna dispensator (servant dispensator of our Augustus). Unfortunately it is unclear which emperor Callimorphus was servant to.

The reliefs from the upper Cetina River (Aequum) and from south-western Bosnia (Glamoč) can be assessed with the other similar reliefs from these regions only through composition and iconography, while artistically each of them has to be seen separately, and as such they reflect the environment in which they were created (e.g. the clothes the nymphs wear). Two such reliefs originate from Trilj – one III/64, and the other (incomplete) is today in Berlin.230 On relief III/64 we see Silvanus on the right, with the three nymphs on his left. His phallus is visible and he is represented as Aegipan. A special feature in this relief is the falx in Silvanus’ left hand, which could be explained as the influence of Italic Silvanus. There are two more reliefs from Brnaze near Sinj (III/65, III/66). On one (III/65) Silvanus is seen on the right side, and to his right was a nymph. Only the right part of the other relief (III/66) has been preserved. It shows one nymph, but she was not preserved completely either. D. RendićMiočević considered that the nymph was dressed in local indigenous clothing, which is very possible given the four-fold belt depicted. The iconography on the relief from Kamen (III/68), near Glamoč, is similar to these other examples. On the Glamoč monument Silvanus participates in the dance, usually carried out only by the nymphs. The nymphs carry on their heads some sort of headgear – scarves231 or caps.232 The deities regularly appear on all these monuments, especially Silvanus with his celebrated and distinctive attributes.

On the reliefs from Pannonia, Silvanus is associated with Mercury and an unidentified divinity (i.e. IV/34 from Savaria) and with Fortuna and Mercury (IV/35 from Brigetio). On find IV/36 from Tata he appears with 11 other deities. This example is rectangular, pillar-shaped, and on each side there are three reliefs of deities, each in its niche: Phaeton, Sol and Luna; Apollo, Silvanus and Diana; Vulcan, Venus and Mars; and Juno, Minerva and Victoria.

Cambi 2013: 80; D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 480. Schneider 1885, 44. Description: Left of Silvanus are the three nymphs, of which two are preserved. All are dressed in long, belted chitons and holding hands. The nymph closest to Silvanus has raised her right hand, as if holding a branch or stem. (Schneider thinks that the plant only was indicated in colour.) 231  D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 485. 232  Sergejevski 1927: 256. 229  230 

The previous section described those monuments on which Silvanus appears with nymphs. 233 

24

The Reliefs As for the coupling of Silvanus with other deities, the inscriptions show more diversity than the reliefs, i.e. Silvanus Domesticus appears with Liber (IV.5.4.). On relief IV.5.25. Silvanus appears with Jupiter and the Genius of Sirmium. Both reliefs were erected by consular beneficiaries. Silvanae (Silvanabus IV.5.30.) appear together with Diana. Only in one instance do Silvanus and Diana appear together, and there Silvanus is mentioned as Silvestris (IV.5.31.) The dedicator, Marcus Aurelius Pompeius (sacerdot), refers to the gods as dis presidibus (sic) and consecrating to them the prey from the hunt. Inscription IV.5.30. is dedicated to Bonae Deae et Pantheo Diana Silvanabus and erected by Gaius Julius Valens, prefect of Legio II, Adiutricis. Most likely the expression Pantheo marked the prefect’s safe return from the Eastern frontier.234 There are several monuments where Silvanus appeared associated with either the Capitoline Triad, or with Jupiter Optimus Maximus. Thus inscription IV.5.12., set up by a decurion from Carnuntum, distinguishes the interrelationship of public and private religion. The Capitoline Triad received the title of Augusta, while Silvanus is mentioned as Domesticus. Therefore it seems that the decurion erected a dedication to those recognized gods who cared for the welfare of the city and state, with Silvanus Domesticus being ‘responsible’ for households, family farms and private property (similar to inscription IV.5.28. dedicated to Silvano Domestico et Laribus). According to inscription IV.5.12., it may be assumed that the land on which the inscription was set up was allocated by the decurions’ decision. Dedication of private land could transform such a site into a locus religiosus, but it would still remain solum privatum, not solum sacrum.235 Jupiter and/or the Capitoline Triad appear associated with Silvanus on inscriptions IV.5.22. I.O.M. (et) Silvano and IV.5.25. IOM et deo Silvano, for which the dedicator is the consular beneficiary, Titus Aelius Secundus. On inscription IV.5.32. Silvanus appears with Jupiter, Juno Regina and Neptune, and the dedicator is a signifier of Legio II Adiutricis, Marcus Ulpius Silvanus. As well as on this monument, Neptune (most likely) appears on relief III/82 from Karakašica near Sinj.

to the Silvanus cult is also unsupported by the fact that only four inscriptions were erected by officials (and out of four only one was erected by a civil official), or that the reliefs were erected as personal vows (votum solvit libens merito). It is difficult to identify the Pannoniorum Augures (IV.2.3., IV.2.5., IV.3.25.), to whom Historia Augusta refers as being celebrated for their reputation and skill at making prophecies from bird flight and song,236 which some authors hold that they were maintaining old Celtic traditions of divination.237 This would seem to correspond only with the augur of civitas Eraviscorum, Titus Flavius​​ Titianus, who set up the inscription dedicated to Jupiter Teutanus.238 In the main, Pannonian augurs lived in Roman cities as members of the local aristocracy and served official city functions.239 Augurs dedicating their inscriptions to Silvanus presented their names in either the binominal or trinominal fashion. They probably acted within the sphere of city government, where, in accordance with the common cursus honourum, they performed duties as city officials. Although Roman augurs were city officials, it does not mean that preRoman deities did not survive such reorganization and Romanisation, for example inscription IV.5.23. mentions diis Auguralibus, who are recognized as indigenous gods.240 In Dalmatia the reliefs depicting Silvanus in the company of other gods developed well-established styles which, although with local expression, preserved the established canonical characteristics of Silvanus. The god’s duality was expressed not only by appearing with other deities, but by borrowing attributes from other gods. In addition, vague elements of the local polytheistic religion can also be discerned through the variety of epithets (Silvester, Messor, Communis) that accompanied his Roman name. Under the strong Roman influence these elements begin to evolve as more complex aspects of Silvanus’ character.241 It is equally probable that the steady process of Romanisation eventually allowed the full nature of the god to be expressed. Silvanus, who was once worshipped, for example, as Silvester, and then as Messor, is represented as the same Aegipan who was to become the god’s canonical Delmatean image.242 However, it must not be forgotten that Silvester and Messor formed firm and unbreakable bonds. In order to prepare and cultivate fields for later harvesting it is first necessary to reclaim the forests. Therefore Silvester and Messor should be understood often as linked, and not necessarily as separate, given the fact that harvesting

Silvanus appears with Jupiter himself on six inscriptions (IV.5.22., IV.5.25., IV.5.26. with Liber, IV.5.27., IV.5.32. with Juno and Neptune), but only one of those included the Capitoline Triad (IV.5.12). Of these inscriptions, four were erected by officials (one was a civil official and the remaining three were military officials). One inscription is not fully readable, and only one was erected by a private individual. Based on only six inscriptions, we might assume a particular ‘official’ side of an otherwise ‘private’ cult of Silvanus. However, the sample is still too small for any definitive conclusions. The official side

HA, Vita Severi Alex., X, 7; XVII, 5-7; Vita Clodio Alb., IX, 2; Vita Nigri, September 5. 237  Alföldy 1960: 154; I. Tóth 2003: 377-384. 238  CIL III, 10418; I. Tóth 2003: 378. 239  Gallego Franco 1998: 52; 59. 240  Alföldy 1960: 162. 241  D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 488. 242  D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 499. 236 

Vazquez-Hoys 1991: 108. The author considers the phenomenon panthea as a result of syncretism with Oriental deities; see also MacMullen 1981: 187, no. 47; Dorcey 1992: 50, 72. 235  Stambaugh 1978: 589; Martianus, Digest, I.8.6.3. 234 

25

The Nature and Origin of the Cult of Silvanus must assume prior preparation and cultivation, including forest clearing where required. The development and expansion of the cult of Silvanus in Dalmatia created appropriate conditions for the acceptance of new gods into the local belief structure. The first step in the development of these cults was the connection of Silvanus with nymphs, and then followed the other, more important deities, who soon found their place and interpretations within local cults. Among the deities associated with Silvanus the primary one is Diana, goddess of the hunt and forest; she is followed by Mercury and then other deities, who may represent local personifications of natural phenomena.243 The greatest number of monuments on which Silvanus is in the company of other gods may be found at Glamočko polje, which has already proven to be the centre of the god’s cult in the Delmatae area. Of particular importance is the relief from Opačići (III/76); it represents Diana without her typical attributes (bow, quiver, arrows) and in a completely new and indigenous costume. The relief was first published by D. Sergejevski, who connected it with Diana thanks to another relief found close to it (Fig. 6).244 This monument, depicting Diana with two worshippers, undoubtedly represents a visual interpretation of the older phase of the cult of Silvanus and Diana. Diana, as D. Rendić-Miočević has suggested, probably had her associations with the divine couple Vidasus and Thana, but only until the period when interpretatio Romana was to introduce the well-known iconographic Greco-Roman forms and elements of the cult itself.245 However, the question still remains whether the iconographic scheme of the indigenous deities was formed in pre-Roman times, or, since it is an iconographic figure recorded only twice, was it a coincidence conditioned by the creation of the relief for cult purposes by the carver and his family and relatives, or was it something else altogether?246 The quite numerous representations of Diana and Silvanus all depict her in the form of the Greek Artemis.

Fig. 6: Diana and two worshippers (after D. RendićMiočević 1989: T. LXXXII, 1).

that the old indigenous goddess, of now unknown name (perhaps Thana), through Silvana (fem.) could had become Diana, just at the time when interpretatio Romana would have transformed her into the Roman goddess of hunting, i.e. the Greek Artemis.249 Although Silvana is an unconfirmed epigraphic form, it could have been included in the original indigenous name. Just such a canonical figure of Diana is to be found on the rock relief at Aequum (III/72), on the upper Cetina. The fact that it was carved into the rock may serve as proof of considerable artistic activity in this area, and/or as sign of the significance the couple had in that area. The other two reliefs with a similar compositional scheme came from the Delmatae area. One is from Gradac Halapićki near Glamoč (III/75), and the other from Duvanjsko polje (III/77). On the Glamoč monument only parts of Silvanus were preserved: the right hand with the syrinx, part of the body, and the head with the visible horns and

On relief III/76 Silvanus is shown with his typical attributes (the pedum and syrinx), while Diana holds two branches. In her left hand is a branch in leaf, and in her right a branch of a palm247 or spruce248 (and more likely the latter). According to D. Rendić-Miočević, Diana, with these attributes that synthesize the diversity of the Illyrian woods, was designated as a forest deity, which is an aspect of her character complementary to Silvanus (Silvanus Silvester). Furthermore, he believes 243  244  245  246  247  248 

D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 489. Sergejevski 1929: 95 id., T. IX and X. D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 488. Medini 1983/1984: 19. Sergejevski 1942: 161. D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 491.

249 

26

D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 492.

The Reliefs long beard.250 With her left hand Diana pulls an arrow from her quiver; her left foot is in motion, stepping forward. The hairstyle is informal: long hair, thrown back and falling over her shoulders; on her head is a type of cap, veil,251 or scarf.252 The quiver strap, from her right shoulder across her breast to below her left armpit, is particularly curious. It serves as a shoulder strap, and is part of the local costume, made of leather or metal, and into which the cloak is held back so as not to interfere with walking.253

his hand he carried the caduceus and/or a tortoise shell for his lyre. His associated animals are the cockerel, ram or goat, probably as a symbol of fertility.259 As well as in Dalmatia and Pannonia, Mercury appears with Silvanus, e.g., in England, in particularly at Moresby (Cumbria), where an indigenous horned deity, unfortunately of unknown name, has been equated with Mars, Mercury and Silvanus.260 Although the connection between Silvanus and Mercury can be made through shared musical attributes, it can also be made through the image of the smitten goat between Silvanus and Mercury, as a symbol of fertility, at least as far as the image from Danilo Biranj is concerned.

Reliefs and compositional schemes of Silvanus from Glamoč almost certainly reflect the forest Silvanus (Silvanus Silvester). Such a representation was popular with the Delmatae in this area, and he was probably associated with Diana through this aspect of his cult. However, we must note the altar from Busija dedicated to Silvanus Cor… (III/39), where Cor… was undoubtedly an indigenous epithet. The question remains whether Cor... represents a local name that became associated with the Italic Silvanus via interpretatio Romana, and was then later fully replaced by the epithet Silvester.254

Thus, in contrast to the image of Diana image, these visual representations bring nothing new in terms of the iconography relating to Silvanus. His well-known image is on one hand expressed through the prism of classical art (III/82), and on the other through folk tradition (III/76). The Karakašica relief (III/82) is the work of a skilled artist, but sadly it has been much damaged by water. On the left side of the monument Silvanus appears, followed by the three nymphs. The influence of Greek artistic taste may be seen in the folds of their dresses. To the right is Liber,261 Neptune,262 or Jupiter263 holding a form of cup in his left hand. Silvanus is shown anthropotheriomorphic; his right hand, folded on his chest, holds the syrinx, his left holds the pedum. The lower part of the body is in motion, while the upper is shown en face. The three nymphs hold hands.

The relief of Diana, Silvanus and Mercury (III/80) from Danilo Biranj255 is not preserved in its entirety.256 Diana is shown with her left knee on the smitten deer, holding it with her left hand by the horns. She is portrayed as Artemis, holding a knife in her right hand and with which she had probably despatched the deer. There is no basis for assuming that Diana’s representation on this monument was modelled on the iconography of the Mithratic tauroctony, it is more likely the result of the influence of the classical Greco-Roman iconographic style of the goddess as huntress;257 there is a dog between Diana and the prostrate animal. Silvanus is holding the syrinx in his right hand. There is a dead goat between Silvanus and Mercury. Silvanus’ left arm is lowered to hold one of the goat’s horns while Mercury holds the other in his right hand. This unique image within the cult iconography of Silvanus raises the question whether it merely represents a ‘decorative’ scene, or the manifestation of a hitherto unknown ritual?258 If it is indeed a ritual then it is necessary to establish the role of Mercury, since the link between Diana and Silvanus as patrons of animals and forests is clear and already attested. Mercury is most often depicted with winged boots and wearing a hat. In

Of particular interest iconographically is a relief from Suhača, in the Livno area (III/83): Diana, Silvanus and the three nymphs are presented. The relief is flat, schematized and geometrical, and it is perhaps possible that the processing of the stone reveals a wood carving tradition, both in terms of detail and as a whole. While the relief from Karakašica (III/82) respected the closed compositional scheme, placing the nymphs centrally, the relief from Suhača differs: it represents a direct source of knowledge of indigenous cults in the Livanjsko polje. At the same time this visual representation helps us to better understand the wider group of forest deities, as well as the ancient costumes of the region (depicted here imitating embroidery and decorated fabric). As D. Rendić-Miočević concluded, this relief is an excellent example of the transition from wood carving to stone cutting, while at the same time preserving techniques of wood carving.264 The plains of Livno evolved a form of intermediary role, as a region where ideas could interchange and mingle, between the upper Cetina River and the remoter areas of the Glamočko polje, a factor

Cambi 2002: 117. Generally, after Hadrian, men are regularly depicted with beard. 251  Sergejevski 1928: 81. 252  D. Rendić-Miočević 1989a: 493. 253  D. Rendić-Miočević 1989a: 493. 254  D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 494. 255  Gunjača 1968/1969: 184. 256  When D. Rendić-Miočević wrote his work on Silvanus he did not know the origins of this relief. As it was held in the Archaeological Museum in Split, he assumed it was from Narona (1989a: 490), as did Abramić previously (1928/1929: 49-52). 257  Medini 1983/1984: 24-25; Lipovac-Vrkljan, Miletić, 1999-2000: 161. 258  D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 495. 250 

259  260  261  262  263  264 

27

L. Adkins, R. A. Adkins 1996: 151-152. Dorcey 1992: 56. D. Rendić-Miočević 1989a: 501. D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 500. Cambi 2013: 80-81. D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 498.

The Nature and Origin of the Cult of Silvanus which is obvious in this relief. Images typical of the coast and upper Cetina (Silvanus and the nymphs) unite in this relief with thos images typical of the Delmatae area – again Cetina and Glamoč (Silvanus and Diana, or some other deity).

treatment of the motif as the essence of the artistic creation. Nevertheless, there are certain differences. The wood carvings show a much greater complexity and richness of motifs, while the work in stone requires the simplification and abstraction of superfluous details. The similarities appear in the essence, i.e. in the expression of certain artistic attitudes, and the differences are formal ones, as they emerge from the needs of the material from which it is created. For those similarities to exist there must have been a unique artistic concept in both media – wood and stone.

The relief from Split (III/81) is built into the right side of the main entrance to Kaštilac (the fortress of a Benedictine monastery in Kaštel Gomilica). Curiously, it was first mentioned only in 1972 in an article by C. Fisković on the protection of cultural heritage.265 He described it as featuring nymphs, Pan (actually Hercules) and Satyr (actually Silvanus). I. Bilich interpreted the characters according to N. Cambi.266 Near Kaštilac are the remains of a villa rustica from where a head of statue (a philosopher, 3rd century) was discovered. The scholar assumed that the place of origin of the relief was also Kaštel Gomilica, and dated it to the same period as the philosopher’s head, i.e. 3rd century.267

It is difficult to assume the existence of earlier wooden archetypes of, presumably, Illyrian origin. For a relief/ sculpture to be created, one needs an artistic vision that does not depend on the material from which it is created. The assumption of a wooden template has been played down, based on insufficient evidence. If the creators of the aforementioned iconographic images of the Delmatae form of Silvanus came from Italy, it is highly unlikely that they would have worshipped a marginal deity and give him an appearance quite at odds with the one he had in their Italian homeland.269 However, Silvanus was not a marginal deity, if for no other reason than the large number of inscriptions and reliefs erected in his honour in Dalmatia, Pannonia, and Italy. Judging by the number of dedications to Silvanus, both in Pannonia and in Dalmatia, he ranks just below Jupiter in importance. Almost all of the inscriptions and reliefs were erected by individuals, and for private purposes, since the Silvanus cult was a private one. Therefore the absence of official cult dedications (i.e. in public temples or at feasts) does not diminish the importance Silvanus apparently had in daily life.

The technique and execution are comparable to those from the monument at Suhača (III/83) or Zadar (III/33), which has led some authors, who have studied ornamental and figural representations of primitive carvings from Dalmatia’s interior, to thinking that the techniques and motifs were direct imitations of products in wood and embroidery.268 Cambi, however, believes that such opinions are based only on visible formal correspondences, although he recognizes the existence of similarities between the reliefs in stone on one hand, and wood carvings and embroidery on the other. The similarities are reflected in the flat, schematized image on the surface of the relief; a prominent inclination towards ornamentation; the chiaroscuro technique; and

C. Fisković 1972: 11-57. Bilich 1992: 75. Bilich 1992: 76. 268  The thesis was argued by M. Abramić (in ‘Nekoliko skulptura antiknih božanstava’, VHAD L, 1928/29: 53). D. Sergejevski developed it further (‘Putne bilješke iz Glamoča’, GZM LIV, 1943: 163; ‘Nekoliko rimskih reljefa iz Centralne Bosne’, Zbornik Gavrli Kazarov I, Sofija 1950: 86-87; ‘Iz problematike ilirske umjetnosti’, Godišnjak III, CBI knjiga I, Sarajevo 1965: 120-121). It was also accepted by D. Rendić-Miočević (‘Ilirske predstve Silvana na kultnim slikama spodručja Delmata’, GZM X, Sarajevo 1955: 7), B. Gabričević (‘Detalj autohtone komponente unašoj antici’, Mogućnosti, 1956: 295) and E. Pašalić (‘Kulturna istorija Bosne i Hercegovine’, Sarajevo, 1966: 265). 265  266  267 

269 

28

Cambi 2002: 122.

4. Interpretatio Romana and Syncretism

Romanisation, as a process of assimilating Roman Imperial culture within that of newly incorporated (and peripheral) populations, or cultural diffusion, is a complex field of study that cannot easily be defined. In its essence the term is relative, because in the case of Dalmatia (or any other province), it is obvious that living in lengthy coexistence with many immigrant elements, and within the framework of Roman institutions and ‘aggressive’ Roman Imperial culture, the indigenous ethnic groups were partly affected, to say the least, by what we understand as Romanisation. Until recently, most researchers focussed on the influence of Roman culture on indigenous societies, and the term Romanisation came to be used in this situation. These transitions operated differently in different provinces, however recent scholarship has devoted itself to providing alternative models of how native populations might have adopted elements of Roman Imperial culture, while questioning the extent to which it was accepted or resisted. More recently attention has focussed on different concepts in relation to the creation of Roman Imperial culture (globalization, acculturation, creolization, hybridization, etc.). The term acculturation is seen as a much happier solution that essentially involves adjustment and cohabitation by natives and their invaders (the Romans), and their mutual influence.270 Acculturation, certainly, is one of the more helpful terms, but it is what follows conquest and the establishment of Roman rule, and, by definition, also excludes the first phase involving conquest, building and benefaction, as Augustus himself wrote in Res Gestae Divi Augusti (30). What took place during the actual conquest process had a tremendous impact on the way acculturation occurred, otherwise there would have been no indigenous revolts, such as Bellum Batonianum.271 Evidently, therefore, we should be seeking a more appropriate term, or, since the debate is still ongoing, it is better to try and describe processes rather than follow some particular theoretical framework. However, it seems that the term Romanisation still encompasses all events involved in the formation of new cultures.

of self-preservation. Comparison of the development, dissemination, and popularisation of the Silvanus cult in various provinces is a complicated issue. Accordingly, any conclusions based on the material remains of the cult in one province cannot be transferred to another province, except perhaps only partially. The reason for this is the lack of evidence of the unique conditions in play at the time the Roman interpretation of the cult took place. The term interpretatio Romana was first mentioned by Tacitus (Germania, 43).273 The historian describes the two Germanic deities as twin boys, who are actually a Roman interpretation of Castor and Pollux. Interpretatio Romana implies the synthesis of the specific local cult and the Roman one, under the Roman name of the deity or with the double name (Roman and indigenous). Caesar describes the gods of the Gauls and gives them Roman names in a similar way (De Bello Gallico, VI, 17).274 There remains, however, a number of unsolved issues and questions, and in particular those relating to the application of Roman cults in the provinces (interpretatio Romana). The circumstances under which the introduction of cults occurred were not always clear and simple. Sometimes the local name of the cult is not preserved, so any conclusions on the existence of the interpretatio Romana are made on the basis of any differences demonstrated by that particular cult in the province, as compared to the Italic cult.

Apud Nahanarvalos antiquae religionis lucus ostenditur. Praesidet sacerdos muliebri ornatu, sed deos interpretatione Romana Castorem Pollucemque memorant. Ea vis numini, nomen Alcis. (‘Amongst the Naharvalians is shown a grove, sacred to devotion extremely ancient. Over it a Priest presides apparelled like a woman; but according to the explication of the Romans, ‘tis Castor and Pollux who are here worshipped. This Divinity is named Alcis.’) 274  Deum Maxime Mercurium colunt. Huius sunt plurima simulacra: hunc omnium Inventor artium ferunt, hunc Viarum atque itinerum ducem, hunc ad quaestus pecuniae mercaturasque habere vim Maxim arbitrantur. Post hunc Apollinem et Marte et Iovem et Minerva. De his Eandi Fere, quam reliquae gentes, habent Opinion: Apollinem morbosa depellere, Minerva operum atque artificiorum initia traders, Iovem imperium caelestium tenere, March bella regere. (‘They worship as their divinity, Mercury in particular, and have many images of him, and regard him as the inventor of all arts, they consider him the guide of their journeys and marches, and believe him to have great influence over the acquisition of gain and mercantile transactions. Next to him they worship Apollo, and Mars, and Jupiter, and Minerva; respecting these deities they have for the most part the same belief as other nations: that Apollo averts diseases, that Minerva imparts the invention of manufactures, that Jupiter possesses the sovereignty of the heavenly powers; that Mars presides over wars.’) 273 

There is plenty of evidence confirming the survival of the old indigenous traditions, which should be guidelines for obvious anti-Roman tendencies,272 or taken as means Woolf 1998: 10-11. Augustus, RGDA, 3: ‘I often waged war, civil and foreign, on the earth and sea, in the whole wide world, and as victor I spared all the citizens who sought pardon. As for foreign nations, those which I was able to safely forgive, I preferred to preserve than to destroy.’ 272  D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 461-462. 270  271 

29

The Nature and Origin of the Cult of Silvanus According to A. Zoll, the significance of religious institutions and spiritual life are beyond the comprehension of most archaeologists, except in cases where the material (culture) can be supported by written sources.275 Zoll probably wanted to draw attention to attempts at interpreting Roman religion in linear terms, from early stages of animism, in which divine power is present in many natural phenomena, to the degree where ‘real’ gods appear.276 It was considered earlier that interpretatio Romana lay within an linguistic-conceptual framework and that subsequent interpretations depend exclusively on the appellation of the gods, and not on the process of identifying two gods.277 Such a view was balanced recently by scholars who proposed that indigenous people were equally important in the implementation and interpretation. Written evidence overshadowed archaeological research and largely directed the course of earlier research. It was assumed, within the framework of Romanisation, that belief systems in the western provinces were largely Romanised, and that they themselves functioned as a means of Romanisation.278

Roman phases or to arguments emphasizing the ‘Roman aspect’ of a specific cult. There is still no comprehensive ‘atlas’ of the religions of the Roman Empire focusing on analyses of changes to ritual behaviour and the religious concepts of indigenous peoples, through the study of cult places, votive monuments, religious organizations and the pantheon. Ultimately all these transformative processes mentioned above might in some way be connected.280 Unfortunately, it is often forgotten that provincial iconography and votive inscriptions include elements derived from two religious (or belief) systems, which, when combined, present a new, third system. This is apparent in the case of deities with two names, where one figure from the Roman pantheon appears paired with an indigenous deity, presenting the impression of a single deity. This connection between Roman and indigenous deities was the subject of much debate, and it has been seen as a physical manifestation of the elusive processes involved in the creation of the Roman-Celtic system.281 Few scholars in this field acknowledge the ambiguities of the evidence, e.g. votive inscriptions that allow one and the same relief/inscription to be used as an argument in support of Romanisation, but also in support of any claims of resistance by the indigenous people.

The initiators of the gradual acceptance of Roman cults in western provinces have long been argued over; opinions relating to the creational mechanism of the new religious system are many and varied, but they mainly focus on written sources and archaeology. Rarely is such evidence viewed in a broader context. Studies from this perspective focussed primarily on determining the degree of the change process, rather than on the nature of the mechanisms which led to such changes. Often studies consist simply of lists of cultural elements that native peoples acquired from the Romans.279

When using the term interpretatio Romana (Tacitus, Germ. 43. 3), it is often implied that any identical traits existing within the natures of the two deities are, essentially, the link between them. Furthermore, it was considered that this connection was to be credited exclusively to the Romans. Additionally, little or no attention was given to individuals or groups involved in the implementation of any merger or equating of indigenous and Roman deities. The reason why Roman and non-Roman deities associated in this way is unmistakably linked to the question of who would have initiated such associations originally.282

Papers on the topic of religion in the Roman period mostly concern studies of votive material(s), reports on research of temples and ‘religious’ sites, thematic reviews, or introductory/review texts. According to T. Derks the defects of such works are:

Followers of the more traditional opinions on the double names of deities derive their explanations from Tacitus’ understanding of interpretatio Romana. M. Henig, for example, considers it to be a shared responsibility between the Romans and the indigenous population. He believes that deities with two names were created because of the desire of the Romans to recognize and establish all supernatural phenomena by giving them Roman names in combination with existing ones that were, of course, already familiar to the indigenous population.283

1. With papers on specific groups of materials emphasis is usually on typological, iconographic and technological aspects, and little attention is paid to the interpretation of religious and social changes; 2. Research (excavation) of Roman temple complexes is often limited to the construction phases of the main structure, i.e. the temple. As a result the pre-Roman origins of the structure may often remain unclear; 3. If review articles pay attention to the indigenous religion, they are often limited to descriptions of pre-

Derks 1991: 236. Zoll 1994: 31: Here the author speaks of the Romano-Celtic system in Britain, but some general conclusions, such as this one, can be transferred to other provinces, including Dalmatia and Pannonia, and to deities such as Silvanus. 282  E.g. Hingley 2005; Woolf 1998. 283  Henig 1984: 55. 280  281 

275  276  277  278  279 

Zoll 1994: 31. Beard, North and Price 1998: 14. Ando 2005: 41. Woolf 1998: 10-11. Derks 1991: 235-236.

30

Interpretatio Romana and Syncretism In such a scenario, obviously dominated by the Romans, the local population is deemed to have passively accepted such (or similar) adoptions of their gods, assuming they were even taken into consideration. J. Webster goes a step further and believes that deities with two names, and their syncretism, was a manifestation of sheer force and cultural arrogance. The assumption that all gods associated with conquered regions had parallels within the Roman pantheon is not the result of any cultural arrogance, but rather that they were forcibly introduced.284 However, it is more likely that identifications of two gods from different pantheons resulted from the desire of local elites to form closer bonds with the ruling Romans, and their goal was achieved precisely in this way. It is not a question of interchanged identities, but simply the recognition and correlation of specific similarities between two deities; these may just be similarities regarding certain aspects of the nature of a particular god. The intentions of the indigenous elites, therefore, were based on establishing themselves on an equal footing with their ruling invaders. The means by which the indigenous upper classes assimilated the Imperial lifestyle (e.g. the construction of their residences), also indicates how their believe sytem might have approached that of the Romans. Accordingly, it is exactly from examples of interpretatio Romana that we begin see the success of integration within the Empire (and also the logical appetite of indigenous peoples for their self-preservation). Or, as G. Woolf says, local elites took an active role in the adoption and adaptation of the cultural form offered to them by means of the expanding Imperial system.285

so that the Roman features adopted did not affect the very core of Celtic religion.287 Derks has proposed a model for the creation of deities with double names.288 It is encouraging that this model is based on systematic research of epigraphic evidence. Before exploring the specific characteristics of over 10,000 votive inscriptions from Lower Germania, the author compared them by type and gender of the deities. Thus Derks established that, following the course of the Roman conquest, the ‘clergy’ of the indigenous elites actively researched which Roman deity might be twinned with an indigenous deity in order to maintain the local status quo, and also form a connection with the new, dominant social structure. He concluded that the pairing of local male deities with Roman gods, i.e. Mars and Hercules, reflected the views of the warriors of the local indigenous population. Although little is known of the original context of the votive inscription, macroregional analysis might well provide an insight into the processes of changes to the indigenous-Roman pantheon. The biggest problem lies in the limited chronological distinctions of votive inscriptions. Even from a first glance it is obvious that most of the dateable inscriptions originate from the second half of the 2nd and first half of the 3rd centuries, and, compared with the overall small number of inscriptions from the 1st century, that number is of real significance.289 As for the Lower Rhine, for which this study was made, the impressive abovementioned number of votive inscriptions is linked to three factors: 1. It has been pointed out that local societies along the Lower Rhine had no written tradition until the early Roman period. The custom of erecting votive inscriptions was introduced in the 1st century (over the period of 150 years) by soldiers of Italic and indigenous origin on the one hand and indigenous elites and officials on the other. The majority of the population adopted the custom of erecting monuments over time;

In the process of the assimilation of the two groups, elements specific to the dominant culture are accepted and indigenous traditions are more or less eliminated. They become subordinate models and values to the dominant society; hence indigenous ethnic identity is, through this development, dispersed in various spheres of the predominant society. But once assimilation and integration are completed, a reverse phenomenon occurs: foreign elements are now included in the native system according to their own schemes and categories, even though this may lead to changes in the structure of the society, they also reflect both the content of the model (the dominant group) and the indigenous value system.286

2. The 2nd and 3rd centuries may be considered as a period of socio-economic progress for both rural centres and villas, which in turn created favourable conditions for the acceptance of the custom; 3. Comparisons of incidences of votive inscriptions with epitaphs, which generally appear earlier and in greater numbers at different times, make it clear that religious factors were also of great importance. The fact that the majority of votive inscriptions were erected late, and over a relatively short period of time, is an important methodological criterion for the study of processes of change in the indigenous pantheon.

The current post-colonial approach tries to balance the traditional one (the focus on Imperial culture), by giving the indigenous people a more active role, which might also include the pairing of gods and the general process of religious change. In this case it is considered that various aspects of Roman religion were consciously selected and included into the current Iron Age system,

See footnote 281. Derks 1991: 235-265. 289  Alföldy 1974: 268. The author even distinguishes the peak that happened from AD 180/190 to 230/240. 287 

284  285  286 

Webster 1995: 160. Woolf 1998: passim. Toulec 1998: 37.

288 

31

The Nature and Origin of the Cult of Silvanus However, R. MacMullen has a different point of view on the epigraphic practices/habits of the Romans, i.e. the inhabitants of the Roman Empire.290 He does not agree with the opinion that the number of inscriptions was dependent on the economic situation. The 2nd century certainly saw an increase in the number of public inscriptions, but not private ones.291 Such circumstances apparently reflected the general status quo, up to the middle of the 3rd century, when the number of inscriptions slowly decreased (from the time of Septimius Alexander to Diocletian): the peak in numbers of inscriptions was during the time of Septimius Severus.292 Furthermore, Mócsy rightly considers the erection of inscriptions to be a sign of what he called Romanisation, since the recording on events on stone was a part of Roman tradition and way of life.293 It is clear that densely populated cities should provide more inscriptions than rural locations. These conditions (wealth and population density) were the same in all provinces. The question remains whether the number of inscriptions was associated with wealth as such, or with assumptions based on the patterns of behaviour/lifestyle. MacMullen accentuated the main points:

indigenes, may simply not have had the epigraphic habit earlier; 3. MacMullen concluded with the following: As already established, the peak in the number of inscriptions happened in the middle of the 2nd century (or a little earlier), with the lowest point being around AD 250. Few would have expected such a rise in a period when the sources give the impression of a turbulent period for the Empire, i.e. during the wars with the Marcomanni, Quadi, Iazyges, and Parthians, and the Antonine plague which was also a factor. The Antonine plague was also a factor. The original increase in the number of Latin inscriptions in the Republican era, although not as carefully examined as the Imperial period, likewise does not follow the demographic and economic curve. Consequently the epigraphic culture/tradition cannot be explained in terms of social or economic progress. Part of the explanation for this lies in the fact that what was written on papyrus mainly refers to the individual for whom it was intended, while the stone inscription spoke to the entire community. MacMullen does not hesitate to say that he has no specific answer as to why there was such an increase in the number of inscriptions, but that economic factors would of course have had a bearing. It seemed that the variations in the numbers of inscriptions depended on public mood – an understanding that the individual is part of a great civilization, a part of the Empire, i.e. that broader psychological and qualitative changes had taken place.

1. Much of the population was inclined to adopt the epigraphic tradition because, in a certain way, it represented their attitudes, and especially since it reflected those who conditioned community life: landowners, city-fathers, Imperial representatives. If we were to put ourselves in the position of an individual about to choose or compose a text for an inscription, then transferring it to a stone-cutter (who is also paid for his work), we certainly pay closer attention to what we say on the stone: that text is your statement to the whole community, your immediate family and future generations. Such conscious attention is a clear sign that provides an insight into the cultural significance of a particular community;

With reference to point 2 above, based on Derks, the occurrence of large numbers of inscriptions in the 2nd century does not have to be the product of the overall economic prosperity of the Empire. As it is difficult to determine with certainty the reasons for increases in numbers of inscriptions, it is fair to take into account the views of both Derks and MacMullen, although those by the latter are of a less tangible content. Recently, G. Woolf has also tried to explain the spread of epigraphic culture in the Latin Empire, but his conclusion that the desire to fix the past in stone for posterity was an understandable response to the uncertainty of the present, and that therefore it is to be seen as a symptom of a broader set of changes that may conveniently be termed the expansion of Roman society,295 differs little from the conclusion already offered by MacMullen. Woolf did bring fear and anxiety into the equation as factors that influenced the increasing desire to erect monuments.

2. Many scholars highlight that this or that activity or vocation was a sign of either expediency, vitality, or an indication of decline or similar, depending on how often it appeared on inscriptions. Thus one might conclude that the appearance of the inscription itself is the only constant, and even that is not wholly true. For example, MacMullen, quoting Wilkes, infers changes in the ruling classes in Dalmatia from individuals of a certain type seeming to come to prominence in the inscriptions,294 but he concludes that that type or class, made up of

Furthermore, regarding the preferences for specific gods in interpretatio Romana, Derks assumes that the deity to whom the monument was dedicated was the result of a deliberate choice. This refers either to the indigenous or Roman name of a specific deity. Behind the name of the Roman deity stood the indigenous idea, but the opposite

MacMullen 1982: 233-247. MacMullen 1982: 236. Public documents – tax receipts, census lists, registrations of birth or the buying and selling of the land, applications, arrest warrants, court cross-talk, reports of public bodies, etc.; Private documents - letters, lease agreements, sales, contracts, loans, wills, prayers, horoscopes, etc. 292  MacMullen 1982: 244. 293  Mócsy 1974: 407 and 419. 294  Wilkes 1969: 235. 290  291 

295 

32

Woolf 1996: 34.

Interpretatio Romana and Syncretism was also possible. Starting from this guiding principle, Leunissen296 has suggested criteria by which indigenous elements can be identified in Roman dedications,297 namely:

The latter is wonderfully presented with a votive inscription dedicated to the patroness of the legion and mothers of Cohort I Pannoniorum et Delmatarum, by the military tribune of Legion I Minerviae, from Lower Germania.300 The difference, which is generally made between the Mother Goddess and the indigenous goddess, is artificially created. As with the Matronae, the indigenous goddesses, are sometimes shown in triple form, in addition to the nymphs appearing with Silvanus; as Mother Goddesses they share common spheres of influence: abundance, fertility and motherhood.301 Derks concluded that that there are no female deities among the gods with two names, but in this case the goddesses from Liburnian territories differ (e.g. Venus Anzotica or Venus Iria).302

1. The occurrence of pairing Roman and non-Roman deities. 2. Tributes to Roman gods in native cult places. 3. Combinations of names of Roman gods and indigenous iconographic representations. 4. The term deo or deae in reference to the Roman god or goddess. 5. The so-called ‘revealing’ formula. 6. Dedicators of indigenous origin (as might be understood from the name or his origin – assuming it is specified).

The term interpretatio Romana is often associated with male deities with dual names. Tacitus compared the German gods with those he knew from the Roman pantheon. Derks believes that in the interpretation of votive inscriptions it is better to avoid the term interpretatio Romana completely for two reasons. First because the inscriptions emerged from the indigenous population; and second because the term incorrectly suggests a complete transfer of identity, whereby the Roman and indigenous deity are mutually identified. He believes that the indigenous gods were given certain features from the Roman gods that they traditionally never had, and that this explains their appearance together on the inscription or relief.

However, serious objections exist to some of these criteria (e.g. No. 6, and the reasons are already given above), which is why this article is referenced here, since there are no hard and fast, generally applicable rules to interpretatio Romana. Likewise, when we see a monument described in terms of No. 3, we cannot know if the deity was indigenous, as is the case for example with monument III/76. When two deities are paired on one monument, it is clear that this would not have happened without Roman influence. Such monuments fit into two categories and depict both Roman and indigenous gods. Derks has therefore made a classification associated with the sex and characteristics of the gods, which led him to very intriguing results.298 In the case of goddesses, dedications to indigenous deities are in the majority, and with male deities, the Roman names are more numerous. Among deities with two names there are no goddesses, while on the other hand there are few male gods among those with indigenous names. Even if the large group of votive inscriptions dedicated to the Matronae is ignored, differences between the gods and goddesses remain, although not as conspicuously. Cults of female indigenous deities were generally of local or micro-regional significance, and they may be linked to local groups. At the same time, cults of male gods within the indigenous pantheon were of broader regional importance and may have been related to the larger community. In this case Derks excluded deities with only Roman names.299 When dedicating inscriptions to the Matronae, the dedicator consciously or unconsciously identified with the local community. While most of these identifications with local communities occurred within their own geographical boundaries some did occur far beyond.

It is equally intriguing that some indigenous deities are associated with a limited group of Roman gods; in Lower Germania the most popular were Mars, Mercury and Hercules. The predominance of Mars and Mercury in connection with indigenous deities is a generally known phenomenon, and the native deities were always matched with the same Roman divinities. When selecting the Roman gods for these combinations there are clear regional differences, for example Hercules usually appears along the lower Rhine and Mars in the area of Trier.303 From the archaeological material and the writings of Caesar304 and Tacitus305 it may be concluded that warriorship was an important element in the ideology of elite groups within pre-Roman societies and that the gods aided success in battle. Because of this tradition it is possible that native elites selected those Roman gods associated with indigenous ones in that given sphere. Therefore the choice of Roman gods then paired with native deities derived primarily from the indigenous perception of the Roman world. Defeat to the Roman army might then be attributed to the ineffectiveness of 300 

Leunissen 1985: 156-159. 297  Roman, because the consecrations were written in the Roman tradition and Latin language. 298  Results related to Lower Germania. 299  Derks 1991: 245. 296 

301  302  303  304  305 

33

CIL XIII 1766; Birley 1978: 1526. Derks 1991: 248. Medini 1976: 191. Derks 1991: 249. Caesar De Bello Gallico V, 56.1-2; VI 18.3; VII, 21.1. Germania, 3, 6, 11, 13, 14, 31; Histories, V, 17; Annals, XIII, 57 2.

The Nature and Origin of the Cult of Silvanus local deities and the superiority of the victorious Roman gods. However, such a conclusion is arbitrary and cannot be considered final, but it may serve as a guide for future research. In Dalmatia and Pannonia the number of deities with double names is not large, and on inscriptions Silvanus appears after Jupiter, who is most frequently mentioned. Given this, it may be concluded that the Germans consisted mostly of warrior classes, while the populations of Dalmatia and Pannonia were not.

Roman auxiliary troops. Before the Flavian era these military units often recruited on an ethnic basis from the social group of tribal leaders.307 The striking career of this priest also proves that ethnic boundaries were easily crossed and that being Roman reflected mainly political, legal and social status, compatible with citizenship of local towns.308 Roman and native religious forms were combined and re-combined into a new celestial hierarchy that guaranteed the cosmic order. The policy of the Roman Empire towards religion was generally one of tolerance and it is not rare that Roman, oriental and indigenous cults coexisted. Ultimately Isis was accepted among the gods of Rome and she had a temple in the city. This ease of coexistence is nowhere more evident than in the Roman army; however, like the Roman army, this religious tolerance was exercised under strict Roman terms.309 Religion was not always an effective incentive of Roman rule, or a cohesive element of the traditions between conquered and conquerors. Roman cults and deities might have been understood as a means of oppression and Roman Imperialism. For example, in the British revolt the temple to Claudius, seen as a ‘citadel of eternal domination’, was totally destroyed.310 Conversely, local cultic traditions could become rallying grounds for opposition to Roman rule. In actual revolts local religious figures are often claimed to have encouraged or even led rebellions. A revolt on the Rhine frontier, between AD 69 and 70, began with a feast in a sacred grove and a religious vow, and was strongly supported by a local prophetess.311

Of the various assumptions used in assessing religious changes in the indigenous system, only a few seem to take into account geographical and social contexts within the time frame of the evidence on which the assumptions are based. Deities with double names are clearly confirmed in the epigraphic sources. Unfortunately, epigraphic corpora are rarely critically examined and the inscriptions are often observed only in the context of the origin, with no special consideration of the dedicator. The dedicator’s name is often accompanied by the social status or title carried, and it is one of the three main elements of the standardized formula, together with the name of a deity or deities, and often with the phrase/ acronym of the fulfilled vow or pledge. Assuming that the native and Roman gods were combined shortly after the conquest, in the case of Germania Inferior this would be in the period of Augustus and Tiberius, then the initiative to connect the gods was probably carried out by the cult priests of the main indigenous deities. What is problematic is that the priests left little evidence of their existence. One inscription from Mersch (Luxembourg), dated to the beginning of the 2nd century AD, directly mentions the flamen Leni Martis (priest of the cult of Mars Lenus, the principal god in Trier). The inscription was found broken into two fragments of stone blocks belonging to the monumental building. Only six rows of the inscription remain, from which the priest’s cursus honorum may be discerned, and the information that he was also a priest of the Imperial cult.306 This figure probably held the position of both main priest of the Imperial cult and of the indigenous deities. Moreover, before becoming a priest he had a career in the Roman army equating to that of a Roman knight. We read that he commanded a cavalry auxiliary unit before his appointment as military tribune and ultimately leading an auxiliary cavalry squad. Priests of indigenous cults undoubtedly belonged to local elites. Without exception they held important administrative positions in their civitas, including duumvirates. Some priests (like the one mentioned from Mersch) were commanders of

As in Germania, it is likely that the Dalmatians and Pannonians, i.e. members of ethnic groups living in the territories of the Roman provinces of Dalmatia and Pannonia, were people who worshipped the gods of their ancestors, but were also ready to accept the gods of their conquerors, in this case, the Romans. They too, therefore, may be seen in transition from whichever social system existed prior to integration within the Roman world. Generally, their indigenous environment was placed before the new pantheon, and it is assumed that the Roman pantheon, unlike theirs, was well established and hierarchically arranged.312 The unsolved problem of interpretatio Romana also lies within the concept of the notion of a deity itself, the breach of traditional Roman cults, and the ways in which indigenous communities accepted them. Determining, for example, whether Silvanus was an indigenous or

Derks 1991: 252: The cult of the emperor was organized at city and provincial level. It is generally accepted that the term sacerdos was used only in assocation with the Imperial cult organized at the level of the province, while flamen was at city level. Opinions differ whether sacerdos was used also at local level, i.e. for the city Imperial cult (see note 70). T. Derks believes that sacerdos could be a priest of the Imperial cult at city level, unless otherwise stated.

See, e.g. Perinić Muratović 2005: 138. Terrenato 2005: 69. 309  Beard, North, Price 1998: 346-348. 310  Tacitus, Annals I.39.1, 57.2; XVI.31.4, 32.3. 311  Tacitus, Histories IV.54,61,65, V.22,24; Beard, North, Price 1998: 341 312  Derks 1991: 253.

306 

307  308 

34

Interpretatio Romana and Syncretism Roman deity requires a solution to these basic issues mentioned above. From the vague initial situation it is difficult to reach conclusions to the questions that arose later, in particular the extent to which Silvanus was a local/native deity.

Within such a dysfunctional316 (or, rather, a nonpermanent) framework, at least in terms of the GalloRomano Silvanus and his iconography, it is necessary to associate his regional characteristics with the social and religious status of certain sites or individuals. D. Toulec believes that an increase in the number of attributes that appear with Silvanus shows the degree of assimilation or integration (interpretatio romana et gallica) that varied in relation to the cities, provinces or specific geographical areas. Furthermore he considers it necessary to establish a sort of compendium of signa and epithets – classic (typical) or other. Epithets, therefore, show that the processes of assimilation and integration are subject to their own logic, and that it is also possible that similar phenomena are, indeed, the result of random coincidences. Gallo-Romano iconography is a system that also marks the next stage, or the next step, as it was introduced by integrated communities. In this, the next phase, all the epithets and signa that appeared with a deity are accumulated, and their numbers suggest the existence of ambiguity within one single display. Additionally, every epithet becomes a signpost in a complex series, and may be used, if necessary, to interpret all aspects of the deities, in this case, Silvanus. Such a definition of Gallo-Romano iconography could end the debate on the functional dissimilarity of the two pantheons, arising from the interpretation process, which placed the gods under the same denominator if they only had one characteristic in common.317 Moreover, the accumulation of epithets gives each civitas, or certain area, the possibility of a unique interpretation (e.g. Silvester, Domesticus). In Britain, Gaul and Germany the GalloRomano Silvanus was portrayed differently depending on the stage of integration process, and those images corresponded to different social groups or time periods. These interpretations, which took place in a variety of conditions, resulted in a hybrid deity sometimes named Sucellus.318

Specifically, it is hard to discern which were indigenous ideas/traits and which were Roman ones in relation to Silvanus or his cult; and not only in terms of the forms and ways that the cult expressed itself, whether in inscriptions or depictions, since his iconography was mostly Greek in appearance but his name was Latin. The fact that most of the epigraphic monuments were written, using entirely standardized formulas, does not help greatly in understanding the basic dimensions of the cult, but still supports the fact that the natives accepted at least one notion of the Roman religious system. The conquest and Roman domination over the population of Dalmatia and Pannonia can be measured in military and political terms, but not in the context of religious life, and certainly not by applying the same parameters. Local religion operating as a focus of opposition to Rome is a further reminder of the sheer complexity of religious life in the provinces. Individual gods, whether local or Roman, were not one-dimensional; cults were not combined according to a single standard blueprint that simply equated one deity with another. Religious forms were constantly re-interpreted and deployed in different combinations for quite different purposes. A god worshipped with Jupiter one day, might be leading the rebels the next.313 The conquered peoples were subjected to religious influence, directly or indirectly, as a result of the conquest itself; either directly, through certain official events in administrative centres, in places where there was a garrison, and through the cults introduced by the colonists from Italy, both civilians and veterans; or indirectly, once embedded in the vast society of the Empire, the new provinces opened to numerous merchants, travellers, servants, slaves of various origin, who would carry with them their own beliefs and rituals.314

This ‘stratification’ of Silvanus also occurred in Dalmatia and Pannonia. In Dalmatia, Silvanus Silvester prevailed, while in Pannonia it was Silvanus Domesticus. Furthermore, in Pannonia most of the Silvanus monuments are found in border area (limes), which supports the assumption that, although indistinguishable on inscriptions or reliefs, his nature as protector of borders was very strong among local worshippers.

The processes of assimilation and integration involved in the coexistence of two peoples or systems, which were (or are) known as ‘Romanisation’, assume the formation of completely new religious practices. A newly established religious practice, or the iconography and appearance of a cult, cannot be reduced to simple transmission from one deity to another, in the manner it is most commonly perceived315 by the definition of Tacitus’ interpretatio Romana. The transfer, comparison or merger of two deities does not occur based on one factor alone.

Regarding the association of Silvanus’ regional characteristics with the social and religious status of certain sites or individuals, one monument from Trilj (III/64), dated to the 3rd century AD stands out. The relief was discovered in Gardun (locality Međine or Liske) Toulec 1998: 38. Dysfunctional because the existence of the unique conditions from which the integration and assimilation of the two systems occurred cannot be assumed. 317  ‘processus interpretant’. 318  Toulec 1998: 38-40. 316 

313  314  315 

Beard, North, Price 1998: 348. Toulec 1998: 38. Ando 2005: 42.

35

The Nature and Origin of the Cult of Silvanus in 1891.319 Here a reinterpretation of one of Silvanus’ attributes may be suggested. The figures on the relief represent Silvanus and the three nymphs. The first line of the inscription is in the arch above the figures and below is the continuation of the inscription. Silvanus is shown as young and beardless. He has long, forked horns, goat legs with hooves, and an erect penis. It seems that he is wearing a nebris or other sort of short cloak. In the right hand he is holding a pedum (pastoral staff) and in the left, folded over his chest, according to D. Rendić-Miočević, he holds a syrinx. The nymphs are dressed in long dresses and short, high-belted gowns; it is difficult to discern whether they are wearing local costumes or classical clothing. Their hairstyles are characteristic for the 3rd century AD (rolled up in a double braid with parting). The three nymphs are pressed next to each other, holding hands, to the left of Silvanus. The first nymph next to Silvanus is holding something in her hand, or it may just be a fold of Silvanus’ nebris full of fruit, according to D. Rendić-Miočević.320 The scene can be interpreted in such a way that the nymph is simply holding her hand in the air, as does the last nymph; perhaps the object in her hand was painted.

distinct. The analysis of all the figurative representations leads us to the conclusion that the young and the old Silvanus appear just as often in both areas. What is not so common is the impact of the Italic iconographic image of Silvanus, for example the falx that appears in Danilo (III/30),321 in Trilj (III/64),322 and the anthropomorphic Silvanus found in the hinterland – as on the monument from Trusina near Konjic (III/48).323 Equally, the appearance of the shovel on the Makarska (III/35)324 monument could also be the result of Italic influence and should perhaps be attributed to the fact that Italic Silvanus was more focussed on agriculture, or its appearance was a result of changing conditions in this area.325 On three inscriptions, two from Danilo near Šibenik (III.3.4. and III.3.5.) and one from Bosansko Grahovo (III.3.10.), the deity is also referred to as Me(s)sor (harvester), which might also demonstrate his Italic roots, i.e. from the falx he bears, and not, as previously thought, an indigenous theomorphic name.326 It is difficult to ascertain who was Aurelius Antoninianus who commissioned the Trilj relief and inscription (III/64), based on his fairly common name. His binominal scheme, as well as the names he bears, confirm a date in the 3rd century AD. His nomen and cognomen are equally common in Dalmatia and Italy. Since at that time there was recruitment of men from Salona and Epidaurus,327 it is fair to assume that this individual was a locally recruited soldier/trumpeter, rather than to assume he (or his ancestors) came from Italy, Gaul or Germania. Being a soldier, and given the date of the monument, he was probably acquainted with Italic Silvanus, but the god on his dedication was represented in the guise of Silvanus’ Greek fellow deity, Pan. Silvanus has lost his human form and now has goat legs, ears and horns. The only Italic characteristic on this inscription (iconographically) is the supposed falx.

The inscription reads: * N[ymph]is et Silvano / Aur(elius) An[to]ninianusBuc(inator) / coh(ortis) VIII vol(untariorum) / a(r)u(lam) l(ibens) p(osuit) It seems that on Silvanus’ chest we can detect the falx, the curved sickle, and not the syrinx, as previously thought. If indeed it is a falx then it would be a rare appearance among the reliefs of this area. This attribute would, yet again, bring the Delmatean Silvanus closer towards the iconographic image and interpretation of Italic Silvanus. It may also be argued perhaps that it is not the syrinx or falx we see, but part of the god’s shoulder. However, the figures in the composition are symmetrically represented in the niche, and if it was Silvanus’ shoulder then the deity would be in complete discord with the other figures in the group and Silvanus would be disproportionate in scale.

When speaking of interpretatio Romana one cannot overlook syncretism, which is, substantially, the same process. Religious syncretism is the gradual alignment or fusion/permeation of the elements of two different systems of belief, and the process includes modification or conversion, or both. In these cases, a cult adopts or implements certain features from another spiritual system. The problems of syncretism are seemingly as clear as those of interpretatio Romana. Spheres of interaction between the systems, cults or deities were occurring on different levels. Syncretism denotes the combination or alliance of opposing religious or philosophical doctrines,

To better understand the problem we need to know what these attributes are representing, i.e. what they meant in the cult of Silvanus. Once this is understood, it becomes clear why it would be significant if the feature we see was really a falx (especially since the supposed syrinx is very poorly represented on the monument and barely recognizable as such). If it is the falx on Silvanus’ chest, then the distinctions between the two cult images (Dalmatian and Delmatean) within the province of Dalmatia are steadily diminishing and their outlines less

321  322 

2.

Gunjača 1968-1969: 177-184; A. Rendić-Miočević 2003: 407-419. CIL III, 13187; D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 461-507, Pl. LXXXIV,

Sergejevski 1943: 5-6, fig. 5; Imamović 1977: 21; D. RendićMiočević 1989: 472. 324  Medini 1963-1965: 127-137, Pl. XXXII. 325  Medini 1971: 128. 326  D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 461. 327  Alföldy 1987: 254-255. 323 

CIL III, 13187; Bulić 1891: 162; D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 461507, T. LXXXIV, 2. 320  D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 461-507, T. LXXXIV, 2. 319 

36

Interpretatio Romana and Syncretism resulting in public and private rituals and commonly accepted local practices that appear to the observer to link disparate orientations, but do not necessarily do so. Such a phenomenon is described by P. Veyne as ‘balkanisation de cerveaux’, where an individual can entertain two contrasting beliefs that can be further divided even within the individual.328 The term syncretism favours the description of a state, or conditions of the union, but can be extended also to describe the process by which such conciliations/mergers occur. It is the basic ‘element’ that is of importance, not just the syncretistic outcome of this process of combination. It is equally troublesome to determine when syncretism occurred – whether it happened within an established culture and was based on an existing cult image of a particular deity, or whether it evolved in circumstances where the iconic image of the deity and its cult were not embedded in adherents who then, from their ‘ignorance’, merge elements of one cult into another.329 The process of rapprochement and contamination between individual beliefs in the East occurred during the era of Hellenism. In the Roman Empire syncretism became more noticeable during the Antonine period, and then during the reign of Severus especially. First it involved a gradual convergence of deities and cults, and then their closer connection until a final identification was reached. In the East such a rapprochement, or even identification, of two deities/ cults is very rare, while in the western provinces it was almost the rule.330 As S. Price points out, it also appears deceptively simple to understand how religions, in general, spread through the Roman Empire. Cults, obviously, do not move on their own: their spread depends on population movements. In Price’s recent article he proposed the distinction between ethnic and elective cults as crucial for understanding religious mobility. This distinction centres on those cults that were part of the actual or imagined ancestral heritage of a genos or ethnos, or those which individuals chose to join. In modern scholarship, the distinction between these two types of cults is mirrored in the divide between the work of J. Toutain, who emphasized civic (or ethnic) cults in the Latin West, and that of F. Cumont, who concentrated on ‘oriental’ (or elective) religions.331 Of course in

practice the relationship between the two pure forms of ethnic and elective is very complex. Some, perhaps many, cults were both ethnic and elective. They had an ethnic base but also attracted outsiders. Nevertheless the overall typology is useful and the two types of cults involved quite different dynamics.332 Observing the adoption of a certain religious form, the success or failure of a religious movement can be seen as a result of social interactions. Although status and background are important to an individual’s receptiveness to religions, it is their personal contacts – their network – which are crucial when it comes to selecting one particular religious group rather than another.333 In terms of such cult distinction, both Attis and Mithras belong within the sphere of elective cults. As for Silvanus the situation is not that clear. If his cult was incontravertibly autochthonous in the province of Dalmatia, it should fall into the sphere of ethnic cults. But then again, we cannot be absolutely sure who the dedicators of the monuments were. Many dedicators are usually represented by two nomina and interpretations (as to the determination of the dedicators’ origins) of such inscriptions may vary. For example there are many indicators that the cults of Cybele and Attis were widespread along the eastern Adriatic coast. In addition to Salona, which was probably the centre of the cults of Cybele and Attis, research in the area of the forum at Zadar proves that they did receive official recognition and significance.334 It is therefore not surprising that in such a religious environment a syncretism between Silvanus and Attis could have occurred, as indicated on relief III/34. from Pridraga, near Novigrad (the locality of Mijovilovac).335 This monument is damaged on the right side and is missing a piece of the pillar that supported the aedicule. Silvanus is shown en face. The highly raised right hand holds the syrinx, and in his left the coiling snake forms the letter S. Silvanus wears a Phrygian cap and is dressed in a kind of tunic that goes down only as far as his navel, leaving the rest of his body naked, from the navel down. The monument is also damaged at the base, so that the god’s feet are not completely preserved. On the right side of his body a goat is placed vertically, probably in an attempt to show the goat reaching up, as is the usual representation in Silvanus monuments from Dalmatia. N. Cambi dates the monument from the early 3rd century AD to the time of the supremacy of Christianity.336 Recent information has been received that the lower part of this monument has now been found and that it might

Veyne 1983: 92. Selective bibliography: Beard, North, Price 1998; Ando 2005, Interpretatio Romana, Classical Philology, Vol. 100 (1), 41-51; Webster 1997, Necessary comparisons: a post-colonial approach to religious syncretism in the Roman provinces, World Archaeology, Vol. 28 (3), 324-338; Webster 1995, ‘Interpretatio’: Roman word power and the Celtic gods, Britannia, Vol. 26, 153-161; Woolf 1998, Becoming Roman: The Origins of Provincial Civilisation in Gaul, Cambridge; Zoll 1994, Patterns of worship in Roman Britain: double named deities in context, in: Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology conference, TRAC 94, Cottam et al. (eds.), 32-45. 330  Beard, North, Price 1998: 317-318, 338-348; Ando 2003: 50-51. 331  Price 2012: 2, where the author gives a selective bibliography: Toutain 1907/1920, Les cultes païens dans l’Empire romain; Cumont 1929, Les religions orientales dans le paganisme romain, 2006. Cf. Bonnet 2009, L’Empire et ses religions. Un regard actuel sur la polémique Cumont-Toutain concernant la diffusion des ‘religions orientales’, in: Die Religion des Imperium Romanum Koine und 328  329 

Konfrontationen, Cancik H., Rüpke J. (eds.), 55-74. MacMullen 1981: especially 94-130, where the author studied cult movements; for some comments on his work, see Price 1982, MacMullen 1981, Paganism in the Roman Empire. Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 72, 194-196. 332  Price 2012: 2-3. 333  Collar 2013: 74. 334  Vilogorac-Brčić, Nikoloska 2014: 105; Suić 1965: 112. 335  Perinić 2015: 215-229. 336  Cambi 1968: 139-141.

37

The Nature and Origin of the Cult of Silvanus completely change our understanding of it. Since this research has not yet been published, it is impossible to judge its significance, but it is still useful to us, at least in the pedagogical sense, as it shows that one monument, or even a part of one monument, can shift our theories or preconceptions.337

(III/34) was found within the context of a sanctuary from a villa rustica. The locality has indications of continuous cult use from (at least) the Roman period into Pre-Romanesque times, when a small private chapel was built.342 A further aspect of syncretism observed by N. Cambi refers to the blending of the Silvanus cult with oriental mystical religion, pointing to three possible adaptations the diety might undergo in the process. Sometimes Silvanus was seen in a form of symbiosis with the oriental deity, while his cult did not experience any particular changes. Occasionally the iconography of Mithras and Attis impacted on that of Silvanus, but these elements are almost inconspicuous and appear to be exclusively of a visual nature with no religious background. By way of examples, Cambi refers to two monuments from Glamočko polje (III/38 and III/42).343 In addition, a similar form of syncretism, where the cult of Silvanus remained unchanged, can be seen in the shrine located in the small cave at Močići.344 The site is not a true cave but a large cleft in the rock with a spring of fresh water. Silvanus and Mithras shared the same space, the same sanctuary, with the image of one god standing opposite the other, practically facing each other. Unfortunately the representation of Silvanus has almost completely disappeared, together with the rock upon which it was carved. All that remains are Silvanus’ feet, resembling that of a goat. The Mithraic imagery, although worn, is still preserved. D. Rendić-Miočević assumed that the Silvanus shrine preceeded that of Mithras.345 If this were the case then it might be argued that Silvanus’ monument was deliberately damaged at the time the representation of Mithras was carved, but then it would be more likely that it would have been completely destroyed. Since the relief of Silvanus is extremely damaged it is almost impossible to make out, which is probably why its existence was questioned in a recent article by N. Cambi.346 However, the most important fact is the peaceful coexistence of the two cults, i.e. the two deities who, side-by-side, shared the same space and shrine. In general, figural representations of Silvanus in Dalmatia were usually torn down, or at least heavily damaged, because of his resemblance to a devil in the Catholic religious tradition.

In interpreting syncretism from the Pridraga relief, N. Cambi focuses rather on contacts and influences than on syncretistic procedures per se. They are manifested in some properties and characteristics that are new and unusual for Silvanus.338 Numerous reliefs testify to the rapprochement of Silvanus to Priapus, Liber, Mercury, Italic Silvanus, and other deities (III/1, III/3, and III/5). Liber is seen with a (live) panther. On monument III/3 from Salona, Silvanus carries the animal’s skin in his left hand. In Gaul, where Silvanus is identified with Sucellus (on several levels), the appearance of a dog or wolf on a monument is interpreted as an expression of life in the wilderness, as opposed to urban life. Toulec believes that an animal skin, when worn like a cloak, falls within the area of Hercules symbolism, as well as the suggestion that it represents differences between the ways of rural and city life.339 D. Rendić-Miočević came to the same conclusion, many years previously, when he proposed that on relief III/3 it is elements of the iconography of Hercules that are recognizeable and not the influence of Liber. It is on this same relief that many elements – symbols and attributes of various deities and various cults – can be see united, suggesting the undeniable penetration of diversified elements into the indigenous religious systems, and also into the religious systems of Greece or Rome.340 The main activity of divinity from III/34 widened by the adoption of new attributes and epithets, whereas at the same time the original scope of the deity was not significantly changed. As a result, Silvanus, as a forest and pastoral deity, obtained another attribute by which his basic character expanded into another dimension: one of medicine and healing.341 Nevertheless, we must bear in mind that Silvanus himself already had some of the features that corresponded with healing and/ or medicine. Some inscriptions invoke Silvanus in the hope of safeguarding the health of family members, friends, the emperor, or the dedicator himself. Silvanus’ healing abilities (Silvanus Salutaris) can be identified on monuments from Pannonia, including the dedication to Silvanus Erbarius (IV.1.65), IV.5.25. (with Jupiter), and especially the inscription where Silvanus appears with Aesculapius (IV.5.34.). From Dalmatia, monument III.2.5. is also relevant. From Pridraga a monument

While Silvanus’ connection with Attis could have been used to widen his scope in relation to medicine and healing (but, as we have seen, not necessarily), his relation to Mithras, a military god, seems quite unusual. Silvanus did however enjoy a strong following amongst soldiers, although not as much as Mithras. Most of Silvanus’ followers were simple people from the lower

I thank Prof. Željko Miletić, University of Zadar, for this information. 338  D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 484. 339  Toulec 1998: 47. 340  D. Rendić-Miočević 1989a: 473-474. 341  Cambi 1968: 139. 337 

342  343  344  345  346 

38

Cambi 1968: 139-141; Migotti 1992: 231. Cambi 1968: 141. See Chapter 5 on Silvanus’ shrines. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 533-535. Cambi 2013: 26-27, note 46.

Interpretatio Romana and Syncretism classes, including slaves and freedmen, but then again most soldiers were of simple origin. Silvanus is known to prefer a Phrygian cap, as Mithras also does. Furthermore, Mithras is sometimes depicted followed by a dog, as was Silvanus, but the iconographical similarities stop there. As for women adherents, the cult of Silvanus was closed to them, but not as strictly as that of Mithras,347 and its worshippers were not so hierarchically structured. Silvanus certainly appealed to women, even though they were not as visible and active in his cult as men. The under-representation of women in itself is hardly unusual and does not necessarily imply the existence of any sort of sexual taboo. Few other Roman cults were dominated entirely by one sex, although some deities forbade the participation of men or women at particular events, or had aspects appealing to male or female tastes. For example, women could not sacrifice to Hercules at the Ara Maxima in Rome, and men (including the Pontifex Maximus) were denied access to the inner sanctuary of the temple of Vesta in the Roman Forum and the shrine of Diana on the Vicus Patricius in Rome.348

and for this reason a basin was often incorporated into the shrine structure.350 Site selection was never random.351 The shrine at Močići, as well as the site where the Pridraga (III/34) relief was found, were located in the countryside. They were close to natural springs or had a water source actually within the sanctuary. Given that we cannot know with certainty the processes whereby syncretism at these monuments evolved, and with the above-mentioned factors in mind, it is perhaps fair to consider that the location of a sanctuary influenced the choice of the deities to be venerated there, and their later integration/merger, and that the location also led to the recognition of certain elements through which the two deities were then joined. Similar examples of the permeation of cultic elements can be found in Italy, where Mithraic and other oriental cults had an impact on Silvanus, who then assumed hitherto unknown attributes (Silvanus Dendrophoros). This syncretism on the Pridraga relief (III/34) probably happened as a result of the recognition of the pastoral and healing elements of both deities. It is equally possible that there were similarities in the ritual elements of both cults, as it is assumed by Suić, without much evidence it must be said, that in their rituals the Illyrian cults had certain orgiastic elements, even in the period when they were completely agrarian in character. Consequently, there is a basis for syncretism, or contamination, with oriental deities in this detail also.352 Cult rituals related to the Silvanus epithet Dendrophoros, which he often adopted in Italy, reflected a similarity with the cult of Magna Mater in the ceremonial celebration of the deities.353 The only conclusion that can be offered is that both syncretism and interpretatio Romana were dependent on very many factors and that all the evidence needs thorough examination.

What remains firm in the connections between Silvanus and Mithras is the fact that both were very popular among soldiers. There is a small chance that the shrine at Močići was erected by a soldier (or soldiers) who worshipped both gods,349 although it is not highly probable. The most likely reason Mithras and Silvanus shared a shrine can be looked for in their common appreciation of wells, springs and cave-like shrines. The importance of water for ritual purposes in the Mithras cult is made clear by finds of basins and cisterns, by representations of Oceanus, and also by the evident desire to locate temples near rivers or springs. Basins were clearly essential and fresh water appears to have been required for some Mithraic rituals,

Clauss 2000: 73; for Silvanus’ connection with water, see previously in the text, for example Chapter 1.2. 351  Ando 2000: 429-445. 352  Suić 1965: 97, note 16. 353  Dorcey 1992: 82. 350 

347  348  349 

Griffith 2006: 48-77. Dorcey 1989: 143, note 6. Miletić 2014: 243-251.

39

5. Silvanus' Shrines

the image of Silvanus there was a statue(tte) or a relief. Since only one statuette exists (III/51) it is probable that both types were in use, as long as they featured all the elements of the god.362 The situation was quite different in Pannonia. At present we know of, at least, two temples dedicated to Silvanus – Aquincum and Carnuntum – and it is possible that one existed in Mursa also (see later).

5a. Dalmatia The Latin word templum has a somewhat different meaning from what is today understood by the term temple. Templum had at least three different but interconnected meanings. The first referred to the area in the sky where signs sent by the gods could be read; the second related to a specific geographical location where auspices were observed; and the third referred to a site considered to have a special connection to a particular deity. The notion that temples were consecrated buildings probably came from Rome, where such buildings also served as temples, while in rural areas the areas dedicated to certain deities were known as tesca.354

N. Cambi mentioned three basic types of Silvanus shrine in Dalmatia. The most important were sanctuary sites in the open space (in nature, sub divo) with the image of the god carved into a suitable rock-face (Klis III/23, Kozjak III/24, Čitluk III/72, Močići, figs. 7 and 7a); the second type consisted of cave sites (Klis III/63, Vodna Jama III/56); and the third type featured the small shrine (aedicula), as evidenced by the monument from Trstenik (III/19).363

Some scholars believe that there is no evidence in Dalmatia that ethnic groups erected temples to Silvanus, not even in coastal areas, which were more susceptible to both Greek and Roman influences.355 Others, however, think that monuments to Silvanus were situated in the natural environment, most likely spelaea,356 and that smaller shrines also existed.357 The Delmatae probably erected temples, in general, as indicated by the 7th century BC shrine from Gorica, near Imotski, first explored by Ć. Truhelka, who assumed that graves found inside the building were from the same period.358 However it was later established that the shrine was intercut with medieval burials. The finds (jewellery, spears, knives, helmets) are dated from the 7th to 1st centuries BC.359

Silvanus’ shrines in Dalmatia are found mostly in caves in areas of rough cliffs. The shrines in Kozjak and Klis have retained their original features, but the cult images were damaged through time and neglect. Among the many preserved reliefs from Dalmatia, the majority are of a votive nature; only a few of these, however, may securely be said to have been carved for Silvanus shrines. Several silvanea are clustered mostly around Salona, in the areas of Klis, Poljica, and Kaštela. In general it may be assumed that in Dalmatia, and elsewhere, there were silvanea featuring the image of Silvanus carved into rock surfaces, or including a statue(tte), or perhaps even some sort of drawing. The existence of a shrine can be assumed in Vrlika (Crkvina/Otišić), where eight votive inscriptions dedicated to Silvanus were found.364 Most silvanea had a water source nearby, e.g. Močići, Brač and Klis. It is a common perception that the unification of the two elements (cave and water) in a shrine led to the merger of the cult of Silvanus with the nymph cult, which was devoted to springs and water. Inscription IV.5.2. from Salona, according to which Lucius Aprofeinius Circitor dedicated a shrine to Silvanus and the nymphs, seems to confirm this theory. However the Silvanus cult, irrespective of the nymphs, already contained a water element and his shrines called for exactly such a combination of rock and water.

In Rome, Silvanus was honoured in sacred groves and in fields, away from the noise of the city. There, a hall with columns, a porch, a hallway, or an aedicule, was built, which served for meetings and celebrations.360 Dorcey believes that the rock inscriptions mentioning Silvanus do not specify places of worship, as this form of shrine was referred to indirectly only by Propertius.361 Part of a shrine (porch?) has possibly been located at Trstenik (III/19). The relief from Salona (III/7) showing an aedicule with two pillars and gable, as well as the relief from Pridraga near Zadar (III/34), support the assumption that there were also certain types of built shrines. If small shrines existed, the question is whether Beard, North, Price 1998, Vol. II: 86-87 (Varro, De lingua Latina, VII, 8-10). 355  A. Rendić-Miočević 1982: 130. 356  Bojanovski 1977-1978: 121-124. 357  Bojanovski 1977-1978: 123; Cambi 1998-2000: 99-111. 358  Truhelka 1900: 399. 359  Čović 1976: 252-255. 360  CIL VI 10231; Stambaugh 1978: 589-591. 361  Dorcey 1992: 94 (Propertius, 4.4.11.). 354 

Relief III/63 from Klis, depicting Silvanus and the nymphs dancing, has irregularly shaped edges, as if 362  363  364 

40

Cambi 1998-2000: 109-110. Cambi 1998-2000: 99-111. Čović 1976: 252; Milošević 1998: 98.

Silvanus' Shrines

Fig. 7: The Mithraeum at Močići.

an imitation of a cave. It is possible that there existed models, or similar reliefs, depicting Pan in Greece, where the surrounds of the cave may be clearly identified. Details of the reliefs from Klis (III/23) and Kozjak (III/24), namely the niche representing the entrance to the cave, seem to reveal a connection with certain Pan cult images from Attica.365 It is hard to discern whether these two reliefs were influenced by Silvanus caveshrines, or it was the impact of the Greek reliefs of Pan. Both possibilities have to be taken into consideration since all these images (i.e. III/23, III/33, III/43), if not genuine, would not have gained such a strong foothold in Dalmatia.366

D. Rendić-Miočević believed that the name Kozjak (Croatian noun koza – a she-goat) is a translation of a preSlavonic name in which the memory of Silvanus, a goatlike deity, could be discerned.369 Northeast of the cliff known as Bovan is a smaller rock carved with the image of anthropo-theriomorphic Silvanus, which reminded the locals of an elderly woman, so they named the rock ‘Baba’ (grandmother). This rock formation overlooks the entire bay of Salona. The relief was carved about 1.90m high off the ground, which is probably the reason it has survived, unlike the one from Čitluk (III/72). There is a dog by Silvanus’ left side. The outlines of a rectangular object can be discerned also, perhaps an altar (as on relief III/21 from Peruča in Klis). During early Christian times this space functioned as a cult site, as indicated by the crosses engraved above and at the bottom of the niche.370

A nicely preserved example of a cave-shrine is to be found at the above-mentioned site at Močići (Fig. 7). It is not a true cave, but rather a large hole in the rock with a source of potable water. This site served both as a silvaneum and Mithraeum.367 The relief of Silvanus there is extremely worn and only partially intact; it is difficult to make it out, which is probably why its existence was questioned in recent article by Cambi.368 The image of Mithra, although worn, is still preserved.

Near the site of Crkvina (Crikvine) in Klapavice, northeast of Klis, an inscription (III.5.6.) dedicated to various deities, including Silvanus and the nymphs, was found on the floor of the apse of the Early Christian basilica (6th century). A fragment of a Silvanus relief was found along with the inscription, and Silvanus is described as moschophoros, with the kid on his left shoulder (probably III/22). It was believed that the image of Silvanus carved into the rock had been completely destroyed,371 however it is carved into the bottom of vertical cliffs, some 6 to 8m above the deep bed of the stream. Both the cliff and the relief are oriented south-

Another sanctuary is to be found north of the eastern expanse of the city area of Salona, on the slopes of Kozjak above Kaštel, near Split. The engraved relief III/24 is still located today on one of the rocks of the hillside. 365  366  367  368 

A. Rendić-Miočević 1982: 135. Cambi 1998-2000: 104. D. Rendić-Miočević 1989c: 531-532. Cambi 2013: 26-27, note 46.

369  370  371 

41

D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 467. Cf. with the location of Pridraga-Mijovilovac (III/34). D. Rendić-Miočević 1989a: 473.

The Nature and Origin of the Cult of Silvanus

Fig. 7A: The image of Silvanus.374

east. The damage is visible, but it is significantly less than at Kozjak.372

Greek cognomen was relatively common in Dalmatia, but Euaristos, of course, did not have to be of Eastern origin. The relief shows the cult community associated with forests, cattle, fields and water. It is difficult to say to what extent this relief was indigenous, or whether it just reflected the Italic impact, however, disregarding the possible influences, such cults of nature deities were undoubtedly rooted locally. The iconography, and not the religious content, might have taken the guise of (classical) influences. The hairstyles of the nymphs were of contemporary fashion; it was not always the case that ‘modern’ hairstyles were used for characters of a religious character, but this practice was undoubtedly present, perhaps because of a desire, or attempt, to bring the worshippers closer to their gods. All three nymphs have a very similar hairstyle, only the rightmost has her hair combed differently (although the hairstyle is the same). According to these hairstyles the inscription may be dated to the period between AD 140 and 150, with the possibility that the same hairstyle was continued for another decade or two.375 The people of Lučac had no possessions in Solin. Their land was generally located to the east of Split. After the Roman period the

Another sanctuary dedicated to Silvanus, this time with the epithet Augustus, is revealed by inscriptions III.2.5. from Salona. The inscription is dedicated by Trofimus Servius Amandianus, dispensator – a soldier in charge of food supplies, or its distribution to soldiers, or a servant employed within the Imperial treasury. According to the inscription the sanctuary was most likely in the form of a fountain (nympheum). The location for this sanctuary was specified by the town council. The inscription was found in the southern perimeter wall of the city and can be dated to the time after the conquest of Dacia, i.e. after AD 105. There is also another transcription of this inscription which presumes that two individuals were involved in the building of this sanctuary.373 374 Relief III/60, dedicated to Silvanus and the nymphs, indicates that a sanctuary was located at Lučac in Split. The relief was set up by a certain Euaristos. This 372  373  374 

A. Rendić-Miočević 1982: 134-135. Cambi 2013: 81; Šašel Kos 1997: 205, no. 4. Photograph by D. Perkić (this image is not in the catalogue).

375 

42

Cambi 2007: 28.

Silvanus' Shrines monuments were used as building material for houses, and they probably came from areas around these (or neighbouring) dwellings. A small Roman settlement probably existed at Lučac, perhaps a vicus, or a group of houses within the Salona ager. One inscription dedicated to the nymphs was found in this area. It was dedicated by Aelius Victor, which is why it cannot be dated before Hadrian. Victor received the Imperial gentilicium Aelius during or after Hadrian’s accession. Near the end of the village of Radunica, just next to the house where the above-mentioned relief of the nymphs was found, there was once a stream (it dried up following construction in the area in the early 20th century). The name Radun, including its diminutive Radunica, means water and wherever it appears it indicates a spring or other water source. Therefore, the relief dedicated to Silvanus (and perhaps to Diana) and the water-nymphs, most likely originates from Lučac, where presumably there was an aedes, within a sacred grove, dedicated to Silvanus and the nymphs.376

block, of course, could not stand alone, and it was a part of a larger complex. It is considered that the building (aedicula) was about 5.5m wide (or 18 Roman feet); it had a box-gable roof and probably two pillars at the front, which would correspond with a small private temple raised by an individual, as, after all, the inscription relates.382 In the immediate vicinity of the finding place of the pediment (or Silvanus shrine) there once stood an Early Medieval church dedicated to St. Sylvester, which was probably not a coincidence.383 Relief III/79 was found during systematic excavations within the locality of Putovići, Dvorišta Ograj, near Zenica. Three elaborate structures were found and named buildings A–C. Within the area of building B, towards the north-east wall, there was a separate oblong building, constructed on six stone pillars. The Early Christian basilica at Bilimišća is situated very close by;384 building C was probably a bath (thermae). Relief III/79 (dated to the 3rd century)385 was found on the wall separating the oblong building and building B. The eyes, eyebrows, and cheeks of Silvanus and Diana are geometricized to an astonishing degree. The simplification of forms resulted in the dominance of the large, round eyes, to which both the plastic projection of the profile and the front face are added. Considering the relief’s main features, highlighted in an intensification of expression into a stiff, icon-like stare, it is possible to push the dating of the relief into the early 4th century. Several more relief fragments were found in the same locality of Putovići Ograja, also representing Silvanus and/or Diana.386 These other fragments represent Silvanus as we are accustomed seeing on most reliefs from Dalmatia. As a result, it is quite legitimate to presume that this locality was a sanctuary dedicated to Silvanus (and Diana).

Another silvaneum was found at Čitluk (Aequum), where an interesting relief of Silvanus and Diana (III/72) was carved into the rock.377 Silvanus’ head has been very damaged (almost completely chipped away), meaning, of course, that it was within reach of passers-by. Behind the mountains of Dinara, especially at the Glamočko polje, there are also indications pointing to the possible locations of Silvanus sanctuaries. One silvaneum is presumed to have existed at the site of Busija, where all the elements of the cult of Silvanus were present (nature, forests, meadows, water). This presumption is based on a series of monuments dedicated to Silvanus.378 Another sanctuary was possibly located at Borak, within the village of Vrba, since in its immediate area a number of reliefs dedicated to Silvanus were also found (III/67, III/68, III/74, III/84). These reliefs were in a nearby speleum (or niche) and it is assumed that they were protected by an edifice resembling a small temple.379

Considering the frequent instances of respect for cult sites from pagan to Christian times, this phenomenon cannot be coincidental. It was probably strongly rooted in tradition which, as well as the cult places themselves, could have shared the descent of some elements related to the narrower aspects of the cult of Silvanus.387 This expression of respect might also reflect a tendency of the church to eradicate or convert all sites where pagan cults were worshipped.388 Both opinions are essentially correct. Spiritual continuity was so strong that it was reflected in the cases of temporary conversion, or in instances when the church/sacral building was deserted, and it manifested itself primarily in pursuing the original addressee.389 These overbuilt sacred sites included

The pediment with relief (III/19) at Trstenik, north of Kastel Sućurac, is a unique find. The monument with inscription was probably built into a smaller building, i.e. a shrine to Silvanus. The oak crown is in the central part of the gable, the pedum on the right, and syrinx on the left. A. Rendić-Miočević presumed that on the top of the gable there was a statuette of Silvanus,380 while N. Cambi believed that the depression was not intended for a statue and that the pediment had been damaged.381 Both presumptions are equally possible. The triangular

382  383  376  377  378  379  380  381 

Cambi 2007: 28. D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 467. Bojanovski 1965: 11-23. Bojanovski 1977-1978: 115-132. A. Rendić-Miočević 1982: 126. Cambi 1998-2000: 107.

384  385  386  387  388  389 

43

Cambi 1998-2000: 107. A. Rendić-Miočević 1982: 126. Paškvalin 1968: 155; 1990: 35. Imamović 1977: 31. Perinić 2015: 225-227. A. Rendić-Miočević 1982:126-127. Cambi 1968: 140. Migotti 1992: 226.

The Nature and Origin of the Cult of Silvanus Pridraga, Galovac, Danilo, Kaštel, Podstrana, Brač (Škrip), Trogir (Bijaći), Klapavica, and possibly Brnaze near Sinj390 and Zenica.

It is also possible that soldiers built the shrine to Silvanus at Topusko (Ad Fines), and at Dunabogdány V/5 (Cirpi), just as they built the temple of Sol Elagabalus at Brigetio.395 Seven military votive inscriptions dedicated to Silvanus are known from Topusko (leg. I Adiutrix PF: IV.1.7. and IV.1.9; X Gemina: IV.1.4. and IV.1.10.; XIV Gemina: IV.1.5., IV.1.6., and IV.1.8.), whereas only two military votive inscriptions are from Daruvar (soldiers of the Praetorian cohorts IV.1.13. and consular beneficiaries of IV.5.2.). From this it may be presumed that the baths at Topusko were probably specialized facilities for the military. Unlike Topusko and Daruvar,396 where shrines dedicated to Silvanus are known, evidence of his cult at the thermal centre in Aquae Iasae is almost completely absent. This is probably a consequence of the dominance of the early local numina (especially the nymphs) who were directly associated with the thermal healing springs.397

Recently, on the island of Brač, in a cave near Vodna jama (between Supetar and Donji Humac), a fragment of a relief (III/56) with an inscription was found. The upper left corner of the relief is preserved and the heads of the two nymphs are turned slightly to the right; on the edge of the relief is the inscription: Niffis et Si(…..). It is assumed that a sanctuary dedicated to Silvanus and the nymphs existed in the cave. This finding is conclusive evidence of the existence of silvanea, in the fullest sense, in Dalmatia.391 5b. Pannonia As mentioned above, templum in its original sense designated a consecrated space that did not necessarily have to be a building. Hungarian researchers believe that in Pannonia, until the 2nd century AD, the templum did not denote a large complex but a smaller sanctuary, as the term templum was found in descriptions of some buildings in smaller centres.392

As well as the Topusko find, numerous dedications to Silvanus from the Croatian part of southern Pannonia came from Siscia, Aquae Balissae and Mursa. The Cirpi monument (IV/5) was found in a civil settlement next to the camp; it was dedicated by the veteran Julius Secundinus in AD 249 when he enlarged and modified (spatio templum minors (sic) ampliavit), the god’s existing sanctuary. Silvanus is shown in an aedicule, from which we can probably assume how the sanctuary looked. A special feature, previously unrecorded on Silvanus monuments from Pannonia is the pair of spears Silvanus holds in his right hand. A parallel for this monument was found in the monument at Dachsberg (Gaul) where Silvanus also holds a spear, but that relief is not followed by an inscription.398 The spear in Silvanus’ hand can be found on reliefs from Dacia, where it replaced the branch Silvanus usually held.399 There is a possibility that the client Julius Secundinus requested such an image of Silvanus, which was the standard representation favoured by soldiers in Pannonia in the 3rd century.400 Since many soldiers and veterans were among Silvanus’ worshippers, it could be assumed that they gave him attributes and epithets that were not usual for his cult, such as the epithet Bellator on 2.1.58. from Sremska Mitrovica. The back of the Cirpi monument is untouched so it is assumed that it was embedded in the wall of the annex built by Julius Secundinus.

Temples to Silvanus in Carnuntum (Pannonia) and Sarmizegetusa (Dacia) were identified on the basis of the objects and inscriptions dedicated to him. Therefore it is logical to assume that the purpose of these buildings was not exclusively for Silvanus cult ceremonies. The concentration of a large number of votive inscriptions at Topusko (Pannonia) and Aquileia (Italy) may indicate the existence of a temple or sacred place, possibly with simple architecture. Inscription IV.5.13. from Carnuntum proved the existence of a sanctuary that dated to the reign of Commodus (not before AD 180), as did the renewal of Silvanus’ sanctuary there. The inscription, in which Silvanus appears with genius loci, was erected and the temple renewed by a governor’s freedman. According to Z. Farkas, in this inscription Jupiter Optimus Maximus has been replaced by Silvanus.393 A. Mócsy’s theory is more probable and differs from that of Farkas. He noted that Romans under genius loci most commonly comprehended certain local deities. In that case the Silvanus mentioned on the inscription was of Italic origin, while genius loci was some undefined and local indigenous deity.394 Inscription IV.5.14., dedicated to Silvanus and Quadriviae and dated AD 211, proves the existence of another shrine. After its collapse this shrine was restored by Caius Antonius Valentinus, a veteran of Legion XIV. Geminae.

In Osijek, at the site of the Faculty of Agriculture, a large area was explored (2003-2005) and the remains of six buildings with supporting utilities and transport 395 

390  391  392  393  394 

Migotti 1992: 235. Demicheli 2010: 175-185. i.e. Gabler 1966, 24. Farkas 1972: 99. Mócsy 1974: 252.

396  397  398  399  400 

44

CIL III 4300, soldiers of Legion II Adiutrix. D. Rendić-Miočević 1989b: 512. D. Rendić-Miočević 1989b: 511. Szőke 1971: 224. Dorcey 1992: 77. Szőke 1971: 224.

Silvanus' Shrines infrastructure were found. Within this complex, and to the west of it, many wells and pits were found. Of the six structures the most interesting was No. 1, located south of the road. It occupies an area of 1390m2 and it was not completely defined as its overall dimensions extended outside the excavated area. The building complex is marked by an atrium that divides it into eastern and western parts. From the western part of the complex the wall foundations of several rooms were preserved, while from the eastern part, with its beautifully preserved flooring, the walls are recognized only in negative. The atrium was entered from the north side, where there were two rectangular niches and two pedestals with the remnants of their pillars. Inside the atrium, beneath a layer of the collapsed roof structure, was stone built flooring. Near its remains were found five altars dedicated to Silvanus (Silvanus Augustus, Silvanus Domesticus, and Silvanus Silvester).401 The size and shape of feature No. 1 (in which the altars were found), as well as the small objects found there, indicate that it was a sacred building,402 namely, the sanctuary of Silvanus.

of its inscription.405 Z. Farkas believed that it should be dated to the last decades of the 2nd century AD, immediately after the wars involving the Marcomanni (AD 167 to 180), when the temple was most likely damaged. Inscription IV/6 was decorated with the relief of Silvanus Augustus and Diana (each in their own niche), and was dedicated by the centurion Marcus Appianus Ursulus. The centurion stated Legion V Macedonica as the first legion in which he served as a centurion, therefore, the beginning of his career as a centurion is dated to the time of Commodus406 and the inscription to the reign of Severus. Both monuments (IV/6 and IV.2.5.) were found at the same site (the relief was covered by the inscription) and Quintilianus’ inscription was probably intended as confirmation of the repairs to the shrine he had commissioned, while the centurion’s was almost certainly erected in the sanctuary at the time it was built and therefore it preceded that of Quintilianus.407 The sanctuary was located not far from the forum and the temple of the Capitoline Triad. Pannonia, again, in terms of the type of its Silvanus sanctuaries offers a completely different picture to that of Dalmatia. In Dalmatia there were, at least, three types of shrines (without taking into account household shrines), and the most important type were those located in open spaces. In Pannonia, so far, not one sanctuary has been found in the open space. Given the popularity of Silvanus as Domesticus in Pannonia, one may be fairly certain that in urbanized Pannonia (inscriptions, reliefs, and shrines are predominantly from urbanized areas) the worship of the forest god Silvanus did not prevail, and that his cult in Pannonia showed almost no differences from the one in Italy.

The reliefs and inscriptions revealed the existence of a sanctuary at Ptuj (IV/28), and another at Sopron (Scarbantia) – IV/6 and IV.2.5. The inscription from Ptuj is damaged in such a way that we cannot see to which aspect of Silvanus it was dedicated, whereas both monuments from Scarbantia were dedicated to Silvanus Augustus. The inscription from Ptuj bears a personal reference, while that from Scarbantia (IV.2.5.) is somewhat different. It was erected by Tiberius Julius Quintilianus, a member of the old Scarbantia family,403 at the moment he received the highest possible honour, the title of Augur.404 Authors disagree on the dating

Filipović 2007: 78. Filipović, Katavić 2006: 2-4. 403  Farkas 1972: 96. 404  The role of Augur was one of the most important priestly offices in the municipal cult of western Pannonia.

Mócsy: 1st century; Barkóczi: end of 2nd century; Gabler: 3rd century. 406  The Legion was then referred to as p(ia) f(idelis) and p(ia) c(onstant). 407  Farkas 1972: 95.

401 

405 

402 

45

6. Concluding Remarks

economic, or even cultural entity. The area that stretched from the sea to the mountains of Dinara was subject to different conditions of development than the region behind these mountains.410 D. Rendić-Miočević thought that the comparison of Silvanus monuments in these two areas confirmed their geographical separation,411 however that view is no longer sustainable (see Chapter 3). The Delmatean Silvanus presents many of the same iconographic features of Arcadian Pan, and many scholars deny his indigenous origin. Throughout the long period of Roman rule, Silvanus’ monuments and his dedicators behind the Dinara massif managed to maintain their authenticity.412 Due to the known and perceived conservatism of this region (still persistant today), the speculation that representations of Silvanus from these areas preserved to a certain degree the original image of the old local cult is convincing. The Dinara mountains, i.e. the Cetina Valley, functioned as the border between the two geographical areas but it also connected them. Thus the goat-legged and horned forest god Silvanus broke through from the Dalmatian hinterlands into the fertile valley of the upper Cetina and further (Hvar, Makarska). Recently, this notion of conservativism has been questioned by D. Džino, arguing that the evidence for the Silvanus cult reveals a high degree of connectivity within the broader Imperial world on several levels: local, regional, as well as global. Silvanus provided the perfect image and symbolism, in addition to a concept that could disguise cultural change and innovation as continuity and tradition.413 However the representations of Silvanus found behind the Dinara mountains and on some islands (Hvar, Brač), which are used as proof of the connectivity of ethnic communities, do not necessarily contradict or exclude the conservative tendencies such communities arguably exhibited and maintained.

6.1. Dalmatia The interpretation of indigenous deities through the familiar names of the Roman gods does extends beyond the onomastic sphere alone. It stems from the content and character of the cult of the local deities and those syncretistic forms associated with the Greco-Roman pantheon. However, the indigenous cults, especially those in the area of the Delmatae, the core of Roman Dalmatia, reveal indigenous/native imprints, although their deities reflected the basic iconographic scheme already present in the classical Greco-Roman cults. In terms of iconography, the small number of local deities show extraordinarily rich and elaborate schemes, and their representations are generally preserved on monuments within the heartlands of the Delmatae region in the province of Dalmatia. The most prominent figure was Silvanus, with his iconography from GreekArcadian Pan and the name ‘borrowed’ from the Italic deity. This, possibly indigenous god had already lost his local name through the shift in cult interpretation. His cult community expanded with the arrival of the divinity equated with Roman Diana. The nymphs often appeared with them, dancing with Silvanus or alone, thus giving us an insight into the world of ancient indigenous folklore (e.g. Dalmatia: III/55, III/58, III/59, III/64; Pannonia: IV/26, IV/28, IV/29). The epithets accompanying Silvanus are also Roman – Augustus, Silvester, Messor, etc. – according to the dominant traits of his worship, which usually reflected the sphere of the main regional economy. The cults of the indigenous population of Roman Dalmatia were to remain for a long time the strongest impediment to the policy of Romanisation implemented by Rome, as much here as in other provinces, but there were also compromises made in this regard. The natives, subjected to Romanisation, accepted worship of Roman gods, especially Jupiter, Hercules, Dionysus (Liber), Venus, Minerva, and others. However, Italic and other settlers, especially orientals, accepted the domestic ‘pantheon’.408

The seminal work on Silvanus by D. Rendić-Miočević mentioned the Dinara range as the border that divides the coastal area from the fertile fields of the upper Cetina, but also as a unifying factor for these regions. His study covers mainly those reliefs depicting Silvanus found along the upper Cetina (Sinj and Vrlika) and from south-western Bosnia, on the other side of the Dinara mountains (Livno, Glamoč and Tomislavgrad). At the time D. Rendić-Miočević wrote his article, of four the categories of Silvanus monuments behind the mountains,

The largest number of reliefs showing the iconic Silvanus image comes from the old regions of the Delmatae, which is firm proof that this deity was particularly revered and popular within this noted tribe of herdsmen, whose economic structure in the Roman period rested on cattle raising and breeding.409 The Delmatae areas did not constitute a geographical, 408  409 

Strabo, Geogr. VII, 5 – epithalattios. The author separates coastal Delmatean teritory (Dalmatike) from that of the hinterland. 411  D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 471. 412  Paškvalin 1963: 132. 413  Džino 2016: 8-12. 410 

D. Rendić-Miočević 1989d: 425. D. Rendić-Miočević 1989a: 461-507.

46

Concluding Remarks the type most widely favoured was the style presenting a more complex figural and cultic composition.414 He considered this to be confirmation that local cults in the interior had an undisturbed development and even flourished during Roman domination. It was then that they finally found an opportunity for the projection of their artistic and visual realization in stone – previously an unused medium.415 From this period the number of reliefs increased, and those of the first category (Silvanus alone) prevailed. With numerous reliefs depicting an unaccompanied Silvanus, D. Rendić-Miočević claimed that this god, worshipped under Roman rule and given the name Silvanus, was really a supreme Delmatean god, if perhaps not the only one, and that he was especially popular with the Delmatae. The name under which he was worshipped throughout the Delmataen region was borrowed or, rather, imposed. From the iconographical point of view, there is no justification for the identification of this local deity with the Italic Silvanus, as any connection can be found only in the name they shared, and that name symbolizes the character and nature of the local forest god.416 The identification of the Vidasus and Thana417 with the Italic pair of Silvanus and Diana, in terms of interpretatio Romana, can be considered accurate only locally, i.e. related to a certain area where the inscriptions were found (Topusko), and it should not be applied to the broader territory as a whole.418

later phase he became associated with woods and forests. The later name (and the deity) prevailed, wiping out the original meaning and finally evolved into its opposite. Accordingly, the local Vidasus would have not only been responsible for restoring health, but, primarily, ‘the one who knows’ and ‘the one who sees’, a healer who delivered prophecies, as revealed in inscriptions IV.4.98. (ex Viso posuit), III.2.3. (ex auditus) and III.2.8. and III/1 (ex visu). The name Thana was equated with the name Diana for linguistic reasons, and this in turn strengthened the identification of Vidasus with Silvanus.420 Vidasus and Thana must have been closely linked to the healing properties of water and theraputic clay/mud at Topusko. Those who lived there knew the destructive and/or healing powers of springs and mud since prehistoric times. Even before the arrival of the Celts and the Romans, such places probably had topical divinities rooted in indigenous traditions.421 It is reasonable to assume that precedence was afforded to the goddess, the mistress of hidden forces underground that emerged through springs. Over time, competence ili jurisdiction over healing springs and mud divided between the male and female principles. The role of the goddess is shown in the tradition of the indigenous people in locations where powerful female deities held influence. Both Diana and Thana shared the same characteristics, combining power over wild animals and assistance during childbirth. There was an obvious contrast between Diana’s ability to assist women with pregnancy and childbirth, and her partner Silvanus, who had to be driven away from women in labour and newly-delivered mothers.422 To achieve this it was necessary to perform a ritual involving three men, each with a specific implement; these men would invoke three deities supposed to protect the woman involved from the (sexual) agression of Silvanus.423 In this

In the linguistic analysis of the name Vidasus, M. Suić assumed that the popular etymology of the semantic calque was created through a semantic connection in antiquity. Thus Vidasus would be a healer god par excellence and ‘one who treats wounds’ and the who ‘restores health’; if indeed the meaning derives from the root * w(e)id-. Because of the importance Silvanus undoubtedly had in Topusko, his identification with Vidasus allowed the deity to have multiple competencies and thus expand his powers to assume the nature of a healing god.419 His healing character is evident on the Pridraga relief (III/34), the inscription dedicated to Silvanus Erbarius (IV.1.65.), and especially from inscription IV.5.33., where Silvanus appears with Aesculapius himself.

Kuntić-Makvić 2005: 335-337. Woolf 1998: 207. 422  Burris 1931 (Chapter V). 423  Augustine, De. civ. Dei, VI-9: Quale autem illud est, quod cum religiosum a superstitioso ea distinctione discernat, ut a superstitioso dicat timeri deos, a religioso autem tantum vereri ut parentes, non ut hostes timeri, atque omnes ita bonos dicat, ut facilius sit eos nocentibus parcere quam laedere quemquam innocentem, tamen mulieri fetae post partum tres deos custodes commemorat adhiberi, ne Silvanus deus per noctem ingrediatur et vexet, eorumque custodum significandorum causa tres homines noctu circuire limina domus et primo limen securi ferire, postea pilo, tertio deverrere scopis, ut his datis culturae signis deus Silvanus prohibeatur intrare, quod neque arbores caeduntur ac putantur sine ferro, neque far conficitur sine pilo, neque fruges coacervantur sine scopis; ab his autem tribus rebus tres nuncupatos deos, Intercidonam a securis intercisione, Pilumnum a pilo, Deverram ab scopis, quibus diis custodibus contra uim dei Siluani feta conservaretur. Ita contra dei nocentis saevitiam non valeret custodia bonorum, nisi plures essent adversus unum eique aspero horrendo inculto, utpote silvestri, signis culturae tamquam contrariis repugnarent. Itane ista est innocentia deorum, ista concordia? Haecine sunt numina salubria urbium, magis ridenda quam ludibria theatrorum? (‘But what kind of distinction is this which he makes between the religious and the superstitious man, saying that the gods are feared by the superstitious man, but are reverenced as parents by the religious man, not feared as enemies; and that they are all so good that they will more readily spare those who are impious than hurt one who is innocent? And yet he tells us that three gods are assigned as guardians to a woman after she has 420  421 

The local name of the deity, through the names preserved and developed in the Slavic languages, especially Croatian, might uncover the meaning and thus contribute to a better understanding of the name of the Etruscan and Italic god, which had a double meaning. The god’s major influence in his earlier phase was with knowledge and clairvoyance, as suggested by his name, while in the D. Rendić-Miočević 1989a: 463. See Chapter 3. 416  D. Rendić-Miočević 1989a: 463-4. 417  AIJ 516, 517, 518 – Vidasus and Thana; Mayer 1941-1942: 187 id; D. Rendić-Miočević 1951a: 34-35. 418  D. Rendić-Miočević 1951a: 34-35. 419  Schejbal 2003: 403-404; lectures of Prof. Suić. 414  415 

47

The Nature and Origin of the Cult of Silvanus rivalry between Silvanus and Diana the goddess lost her primacy and thus stood side-by-side with Silvanus. An indication of this may possibly be seen on relief III/74 from Busija, Glamoč. Silvanus and Diana are shown in motion, the god holding Diana’s hand.424 However, as Džino recently summarized, the connection of Silvanus and Diana to Vidasus and Thana is based on indirect evidence: Silvanus is the most popular divinity in Topusko, and the inscription to Vidasus and Thana was found in the vicinity of those dedicated to Silvanus.425 The association of Vidasus and Thana with Silvanus and Diana could be similar to the one assumed in Močići, but here we have two pairs of gods, not just two gods, who shared the same sanctuary.

between indigenous and Italic deities can be found on several votive inscriptions, inter alia Venus – Iria, Venus – Anzotica, Apollo – Tadenus, Bindus – Neptunus).428 Silvanus with specific characteristic epithets can also be included here: Silvanus Magla (Maglaenus) IV.1.11., Silvanus Cor ... III/39, Silvanus Messor III.3.4. This list could be expanded by Silvanus’ epithets ex qualitate that often accompanied his name, e.g. Bellator (IV.1.60.) and Communis (III.1.1.). All this can serve as a proof that not only were the forms of Silvanus worship different, but also that he was worshipped under different names in different areas.429 However, the fact remains that the name of the indigenous deity known under the name of Silvanus was not preserved. In all the variants it is only the Italic names that occur (Silvanus, Diana, nymphae), but this was not the case in Histria and Liburnia (e.g. Venus Anzotica and Iria), where local (indigenous) names survived alongside their Roman counterparts. With the guiding principle of Silvanus as one of the supreme indigenous deities, it would indeed be necessary to establish his local name, since the name he carries throughout Illyricum was imposed and borrowed from the Italic Silvanus. Furthermore, in terms of iconography, the so-called Delmatean Silvanus shares only his name with the Italic Silvanus.430

Roman soldiers participated in the construction of the baths at Topusko, and also used the facility. These men left seven inscriptions dedicated to Silvanus (IV.1.4.IV.1.10.). If Vidasus and Thana were identified with Silvanus and Diana, then Vidasus (Silvanus) healed the sick, and the goddess remained in his shadow as an assistant. Diana was a huntress, a mistress of the trees of woods and forests; she presided over flows of mineral-rich waters from below ground and which Silvanus used for his mediations on the surface. The waters that assisted with pregnancy are the same as those used to wash the dead – those whom Silvanus can no longer help.426 Christianity later dealt with the old pagan practices, replacing them with the appropriate saints and ceremonies. The cults linked to water sanctuaries are those mostly devoted to the Virgin Mary, which may indicate a need to introduce the highest female authority to replace the pagan equivalent.427 The dedicator of the altar to Vidasus and Thana undoubtedly knew the deities he was addressing but, unfortunately, did not feel the need to represent them visually.

It was considered that at least two names for this indigenous deity (later Silvanus) were known in the area of the Delmatae. When those names appeared with the new one (Silvanus) they were regularly shortened, as they were well known amongst the people: Silvanus Messor (III.3.4.) and Cor ... (III/39). Messor, as a theophoric name is often found on inscriptions in Delmatae areas, especially along the coastal region; the derived forms include Messorius, Messorianus, Messorina, Messus, etc.431 However, Messor itself cannot be considered as a local name, as explained earlier (see Chapter 3.2b and at the beginning of this chapter). Furthermore, the spread of the name Messor, Messorius, etc. throughout the Empire432 makes this opinion even less likely to be true.433 What this epithet may suggest is a connection to the Italic Silvanus who was usually represented with a sickle (falx). According to D. Rendić-Miočević and Sergejevski, the epithet Cor ... (III/39) is not Jupiter’s famous epithet Cohortalis.434 This epithet seems to be related to an inscription dedicated to Jupiter from the area of Glamoč, from which it follows that this (probably) supreme deity (unfortunately with an unknown name) was once equated with Jupiter, and the second time with Silvanus.435 N. Cambi, however, still believes (and I agree) that the epithet Cor… indicates the

The name Vidasus is not the only surviving form in which the name of an indigenous god may probably be recognized. Different examples of the rapprochement been delivered, lest the god Silvanus come in and molest her; and that in order to signify the presence of these protectors, three men go round the house during the night, and first strike the threshold with a hatchet, next with a pestle, and the third time sweep it with a brush, in order that these symbols of agriculture having been exhibited, the god Silvanus might be hindered from entering, because neither are trees cut down or pruned without a hatchet, neither is grain ground without a pestle, nor corn heaped up without a besom. Now from these three things three gods have been named: Intercidona, from the cut made by the hatchet; Pilumnus, from the pestle; Diverra, from the besom; by which guardian gods the woman who has been delivered is preserved against the power of the god Silvanus. Thus the guardianship of kindly-disposed gods would not avail against the malice of a mischievous god, unless they were three to one, and fought against him, as it were, with the opposing emblems of cultivation, who, being an inhabitant of the woods, is rough, horrible, and uncultivated. Is this the innocence of the gods? Is this their concord? Are these the health-giving deities of the cities, more ridiculous than the things which are laughed at in the theatres?’) 424  Kuntić-Makvić 2005: 332. 425  Džino 2012: n. 18. 426  Kuntić-Makvić 2005: 339-340. 427  Kuntić-Makvić 2005: 341.

428  429  430  431  432  433  434  435 

48

D. Rendić-Miočević 1989d: 435. D. Rendić-Miočević 1951a: 34; D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 464. D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 464. D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 466. Kajanto 1965: 82, 361. Džino 2012: 264. D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 465; Sergejevski 1933: 8, no. 4. D. Rendić-Miočević 1989: 465.

Concluding Remarks epithet Cohortalis.436 If we consider the temple/shrine built at the command of Jupiter and dedicated to Jupiter and consentio deorum dearumque of Silvanus with the nymphs (III.5.6.), and Jupiter’s probable appearance on relief III/82, then there is a possibility that Jupiter’s common epithet of Cohortalis crossed over to Silvanus. Silvanus has undeniable iconographic similarities with the Greek-Arcadian Pan, and the existence of the indigenous personal names Panes or Diopanes may also be seen as supporting his authenticity. The name was very often found in the area of the upper Cetina. The early iconographic depictions of Pan from his homeland Arcadia are dissimilar to those of Silvanus from the Roman province of Dalmatia. While in the former area Pan is presented in a completely anthropomorphized form, in the latter he appeared as a satyr with the legs of a goat.437 During the late period of the Republic and the early Empire in Italy some representations of Pan were also fully anthropomorphized (Figs. 9 and 10). Since the largest number of reliefs from Dalmatia depicting anthropo-theriomorphic Silvanus are dated to the 2nd or 3rd century AD, the question arises as to why was a Greek Pan with goat legs taken as a substrate for the representation of Silvanus several centuries after direct Greek influence ceased, and not the Roman version. Furthermore, if Delmatean Silvanus was Italic, there was almost no reason for him to be displayed in the form of the Greek Pan, given that he already had a wellknown iconography. The Italic iconography of Silvanus is almost unknown in the Dalmatian hinterland. Pan and Silvanus coincided religiously, although the reason for their similar, if not identical, appearance was probably rooted in the Indo-European tradition, and not in the classical period. Silvanus is commonly shown in anthropo-theriomorphic guise (with a goat or dog, or both) on reliefs from Dalmatia. Equally common is the assumption that the cult image was adopted from the Greek Pan. Silvanus and Pan shared many similarities, although they did differ in certain respects. Pan was a force of nature untouched by civilization or culture, uncontrolled and fierce, whereas Silvanus contained a quiet and peaceful component, and watched over forests that were still not fully explored. It is precisely in this role, unrecognizable on reliefs and inscriptions, where his aspect as guardian of borders can be identified. 438

Fig. 9: Pan, Monte Cagnol.440

iconography); the influence of Greek iconography (theriomorphism); Italic Silvanus (the provider of the name for the Delmatean deity (interpretatio Romana), but not the iconography); the anthropomorphic Silvanus; the impact of Italian iconography.439

The development of the Delmataen Silvanus can be illustrated by combining the following factors: Greek Pan (Indo-European origin); Delmataen ‘Pan’ of unknown name (also of Indo-European origin and with unknown 436  437  438 

Cambi 2013: 81. D. Rendić-Miočević 1989a: 466-467. http://www.theoi.com/Gallery/S22.4.html

439 

49

Cambi 2013: 76-77; Cambi 2002: 122 and n. 62.

The Nature and Origin of the Cult of Silvanus noted above, was portrayed as anthropo-theriomorphic, as was the Roman Faun. It seems that all the lesser goatlike deities shared the same character as forest deities to a certain extent. To Arcadians, Pan was ‘lord of the forest’, Faun was explicitly associated with the trees in the forest, and Silvanus had more responsibilities than Faun (as stated above). Through their primitive nature, all these forests deities may be associated with the corn spirit, and may just as easily be inverted from one to the other. In all probability, Silvanus, in the form of Silvester, ruled both the forests and the animals in them, while as Domesticus he oversaw houses, cultivated fields and domestic animals. It is difficult to discern the sex of the goats depicted with Silvanus on the reliefs. It is to be expected that the representations of them, by their appearance and characteristics, are close to today’s Croatian indigenous breeds, such as the domestic white and multi-coloured goats. In both breeds the males and females have beards, but sometimes the females lack horns, which can cause problems when trying to distinguish the gender of the animals depicted on the reliefs. In a symbolic sense it is perhaps not so important to know the sex of the animal. On many of the reliefs (e.g. III/13, III/37, III/42) Silvanus is shown holding the goat by the front legs, or the goat is simply standing next to him, as does the dog (e.g. III/3, III/25). Therefore it is very likely that some of the reliefs show specific scenes of everyday life, i.e. the very pastoral scene of Silvanus with a goat and dog at his side; and another with Silvanus holding the forelegs of a goat with a dog standing next to him. This is still how many shepherds lead lambs/kids to the slaughter today, believing the meat tastes better this way.

Fig. 10: Pan, Fresco from Pompeii.441

The440‘corn spirit’441 existed throughout Europe in the form of a goat, dog,442 or other animal.443 During mowing, animals fled before the reapers only to be trapped or killed in the last sheaf. Today such beliefs are preserved in folk traditions and they reappear performed as plays, while the original religious meaning of these rituals has long been forgotten.444 Such traditional/folk beliefs, which have survived to this day in the form of various superstitions, speak of how primitive man imagined the forces that controlled his world. At a certain level of development people came to the same, or at least similar level of comprehension, especially if they existed in a similar environment. Thus in North Africa, for example, the birth of a child is marked by a newly-planted tree. The growth of the tree reflects the health and overall state of the new born and it matures with the individual through life. If the tree fails in some way, then so will the individual with whom it is associated. A similar custom exists in the regions under discussion here, where a plant of some kind, in the same manner as described above, was associated with an individual, and if the individual ailed then so would the plant, and vice versa.445 Both practices belong to the Mediterranean region. Savage and magical change and transformation was both certain and probable to prehistoric man. Thus Dionysus sometimes appeared as a goat and sometimes as a bull. As a goat, he is difficult to distinguish from the lower deities – satyrs and silens – who were regularly portrayed in goat form. Pan, as

As for the dog that usually accompanies Silvanus on the reliefs, it would be logical to think it was a sheep dog of some type or a molosser.446 Virgil mentioned it as a top hunting dog, an aggressive guard animal, and an ideal dog for managing cattle and sheep.447 Gratius Faliscus (Grattius) also mentions them in his Cynegeticon, a poem on hunting in which he carefully described the various breeds of dogs, including molossers – much admired for their bravery, courage and strength.448 Dogs were used both for hunting (canis venaticus) and guarding livestock and the home (canis pastoralis). Ultimately there is no reason to deny or deprive the Delmatae of their ability to imagine the divinity(ies) of nature in the same way as other prehistoric peoples of the Mediterranean did. Silvanus, this deity of nature, is not necessarily connected with Pan although they share

http://www.theoi.com/Gallery/F22.1.html Corn in the sense of grain in general. 442  Frazer 2002: 316-317. 443  Frazer 2002: 316-317: wolf, rabbit, cockerel, goose, cat, cow (ox, bull), pigs and horses. 444  D’Andrade 1981: 179-195. 445  Schneeweis 2005: 48. 440 

De Prisco, Johnson 1990: 136. The name Molossus derives from Molossia, an area of ancient Epirus. These fierce and fearless animals are native to Greece and the Balkans, later spreading throughout Europe. 447  Virgil, Georg. III, 404-413. 448  Grattius, Cyneget., 180-185.

441 

446 

50

Concluding Remarks some iconographic features. The Delmatae should be allowed the benefit of the doubt, in the sense that they were able to imagine Silvanus in a form that apparently coincided with the way Arcadians imagined Pan in Greece. With the arrival of the Romans, the Delmatae learned to express their ideas, but in a Roman way, i.e. in the Latin language and in stone.

the presumption that Silvanus (or his cult) appropriated certain official characteristics. Some scholars believe that Silvanus was the official symbol of the province of Pannonia.453 However, the connection of Silvanus with Capitoline Triad or Jupiter Optimus Maximus did not necessarily reflect his official character.454 The worship of Silvanus Augustus in Pannonia was proven in the early period of the Roman conquest, suggesting his Roman or Italic origin.455 Silvanus was not the interpretation of an indigenous deity, or at least not just a specific one, as there were no compatible deities with the indigenous name. Although Silvanus had a non-Latin epithet (Magla: IV.1.11. – Sisak; IV.4.70. – Carnuntum), its appearance is rare, which is why the theory of the existence of only one supreme indigenous deity (who would have been identified with Silvanus) is not sustainable.456

6.2. Pannonia In AD 193, at the establishment of Severan rule, the Pannonians were not looking to increase their pantheon, but they did decide to adopt Roman gods, or at least to put an emphasis on those indigenous deities and cults that could easily be connected with Roman ones.449 Afterwards, the development of Pannonian cults does not reveal further local or Pannonian features, although it is possible that these cults were, in effect, indigenous. This feature of Pannonian cults is understandable only if connected with the gradual disappearance of certain particularities of the indigenous cultures in favour of the standardized Roman scheme. If viewed in this context, many difficulties in the understanding of the cult of Silvanus disappear, especially the assumption of Silvanus as one of the supreme deities of the indigenous people in general. Mócsy considered that such a presumption was premature, and based largely on the fact that Silvanus was, after Jupiter, the most popular and most worshipped deity. Furthermore, among the reasons that led to Silvanus in Pannonia being considered an indigenous deity were his prominent genitalia. That aspect of the cult was associated with fertility and consequently linked with the images of Iron Age deities. The sudden rise of the cult of Silvanus was also connected with the coming to power of the Severan dynasty.450 However, the concept of fertility as such was not unusual for the Silvanus cult in general; these characteristics were very general and not sufficiently peculiar to the Pannonian Silvanus cult for it to be considered indigenous.451

However, some scholars believe that in western Pannonia, under the Flavians, Antonines, and ultimately the Severans, the cult of Silvanus became part of the official religion, which is supported by the documented increase in the number of inscriptions dedicated to Silvanus during the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD.457 The overwhelming majority of inscriptions is dedicated to Silvanus (without epithets), then to Silvanus Domesticus, and a very small number is dedicated to Silvanus Augustus. Specifically, to date there are only 10 (+2) inscriptions and 5 reliefs (with inscription) in the whole of Pannonia. All these monuments were placed in private sanctuaries or outside the Roman city (or forum). These stones were erected by individuals of modest origin, as evidenced in the previous chapters. Although neither of the two monuments dedicated to Silvanus Augustus from Scarbantia (IV/6 erected by a centurion and IV.2.5. erected by a decurion) were found in the forum, Farkas believes that they add to the importance of this sanctuary overall, and that they differed greatly from all of the others because of the social position of the votaries.458 Furthermore, he thinks that Domaszewsky’s theory that the cult of Silvanus Augustus in Illyricum (i.e. Dalmatia and Pannonia) had spread there from Aquileia is unsustainable, since at Scarbantia that cult experienced a noticeable rise only in the 2nd century AD, at the same time as other local, indigenous cults were most widespread in Pannonia. Among the indigenous cults Farkas included those of Silvanus and Diana, whose cults where also the most widespread in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD in Pannonia. Therefore it is thought that the great expansion of the cult of Silvanus Augustus in Scarbantia coincided with a boom period for indigenous cults in general. On the basis of the two aforementioned

Silvanus was the most popular deity in Pannonia, after Jupiter. He was very rarely portrayed with other deities, and if he was in their company it was with deities of a similar nature, i.e. the Silvanae (or Quadriviae).452 He very rarely appears paired with one of the official deities of the classical pantheon, and even more rarely with the deities of the oriental mystery cults, although these cults also flourished during the Severan dynasty. This is a further reason why the expansion of the Silvanus cult should not be associated only with the Severans. On a few altars Silvanus appears with the Capitoline Triad (IV.5.12.) and Jupiter Optimus Maximus (IV.5.25.), which leads to Mócsy 1974: 250. A rise in the number of inscriptions (in general, not just those dedicated to Silvanus) during the Severans has already been discussed in Chapter 4. (Interpretatio Romana and syncretism). 451  Mócsy 1974: 250. 452  Mócsy 1974: 252. 449 

453 

450 

454  455  456  457  458 

51

Mócsy 1974: 251. See Chapter 2 (Dedicators and epithets). Mócsy 1974: 251. Mócsy 1974: 251. Farkas 1972: 97. Farkas 1972: 98.

The Nature and Origin of the Cult of Silvanus inscriptions a more precise dating is suggested – the end of the 2nd or early 3rd century AD.459

At the site of Gellért, in Aquincum, which is assumed to be the the cult centre of the civitas Eraviscorum, the augur Titus Flavius Titianus, most likely of provincial origin, erected his inscription (dated to the beginning of the 3rd century AD), in which he invokes Jupiter Optimus Maximus Teutanus for the health of the emperor Marcus Julius Philippus (‘Philip the Arab’), and the civitas Eraviscorum.465 Jupiter Optimus Maximus Teutanus (Conservator) was the supreme deity of the Eravisci. It was assumed that Titus Flavius Titianus was augur for the colony at Aquincum, and that he was not a native. If we accept the assumption that the inscription in question was raised by the augur of the colony of Aquincum (and that he was Eraviscan), and then compare this inscription with the one from Scarbantia (IV.2.5.) dedicated to Silvanus Augustus and also erected by an augur (but in this case a Boian), it may be concluded that Silvanus Augustus was the supreme deity of the Boii, as Silvanus appears on the monument, and not Jupiter. In that way, the cult of Silvanus Augustus at Scarbantia acquired a particular importance and a certain official characteristic, largely due to its Celtic traits (i.e. the ability to convey prophecies).466 Because of the supposed similarities between Silvanus Augustus and the local Celtic or Boiian deities in certain areas of northwestern Pannonia, including Scarbantia, the cult of Silvanus Augustus was probably involved in their official religion since the eras of Tiberius and the Flavians, who elevated Scarbantia to the status of municipality.467

The expansion trend in indigenous cults can be put down to the Boii, as they were the keepers and carriers of the Celtic religion in north-western Pannonia. One of the basic features of Silvanus Augustus at Scarbantia was his prophetic capabilities, which is also one of the characteristics of Celtic religion.460 This type of inscription includes one from Savaria (IV.5.24.), where the Dii Augurales, who represented the community of indigenous Celtic and Roman deities,461 were invoked together with Silvanus. Silvanus was particularly worshipped in Carnuntum as well. The Roman military camp was built in the territory of the Boii. The inscription from Carnuntum (IV.5.13.) is dated to the reign of Commodus, and the renewal of the Silvanus sanctuary it refers also dates to the same period. The shrine was rebuilt by a governor’s freedman, and in the inscription Silvanus appears with the genius of the place (genius loci). According to Farkas, Silvanus replaced Jupiter Optimus Maximus here.462 However Mócsy disagrees, and noted that in terms of a genius of a certain place the Romans most commonly understood that as meaning local deities. If genius loci was an indigenous deity favoured in the area, then the Silvanus mentioned in the inscription was certainly the Italic one.463 The reliefs of Silvanus in north-western Pannonia display a deity who played a very important role in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. Marcus Appianus Ursulus (IV/6), although a foreigner in Scarbatia (he came from Colonia Agrippina, Cologne), erected an altar to Silvanus Augustus, in whom he recognized the features of Celtic religion, i.e. the above-mentioned attribute of prophecy. Celtic Sucellus was usually identified with Silvanus and sometimes also with Jupiter. In Britain, Gaul, and Germany the Gallo-Romano Silvanus was presented in various forms that were associated with the process of Romanisation and corresponded either to different regional conditions of Romanisation or to various social groups. Through the merger of Silvanus and Sucellus a hybrid deity was born who had somewhat different characteristics depending on the area. In Gallia Narbonensis the interpretatio Romana was almost immediate (early 1st century AD) and not the result of any co-existence, which appeared only in the 3rd century AD. In the three Gallias and Germania, Silvanus’ integration with indigenous beliefs occurred at the beginning of the 2nd century AD. Britain, however, remained entirely within the Roman model.464

459  460  461  462  463  464 

Some scholars believe that the reason Silvanus became so popular in Pannonia during the Severans resulted from the very nature of the god himself. It is clear that Silvanus was never a deity with a political bias. At best, Silvanus became the personification of the province of Pannonia mainly due to the influence of the contemporary literature, but the Pannonians themselves were not interested in having Silvanus put forward as a symbol of the province.468 His representations and epithet Domesticus, which was the most important, or at least most common, in Pannonia, were in contradiction to the official character attributed to him. His reliefs and/ or statues displayed a simply dressed and elderly man with sickle (falx), fruit, tree and dog. In this context, Silvanus’ epithet Herbarius in inscription IV.1.65., and his association with the Lari in inscription IV.5.29., were associated with fertility.469 Both inscriptions are from Aquincum, and IV.1.65. was erected by Septimia Constantina, which may be significant in terms of interpreting the epithet as being associated with fertility. The only relief that shows Silvanus as a civil dignitary is from Aquincum (IV/21). All the above-mentioned characteristics are also qualities of the Italic Silvanus,

Farkas 1972: 98. Alföldy 1961: 109. Alföldy 1961: 157. Farkas 1972: 99. Mócsy 1974: 252. Toulec 1998: 46-52.

465  466  467  468  469 

52

CIL III, 10418; Alföldy 1961: 155. Farkas 1972: 99. Farkas 1972: 100. Mócsy 1974: 251. Mócsy 1974: 252.

Concluding Remarks as well as his iconographic representation in Pannonia. Silvanus Domesticus was patron of the garden, farm, fruit, and harvest (Messor), and also fertility, associated with agriculture, horticulture and livestock. It is equally possible, because of the use of pro salute in inscription IV.5.25., to connect him with healing powers (as recognized on the relief from Dalmatia (III/34), and on IV.1.65. from Aquincum, where Silvanus is mentioned as Erbarius, and especially because inscription IV.5.34. (Aquincum) has Silvanus appearing with Aesculapius.

manifestations, Roman, if not purely Italic.473 Therefore, it is quite certain that the Italics contributed to the spread of the cult, and this is further supported by the fact that most of the monuments are found in border areas. This could also mean that Silvanus Orientalis, the guardian of borders (tutor finium), was especially respected and favoured, although he was never mentioned in the known inscriptions in that capacity. A similar situation occurs in Dalmatia, but on a micro-regional level. The Roman colonists on the slopes of mount Kozjak erected Silvanus sanctuaries at the very edges of their estates. Silvanus, as protector of arable lands, and guardian of house and borders, was cleary the best choice for the protection of family and property.

As a divinity of an explicitly personal nature, the altars or reliefs dedicated to Silvanus are mostly small and often do not even bear the name of the dedicator, as they stood in household shrines and were intended for household use: this lay at the heart of the spread of this particular concept of the deity, whose role was particularly favoured by families and households in general. The flourishing of family farms in the border regions of Pannonia happened during the period of the Severans.470 As the economic development of family farms gathered momentum so did the cult of Silvanus. The god is displayed completely in the Roman way; household altars were erected; the reliefs were of proportionate size; the consecrations were made in Latin; and it is assumed that the monuments were raised mainly within the family circle.471

Our understanding of the cults of Pannonia (or any other province) is conditioned by the preserved inscriptions/ reliefs and shrines, and each individual item or object is, in its overall appearance, Roman. The most characteristic feature of Pannonian religion, as Mócsy concluded, is that it did not allow synthesis of Roman and indigenous ideas. Whether this is so, so whether something beyond our current knowledge occurred, the fact remains that the worship of deities was expressed in the Roman fashion and in the Latin language, thus not allowing possible indigenous features their own expression. The fact that indigenous beliefs can be difficult to trace before Severan rule can be attributed to the series of events whereby active participation by the Roman army and nearby civilian settlements began only after the reign of Marcus Aurelius (as a result of the political interventions of the Illyriciani).474 On the Pannonian reliefs, Silvanus often wears a Phrygian cap, which otherwise appeared only in Dacia. The most common epithets of Silvanus in Dacia were Silvester and Domesticus, as they were also in Pannonia, and the distribution of the remnants of his cult was most dense along the border with Pannonia. Iconographically, Dacian Silvanus does not differ from Italic or Pannonian Silvanus. He is dressed in a tunic, holding a falx, and sometimes accompanied by a dog. The spear he holds, which superseded the branch, is another common trait of Dacian and Pannonian Silvanus.475 Of the inscriptions dedicated to Silvanus in Pannonia 23% were erected by soldiers, and 52% by civilians (23% of the inscriptions fall into the category of undeterminable). As Silvanus was relatively popular among the soldiers who invaded Dacia from the Pannonian military bases, it was most likely that it was the soldiers who contributed to the spread of his cult in Pannonia and Dacia. It is also assumed that the spread of the cult in Moesia (where only 21 inscriptions dedicated to Silvanus have been found) also spread from Pannonia.476 Taking into account only those inscriptions where the dedicators (military or civilian) can be safely determined, then

Even though the cult is closely connected with agriculture, most of the altars are found within those settlements that had grown close to the military camps along the Danube. Silvanus appeared also as Silvestris, which was a rural parallel to Domesticus. As Silvester, he usually appears with the nymphs, i.e. Silvanae and Diana. On one inscription from Aquincum (IV.5.31) he appears as the god of the hunt, conveniently connected to Diana. This aspect of Silvanus was mostly revered by members of the higher classes. As a god of the hunt he had a certain literary overtone, and some classic traits were attributed to him, along with the deities of the classical pantheon with whom he appeared.472 Inscription IV.5.31. (Aquincum) confirms this, its dedicator being sacerdos Marcus Aurelius Pompeius, a member of the social elites. It might also indicate that Silvestris in Pannonia did not have such a rural meaning and component, as was the case in Dalmatia. The fact that most of Silvanus’ monuments are found on the northern border is stated as ultimate proof that he was not an indigenous Pannonian divinity. The reality remains that Silvanus was the most popular god of the Pannonians, especially with those communities in direct contact and under the direct influence of the military. This Silvanus was, in all his characteristics and forms of

473  470  471  472 

Fitz 1993: 420-421. Mócsy 1974: 253. Mócsy 1974: 252.

474  475  476 

53

Mócsy 1974: 252. Mócsy 1974: 253. Dorcey 1992: 77-78; II/5. Dorcey 1992: 75; 176.

The Nature and Origin of the Cult of Silvanus

Table 1: Worshippers in Dalmatia and Pannonia.

local,480 although not necessarily indigenous, cults. Besides their appearance in the military, it is also indicative that a number of the indigenous deities in Roman provinces was associated with a limited group of Roman gods. In Lower Germania the most popular were Mars, Mercury and Hercules. When the Roman gods were chosen there was a clear regional difference, so Hercules usually appeared along the lower Rhine, and Mars in the area of Trier.481 Archaeological evidence has confirmed the writings of Caesar482 and Tacitus,483 and the conclusion that warriorship was an important element in the ideology of elites in the pre-Roman society of Germania followed. Such a background, confirmed by the archaeological and literary evidence, strengthens the possibility that the native elites of Germania opted for Roman gods, who were then associated with indigenous ones. A further consideration is that the people of Germania were warlike, while in Dalmatia and Pannonia they were not. The number of deities with double-names in Dalmatia and Pannonia is not large, and according to the number of inscriptions, Jupiter (alone) was the most worshipped, with Silvanus next. In these two provinces Silvanus was represented differently. In Dalmatia, he was an anthropo-theriomorphic forest and shepherd god, while in Pannonia he was shown completely in his Italic guise: anthropomorphic, with a short tunic, boots, falx, and a branch in leaf. According to the literary sources, Pannonia was a wooded, mountainous and swampy area,484 dependent on farming485 and trade (the sources do not mention the latter explicitly, but it may be

30.8% were set up by soldiers, so the assumption they had a significant role in the spread of the Silvanus cult in Pannonia is highly probable. In Dalmatia only 7.1% of the inscriptions related to soldiers, so there role in the spread of the cult was insignificant (Table 1.). Similarly, the difference between the two provinces with regard to the share of military inscriptions is statistically significant (Hi-square = 14.27; P = 0.00015).477 The conclusion that soldiers contributed to the recognition and spread of the cult in Pannonia, and its further dissemination in Dacia and Moesia, is consistent with the number of inscriptions found in Dalmatia and Pannonia. In Dalmatia there was only a third of the number of inscriptions (76) than in Pannonia (259), while there is double the number of reliefs in Dalmatia (81) compared with Pannonia (36). The reason behind such a difference could probably be found in the disseminators of the cult, and/or the persons who finally accepted it. Given the interrelationship between the number of inscriptions and reliefs in the considered provinces, it may be concluded that the Pannonians were more literate than Dalmatians, as was indeed stated by Velleius Paterculus.478 In the older literature it was considered that the deities worshipped by the equites singulares in Rome could be divided into two groups. Thus, Hercules and Mercury represented Romanised versions of the Germanic Donar and Wodan, while Silvanus, Apollo and Diana represented indigenous deities of Illyricum and the Balkan peninsula.479 However the assumption that Silvanus was an indigenous deity in both provinces, Dalmatia and Pannonia, is no longer tenable. It has been suggested that the worship of Silvanus, Apollo and Diana among the military was the case of approved 477  478  479 

Birley 1978: 1528. Derks 1991: 249. 482  Caesar, De Bello Gallico V, 56.1-2; VI 18.3; VII, 21.1. 483  Germania, 3, 6, 11, 13, 14, 31; Historiae, V, 17; Annales, XIII, 57.2. 484  Appian, Ill. 4.22; Herodian, 8.1.1.; Pliny, NH, 3.25, 147. 485  Appian, Ill. 4.22. notes that in October his campaign saved their (Pannonian) fields and villages; Strabo, 1.5,10; Ambrose, Epist. Classis, 1.18,21. 480  481 

With P