Patterns of worship in Roman Britain: Double-Named Deities in Context

by Amy L. Zoll

Archaeology has long maintained an uneasy relationship with the subject of religion. Ranking
by ease of inference, Hawkes placed ‘religious institutions and spiritual life’ almost beyond the
reach of most archaeologists, save those with textual sources to inform the material remains
(1954 162). Deemed virtually’ unknowable’ by the very nature of the archaeological evidence,
religion has not been exposed to the same degree of systematic scrutiny over the years as have
other, seemingly more accessible, aspects of past cultures, such as subsistence and economy.
Quite the opposite, belief systems and their ritual expression frequently seem the category of
last resort, the repository and reason for any unfathomable, apparently non-rational, behavior
alluded to in the archaeological record. This tide appears to be turning, however, with many
prehistorians now working to illustrate ways in which the structured and structuring properties
of ideology serve to influence aspects of culture on every level of Hawkes’ hierarchy.
The study of religion in the Roman period has yet to benefit significantly from these new
approaches, however, and it may be the wealth of ancient treatises that survive on the subject
which is, in part, to blame. Rather than informing, the textual evidence for religion has
overshadowed the archaeology and largely directed the course of its study. While systems of
belief in the western provinces are seen as having been Romanized and, further, functioning as
vehicles for Romanization themselves, there have been few attempts to address these processes
in a systematic fashion More often than not, discussions of religious change in the Roman
period rely most heavily upon those ‘accessible’ sources for information: the literature and
epigraphy.
The dynamics behind the Romanization of religion in the western provinces has been a
matter of debate for some time. Provincial iconography and inscriptions include elements
which appear to be derived from two religious systems, combined to form a third, ‘RomanoCeltic’, system Arguments regarding the mechanisms responsible for this synthesis abound,
but these tend to focus more on specific, anecdotal phrases and examples in the ancient
literature and archaeology. Rarely are such examples considered within their larger contexts.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the treatment of the so-called ‘double-named’ deities,
a situation in which a member of the Roman pantheon appears in a votive inscription paired
with a native deity, apparently intended as a single entity. This association of a Roman deity
with a native one has enjoyed particular attention in modern scholarly literature, where it is
viewed as a physical manifestation of the elusive processes involved in creation of the RomanoCeltic system. This is, however, an investment of significance perhaps disproportionate to the
phenomenon’ s actual incidence. Few who seize upon this rather rare occurrence acknowledge
the ambiguity inherent in the evidence, an ambiguity which enables the same material to be
used to support arguments advocating both Romanization and resistance as the determining
force behind religious change. Patterns of worship in Roman Britain: double-named deities in context 33
Approaches to double-named deities and religious change
Arguments as to how and why Roman and non-Roman deities were linked in this way are
inextricably bound up with the question of who originally initiated these associations.
Proponents of the more traditional explanation for double-names tend to take their cue from
Tacitus’ phrase interpretatio Romana (Germania 43, 3). Henig, for example, places the
responsibility squarely with the incoming Romans. He depicts double-named deities as arising
out of a Roman desire to accommodate for all supernatural contingencies by addressing what
was seen to be the local name for their Roman god in addition to the more familiar one (Henig
1984: 55) In such Roman-dominated scenarios, the local population, if considered at all, is
usually portrayed as passively accepti ng this appropriation of thei r gods.
Attempts to compensate for the Romano-centric view have cast members of the native
population in the active role, both in the pairing of deities and in the larger process of religious
change. Aspects of Roman religion are in this case seen as having been consciously selected
and incorporated into the pre-existing Iron Age system, such that the adopted Roman features
had little impact on the core Celtic ones. This stance enables some, like Green, to utilize the
more abundant and ‘accessible’ evidence for religion in the Roman period to reconstruct the
pre-Roman Iron Age situation, as many native traditions would have persisted, either wholly
unaffected or obscured only by a thin veil of Romanitas (Green 1992: 112-(13)
In 1991 , Derks proposed a native-initiated model for the creation of double-named deities
which, refreshingly, was rooted in a systematic approach to the epigraphic evidence. Prior to
investigating any single feature of votive inscriptions in Lower Germany, he first undertook to
quantify and compare the types and genders of deities invoked in the over eleven-thousand
religious dedications from that province. Derks posited that, following Roman conquest, native
elite priests actively sought to affiliate their deities with those of Rome in an attempt to
maintain the local status quo through association with the new prevailing power structure. He
concluded that the pairing of only local male deities with Roman gods such as Mars and
Hercules reflected the warrior attitudes and concerns of the local native society in that region
(Derks 1991 254-6)
Of the varied hypotheses for religious change that exist, however, few take into account the
geographic, temporal and social context of the evidence upon which the arguments hinge. By
definition, double-named deities are only clearly and repeatedly attested in the epigraphic
record. Unfortunately, this body of materia l tends to be applied uncritically, often divorced from
all but its most general provenance and without regard to the identity of the individuals
responsible for its creation. The name of the dedicator, frequently accompanied by his or her
social position or title, is one of three main elements of the standardized votive formula used in
dedications, along with the name of the deity, or deities, and an often abbreviated phrase
indicating a vow fulfilled.
In this paper, the evidence from Britain will be examined using the innovative quantitative
methods developed by Derks for the Lower German material. In addition, the geographic and
social contexts in which the British evidence occurs will also be taken into consideration 34 Amy L. Zoll
The British evidence: distribution of inscriptions
Of the over nine hundred votive inscriptions known from Roman Britain, well over half are
clustered in a narrow distribution around Hadrian’s Wall (Fig. 4.1). Close to forty percent come
South (128)
(13.9%)
West (50)
(54%)
North (1 24)
(1 34%)
-..,
UnknolMl (B)
(07%)
/
Hadrian’s Wall (5B9)
(B1. 7%)
Fig. 4.1. Distribution a/ votive inscriptions/ram Roman Britain by region. (Total 922).
from the sites directly on the Wall and along the Stanegate, while another twenty percent are
from the related Cumbrian coast defenses and the fort sites within twenty-five kilometers to the
north and south of the Wall line. This uneven distribution, heavily weighted towards the
Hadrian’s Wall region, seems the general pattern for most epigraphic material in Roman
Britain (Biro 1975: 26) That the majority of extant epigraphic evidence for religion in Roman
Britain was generated in an area of long-term military occupation must therefore be
acknowledged.
While the areas to the north of Hadrian’ s Wall and in the west of Britain were also subject
to some lengthy military presence, these have yielded considerably smaller numbers of votive
inscriptions, between five and six percent of the total for Britain. Of these, the majority of
inscriptions in Scotland are known from the sites along the Antonine Wall and those in the
west are primarily from the forts of Chester and Caerleon.
The remaining, and largest, portion of Roman-annexed Britain appears to divide into two:
a northern region, including sites south of Hadrian’s Wall to Manchester and the southern
Yorkshire border, and a southern one, the largest, encompassing all that remains. While these
two regions are unequal in area, they have yielded similar quantities of votive inscriptions –
each comprising between thirteen and fourteen percent of the total for Britain. What
distinguishes them is not the numbers, however, but the types of deities honored in those
inscriptions, particularly in the case of double-named deities.
Distributioll of deities in inscriptions
The overall pattern of deities invoked in the north bears a greater correspondence to the pattern
from the area directly around Hadrian’s Wall than it does to that of the south, and is perhaps
more one end of a continuum than a distinct region from that of the Wall. All regions in Britain Patterns of worship in Roman Britain: double-named deities in context 35
exhibit rather similar ratios of Roman to native deities, with Roman gods occurring at least
twice as frequently as non-Roman, except among the sites directly on Hadrian’s Wall, where
native deities occur somewhat more frequently but in no way surpass the number of Roman.
Despite their general correlations, the percentage of inscriptions with double-names differs
markedly between the north and south.
Rom an/Neuter 1174)
118.9%) /
Roman/Male 1282)
130.6%)
Eastern 147)
15 1%) Native/Female 1118)
(12.8%)
NaovelMale 1133)
114.4%)
Do uble/Female (11 )
11.2%)
DoublelMale (65)
17.0%)
Roman/Fem ale 192)
110.0%)
Fig. 4.2. Distribution of deities in votive inscriptions from Britain. ([,otal 922).
Double-named deities account for only eight percent of the total deities in inscriptions in
Britain (Fig. 4.2). The sites in closest proximity to the Wall, while exhibiting the highest
percentage of native deities compared to other parts of Roman Britain, contain only about five
Roman/Neuter 111 11
E as tern (36)
16.3%1
{19.5%1 ./
(–
\ ‘.
Roman/Male 1188)
(33.0%1
Native/Female (66)
(11 .6%1
Native/Male 1101)
117.8%)
Double/Female 11)
10.2%)
DoublelMale 1221
(3.9%1
\ . / Roman/Female 144)
17.7%1
Fig. 4.3. Distribution of deities in votive inscriptions/rom the Hadrian ‘s Wall region.
(Total 569). ]6 Amy L. Zoll
percent double-named deities (Fig. 4.]), while sites in the north of England outside the Wall
region exhibit a higher proportion of nine percent (Fig. 4.4). The south, while having yielded a
Roman/Neuter (201
(161%1
(
“m,,””” (25.0%1 ‘” 1\
‘. ‘-
Eastern (41
(3.2%1 Native/Female (211
—… (16.9%1
‘ ‘-,””
Nativei1ll1ale (191
(15.3%1
/ Double/Female (21
\ / (1.6%1
// Double/Male (91
_. __ __ _ . 17.3%1
Roman/Female (181
(14.5%1
Fig. 4.4. Distribution of deities in votive inscriptions from the North. (Total J 24).
comparable number of religious dedications to the northern region outside Hadrian’s Wall,
includes a remarkable twenty-five percent double-names (Fig. 4.5).
Roman/Neuter (23)
(18.0%1
/
!
/
/
Eastern (3)
(2.3%) \ …
Native/Female (191
(14.8%)
‘”” / . Nativei1ll1ale (121
(
/’ \ (94%1
—- \ —.., ___ 1
Roman/Male (321 \.
(25.0%1 “”-,.
i Double/Female (8)
——-; (6 3 %)
I /
1
· ///
Doublei1ll1ale (241
-. –. / (18.8%1
Roman/Female (71
15.5%1
Fig. 4.5. Distribution of deities in votive inscriptionsjrom the South. (fotal 128)
Types of double-named deities
Despite the impressive showing of double-named deities in the south, the evidence which
comprises this high figure occurs under the most atypical and exceptional circumstances. While
this area includes one of the most well known double-named deities, it is also one of the most Patterns afworship in Roman Britain: double-named deities in context 37
unusual: Sulis Minerva. Female double-named deities are extremely rare, with only eleven
inscriptions found in the whole of Britain. Of these eleven, however, all eight in the south are
dedications to Sulis Minerva from the sanctuary site at Bath. The other three female doublenames from Britain come from the north and involve the goddess embodying that region,
Brigantia. It is uncertain, however, whether these last examples can truly be considered doublenames or whether the second name was intended to serve only as an epithet.
Twelve of the twenty-four male double-named deities from the south derive solely from
inscriptions on a collection of spoons from Thetford. Twenty of these spoons give names of
otherwise unknown non-Roman deities, either alone or linked with the god Faunus. Because
these deities are attested only in this one find, it is unclear whether they were local or imported
concepts.
There is evidence for the importation both of non-Roman and double-named deities
throughout Britain. Half of the ten double-named deities from Scotland and the west have
numerous continental parallels either for the non-Roman deity of the pair or for the pairing
itself. Such is also the case for five of the twelve male double-names from the south. It is
probable that, in all these instances, the native deities were brought over from the continent
already associated with their Roman counterparts, since none of the native components occurs
alone in any inscription from Britain.
Determining whether a deity is local to an area is impossible, however, when only a single
specimen is known. All but one of the seven remaining double-names from the south appear on
only one inscription with no known parallels either in Britain or the continent. The only deity
of this type from the south which is known from any other location is Mars Alator, who also
appears in one inscription at South Shields fort far to the north, making it unclear where even
this deity could have originated.
Deity names which are confined to a solitary inscription or site, while not rare occurrences,
must necessarily raise suspicions as to whether these entities were of local origin. What seem
more credible candidates for deities native to Britain are found primarily in the north,
particularly in the vicinity of Hadrian’s Wall. AJthOUgil double-named deities account for only
about four percent of the total number of deities invoked in dedications at sites in the Hadrian’s
Wall region, several conform to a larger distribution of dedications to the non-Roman deity of
the pair
The best examples for this relationship between double-named deities and their native
counterparts are the northern gods Cocidius and Belatucadrus. Both are confined primarily to
sites around Hadrian’s Wall and are among the most frequently occurring non-Roman deities
from this area. Belatucadrus seems to have had a slightly wider distribution of the two, with
twenty-three inscriptions extending from the sites along the western portion of the Wall south
as far as Brougham and Kirkby Thore. Cocidius occurs seventeen times among the more central
sites on the Wall and to its immediate north, with five coming from Bewcastle alone, leading
some to suggest it to be the site of the Fanum (‘ocidi mentioned in the Ravenna Cosmography
(Breeze and Dobson 1987: 262). Unlike Belatucadrus, Cocidius appears in double-naming
situations with the name of more than one Roman deity. Belatucadrus occurs paired only with
Mars, while Cocidius appears not only (although most frequently) with Mars, but also once
with Silvanus and in another instance with what appears to be another native deity,
Vernostonus. 38 Amy L. Zoll
Dedicators and types of inscriptions
In a region dominated by Hadrian’s Wall, it is hardly surprising to find a high incidence of
dedications by military personnel. In the south, there is only one inscription invoking a doublenamed deity where its dedicator is identified as a member of the mi litary but this, again, is the
atypical situation. For the rest of Britain, approximately half of the dedications to doublenamed deities in each region state explicitly that the dedicator was in some way affiliated with
the army.
Except for the name of the deity, there seems little to distinguish dedications made to
double-named deities from those set up for the native deity of the pair alone. As already noted,
the distribution of double-named deities corresponds to that of the native where both types of
dedication are known. Indeed, spoons bearing the names of non-Roman deities were found
alongside those with the same deities paired with Faunus in the Thetford hoard. These
similarities carry through to the type of dedication and dedicator in stone inscriptions. For
example, altars to both Cocidius and Mars Cocidius tend to be large, well-formed and
frequently associated with legionary activity, while the altars to Belatucadrus and Mars
Belatucadrus are generally smaller, often crude and rarely provide information regarding the
identity of the dedicator beyond the name, causing Breeze and Dobson to conclude that their
worshippers were ‘relatively unimportant socially’ (1987 262)
Based upon the body of epigraphic evidence from Britain, there would appear to be some
sort of connection between a dedicator’s social-standing and the deity to which he or she set up
an inscription. These distinctions, however, do not appear to be drawn entirely along the lines
of the Roman, native, and double-named categories imposed by modern scholarship, but rather
vary from one deity to the next, cross-cutting categories. While frequently occurring members
of the Roman pantheon, such Jupiter, Mars and Hercules, appear primarily the concern of high
ranking members of the military so, it would seem, were Cocidius, both alone and linked with
Mars, and a few other non-Roman deities, Stich as Antenociticus and Matunus, two apparently
native deities which never occur in double-naming situations. The small and numerous altars to
the Veteres, like those of Belatucadrus and Mars Belatucadrus, seem to have been
commissioned by members of the lower social orders. In between, there are deities such as
Coventina, who appears to have garnered the attention of a wide range of people from both
upper and lower military ranks as well as individuals of no known rank.
The evidence from Lower Germany and Britain compared
The apparent lack of distinction between dedications to the native and double-named instances
of a deity in terms of type, size and dedicator, as well as the degree of military involvement
with double-named deities, make models, such as the one proposed by Derks, of an activelypursued elite-actuated mechanism for the association of Roman and local god, ill-suited to
explain the material from Roman Britain. The Hadrian’s Wall region, which provides the best
evidence for double-names, is without any material comparable to that marshalled by Derks in
Lower Germany for the existence of a local native elite class or their involvement in religious
affairs. There is little indication that the Hadrian’s Wall region supported a centralized, or
centralizing, hierarchical social system prior to the construction of the Wall, much less one that
was able to remain vital in the face of the pervasive military presence in that area.
The mechanisms Derks postulates as responsible for generating double-named deities in
Lower Germany, therefore, can not account for the identical phenomenon observed at the Wall. Patterns a/worship in Roman Britain.· double-named deities in context 39
Although it can no more be argued from this evidence that the army was responsible for the
creation of double-names, it must be considered that the choice of deity to honor in any of these
inscriptions, Roman or native, double-named or otherwise, may reflect the interests of the
dedicator, and the social group to which that individual, or group of individuals, belonged,
rather than those of the wider society.
The disproportionate representation of army officers in the epigraphic evidence from
Britain may indicate a significant biasing in the observable pattern, skewing it more towards
the particular concerns of the military. In the case of double-names, it is Mars, Hercules and
Mercury who appear to be the Roman deities most commonly paired with local ones in Lower
Germany, while it is Mars and, to a considerably lesser extent, Silvanus and Apollo, who are
usually involved in double-names in most areas in Britain. Although Jupiter is the most
frequently occurring Roman deity in inscriptions from Britain, he appears only once in a
double-name relationship.
Another indication that this material is providing only part of the story is that other types
of deities, both Roman and non-Roman, which appear repeatedly in the religious iconography
in Britain, such as the Genii Cucullati and Venus, are nowhere attested in the epigraphic
evidence. This may suggest that either inscriptions were not an appropriate form of worship for
all deities in either pantheon, or that the inscription-producing portion of the population had
less reason to set up dedications to these deities.
The overall ratios of deity types from Britain and Lower Germany vary widely, with the
German pattern dominated largely by native female, in this case Matres, dedications (Fig. 4.6).
Rom.’l n1Mllo 1280)
[25.2%)
N,gbv{‘I/M<lI(-) (10)
10.9%)
RomanlNeutor (15) 1——,==–;)
/;/ 110 8%) ,,//
Douhlo/Molo (42)
13.8%1
/
Nati velfernalfl (645)
/58.0%1
Fig. 4.6. Distribution a/deities in votive inscriptions from Lower Germany (after Derks 1991).
(Total 11/2).
Male native deities, however, are extremely poorly represented in the German evidence
compared to that of the British (Fig. 4.2). The situation in which the two most closely resemble
one another is in the proportion of double-named deities, with four percent in the Lower
Germany collection and eight percent overall in Britain. It must be noted, however, that both
these figures represent only a small fraction of the larger pattern of votive inscriptions in each
region. In light of this, it is perhaps remarkable how much attention this phenomenon has 40 Amy L. ‘loll
received. The intent of this paper was to illustrate the potential for interpretative bias due to an
over-reliance upon one type of ‘accessible’ evidence for religious practice. Basing
determinations solely upon epigraphic material carries with it the numerous problems and
biases inherent in the data. This evidence would have been generated only by those inscriptionusing members of a society and thus may have been the result of the activities of very specific
socio-political groups. The body of inscriptions, therefore, would only reflect the patterns of
worship of those groups and not of the larger population. For this reason, it is essential to
consider from whence the evidence derives rather than employing it indiscriminate of context.
References
Bi.ro, M. 1975. The inscriptions of Roman Britai.n, Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientianlm
Hungaricae 27: 13-58.
Breeze, D.l. & Dobson, B. 1987. Hadrian’s Wall. Third edition. Penguin Books. London.
Collingwood, R.G. & Wright, R.P. 1965. The Roman Inscriptions of Britain, Volume I, Inscriptions on
Stone. Clarendon Press. Oxford.
Derks, T. 1991. The perception of the Roman pantheon by a native elite: the example of votive
inscriptions from Lower Germany, in N. Roymans and F. Theuws (eds) Images of the Past:
Studies on Ancient Societies in Northwestern Europe, 235-265. Amsterdam.
Frere, S. S. & Tomlin, R.S.O. 1990–2. The Roman Inscriptions 0/ Britain, Volume II, Instrumentum
Domesticum./ascicllies 1-4. Alan Sutton Publishing, Gloucester.
Green, M.J. 1992. Symbol and Image in Celtic ReligiOUS A11. Routledge, London.
Hawkes, C. 1954 Archaeological theolY and method: some suggestions from the Old World. American
Anthropologist 56: 155-168.
Henig, M. 1984. Religion in Roman Britain. B. T. Batsford Ltd , London. Mars Alaror
Mars Alator
Mercury Andescoci’Voucus
Andicrose
Faunus Andieros.
Apollo Ane”,iomarus
Faunus Ausecus
Faunus Ausecus
Mars Barrex
Belatocairus
Bclatucabrus
Balatucadrus
Balatucairo
Blatucairus
Belatucadrus
Belatucadrus
Belatucadrus
Belatucadrus
Belatocadrus
Belleticaurus
Balitical.UUS
Blatucadrus
Belatugagrus
Belatucacbu,
Belatucadrus
Belatucacbu,
Belatucadrus
Belatucadrus
Belarucadrus
Balalocadrus
Belatucairus
Belatucadrus
Mars Belatucadrus
Mars Belatucadrus
Mars Belarucairus
Mars Belatucadms
Mars Belarueadrus
Blotugus
Other Deities
Numeo(Aug)
Numen(Aug)
Gend
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
T)1″ Site
D Bark,,·.y
D South Shields
D Colchester
N Thetford
D Thetford
D South Shields
D Thetford
D Thetford
D Carlisle
Pub. Ref.
RIB 218
RIB 1055
RIB 193
BRII2
BRII2
RIB 2415.55
BRII2
BRII2
RIB 947
N
N
N
N
N
Bo”ness-{)n-Sol”.y RIB 2056
Brougham IRS 59
Brougham
Brougham
Brougham
N Brougham
N Brougham
N Brougham
N B wgh-by-Sands
N Bwgh-b)”-Sands
N Carra”bwgh
N CaJ”oran
N Carvoran
N Castlesteads
N Castlesteads?
N Kirkby Thore
N Mal)port
N Old Carlisle
N Old Carlisle
N Old Carlisle
N Old Penri!h
N Old Penrith
N Old Penrilh
D Bwgh-by-Sands
D Carlisle
D Cap.’oran
D Netherby
D Old Penrith
N Thetford
RIB 772
RIB 773
RIB 774
RIB 775
RIB 776
RIB 777
RIB 2038
RIB 2039
RIB 1521
RIB 1775
RIB 1776
RIB 1976
RIB 1977
RIB 759
RIB 809
RIB 887
RIB 888
RIB 889
BRI 9
BRI 9
RIB 914
RIB 2044
RIB 948
RIB 1784
RIB 970
RIB 918
BRII2
Ded T)”P Wtb
Plaque 4
Altar 12
Slab
Spoon nJa
Spoon nJa
Patera nJa
Spoon nJ.
Spoon nJa
Allar 11
Altar 9
Altar 5
Altar 12
Altar 15
Altar II
Altar 7
Altar 6
Base nJno
Altar
Altar 4
Altar 8
Allar 7
Altar 7
Altar 4
Altar 7
Altar 15
Allar nJm
Altar 14
Altar n
Altar
Altar 10
Altar 6 I
Altar nJrn
Altar 6
Allar nJrn
Ailar
Altar nJrn
Allar 19
Spoon nJa
Ht Dedicator
7 Male
30 Male
18 Libertus
nJa nJa
nJa nJa
nJa Male
nJa nJa
nJa nJa
18 Male
II Male
9 nJa
20 Cuneus member
24 Male
IS Male
II Male
nJa Male
nJrn nJa
nJm
Male
II Male
II nJm
13 nJrn
10 Male
nJa Male
25 Male
nJrn Optio
27 Veleran
Imn ImMale
13 n nJa
9.5 nJa
6 nJa
nJrn nJa
9 nJa
nJrn nJrn
10 nJrn
nJrn nJa
30 AClor
nJa nJa
1″)1’e Note.
M
M
M
nJa
nJa
M Continental parallels
nJa
nla
M
M
nJa
M
M
M
M
M
nJa
nJrn
M
M
nJm
nJrn
M
M
M
M
M
M
nJa
nJa
nJa
nJa
nla
nJrn
nJrn
nJa
M AClor of Prefecl
nJa
‘”
S
::0
<:>
!::)
::s
5″
S
S
:::
<::l-
,
::s
!:l.
s
t”)
a
‘”
.j::>. Dell)’
Blotugus
Blotugus
Blotugus?
Faunus Blorugus
Mars Braciacac
Briganti.
Brigantia
Brigantia
Brigantia (De a N)m)
Ca.lestis Brigantia
Victoria Brigantia
Victoria Brigantia
Silvanus Callirius
Mars Camulus
Cocidius
Cocidius
Cocidius
Cocidius
Cocidius
Cocidius
Cocidius
Cocidius
Cocidius
Cocidius
Cocidius
Cocidius
Cocidius
Cocidius
Cocidius
Cocidius
Cocidius
Mars Cocidius
Mars Cocidius
Mars Cocidius
Mars Cocidius
Mars Cocidius
Silvanus Cocidius
Vemostonus Cocidius
Other DeltJ””
Jupiter 001
Genius (Prd)
Jupiter (OM)
Silvanus
Toutates
Genius
Geod Type Site
M N Thetford
M N Thetford
M N Thetford
M D Thetford
M 0 Bake\\ell
F N Add
F N Birrens
F N South Shields
F N Unknov.n Origin
F 0 Corbridge
F
F
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
o Oreetl.nd
o Cast lef ord
o Colchester
o Bar Hill
N Be\\.t:astle
N Be\\.astle
N Bewcastle
N Bev .. t:astle
N Be\\castl,
N Birdo,\\ald
N Birdos\\ald?
N Bird/Castlestds
N Bird/Castlestds
N Bird/Castlestds
N Chesterholm?
N CstlstdslStnwix
N Housesteads
N Housestcads
N House/G!{;hstrs
N Netherby?
N Risingharn?
o Be\\castle
o Cmbrlnd Quarries
o Cstlstds/Stnwix
o CstLstds/Stn\\1x
D Lancaster
o Housesteads
D Ebchester
Pub. Ref.
BRll2
BRll2
BRll2
BRll2
RlB 27&
RlB 630
RlB 2091
RlB 1053
RlB 2066
RlB 1131
RlB 627
RlB 628
RlB 194
RlB 2166
RlB 985
RlB 986
RlB 987
RIB 988
RlB 989
RlB 1885
RlB 1872
RlB 1955
RlB 1956
RlB 1961
RlB 1683
RlB 2020
RlB 1577
RlB 1583
RlB 1633
RlB 966
RlB 1207
RlB 993
RlB 1017
RlB 2015
RlB 2024
RlB 602
RlB 1578
RIB 1102
\Vth
Spoon nla
Spoon nla
Spoon nla
Spoon nla
Altar 19
Allar 9
Relief nla
Altar 16
Altar nlm
Altar 16
Altar
Altar
Plate
Altar
Altar
Plaque
Plaque
Altar
Altar
Altar
Altar
Altar
Altar
Altar
Altar
Altar
Altar
Altar
Altar
Altar
Altar
Altar
Altar
Altar
Altar
Altar
Altar
Altar
14
10
nla
12
9
nla
nI.
13
18
I3
21
12
II
14
19
12
9
10
7
14
21
nlm
nI.
nla
16
15
16
Ht Dedicator 1′)”e
nI’ nla
nla nla
nla nla
nla nla
48 Prefect
14 Male
nla Engineer
34 Male
nlm Procurator
35 Cenrurion
19 Male
19 nla
nI. Coppersmi th
nla Legion
20 Centurion
nla nlm
nla Male
21 Tribune
33 TribWle
35 nla
nla Cohort
nla Legion
28 Legion
40 Legion
40 Prefect
nla Legion
17 Soldier
19 Legion
nla Male
32 TribWlc
40 nla
nlm Male
12 Male
nla Centurion?
18 Legion
26 Beneficiarius
48 Prefect
29 Male
nla
nla
nla
nla
M Gallic place-name parallels
M
M
M
M
M
M AD 208
nla
M
C Parallels from L 0″‘” ,,,,rmany
M
nlm
M
M
M
nla
C
C
C
C
M
C
M
C
M
M
nla
M
M
M
C
M
M
M German dedicator
.j:>.
N
:t”
c-.
N Mars Condates
Mars Condates
Mars Condates?
Mars Condates
Mars Corotiacus
FaWlllS CramlS
Faw11.lIi CramJS
Apollo Grannus
Mars Lenus
Leous Mars
Loucetius Mars
Hercules Magusanus
Mobomus
Maponus
Maponus
Apollo Maponus
Apollo Maponus
Apollo Maponus
Apollo Mapoous
Medugenus
F.unus Medigenus
F.unus Medigenus
Faunus Medugenus
Mars Medoeius
Moguns
Mogons
Mogons C.d(”
Mogons Cad( ..
Mogons Vitiris
Narius
F.unus Narius
Faunus Narius
Mars Nodons
Mars Nodons
M.rs Nodons
Mars Nudens
Mars Oeelus
Mars Oc.lus
Otber Delli ..
Ocelus Vellaun
Nemetona
Numen(Aug)
Genius (Loc)
Numen(ON)
Numen(lmp)
Gcnd Tn.. SIte”
M 0 BO\\es
M 0 Chester-Le-Street
M 0 Cramond
M 0 Piereebridge
M 0 Martlesham
M 0 Thetford
M 0 Thetford
M D Inveresk
M 0 Caement
M 0 Ched\\orth
M 0 Bath
M 0 Mumrills
M N Birrens
M N Chesterho 1m
M N UnknO\\t1 Origin
M 0 Corbridge?
M 0 Corbridge
M 0 Corbridge?
M 0 Ribchester
M N Thetford
M 0 Thetford
M 0 Thetford
M 0 Thetford
M 0 Colchester
M N Chesterholm
M N Old Penrith
M N fusingham?
M N fusingham?
M 0 Netherby
M N Thetford
M 0 Thetford
M 0 Thetford
M 0 Cockers and Moss
M 0 Cockersaod Moss
M 0 Lydne)” Park
M 0 Lydney Park
M 0 C,ement
M 0 Carlisle
Pub. Ref.
RIB 731
RIB 1045
BRi 9
RIB 1024
RIB 213
BRil2
BRil2
RIB 2132
RIB 309
RIB 126
RIB 140
RIB 2140
JRS 58
RIB 2431.2
RIB 2063
RIB 1120
RIB 1121
RIB 1122
RIB 583
BRll2
BRll2
BRll2
BRll2
RIB 191
BRl 4
RIB 921
RIB 1225
RIB 1226
RIB 971
BRll2
BRll2
BRll2
RIB 616
RIB 617
RIB 305
RIB 307
RIB 310
RIB 949
Ded Typ ‘Wth
Altar 12
Altar II
Altar 8,5
Altar
Base 2
Spoon nla
Spoon nla
Altar nlm
Base 21
Altar 4
Altar 17
Altar 12
Slab nI.
Pendant nI.
Altar 13
Altar nI.
Altar 25
Altar 21
Base 2-l
Spoon nla
Spoon nla
Spoon nla
Spoon rJ.
PI.te rJa
Altar 4
Altar nlm
Altar 14
Altar rJm
Altar 13
Spoon nI.
Spoon nI.
Spoon nI.
Base nlm
Base nlm
PI.te nJa
Plate nJ.
Altar II
Slab nJa
Ht Dedicator “I)’pe
rJa Male
21 Male
rJa nJa
Mensor II
3 Female
nJ. rJa
nI. nJa
nlm Procurator
18 Collegium member
7 rJa
nI. M.le
34 Ouplicarius
rJ. M.le
nJ. rJrn
40 Males
nJa Prefect
54 Tribune
nla Centurion
51 Cenrurion
rJa rJa
nJ. nJa
nJa rJa
n!a rJ.
nJa Male
rJ. Male
rJm nJ.
nJa Beneficiarius
nJm Male
24 Male
nla rJa
nJa nJa
rJa rJa
nJm Male
nJm Male
rJ. Drilllnstructor
nJa Male
29 Optio
nJ. nJa
Notes
M
M
nJ.
M
F
nJa
nJa
M
M Parallels from Trier
rJa Parallels from Trier
M Parallels from Lo\”” Germany
M Germ.n parallels
M
nJrn
C German dedicators
M Dedicator from Saena
M
M
M On behalf of the Emperor & cavalry unit
rJa
nI.
rJa
nJa
M Caledonian dedicator
M
nJa
M
M
M
nJa
rJa
rJ.
M
M
M
M
M
nJa
i:j’
S
:::0
§
tl
g.
t::
c:rI
:::
(\)
t<..
S
<)
o
:::
…..
11
W
“”” Deity
Ocelus Vellaunus
Mars Olludius
Mars Rig.s
Mars Rigisamus
Hercules Saegon( __
Faunus Satemius
Sulis
Sulis
Sulis
Sui is
Sulis
Sulis
Sulis
Sulis Miner”a
Sulis Mine,,-a
Sulis Minerva
Sulis Mine,,-a
Sulis Mine,,-a
Sulis Minern
Sulis Mine,,’.
Sulis Mine,,-a?
Jupiter Tanarus
Mars Thincsus
Toutales
Mars T outates
Vinotonus
Vinotonus?
Silvanus Vinotonus
Vinotonus Silvanus
Other Deltle,
Mars Lenus
Numen(Aug)
Alaisiagae
Mars Cocidius
Gend 1)1’e Site
M D Cae”wnt
M D Custom Scrubs
M D Malton
M
M
M
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
D West Coker
D Sikhester
D Thetford
N Bath
N Batb
N Bath
N Bath
N Batb
N Bath
N Bath
D B.th
D Balh
D Bath
D Bath
D Bath
D Bath
D B.th
D Bath
D Chester
D Housesteads
N Cmbrlnd Quarries
D B.rb”.}
N Bo\\.s
N Bo\\.,.
D Bo\\es
D Bo\\es
Gend = Gender of the Deity_ (M = Male; F = Female; N = Neuter)
Two = Type of Deity (D = Double; N = Natn·e)
Pub. Ref.
RIB 309
RIB 131
RIB 711
RIB 187
RIB 67
BRll2
IRS 56
RIB 143
RIB 144
RIB 145
RIB 147
RIB 148
RIB 149
RIB 141
RIB 146
RIB 150
BRII2
BRJ 12
BRII2
BRII2
BRll2
RIB 452
RIB 1593
RIB 1017
RIB 219
RIB 733
RIB 737
BRll9
RIB 732
Oed 1)’» Wth
Base 21
Relief IS
Base 17
Plate
SI.b
Spoon
Base
Altar
Altar
Slab
Alia!
Altar
Slab
Relief
Altar
Altar
Patera
Patera
Patera
Patera
Patera
Alia!
Pillar
Altar
Plaque
Altar
Altar
Altar
Alt.r
nla
18
nla
34
28
26
9
25
13
17
23
18
II
nla
nla
nI.
nla
nla
18
nI.
nla
nla
29
12
II
21
Ht
18
20
8
DedJcator 1)’»e
Collegium member
nI.
Male
nI. Male
20 M.le
nI. nla
36 Haruspex
60 Libertus
49 Libertus
Male
48 Libertus
nla Male
21 Malo
Male
….J.4 Cenrurion
24 Male
nI. nI.
nla nla
nla nI.
nla nla
nla nla
38 Princeps
nJa Cr.,cs
12 Male
nla Libertus
64 Prefect
nla nla
nla Prefect
43 Centurion
Notes
M Continental parallels for Vell.unus
nla Continental par.llels
M
M Parallel from Bourges
M
nI.
M
M On Centurion’s behalf
M On Centurion’s behalf
M
M On Imaginifers behal
M
M Dedic.tor from Chances
M
M Post AD 161
M
nla
nla
nla
nI.
nI.
M AD 154; dedicator from CIWlia
C German dedicatOr<
M Continental parallels
M Continental parallels
M Dedicator from Parma
nla
M
M
Pub!. Ref= Publication Reference (RIB = Roman Inscription of Britain [Colliq;;\\Qod & Wright 1965); BRI = Britannia; IRS = Journal of Roman Srudies)
Ded_ T)pe = Object \\hich carries the inscription
Dedicator = Identity of the dedicator (For T)pe: M = Male; F = Female; C = ‘Corporate’)
+>-
+>-
:L.
!:'”””‘
N
2: