CONCLUSION

Ancient authors saw clear ethnic differences between the Italic peoples, at least in terms of their regional names, but also recognized that they were closely related to one another, through myth, history and language.

They also understood that these peoples were influenced by the other non-Italic populations of Italy, principally the Etruscans, Romans and Greeks. Archaeological and epigraphic evidence, from the archaic period on, shows that Italic religions were structurally similar, and profoundly interconnected. Speculation about the earlier primordial origins of these peoples and whether there was an uncontaminated, pure, form of their religions is unhelpful, because the evidence, when it occurs, only documents a situation where influences from other cultures are already pervasive. For instance, the earliest evidence for cult in Samnium, archaic statuettes of Hercules, already shows a clear Greek imprint (probably alongside a local element; G. Bradley 2005a). It seems better to assume that contact with other cultures was in fact formative in most aspects of Italic religions; hence we find the broad parallels that can be drawn with Etruria, Greece and Rome, where our sources chance to illuminate them (e.g. the sanctuaries of Campania and Samnium, or the rituals of Rome and Iguvium). Influences from Latium may pre-date the conquest and “Romanization” by centuries: for example, sheet bronze figurines from Montefortino di Arcevia in Picenum can be traced back to fifth century BCE Latial workshops (Colonna 1970: 111-14 n. 340). There were also Italic influences on neighbouring cultures. For example, some Etruscan gods were adopted via Umbria (van der Meer 1997).

The imposition of Roman control over the Italic peoples - as a consequence first of the conquest (ca. 338-264 BCE) and secondly of the Social War and general enfranchisement of Italy in 90 BCE - undoubtedly had profound effects on religion.

In the evidence for cult in imperial Italy the distinctive gods, priests and calendars of Italic communities appear largely homogenized. Given that there are exceptions (discussed above) and that the evidence is primarily epigraphic and hence often official in character, this may not be the whole story. And it must be remembered that the similarities between Roman and Italic cults from very early on makes it very difficult to assert that an imperial era cult of, say, Mars or Hercules originated as a Roman import rather than as a local Italic cult. (Rome is essentially an Italic culture that happened to follow an exceptional path in historical terms.) The archaeology of sanctuaries provides a mixed picture: the nature of votives left changes after the Social War; many sanctuaries disappear from the record; but others clearly continue and flourish (what we perceive as “continuity” can, of course, hide a radical change in use). Overall, the general trend of a much more “Roman” religion in Italy after Augustus seems undeniable, though with numerous, albeit often untraceable, Italic roots.

This leaves us with the great period of the flourishing of Italic religion, from the conquest to the Social War, when Roman influence is undoubtedly evident, but Greek (and Etruscan) influences are also strongly apparent. Although many Italic religious structures and practices already existed before this era, it is certainly a formative period for aspects of cult like the monumentalization of sanctuaries, the written record of cult procedures, and the elaboration of priesthoods. The religious history of this period should be understood in the context of emerging Italic states, and their peoples, responding both to the imposition of Roman control (not necessarily very direct, as we have argued), and to the massive widening of Italian horizons with the expansion of the Roman Empire.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank Elena Isayev for comments on this paper.

CONCLUSION

More on the topic CONCLUSION: