I

Imperial Cult, Roman

Candace Weddle LivingstonSouth Carolina School of the Arts at AndersonUniversity, Anderson, SC, USA

Introduction

Although there was a strong and ancient traditionin Roman culture of honoring the spirits of thedead (Manes), prior to the third century BCE, theRomans did not deify mortals. They did honor theGenius of a living man (just so, the Juno of awoman); these terms, however, denoted a divineforce present in every human but at the same timedistinct from him, and their worship should there-fore not be considered equivalent to the worshipof deified humans. The actual deification of indi-viduals only came into practice following contactwith Hellenistic cultures as the empire expanded;the concept of worshiping the emperor as a deityseems generally to have been an outgrowth of theGreek practice of deifying heroes and Hellenistickings. The development of those earlier cults ofheroes and kings, as well as later divine honorsoffered to prominent Romans, has been seen bymodern scholars as adaptation by the Greeks ofthe cults of their traditional Olympian gods inorder to express their relationship to new typesof power.

Definition

The terminology “imperial cult” is used by mod-ern scholars to refer to the practice in the RomanEmpire of worshiping the emperor and certainmembers of the imperial family. There was nocult designated by that name in antiquity. Never-theless, worship of the emperor, which began withthe deification of Augustus in 14 CE and contin-ued throughout the imperial period, was an impor-tant aspect of the religious and political life of theempire, and it is convenient to assign it a name inorder to facilitate discussion.

Historical Background

The first Romans for whom we have evidence ofdivine honors were M. Claudius Marcellus, forwhom a festival was established in Syracuse, Sic-ily (212 BCE), and, in the East, the consul TitusQuinctius Flamininus (ca. 191 BCE), on whomhonors were bestowed in Greece. Importantly,although the Greeks occasionally offered templesin addition to divine honors to Roman dignitariesand officials (Cicero (106–43 BCE), e.g., refusedsuch an offer), there is no evidence that any wereactually built. The Senate voted a cult and a fla-men (that is, a priest – in this case, Marcus Anto-nius) for C. Julius Caesar (100–44 BCE) a shorttime before his assassination, and Caesar wasofficially deified after death; those divine honorsserved as models of appropriate behavior toward

# Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018C. Smith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology,https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51726-1_1755-2

the emperors throughout the imperial period.Augustus (r. 27 BCE–CE 14) was offered divinehonors from the eastern provinces of Asia andBithynia while living, which he accepted withthe stipulation that the cult include Roma as apartner goddess, a precedent that was followedby several of his successors. Augustus refuseddeification in Rome itself during his lifetime butpermitted the establishment of a cult of theGeniusAugusti by 12 BCE (see esp. Taylor 1975). Fol-lowing his death in 14 CE, Augustus receivedhonors similar to those bestowed on Julius Caesar,including a temple, a flamen, and the establish-ment of a college of priests for his cult, theSodales Augustales, whose members were drawnfrom the ranks of the Senate.

Technically speaking, the emperor could onlybecome a god (divus) and be the recipient of anofficial cult after death, following an apotheosis asdeclared by a decree of the Senate (note, however,that divus/divi is still distinct from deus/dei, theterm for the traditional gods). In practice, this rulewas only ever observed in Rome and some of thewestern provinces (see below). In contrast, in theHellenized provinces from the time of Augustus,the living emperor could be referred in Greektheos, a god. From its beginning, the emphasis ofthe imperial cult in the East was heavily orientedtoward the current, living ruler, with little regard forthe official lists of divi issued by the Senate.

Political Aspects of the Cult. An importantaspect of the imperial cult was its political nature.Emperor worship was seen by provincialpopulations as an opportunity to display theirallegiance to the ruler in a formalized civic fash-ion. Some emperors no doubt encouraged it as ameans of symbolically illustrating their power farfrom the capital, and it seems that institution of thecult at a provincial level was an important step inthe development of new provinces, especially incases in which they had been “wild” at the time oftheir accession by the empire (Fishwick 1987:148). Further, the cult provided a system withinwhich local aristocracy could relate to Rome andpublicly prove their loyalty as well as achieverecognition and social status through participationin the imperial priesthood. By the third century,Cassius Dio (51.20.7) was able to consider

worship of the emperor to be one aspect of reli-gion shared by everyone in the empire. Such afactor could prove a very powerful tool for gener-ating a sense of commonality among the peoplesof far-flung territories who observed a wide rangeof religious practices. Judicial and military oathswere sworn to the Genius of the emperor, and insome instances the cult was used as a litmus test toprove the loyalty of Roman subjects or to ascer-tain whether they were adherents of cults consid-ered inimical to the Roman state. In particular, therequirement that individuals offer prayers to or forthe emperor in the presence of a government rep-resentative was used to discover or prove theidentities of Christians, a process discussed inletters the provincial administrator Pliny theYounger (ca. 61–112) wrote to the emperor Trajan(Epist. 10.96), and elsewhere. These politicalaspects of the cult should not, however, be under-stood to lessen or negate the religious content ofimperial worship.

We are particularly well informed about thepolitical significance of the cult in the GreekEast, where it provided a framework for negotiat-ing the relationship between the dominant Helle-nized culture – which was organized on a city-based system – and the centralized power ofRome. Leagues of cities called koina were a fea-ture of the Hellenistic world, and in the imperialperiod, many of these leagues were organizedaround participation in the imperial cult. Thesekoina competed among themselves for the honorof hosting imperial cult temples, and the cities thatwon the honor served as the caretakers or wardensof those temples for the entire koinon. From thetime of Hadrian (r. 117–38 CE), the term neokoros(temple warden) was used as a regular, honorificcivic title claimed by those cities that had animperial temple at which a provincial festivaltook place (the term appears earlier but its mean-ing was standardized during Hadrian’s reign). Tobe neokoros brought a city great prestige, and thetitle was vaunted in inscriptions and on coinage, afact that aids us in assessing the range and locationof the cult (see esp. Burrell 2004).

In general, though individual emperors haddifferent preferences and also had to be aware ofimplications for the specific political climate in

2 Imperial Cult, Roman

which they reigned, the tendency to accept divinehonors while living became more common as theimperial period progressed (on the evolution ofimperial images as a reflection of this shift, seePollini 2012). Though always more popular in theeastern provinces, altars and temples were dedi-cated to the living emperor in the West as well,beginning perhaps with a foundation in honor ofClaudius (r. 41–54 CE) (at Camulodunum in Brit-ain) but certainly by the reign of Vespasian(r. 69–79 CE) (at Tarraconensis and (probably)Lusitania in Spain and possibly at Narbo in GalliaNarbonensis). As Beard, North, and Price haveshown (Beard et al. 1998), whether a particulararea of the empire chose to worship the livingemperor or to follow Rome in worshiping onlydeceased and formally deified rulers had less to dowith geographical location than with conceptualcloseness to Rome. Thus, for example, cults to theliving emperor were established in the West inGermany among the un-Romanized tribes follow-ing their conquest by Rome. In addition, practicewas dependent on the status of the worshiperswho established a particular cult center, especiallyin the early years of the empire. Therefore, Romancitizens in areas outside Rome, both in coloniesand in the provinces, followed Roman tradition inworshiping the emperor, whereas noncitizen sub-jects of Rome followed local custom. Thus, theRoman citizens in Ephesus in the Augustan periodworshiped at a temple dedicated jointly to DivusJulius (Caesar) and the goddess Roma, while non-citizens were free to pay cult to the living emperor.This distinction between worship by Romans andnon-Romans later blurred as citizenship becamemore common in the provinces.

The standard process of establishment of thecult also differed in the East and the West. Informerly Greek areas, the impetus to establish acult and an altar or temple was almost alwayslocal, with the emperor choosing to accept orreject offers as he deemed appropriate. In theWest, though there is some evidence of localinitiative in establishing the cult in certain cases(e.g., the temple of Augustus at Tarraco in Spain,granted under Tiberius), Rome was more heavilyinvolved in its development and content and, insome areas, seems even to have imposed the cult.

Rites of the Cult. Imperial worship includedfeatures of cult rites generally seen in the Romansystem. Temples and altars were consecrated todeified emperors and family members. Eleven ofthe latter were established in the first half of thefirst century, but their number then decreasedmarkedly, with only four being established afterthat point. Priests were appointed, drawn from theelite citizenry of the cities in which the cult wascelebrated (Fig. 1). The majority of survivingevidence for the priesthood consists of honorificinscriptions noting that individuals had attainedthe office and specifying the details of their munif-icence toward their community in providing sac-rifices, feasts, and games in connection with thecult. Otherwise, evidence for the range of priestlyfunctions is limited. Their position was one ofpolitical as well as religious prestige, as suggestedby their appearance in lists of ambassadorialgroups and embassies to the emperor. Priestessesserved in the cults of the female members of theimperial family, although in one example fromAphrodisias a woman held the priesthood of theemperors, indicating that the gender division wasnot strict. The titles of some other imperial cultactors are also known from inscriptions, includingin the Greek world the prothytes, an official ofunknown responsibilities related to sacrificeswhose title is found only in the context of thiscult. Important civic bodies perhaps (as suggestedby their name) associated with the cult were theAugustales, often understood by scholars to havebeen associations of ex-slaves who seem to haveheld responsibilities toward the deified imperialfamily that included sponsorship of games, build-ing repair, and erection of statues. Though theywere active mainly in the West, fraternities ofAugustales are attested in some Roman coloniesin the eastern parts of the empire. Beard, North,and Price have urged caution in defining them asassociated specifically or exclusively with theimperial cult and have shown that their member-ship included freeborn as well as freedmen (Beardet al. 1998: 358).

Imperial cult worship included prayersaddressed and hymns sung to the divi, oftenaccompanied by a range of traditional sacrifices,including offerings of wine or water, ritual cakes,

Imperial Cult, Roman 3

incense, and live animal victims. Oxen were thenormal victims offered to a divinized emperor,cows being appropriate for imperial women.Inscriptional evidence indicates that animal sacri-fices took place within the cult on a scale up to andexceeding a hekatomb, the Greek word for a sac-rifice of approximately 100 bovines, though thismust have been an exceptional occurrence. Thesacrifices took two forms: offerings made directlyto the living emperor (or to him and his predeces-sors as a group) and offerings made to other godson behalf of the emperor (pro salute) to ensure hishealth and continued reign. Of particular impor-tance in the latter category were yearly vota offer-ings performed on January 3 in both Rome and theprovinces to petition the gods for the well-being ofthe emperors. Interestingly, surviving literary andepigraphical evidence includes only one instance

of sacrifice to the emperor being performed by apriest of the imperial cult; all other instances ofsacrifices performed by imperial cult priests arenoted as being completed on the emperor’s behalf.In general, it seems that sacrifices to the emperorwere less frequent than those directed to otherdeities for his benefit.

Celebration of the cult was often carried out inthe context of imperial festivals. These events,which were held on a regular schedule and couldhappen monthly, yearly or, for major festivals,biennially or quadrennially, included games andcontests as well as processions, sacrifices, andaccompanying feasts that often lasted for severaldays. In the eastern parts of the empire, almost allgladiatorial competitions and wild animal fightswere staged within the context of the imperial cult.Festivals were commonly linked to importantdays in the life of the honoree including birthdays,ascension days, and occasions of good news com-municated from Rome to the cities of the empire(e.g., a military victory or the birth or coming-of-age of an imperial heir). Avisit by the emperor to acity also resulted in cult celebration (as did, begin-ning in the third century, the arrival of his image).In some cases, an imperial visit led to the founda-tion of a new cult sanctuary or provided an oppor-tunity for the consecration of a previouslyconstructed sanctuary by the emperor for whosecult it was built.

The activities of the imperial cult also includedMysteries, about which we have less information.That they formed a regular part of worship withinthe cult is evidenced by a surviving cult calendarinscribed on an altar of the imperial choir ofAugustus and Roma at Pergamum in AsiaMinor, on which the Mysteries appear as one ofthe four most important annual cult festivals. It isalso clear on the evidence of this inscription,which includes some details of expenditures onitems for the celebration of the Mysteries, thatthose rites included small-scale sacrifices ofincense and cakes. The specification that lampsbe provided for the proceedings suggests that thecult image of the emperor was dramaticallyrevealed from the darkness at some point duringthe ceremonies, an aspect known from other sim-ilar Greco-Roman contexts such as the Eleusinian

Imperial Cult, Roman, Fig. 1 The head of a priest of theimperial cult in Ephesus in Asia Minor (first c. CE, now inthe Ephesus Archaeological Museum, Selçuk). He wears acrown decorated with busts of the imperial family, a com-mon feature of imperial cult priest regalia that is alsoknown from literary descriptions. The heads of the bustswere almost certainly destroyed intentionally, probably byChristians. (Photo # Candace Weddle Livingston)

4 Imperial Cult, Roman

Mysteries (Friesen 2001: 115). The titlesebastophant (compare the hierophant at Eleusisand in other mystery cults) is known from inscrip-tions, but his duties are not specified.

Chronological Scope. The imperial cultendured as an important aspect of the Romanreligious landscape throughout the imperialperiod, though it did not remain static. Generallyspeaking, from the birth of the cult under August-us, a pattern has been noted: a gradual shift fromcults of individual emperors toward generic cultsof the collective emperors, with Caracalla(r. 198–217) being the last emperor for whomwe know of an individual temple or priesthood.Price (1984a) has convincingly interpreted thisgradual development as a strengthening of theinstitution of the imperial cult rather than as adecline in willingness to deify individual rulers.

The end of the cult is difficult to trace. Thepolitical and economic unrest of the third centuryCE affected not only the construction of newsanctuaries but also the celebration of establishedfestivals, which were expensive to organize. Theheavily centralized government instituted at theend of that century by Diocletian (r. 284–305)must also have strongly impacted the practice ofthe cult, particularly in provinces in which impe-tus for cult celebrations was primarily driven bylocal devotion. However, important evidence forthe continued relevance of the cult in this period ispreserved in the province of Egypt at Luxor (seebelow). The rise of Constantine (r. 307–337 CE)and the increasing political power of Christianityaltered the nature and structure of the cult.Constantine’s view of the cult is perhaps illus-trated by the fact that he allowed a group oftowns in Umbria to build a temple in honor ofhis family but forbade them to offer sacrificesthere. Scholars have noted, however, the continu-ation of certain aspects of the cult in Byzantinecourt ceremonial, as well as in royal ceremonies ofother monarchies through the medieval period,such as those of the Frankish kings.

Archeological Evidence for the Imperial CultWorship of the emperor took a variety of forms indifferent areas of the empire, and archeologicalevidence has helped clarify the practice and

meanings of the cult within various communitiesin Roman society. Evidence for the cult is rich andvaried but also fragmentary, particularly so for thetumultuous third century. The remains of severalcult temples have been identified, especially in theeastern provinces of the empire, as have cultstatues of imperial family members; images oftemples and statues struck on coins provide fur-ther evidence. In addition, thousands of inscrip-tions related to the cult have been recovered,ranging from records of temple dedications tolists of cult regulations. Most of the latter date tothe time of Augustus and his early successors.Although the evidence is inconclusive, it is likelythat the cult was eventually present in every prov-ince of the empire.

Physical evidence for the cult is richest in AsiaMinor (modern Turkey), where the results of sur-vey and excavation carried out since the late nine-teenth century have clarified both the broadpicture of the spread and penetration of the cultand details of its rites and role in the easternprovinces. Surveys show a very wide diffusionof the cult as measured in epigraphical attestationof temples, altars, and priests. The general patternof the evidence also strongly suggests that the cultwas primarily urban and was practically nonexis-tent in rural areas. This is probably a by-product ofthe fact that the cult was largely perpetuated andadministered by the elite (though there is ampleevidence for the participation of individuals fromall levels of society). It also highlights the extentto which the cult was derived from and dependenton Greek culture (which emphasized the impor-tance of the city as an institution), reflected areciprocal relationship with Rome, and requiredcivic organization to function. All of those ele-ments were absent from the more remote areas ofthe eastern provinces.

Cult Buildings. Following the precedent setby Augustus’s construction of a temple to thedeified Julius Caesar after his death, nine templesfor deceased emperors (sometimes shared withtheir deified spouses) were constructed in Romeitself. Of these, the best preserved is the temple ofAntoninus Pius (r. 138–61 CE) and his wifeFaustina the Elder in the Forum Romanum,which was converted into the church of San

Imperial Cult, Roman 5

Lorenzo in Miranda sometime prior to the elev-enth century. Elsewhere in the West, temples andaltars dedicated to the emperors were constructedfrom an early date. The first of these was a largeand lavish altar to Rome and Augustusconsecrated in either 12 or 10 BCE in Gaul atLugdunum (modern Lyon); its appearance isknown from local coinage and from limitedarcheological remains, which include columnsfrom a later update of the altar under Hadrianthat were reused in the eleventh century as sup-ports for the cupola of the Church of St. Martin inAinay. The altar is notable not only for its scaleand opulence but also because of its role as apotent political symbol: it served as a locationfor 60 Gallic tribes to pledge their allegiance toRome on a yearly basis. A similar foundation inthe Two Germanies at modern Cologne followedshortly. The cult is also attested in Spain by thereign of Tiberius (r. 14–37 CE) and in AfricaProconsularis under Vespasian, although thedates for the first appearance of the cult in thoseprovinces are unclear. The discovery at Narbonnein 1888 of a fragmentary bronze tablet bearingregulations pertaining to the provincial imperialcult there under Vespasian, a text now known asthe Lex Narbonensis (CIL 12,6038 = ILS 6964),provided some specific details such as the cult’sfestal calendar. It also confirmed the establish-ment of a cult that included both the Julio-Claudian rulers and the founder of the newFlavian dynasty.

In Asia Minor, 156 temples and shrines havebeen identified from extant remains, inscriptions,and numismatic and literary evidence, including52 major neokorate temples in 35 cities. In gen-eral, the construction of temples (referred to asKaisareion or Sebasteion in the East) reached anapogee in the first half of the second century,which reflects a general increase in civic construc-tion empire-wide during that period. The numberof epigraphically attested temple constructionsdecreases greatly for the second half of the secondcentury and especially for the unsettled third cen-tury (however, because the foundation date of asignificant number of temples cannot be deter-mined, scholars should be cautious of drawingbroad conclusions from the evidence). The forms

of the shrines ranged from simple buildings togrand temples on the model of those of traditionalgods. Most held images of the emperor and othermembers of the imperial family.

In addition to individual imperial cult construc-tions, cult buildings or sacred areas could be asso-ciated with sanctuaries of traditional gods, thoughthe imperial divi were usually subordinated insome way to those deities. The deified emperorand his family sometimes shared the space of suchtemples with their traditional occupants, in whichcase the divi appeared either as statues inside thetemple itself or in their own building within thebounds of the temple complex. There is evidencein several cases that traditional temples werealtered or received structural additions in orderto accommodate imperial areas. In other cases,the emperor was associated with the traditionalgods in subtler ways, such as through dedicatoryinscriptions mentioning both, or by representationin decoration on the exterior of temple buildings.

A particularly interesting example of the alter-ation of an existing temple – though of a foreignrather than a Roman god – is found in Egypt,where at the turn of the fourth century, an imperialcult chamber with a fine fresco of the first Tetrar-chy was constructed within Luxor Temple. Recentrestoration (2005–2008) and archeological analy-sis are clarifying the process by which the impe-rial cult was overlaid onto the temple that servedas the site of the annual regeneration ceremony ofthe Egyptian state god Amun-Re, reborn yearly inthe person of the pharaoh. The selection of the siteclearly invited a comparison between the divineaspects of the pharaoh and those of the Romanheads of state, while simultaneously assertingRoman dominance over Egypt and her traditionalgods (see Jones and McFadden 2015).

Epigraphical evidence is key to our knowledgeof imperial cult sanctuaries. It is not, however,always possible to confirm the evidence ofinscriptions in the archeological record. In someinstances, it seems likely that the right to constructa temple was granted to a city or province, asindicated by an inscription, but that changingpolitical winds prevented its construction. Weare on firmer ground when considering inscrip-tions that have a high likelihood of having been

6 Imperial Cult, Roman

dedicated or placed after a temple was completed.For example, bases for statues commissioned tocelebrate the dedication of a neokorate temple andinscribed with information about the donors of thestatues (often, at least in the Hellenistic East, civicor provincial bodies recognizing the granting of atemple to a neighboring body) have been discov-ered in several cities in AsiaMinor. Unfortunately,in many cases the inscriptions are no longer in situand therefore cannot indicate the location orsecure the identification of the temple.

Numismatic finds are helpful in filling the gapsin our evidence, often indicating which templeswere constructed and, in some cases, providingdetails of their appearance. Again, the evidence isparticularly rich in the East. Because the grantingof a neokorate temple was a high honor for a cityor province, it was common for coinage to beissued featuring the new title of the city(neokoros) and, often, an image of the templeitself. In some cases, however, minting of coinsmay have preceded the actual construction of atemple by a considerable amount of time, mean-ing that the appearance of temples depicted oncoins may be either standardized or based onother existing temples in the area. As with epi-graphical evidence, it also seems to be the casethat coins were issued for neokorate temples thatwere never constructed.

The imperial cult was not confined to the pre-cincts of temples. Often, areas for imperial cultceremonial were installed in civic structures suchas (in the East) council houses. Other sites forimperial cult worship included gymnasia, stadia,theaters, and baths. In the East, some cult-relatedathletic competitions may have taken place ingymnasia, following the Hellenistic model inwhich competitions in honor of kings wereconducted there. The cult was similarly associatedwith stadia, which served as sites for athletic andmusical competitions and animal fights staged aspart of cult festivities. However, it is difficult – inmany cases impossible – to separate archeologicalevidence for imperial cult-related events thatoccurred in gymnasia and stadia from evidencefor activities staged as part of other festivals.Literary evidence for sacrifices to the imperialfamily in theaters and for the placement of their

images there is corroborated by the discovery ofimperial statues in a theater on Thera and of adecorative frieze with sacrificial and imperialimagery at Hierapolis in Asia Minor. Porticoeswere also sites of significance for the cult; someporticoes were purpose-built for the imperial cult,sometimes adjoining a Sebasteion. Although thiswas most common in the Greek East, it is alsoseen in Italy and North Africa.

In Asia Minor, there is evidence that some typeof imperial cult-related activity was carried out indedicated areas in bath complexes. Dubbedkaisersäle (“imperial halls”) by archeologists,these spaces range from small rooms to large,richly decorated halls. Particularly fine exampleshave been excavated at Ephesus and Sardis(Fig. 2). Their identification as kaisersäle hasbeen deduced primarily from the presence ofinscriptions referring to the Sebastoi, and severalhave niches that probably held images of theimperial family. At least ten of these rooms havebeen identified so far, one (at Ephesus) with anintact altar, but none with which a surviving impe-rial statue can be firmly associated. Their functionremains a matter of debate.

Cult Images. Imperial cult images took sev-eral forms and were displayed in a variety ofways. Some temples arrayed a range of figuresalong the walls to which additions could be madeas necessary, with the scope of representation insome cases even including members of severaldynasties. Other shrines exhibited a limited num-ber of colossal figures. Archeological evidence forcult images includes actual statues and fragmentsthereof, as well as inscribed bases and numismaticrepresentations.

As in the cults of the traditional gods, imagesof the emperor and the imperial family served asloci for their veneration. Cult images could por-tray the emperor in a variety of forms, followingthe standards of Roman portraiture. The objects ofcult could be shown cuirassed, nude, or in civilianclothing (that is, the Roman toga or, more rarelyand only in the East, in Greek dress). In somecases, the emperor was depicted with coveredhead (capite velato), offering sacrifice as a priestin his own cult; a few imperial temples in AsiaMinor had cult statues of this type. Though it is

Imperial Cult, Roman 7

sculptures that have survived in the archeologicalrecord, we know from textual sources that paint-ings of the imperial family also served as cultimages, especially in instances when the imperialimage needed to be carried to a location for ven-eration. Cult images ranged in size from busts tocolossal statues measuring 7–8 m in height(Fig. 3). In addition to examples located insidetemples, imperial cult images were displayed inpublic areas and carried in procession on impor-tant occasions and during imperial cult festivals.

Key Issues/Current Debates

Much modern scholarship on the imperial cult,especially prior to the last decades of the twentiethcentury, focused on the question of whether theimperial cult should be considered religio, andcult actions therefore understood as expressionsof authentic religious belief, or whether it was apurely political construct in which ritual actionsexpressed only fealty. The apparent need to under-stand the two as mutually exclusive arises from

Imperial Cult, Roman,Fig. 2 View of the centralsection of the so-calledkaisersaal in the baths atSardis in Asia Minor, witha niche for an imperialstatue?. (Photo # CandaceWeddle Livingston)

8 Imperial Cult, Roman

Christianizing notions of religious faith as some-thing separate from earthly concerns and, espe-cially, from political thought. An importantby-product of this earlier scholarship was theerroneous notion that the imperial cult, with itsapparently “faithless” political nature, was asymptom of the decline of classical Greco-Roman religion leading to the eventual “triumph”of Christianity (see esp. contra Price 1984a).More recently, scholars have preferred to viewthe development of the cult as one element of ageneral restructuring of the Roman religious sys-tem at the time of the early principate (Beardet al. 1998).

Another debate involves the nature of theRoman emperor’s divinity: was he considered agod while living or only after his death? Questionsof individual belief are notoriously tricky andultimately unresolvable, but it is possible to inter-rogate to some degree the concept of the deifica-tion of the emperor as expressed in officiallanguage (see esp. Price 1984b) and illustrated indetails of cult ceremonial. In brief, the dual natureof the types of sacrificial rites practiced in the cult(that is, the fact that they were offered bothdirectly to and on behalf of the emperor) suggeststhat the living emperor occupied a role betweenthat of men and that of the gods. Recent studies of

the development of imperial images within thecontext of the cult, beginning with Divus Julius,have helped illuminate the process by which theRomans came to terms with this new concept ofthe role of the emperor and developed a standardvisual vocabulary for his portrayal in public andprivate art (Pollini 2012; Koortbojian 2013).

A final pressing issue related to thearcheological evidence for the imperial cult isthe fact that many of the immovable survivingremains of imperial cult structures are located inthe eastern provinces of the empire, including theformer province of Syria (on which, see esp. Segal2013), where archeological sites and cultural her-itage are under imminent threat at the hands of theIslamic State (Daesh or ISIS) and other militantgroups, raising preservation issues of grave con-cern for the international community.

Future Directions

Although many details of the imperial cult remainunclear, archeological and literary evidence indi-cate that it was an important part of the fabric ofpolitical and social life in the imperial period.Excavation and publication of numerous relatedsites throughout the empire continue, as does new

Imperial Cult, Roman,Fig. 3 Head and arm of acolossal imperial cult statueof Domitian or Titus, fromthe Flavian temple atEphesus (first CE, now inthe Ephesus ArchaeologicalMuseum, Selçuk). (Photo# Candace WeddleLivingston)

Imperial Cult, Roman 9

study of literary and epigraphical evidence for thecult. In addition to shedding light on ritual prac-tice and its relationship to imperial power, futurestudy of the cult may help clarify aspects of theprocess of power negotiations between Rome andher provinces.

Cross-References

▶Aphrodisias, The Archaeology of▶Archaeology of Greek Religion▶Archaeology of the Eastern Provinces of theRoman Empire

▶Architecture, Roman▶Baths and Bathing, Greek▶Baths and Bathing, Roman▶Caesarea Maritima, The Archaeology of▶Cross-Cultural Interaction in the Greek world:Culture Contact Issues and Theories

▶Eastern Provinces of the Roman Empire,Archaeology of

▶ Frontiers of the Roman Empire, Archaeologyof

▶Greek Temples, Archaeology of▶Hellenistic and Roman Anatolia, The Archae-ology of

▶Hellenization▶ Iconography in the Roman World▶North Africa, Roman▶Numismatics, Roman Imperial▶Religion▶Romanization▶ Sacred/Secular▶ Sagalassos, The Archaeology of▶Topography of Rome▶Western Roman Provinces, Archaeology of the

References

Beard, M., J.A. North, and S.R.F. Price. 1998. Religions ofRome. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burrell, B. 2004. Neokoroi: Greek cities and Romanemperors. Leiden: Brill.

Fishwick, D. 1987–2005. The imperial cult in the LatinWest: Studies in the ruler cult of the western provincesof the Roman empire. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill.

Friesen, S.J. 2001. Imperial cults and the apocalypse ofJohn: Reading revelation in the ruins. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Jones, M., and S. Mcfadden, eds. 2015. Art of empire: TheRoman frescoes and imperial cult chamber in Luxortemple. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Koortbojian, M. 2013. The divinization of Caesar andAugustus: Precedents, consequences, implications.New York: Cambridge University Press.

Pollini, J. 2012. From republic to empire: Rhetoric, reli-gion, and power in the visual culture of ancient Rome.Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Price, S.R.F. 1984a. Rituals and power: The Roman impe-rial cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Price, S.R.F. 1984b. Gods and emperors: The Greek lan-guage of the Roman imperial cult. The Journal ofHellenic Studies 104: 79–95.

Segal, A. 2013. Temples and sanctuaries in the RomanEast: Religious architecture in Syria, Iudaea/Palaes-tina and Provincia Arabia. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Taylor, L.R. 1975. The divinity of the Roman emperor.Philadelphia: Porcupine Press.

Further ReadingsBickerman, E.J., and W. den Boer, eds. 1973. Le Culte des

souverains dans l’Empire Romain: sept exposés suivisde discussions. Geneva: Fondation Hardt.

Cannadine, D., and S.R.F. Price. 1987. Rituals of royalty:Power and ceremonial in traditional societies. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clauss, M. 2001. Kaiser und Gott: Herrscherkult imrömischen Reich. Munich: K.G. Saur.

Friesen, S.F. 1993. Twice Neokoros: Ephesus, Asia, and thecult of the Flavian imperial family. Leiden: Brill.

Friesen, S.F. 1995. The cult of the Roman emperors inephesos: Temple wardens, city titles, and the interpre-tation of the revelation of John. In Ephesos: Metropolisof Asia, ed. H. Koester, 229–250. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Gradel, I. 2002. Emperor worship and Roman religion.Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Price, S.R.F. 1980. Between man and god. Sacrifice in theRoman imperial cult. The Journal of Roman Studies 70:28–43.

Price, S.R.F. 1999. Imperial cult. In Late antiquity: A guideto the postclassical world, ed. G.W. Bowersock,P. Brown, and O. Grabar, 510–511. Cambridge, MA:Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Small, A., ed. 1996. Subject and ruler: The cult of theruling power in classical antiquity. Ann Arbor: Journalof Roman Archaeology.

Scott, K. 1975. The imperial cult under the Flavians.New York: Arno.

Weinstock, S. 1971. Divus Julius. Oxford: ClarendonPress.

10 Imperial Cult, Roman