On the Subject of Syncretism

So I had a discussion this evening with someone about syncretism. Apparently, there had been some push back recently over certain Gaulish Deities having been treated to the interpretatio romana. It really made me think about the process of syncretization, how it works and why it’s an important way of engaging with certain Deities.

For the most part, the Romans were very respectful of indigenous religions. The times when they oppressed or legislated against a particular tradition it was never (despite how Roman propaganda may have spun the issue) purely about the religion. It was, without exception, due to political issues. For instance, four examples spring readily to mind: there was the persecution of Bacchic Cultus in the second century B.C.E. Southern Italy was a hot bed of resistance to Roman rule and much of that resistance was fomented by leaders of that particular cultus. Likewise with the Druids and the Isle of Mona. It was central to resistance to Roman rule. The cult of Isis was briefly prescribed by Octavian but this had little to do with the cult itself and everything to do with the aftermath of the civil war with Antony, in which Cleopatra (who positioned herself as an incarnation of Isis) was central. Then of course there was Christianity. That rather, in my opinion, speaks for itself. Romans were a bit horrified when they found out what the cultus of Cybele entailed but they never prescribed it. There was a period where Roman citizens were forbidden from becoming galli, but the cultus itself was otherwise allowed to flourish uninterrupted. For the most part, the Romans attempted to respect and engage with indigenous religion. They were very pious people. Quite often this was done through the interpretatio romana.

When Rome took over a province, they would often append the names of their Gods to that of local Deities. For instance, we have Sulis-Minerva, Mars-Lenus, and Tacitus in his Germania gives us an account of Germanic Deities where suddenly Odin becomes Mercurius, Tyr becomes Mars, and Thor becomes Herakles. This was not done out of disrespect but as a means of finding a keyhole, a window, a doorway to understanding and engaging with these Deities. This was especially true for those Romans who settled permanently in a territory. Looking at Britannia or Gaul or any other province, the syncretism became a meeting point for both the indigenous people and the Romans and it gave the Gods more power.

Moreover, insofar as the Romans went, this was done as a mark of respect, an acknowledgement of the Deity’s power. Gods are powerful and the Romans ever and always acknowledged that in their religious and military practices. They had several specific religious rites performed by their military to ensure that the Gods of those people they conquered would support the Roman cause, rites like evocatio, which invited those Gods to join the Roman side. In this respect, it seems the Romans used the names of Their Gods almost as titles. If they saw a particular aspect of an indigenous Deity that in their minds connected that Deity to one of the Roman Ones, then it was easy to augment that connection with syncretization. For instance, with the Gaulish God Lenus, there is significant martial symbolism. Therefore, the Romans logically equated connected Him with Mars. In other words, They were putting Him in a place wherein He would receive the same attention and awareness as their own Deity Mars. It is almost as if the names were titles, markers, placeholders wherein the Gods might dance. It was also on the Roman point of view, a mark of respect. Rome was the greatest power in the world during its time, and to acknowledge a Deity with a Roman title was one of the most respectful things to the Roman mind that one might do.

Now, I will admit, as I once told my [academic] students: syncretism is not a simple term. When it comes up, it means that something happened. There was movement, interaction, migration, colonization and that might happen naturally and organically or it might be a matter of conquest. It should never be taken at face value. Where there is syncretism there is a story, and sometimes a bloody history. Like it or not, however, syncretism is part of the history of polytheism. Sometimes in fact, that syncretism was spurred by the indigenous peoples themselves and not always under duress. Points of syncretism became a point of weaving culture, religion, and a meeting point for the indigenous communities (be they Celts or Gauls or Britains, etc.) and the Roman people. Ignoring syncretism takes away a place of power from the Gods in question and ignores that complex history of Their worship.

All of this, of course, raises questions for us about whether or not we should include Roman imagery in our icons of various Deities and more importantly whether or not we should venerate syncretized Gods. I think it is important that we do. The syncretic form and space in which the God or Gods (because after all, we don’t know what deals the two deities in question might have made with each Other regarding that form) are honored is part of that Deity (or Deities’) history. It’s part of Their cultus. It is a huge part of how the ancestors for generations engaged spiritually. To cut that off, to ignore it, to demand that it be erased is deeply disrespectful not only to the Gods but to the ancestors as well. It is nullifying their religious experience of their own Gods. It is also nullifying a point of peace, neutral territory if you will, between the Romans and the various peoples they conquered. In some cases, it is nullifying the horror and pain our ancestors experienced (i.e. in the Middle Passage which gave us religions like Lukumi, Candomble, and Voudoun) and the fact that their Gods followed them into exile.  

Returning to the question of specifically Roman syncretism, if nothing else, we should remember, I think, that we owe the Romans a debt. For Heathens at least, we know the names of certain Deities (including the Matronae) largely from Roman inscriptions. This is not because Rome destroyed sanctuaries (they didn’t) but because literacy was not widespread in the northlands until the Christian invasion. Knowledge of certain of our Holy Powers exists because Roman men and women were grateful to Them, prayed to Them, petitioned Them, and then left markers and offerings of thanks. They did this in their own vernacular. They did this via interpretatio romana. If the Gods in question could accept it and allow Their cultus to flourish, can we do any less?

Shutting that out and excluding all of that in the hopes of having some illusionary purity of religion shuts out all of these complex conversations that we could be having about the subject and ignores a very uncomfortable reality: there was never any such pure practice. Nothing exists in a vacuum. Religions and cultus always developed in conversation with each other.

 If I were confronted with a syncretic form of a Deity I venerate, and I were uncertain as to whether or not I should venerate this God or Goddess via such a form, I would simply divine on it. That is one of the most powerful tools we have at our disposal. Polytheisms ancient and modern were always religions of diviners. In the end, this isn’t a difficult question at all. It comes down to one thing, between the individual and their holy Powers: what do the Gods want?  That answer should define practice not the opinions of so-called community members you’ll never meet face to face, who will always find something to be critical of in your devotion usually reflecting the paucity in theirs.

About ganglerisgrove

Galina Krasskova has been a Heathen priest since 1995. She holds a Masters in Religious Studies (2009), a Masters in Medieval Studies (2019), has done extensive graduate work in Classics including teaching Latin, Roman History, and Greek and Roman Literature for the better part of a decade, and is currently pursuing a PhD in Theology. She is the managing editor of Walking the Worlds journal and has written over thirty books on Heathenry and Polytheism including "A Modern Guide to Heathenry" and "He is Frenzy: Collected Writings about Odin." In addition to her religious work, she is an accomplished artist who has shown all over the world and she currently runs a prayer card project available at wyrdcuriosities.etsy.com.

Posted on September 3, 2017, in Celtic Things, community, Divination, Heathenry, Interfaith, Lived Polytheism, Roman Things, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 7 Comments.

  1. As I’ve written a lot on this topic (and still am!), of course it’s an important one to me for a variety of reasons…

    The one point where I’d diverge from what you’ve stated here is the word “equate.” I don’t think the Romans (nor others) always equated their syncretized Deities with one another; in fact, I think it’s a lot more likely that they were comparing or translating rather than equating a lot of the time. So, if you had written “connect” rather than “equate,” there’d be no problem, because “connect” can encompass a wide variety of activities (e.g. translation, correlation, equation, substitution, or other forms of relationship not limited by the previous terms) rather than the one possibility of equation…which, far too often, gets leveraged by monists into an argument that “monism is natural” (and thus proper–read: required) even for polytheists.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. Roman religion is actually a very good example of why it is so hard to exclude syncretism from polytheism. Even the “pure” Roman religion itself was a combination of a Latin/Sabine Italic Indo-European element mixed with a strong Etruscan element as well as a heavy Hellenic influence. “Pure” Roman religion is itself already kind of a syncretic religion. The same goes for the Hellenes who also freely identified foreign Gods with their own, took up the worship of new Gods, and so on.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Some of the Gods could also be fluid in how They are worshipped. Connect is a good way of looking at this. Since as PVSL says, equate becomes unity which become proto-monotheism…. Syncretism is different from proto-monotheism in that it centers on how people thought about various Gods, in my opinion. They were not lumping the Gods together into a singular whole, but connecting the familiar with the unfamiliar. Piety is of course the starting point for all of this.

    Syncretism does bring up the bugaboo about cultural appropriation. However, again if piety is the basis of the connecting, then it is not appropriating.

    About monism, I find that people in modern society keep trying to find “the Theory of Everything” i.e. TOE. Somehow, everything has to tie in with everything else.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. I completely agree that our worship and spirituality should be centered on what the Gods want. If a Holy Power desires to be worshiped in a syncretic form, then do it. If They express a desire to be worshiped in a non-syncretic form, then do that. If you aren’t sure what They want, then divination is there for a reason. Asking yourself “what do the Gods want?” should be step number one.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Syncretism is part and pascal of the Egyptian Pantheon. It’s enough to make my head spin.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. There are three sorts of syncretism in my view, and I will assign them terms, for the sake of concision, as follows:

    Evolutionary syncretism: Arises through the cohabition of two cultures over many generations, usually with one dominant. Example, the Hellenic religion, which formed by syncretism between the Indo-European religion of the migrating Hellenes and that of the Pelasgians inhabiting the lands that afterwards became Greece. The Roman religion is also a good example, as described above by Agathokles.

    Revolutionary syncretism: Arises quickly through military conquest or cultural imposition by means of dominance. Example, the Roman Gods being fused with ethnic Gods throughout the Empire. This must be acknowledged as a syncretism of lesser quality than the preceding one, because it results from imperialism. There is a difference between a descriptive interpretatio romana used by historians and scholars and a prescriptive interpretatio used for political purposes to assimilate a conquered populace. Although the Romans should be acknowledged for the former, they often used the latter unjustly, as with the Celts, whose religion they destroyed by the persecution of the Druids.

    Ideological syncretism: Arises through the work of one man or a set of minds with a common ideology. Example, Judaism, orphism, Christianity, Gnosticism, cult of Serapis, etc. This is the most corrupt form, since it confounds the distinct qualities and ritual practices of cults without the proper authority of a priesthood (because these are almost always popular movements), and then usually challenges the said cults for dominance.

    Liked by 1 person

%d bloggers like this: