The contact between the Greek-Roman civilization and the Carthage one led to the overlapping of the African plural-stratified polytheisms and the classic ones and to the disolution of the ancient divine characters into the Roman religious system. The barbarian and Punic theonomies preserved in Roman Africa are few: one Saturnus Balcaranensis, one Aulisua, Iocolon, Bacax, Bonchor, Varsutina. Africitascan be traced in the art of the votive monuments, in the practiced rituals, in the preference for a pantheosgod, Saturnus, preference that contradicts the Roman “polytheist” availability. Saturnus, Caelestis, Aesculapius, Mercurius Silvanus, Liber Pater, Hercules, Venus, Pluton, Mars, Neptunus are merely Latin names that the Africans chose for designating in a more or less consistent manner their Punic-Barbarian gods: Ba’al Hammon, Tanit, Eshmoun, a Berber god whose attribute is a scorpion, Shadrapha, Milk’ashtart, Astarté, Baal Addir, El Qone Aras, Arish, etc. The modern research discovers – depending on the adopted perspective – different valences of these interpretationes: one of the components, the classic or the Berber-Punic one, is minimized in order to support the Africanization or the Romanization of these divine characters, the Romanization of the North-African worshipers or their resistence in front of the Romanization. These categorical and generalizing interpretations are both abusive. The Africanization and Romanization vary depending on their loyal people, on the social environments, on the epoch. The Africans in Dacia repeat – mutatis mutandis – the gestures of the ones left home. For the African P. Raecius Primus, Ba’al Hammon and Tanit form a new couple (Saturnus and Latona) that does not appear this way in the Greek-Roman pantheon and mythological system. Olus Terentius Pudens Uttedianus worships a Roman-African quasi-official divinity, Caelestis, together with the popular gods from Lepcis Magna - Eshmoun and Astarté and the Genius of the Dacians. An e 322 communicate about religion (within the group or in relation to other groups or entities). The variety of religious practices during Antiquity could be explained as interaction, communication, networking, propagation and institutionalization. The religious development is placed under the mark of religious communications and social practices that indicate competition among groups/patrons who built temples, offered sacrifices and gifts (ex-votos) to the gods, and organized private or public banquets. 5 In our opinion, the abuse of media and communication in contempo- rary society structures the religiosity of ancient Rome. In this simplified version of Roman religion, 6 the gods seem to be topics of communication rather than subjects of the subjective positioning of individuals or groups in relation to transcendence. Individual or collective religiosity is delegated to the background, while these strat- egies of human meta-communication about the gods occupy the foreground. Starting from the sociological reductionist methodology, one can observe that religious data is used in order to express various identities, individual and collec - tive. In Roman Dacia, there were soldiers and various officials (governors, offi- cers, imperial slaves) of African origin. 7 Although no indigenous African theonyms appear in Dacia,8 the religion of the people originating from Roman North Africa is a separate domain and its manifestations in a remote Latin-speaking province can be grasped and defined. 9 We can analyze the religious preferences of the people brought to Dacia from the North African provinces by separating them into two sectors: 1) the corporate identity of an occupational community (i.e., the soldiers from the numeri Maurorum, especially those from Micia /Vețel, Hunedoara County) and 2) the various discrepant identities of the individuals of North African origin. 10 5. Rüpke, 2018, pp. 1-23. Cf. Nemeti, 2019b. 6. A comprehensive overview of Roman religions in Scheid, 2016 and 2023. 7. Sanie, 1981-1982. 8. For interpretatio in ancient polytheism, the use of Greek and Roman theonyms to designate foreign gods, see: Wissowa, 1916-1919; Webster, 1995; Ando 2006; Nemeti 2019a, pp. 47-72. 9. Bărbulescu, 1994; Nemeti, 2019a, pp. 109-139. 10. For defining socio-cultural dynamics, see Cenati, 2023, pp. 23-30. soRin nemeti ARYS, 23, 2025 [319-334] ISSN 1575-166x 334 Rüpke, Jörg (2011). Lived Ancient Religion. Questioning “Cults” and “Polis Religion”. Mythos, 5, pp. 191-203. Rüpke, Jörg (2016). On Roman Religion. Lived Religion and the Individual in Ancient Rome. Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press. Rüpke, Jörg (2018). Pantheon. A New History of Roman Religion. Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press. Rüpke, Jörg & Woolf, Greg (eds.) (2021a). Religion in the Roman Empire . Stuttgart: W. Kohl- hammer. Rüpke, Jörg & Woolf, Greg (2021b). Introduction. Living Roman Religion. In Rüpke & Woolf, 2021a, pp. 9-24. Sanie, Silviu (1981-1982). Africanii în Dacia romană (I). Cercetări istorice, 12-13, pp. 299-305. Sanie, Silviu (1999). Classica et orientalia V. Studii și cercetări de istorie veche și arheologie, 50.3-4, pp. 174-175. Scheid, John (2016). The Gods, the State and the Individual. Reflections on Civic Roman Religion in Rome. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Scheid, John (2023). Les Romains et leurs religions. La piété au quotidien . Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf. Speidel, Michael (1984). Roman Army Studies, I. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. Toutain, Jules (1907). Les cultes païens dans l’Empire romain, I. Les provinces latines, 1. Les cultes officiels. Paris: Leroux. Varga, Timea (2017). The Pantheon of Marcus Herennius Faustus, legatus legionis XIII Geminae. Acta Musei Napocensis, 54.1, pp. 231-242. Veyne, Paul (1987). De Halai en Dalmatie. Un voeu de voyageur et les rêves chez Virgile. In Détienne et al., 1987, pp. 381-395. Webster, Jane (1995). Interpretatio. Roman Word Power and the