The first chapter addresses the question of how folkloric beings, or godlings, ought to be defined, examining historic definitions of divine beings of a status lower than the greater gods, from Classical literature to contemporary anthropology. Turning to the British context, the chapter then discusses the evidence for the character of pre-Roman Iron Age religion, and assesses whether there is any evidence that elements of pre-Roman religion such as ‘animism’, therianthropic deities and ‘shamanism’ contributed to the distinctive character of godlings and popular religion in Roman Britain and thereafter. The chapter isolates certain characteristic (though not exclusive) features of godlings, including their identity as chthonic, non-human entities; their status as a multiple group rather than a single personality (in many cases); their status as objects of popular rather than official cults and their links with features of the natural landscape such as forests, groves and water sources.

Roman historians often claimed that their ancestors did not have images of the gods, but a closer look at both the archaeological and textual evidence suggests that images of the gods were venerated at Rome at a very early date. Similarly, both ancient and modern writers have claimed that Iron Age European religion was entirely aniconic. This chapter surveys Iron Age statues in stone, metal, and wood to provide evidence that the gods were worshipped in the form of images prior to the Roman conquest. The stone images include important and recent finds from the Glauberg and Vix, a large series of buste-socles from Paule, Nîmes, and elsewhere, while metal representations include statues from Bouray and St. Maur. Surviving wooden images, including those known as Holzidole from northern Europe, finds from Pforzheim, Villeneuve, and Yverdon-les-Bains, all suggest that wood was a common medium for depicting the gods in the Iron Age. These early images possessed a degree of iconographic variety that allowed the divinity represented to be identified. More importantly, the context of these artworks confirms that they were the focus of ritual, the recipients of offerings and sacrifices, and not just funerary markers or representations of local aristocrats.